Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]
Baroness Randerson Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, my name is attached to two amendments in this group. Amendment 2 is a probing amendment to simply ask my noble friend the Minister why the draftsman uses “may” in some instances and not “must”. I would have thought that these are “musts” that we want to see. In his Amendment 44 in this group, my noble friend has helpfully chosen a “must”, but that is the other way round, requiring that TfL
“must obtain the approval of the Secretary of State”.
He will see why I want it in the direction that I have requested.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, my contribution to this group of amendments is in having given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill. In doing so, I take a contrary view to that of all the amendments about how this issue should be dealt with. All the amendments have a centralising thrust, whereas my thrust is for decentralisation. In one aspect, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that these regulations need to be used to improve the services provided by pedicabs and not to kill them off entirely. We need to use this opportunity to turn the negative into a positive so that they enhance rather than damage the tourism offer in London.
I tabled my notice of intention to oppose Clause 6 standing part of the Bill to probe why the scrutiny of regulations made by Transport for London is to be undertaken by Parliament and not the London Assembly. The legal situation in England is that, outside London, pedicabs can be licensed as taxis. Taxi and PHV licensing is undertaken across England by 262 lower-tier and unitary authorities of a vast range of sizes. The taxi legislation therefore gives licensing authorities significant discretion in vehicle requirements. A taxi driver must be deemed fit and proper to hold a licence, must have held a car driving licence for the last 12 months and must not be disqualified on immigration grounds, which is covered by the right-to-work check.
Some authorities, such as Herefordshire, York and South Lakeland, have policies that detail specific requirements for pedicabs, whereas other authorities state in their licensing policies that they do not license pedicabs. There have been complaints since 2006 about pedicabs in London, but all that time other local authorities have had the powers to deal with this and design and implement their own regulations. That is a satisfactory approach. As I said, there have been complaints over 20 years, but successive Governments have not considered this issue important enough to deal with or they have not had time in the parliamentary timetable to do so.
Now we have this Bill, which has broad support but is, in parliamentary terms, a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. From the point of view of residents in London who complain long and hard about the noise, nuisance and danger of the current situation, regulation and control of pedicabs cannot come into force quickly enough. A single day of delay will annoy them. Why are the Government so intent on delaying things even more by ensuring that Parliament must approve Transport for London regulations?
Across the UK, local authorities consider issues of detail where local knowledge is essential. I would argue that Parliament is definitely not the place to decide the adequacy of regulations that might, for example, stipulate the location of cab ranks. We should not be sitting here saying that a cab rank should not be on this street corner but on another one. That is not the level of detail we should be going into. That sort of thing requires local knowledge and should be scrutinised by the GLA.
It is also essential that we do not clutter our timetable—the Government are always saying they do not have parliamentary time, particularly in relation to transport—with things that can be done better at a different level of government. I argue that Clause 6 should not be part of the Bill.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, in this exciting ideological divide I find myself, curiously, much on the same side as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, rather than the side of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, or even the Government.
We have been here before. In 1514, we enacted a Bill to regulate the fares charged by water taxis on the Thames and it ran into exactly the same problem that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will run into, which was that there was nobody to enforce it. Who in the Department for Transport will turn up and enforce the regulations made by the DfT if TfL, which has an enforcement department, is cut out of it?
The Act of 1514 became, in effect, a nullity. Undeterred, Parliament returned to the subject in 1555 to have another go and this time more sensibly. We delegated the power of setting these fares and enforcing them, as far as river-borne traffic was concerned, to what were known as the rulers of what became the Company of Watermen and Lightermen. The regulation of horse-drawn traffic in London, including things like cabs and taxi meters, has—as far as I am aware, and until the creation of Transport for London under the GLA Act of 1999—always been the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police. Again, that is a local body and one well acquainted with enforcement.
Now, for the first time in at least half a millennium of legislation, we appear to have the notion from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that all regulation should be set by the Government and from the Government the not terribly dissimilar notion, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that while Transport for London should be allowed to draft, in effect, the statutory instruments and must submit them immediately—“immediately” is the word used—to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State, with no time limit, requirement or obligation on him or her, then has to approve, amend, change or reject them. Why? What is the advantage to the Government or to the travelling passenger of doing this? Why are the Government not under the same obligation to act immediately, or at least within set time limits, in dealing with the SIs sent to them by Transport for London?
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I find myself, in my position speaking for the Opposition, in favour of devolution on this issue. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said; I do not know why she thought that I would disagree but I agree totally with what she said.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
In that case, I apologise, but I agree completely with what the noble Baroness said. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Berkeley and agree with the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Borwick, on this issue. It is the responsibility of Parliament to set the framework to empower Transport for London to make these regulations, but their detail should be a matter for it and it should be given the power to do this. One of the amendments I have tabled suggests that we push ahead quickly with this and that TfL should be given the power to get on with it as quickly as possible. I suspect that the real argument one ought to have concerns whether this is a Westminster borough issue or a London-wide one, but it makes the most sense for TfL to have the legal responsibility. I am sure that the borough of Westminster will be consulted by it on this matter very thoroughly.
This is certainly an important principle. If we want speedy action in this area, it should be supported across the Committee. With great respect to civil servants in the Department for Transport, it is also ridiculous that they should spend their time monitoring these, which are, frankly, of minor significance in the overall scope of their responsibilities. I therefore urge the Government to think again on this matter, otherwise, we might have a bit of an argument on Report.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
In the interests of efficiency, before the Minister replies, I will get in a third intervention because it is along the same lines. He said that this could be done by Parliament rather than the London Assembly because this was the first time that regulations had been produced for pedicabs, but that is not in practice the case. Local authorities across England outside London have—maybe not after long debate in the House, but certainly in practice—been given the power to regulate pedicabs. As I said, they have done so in a number of cases. I have made inquiries. The Department for Transport does not keep records of how many local authorities have these regulations in place, but it is aware of a number of places that do. They exist; they have had time to be trialled.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I can only repeat that convention dictates that only Ministers can lay orders in Parliament. Therefore, Transport for London would be unable to do so. The amendment is intended to be explicit on that point, making it clear that Ministers would be responsible for laying a pedicab order.
We do not consider that the Government would have to consult. Transport for London would have to consult prior to bringing pedicab regulations forward.
Amendments 2 and 15 in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley seek to impose a statutory requirement on Transport for London to make pedicab regulations, and would require pedicab regulations to make provisions under the matters covered by Clause 2(6). It is right that the Bill provides Transport for London with a discretion to determine how pedicab regulations are designed. Clause 2(6) provides that flexibility, and Transport for London has indicated that it will introduce regulations covering matters under that subsection. In any case, those regulations will need to be consulted on and, as I have set out, a consensus will be needed between the Government and Transport for London.
Transport for London is supportive of the Bill and the need to regulate London’s pedicabs. As such, the Government expect Transport for London to commence work to bring forward pedicab regulations following the Bill’s passage. I emphasise that Transport for London has been asking for the Bill, so we expect it to be industrious in the forming of the legislation.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this is a changing scenario. As the vehicles change slightly in how they are powered and so on, people dream up new and useful purposes for them. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in their amendments, because it is essential that the Government are entirely clear. This is an opportunity for them to put this on the record—which, of course, has legal implications in itself.
The Government need to be entirely clear about the purpose of the Bill. If there is uncertainty, it will serve to undermine efforts to encourage active travel. For example, parents across London are often seen with their children in trailers at the back of their bikes. It is important that that kind of healthy, active travel is encouraged, not discouraged.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is our earnest hope that the Government listen carefully to the common sense of the points made on these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, spoke with typical common sense. The Government need to take account of what she said and bring forward amendments to reflect her concerns. I also agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley said on that subject.
With our amendments in this group, we are trying to make sure that there is a flexible mechanism in the Bill so that the definition of a pedicab can be changed in the light of experience. That is sensible so that it can be done quickly to counter any attempts that people may make to escape the Bill’s provisions or get round them in some way. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to that concern in his reply.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very significant debate. My contribution to this group is Amendment 48, which I will come to in a moment.
I point out that this is a rapidly evolving scenario. When complaints were first made about pedicabs in London, just after the turn of the century, there were no e-bikes. It is therefore a huge mistake for the Government to have limited the scope of this legislation, which is written so tightly that it cannot be expanded to take in new technology. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the missed opportunity of having two random transport Bills and a lack of joined-up thinking on these issues.
At Second Reading, we had an impassioned debate, led in part by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who is not here today, about the urgent need to deal with the much more widespread problems of e-scooters and e-bikes that noble Lords have talked about—their danger both to users, who are mostly young, especially with e-scooters, and to pedestrians. I commend to the Minister the report on this issue of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. I declare an interest as an officer of that group.
The rising death and injury toll has been mentioned by others. There is a prevalence of head injuries because of the centre of gravity of e-scooters, which is different from that of ordinary push bikes. There is a complete inconsistency and lack of joined-up thinking in the Minister and his Government’s thinking on this, given the existence of electric pedicabs.
The noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Hunt, and I all tried, without success, to expand the scope of this Bill. Amendment 48 is my pale imitation of other bolder attempts to do this that were rejected. The reference in my amendment to the need for a review in 12 months is my effort to ask the Government to bring this back in 12 months’ time and expand it, in the interests of a broader outlook.
Many noble Lords across the House raised issues around safety, which the Government have said is at the heart of the case for the Bill. As my noble friends Lord Storey and Lord Foster referred to, it is about the safety both of those operating the pedicabs and of the batteries. Also mentioned this afternoon was the safety of e-bikes in terms of their stopping distance—they are often modified to be able to go faster than they were originally designed to do. We must bear in mind that, if you add the extra weight of passengers and a cab at the back, their stopping distance is often very poor. They are therefore dangerous.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, rightly and justifiably drew attention to the dangers and risks associated with yet another extension to the so-called trials on e-bikes. This Christmas, thousands more e-scooters and e-bikes will be bought. Unsafe practices are becoming so entrenched: riding without helmets, for example, and there are many other issues. These unsafe practices will be impossible to reverse suddenly through regulation in a couple of years’ time, so I support all noble Lords who have spoken on this group of amendments.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, before I get on to the points in this group on e-scooters and e-bikes, including the clause standing part, I will deal briefly with the others. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on Amendments 7 and 9 seem sensible. I can think of no reason why something on those lines could not be incorporated in further government amendments. On Amendment 16, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and my noble friend here spoke on the need for the strict regulation of people who are licensed. Again, we strongly support that.
The main question that people have raised is about e-powered pedicabs, e-scooters and e-bikes. On this side of the Committee, we were hoping that the Government were going to live up to their promise to produce a comprehensive transport Bill, which would have covered rail and bus licensing, and all these other issues. They have completely failed to do that and decided just to go for two relatively minor issues: pedicabs and autonomous vehicles. These have merits in themselves, of course, but it is disappointing that the Government have not given us the opportunity for a comprehensive look at transport regulation.
I hope the Minister will listen to the strength of feeling that has been expressed in this Committee about the Government’s failure to come up with a credible policy on e-scooters and e-bikes. I think he must realise that this is not a party question; it is a question of public safety on which people are looking for action. Maybe this Bill has been drawn up such that it cannot offer that action but, on Report, the House is entitled to expect a full statement from the Government on their intentions to regulate in this area. I ask the Minister quite bluntly: is it his intention that he will come forward with that statement before we come to Report?
Baroness Randerson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe why existing legislation is not sufficient to cover immigration status and right to work checks.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 11 is in my name. I want to preface my remarks by making it absolutely clear that I am in no way arguing that people who are not legal immigrants should be able to ply this trade. I am simply surprised to see this statement in the legislation, because it is unusual to have something saying that nobody who has not been legally accepted as an immigrant can do this work. This is the type of statement where, when it is put forward in an amendment by the Opposition, the Government reject that provision because they say that it is already adequately stated in other legislation, therefore there is no need to say it again. Their argument goes along these lines: if we included a statement such as this, it would bring forward questions about other conditions that need to be included, and which we all take for granted in relation to a particular occupation, as well as similar issues that are not being restated in the legislation. However, all legislation takes into account previous legislation and what exists as conditions stated in that legislation.
Let us look at the Government’s reasoning in this. They appear to say that there is a prevalence of illegal immigrants involved in this occupation. I fear that that is simply a result of the fact that it has gone unregulated for more than two decades; as a result, it has been a free-for-all. When it comes under much-needed and long-overdue regulation, it will be treated in the same way as we treat taxi drivers: they have to be a fit and proper person; they have to be legally allowed to work; they must have no criminal convictions of a designated type; and they must have a driving licence. I do not understand why we cannot just take that approach here.
If the Minister thinks that it is necessary to have this subsection, as I am sure he will say, can he tell us whether it will become a standard provision in all legislation that involves people’s professions and occupations? Whatever we look at—whether it is teaching or medicine, for example—will we start off by saying, “No one who isn’t a legal immigrant can do this job”? Otherwise, I do not understand why we are saying it here.
The other amendments in my name in this group include Amendment 17, which has cross-party support—I am very grateful for that—and stresses the importance of regulations on noise; Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is similar. The evidence is that complaints about noise from pedicabs have become increasingly frequent since the pandemic. Basically, what has happened is this: during the pandemic, in this industry—as in so many—there was a crisis and there is increasing competition between pedicab operators. The way they draw attention to and advertise themselves is noise. In fact, noise is the No. 1 complaint of local residents, as opposed to that of the people who take pedicabs. They appear to be immune to it; otherwise, they would not choose the one making it, I suppose. This issue desperately needs some attention. Can the Minister assure us that the regulations will cover noise?
My Amendment 23 relates to the need for a cap on the numbers of pedicabs—I know that local residents think that this is also a good idea. As competition has got fiercer, the numbers of pedicabs operating from inappropriate positions have become an increasing problem. Throughout the UK, it is common for there to be a regulation on the numbers of taxis given permission to operate; the same approach would seem sensible for pedicabs.
Finally, Amendment 26 suggests that the regulations must also cover the issue of cab ranks. Once again, the theme here is the convenience of local residents and their peace and quiet. Because there is noise and so on, the ranks are very intrusive. We have cab ranks for taxis, so there should also be appropriately designated places for pedicabs.
I will make a special plea. The problems associated with the closure of Hammersmith Bridge, which have gone on for years, are very serious for local residents. Let us turn a negative into a positive: pedicabs offer an opportunity for local residents to hire one to cross the bridge, which would be really useful. The local MP, Sarah Olney, has been running a campaign to encourage the Department for Transport to consider this and to designate cab ranks on either side of the bridge to enable that to happen. My simple request is for the Minister to agree to meet me and the local MP to discuss this issue and its appropriateness. I would be grateful for his consideration of that.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 17 and 18, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra, both of which relate to noise. I add that I am sympathetic to the noble Baroness’s Amendment 26 and the points she raised about cab ranks—I do not mean those to do with Hammersmith Bridge specifically. She makes an interesting argument about the provision for ranks for pedicabs.
As I said on the other group, I am grateful to my noble friend for his letter to all Peers. In Transport for London’s note, which was attached to his letter, it was encouraging to see that it proposes to introduce regulations that will cover, as part of the conduct of drivers, the playing of loud music and causing a disturbance. As I said at Second Reading, the loud music played and amplified by pedicabs is the greatest concern that gets raised by business owners and residents—the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is right about that.
I was a little concerned that, in the note TfL prepared, it suggests that some noise offences are already covered by existing legislation. When I read this, I thought that, in that case, either the existing laws are inadequate, or—to return to enforcement—the enforcement of them is not good enough. I acknowledge that, in his letter, my noble friend pointed out that Westminster City Council and the Metropolitan Police have issued penalty notices that have raised around £30,000 in fines over the last two years.
However, I am concerned that the focus on noise will be about night-time noise. It is not only at night that pedicabs and the playing of loud, amplified noise is a problem; it is a serious problem during the day as well. In my noble friend’s opening speech at Second Reading, he referred to the problem of
“blasting loud music at all hours of the night”.—[Official Report, 22/11/23; col. 768.]
In his closing remarks, he referred to the fines issued by the Metropolitan Police or Westminster City Council, saying specifically that these were for the playing of music “after 9 pm”.
One of the reasons I am keen to see noise added to the relevant clause in the Bill is that noise and the playing and loud amplification of music is the most significant concern that people have about pedicabs, as I said at Second Reading. I am also concerned to ensure that TfL will take an approach that ensures that the loud amplification of music will not be allowed at all hours, not just after 9 pm. I would be grateful for my noble friend’s response to that.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My noble friend raises a very valid point and something that we will take into account.
Amendment 19, in the names of my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Strathcarron, Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and Amendment 21, in the names of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Foster of Bath, all relate to Clause 2(6) of the Bill, so I will address them together.
The matters listed under Clause 2(6) are intended to provide a discretion for Transport for London to determine what is most appropriate in bringing forward pedicab regulations following a consultation. This is not an exhaustive list; it rather provides flexibility for Transport for London. However, the Bill is clear that pedicab regulations could cover matters such as the quality and roadworthiness of pedicabs; safety and insurance requirements; the equipment that must be carried on pedicabs; their appearance or markings; and testing requirements. The Government consider that this gives Transport for London sufficient scope to address issues, such as those covered by these amendments in pedicab regulations.
Amendment 22, in the names of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Foster of Bath, seeks to require the batteries in power-assisted pedicabs bear the marking UK conformity assessed or the European equivalent—CE or conformité Européenne. These markings denote conformity with statutory requirements. I note that the requirement for power-assisted pedicabs to meet suitable product regulation is covered by existing law and therefore this amendment is not necessary; I will explain why this is the case.
As is the case with all e-cycles and e-scooters, power-assisted pedicabs need to comply with several product safety regulations. These include the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008. These regulations set out essential health and safety requirements for how the product must be designed and constructed.
Power-assisted pedicabs, as a whole product, are regulated under these regulations. These require manufacturers to ensure that pedicabs meet essential health and safety requirements and that the relevant conformity assessment procedure is undertaken. The manufacturer would then affix the UKCA or the CE marking before the product could be sold in the UK. To be sold lawfully on the UK market, power-assisted pedicabs must already have this marking. If they do not, they are in breach of the regulations.
Noble Lords may point to examples of pedicab drivers or operators adapting their power-assisted pedicabs after they have been purchased. Product regulations would not be relevant here; however, I again point to Clause 2(6) of the Bill, which provides scope for TfL to set out the expected standards for pedicabs through the regulations.
Pedicab batteries are not subject to a regime that requires the UKCA marking to be affixed to them, but the Office for Product Safety and Standards is in the process of reviewing the position with regard to these batteries. Once that review has taken place, my friend the Minister in the other place, Minister Hollinrake, will assess what appropriate and targeted action should be taken.
While pedicab batteries are not subject to an independent regime that requires the UKCA marking to be affixed to them, they must comply with the Batteries and Accumulators (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008. This restricts the substances used in batteries and accumulators and sets out requirements for their environmentally friendly end of life.
Amendment 23, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, seeks to allow Transport for London to place a cap on the total number of pedicabs operating in London. As the Committee is aware, the Bill will regulate the industry for the first time. The introduction of licensing is likely to see a short-term reduction in the number of pedicabs, as drivers exit the industry rather than apply for a licence. Over time, it is likely the industry will find a natural level in response to passenger demand.
The Government’s intention is to support the emergence of a safer, fairer and sustainable pedicab industry. This amendment could undermine the role of competition in that process. Competition benefits consumers by incentivising operators to give value for money to innovate and improve service standards. The existing powers in the Bill, which enable Transport for London to place limitations on pedicab operations under Clause 2(7)—including restricting the number of pedicabs operating in specified places or at specified times—are therefore considered sufficient to manage London’s pedicabs.
Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, seeks to prohibit pedicabs being driven in cycle lanes. As I have set out, Transport for London will be able to place limitations on where and when pedicabs can operate, under Clause 2(7) of the Bill. Transport for London has indicated that it will consider prohibiting pedicabs operating on major roads and tunnels, as it does already for cycles, in the interests of public safety. This will be an aspect of Transport for London’s consultation, prior to making pedicab regulations.
Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, proposes to empower the relevant traffic authorities—in this case, Transport for London and London boroughs—to designate pedicab ranks. Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, similarly relates to pedicab ranks, specifically seeking to make provision for Transport for London to designate them.
Transport for London has confirmed that it will give proper consideration to the question of dedicated road space for pedicabs, taking into account the needs of pedicab drivers, passengers and other road users. This approach draws on Transport for London’s significant experience in this area through managing taxi ranks. As I mentioned, proposals brought forward by Transport for London will be subject to a consultation and will likely require collaboration across relevant parties, including London boroughs and industry groups. Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is consequential to Amendment 25.
Excessive fares can spoil a visitor’s trip to London, leaving a sour taste and affecting London’s reputation as a global hub for tourism. That is why Clause 2(5) of the Bill has been included. It confers powers on Transport for London to determine what fares pedicabs charge, and when and how passengers are informed of fares. Transport for London has been clear that it sees pedicab regulations as a chance to address disproportionate fares, as well as other negative impacts associated with pedicabs.
Regarding fines, Clause 3 sets out the suite of enforcement tools available to Transport for London in bringing forward pedicab regulations. These have been drafted to provide flexibility in the design of an effective regulatory regime. There is also the ultimate sanction, under Clause 2(1)(b) of the Bill, of revoking a licence for rogue pedicab operators or drivers. The Government consider the scope of these enforcement powers sufficient to tackle excessive fare charging.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister for his detailed response. We have had plenty of detail, which we can think about between now and Report.
I want briefly to pick out a couple of points that have been made. I re-emphasise the salutary point made by my noble friend Lord Foster about comparing the level of regulation on fireworks with the treatment of lithium batteries. It is part of a pattern that we see in so many fields: you get a build-up of public concern and statistics of incidents that lead to legislation, and the social change to go along with it. I hope that the Minister will take that message back to his colleagues.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, raised an important and complex issue around cycle lanes. It emphasises why these decisions need to be made at a local level where people understand exactly the issues, such as where one cycle lane is ridiculous and another is perfectly acceptable.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for his comments, which underline the way in which this sector has been neglected over decades.
It comes to my mind that there is, of course, the London Pedicab Operators Association. Has the Minister met it and taken any of its views into account? If he has not, it is referred to in briefings that we have been given as Members of this House; the fact that it exists and that it represents the sector suggests that there is real hope that regulation will improve things and could do so more rapidly than we might think.
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Aviation (Consumers) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Baroness Randerson Excerpts(5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in this debate. I feel rather lonely as one of the few English Members here; we have north and south Wales’s finest and other Members as well, and on the Whip’s Bench, of course.
I will add briefly to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jones. When I was the special adviser in the Department for Exiting the European Union, this issue was a bone of contention in what later became the trade and co-operation agreement. There was a lot of shroud-waving about this because, of all the issues that were litigated and debated in the run-up to the European Union in/out referendum in 2016, the most acute was how people’s holidays would be affected when they were travelling to and from Europe. For those of us who believed in Brexit, it was always the case that we were not going to enact domestic legislation just for the sake of it, but would assimilate good, practical, sensible and pragmatic legislation where appropriate. I think this is an example of that today.
I particularly welcome the fact that this legislation not only is being enacted in domestic law, particularly on the issue of long delays, but seeks to uplift important case law, including the Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst case. That goes wider than simply a long delay to a flight; it also considers the material impact that that has on travellers. I therefore strongly welcome the instrument.
It is good that this complements other legislation the Government have brought forward, and they should look at it as protecting the travelling public from monopolistic or oligopolistic behaviour. I know it is not quite within the bailiwick of this statutory instrument, but noble Lords will have seen this week examples of alleged drip pricing by Ryanair, which is price gouging of customers, who are often in a very difficult position—they do not have perfect knowledge in perfect competition, which is the basis of the economic free market. They have excess charges applied to luggage, seat selection, travel insurance, and food and drink. The Minister will have the strong support of many noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House if the Government take a robust attitude to legislation and regulation on this, because it is also an important subject.
It is vital to address delays, particularly for disabled folk, older people and families, but we must not see incremental price gouging and oligopolistic behaviour by rapacious airlines. I hope that the Government—of whatever party after the election next year—address this very important issue.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for more radical legislation on this. The pandemic and the problems that the aviation industry has had in recent years have revealed the shortcomings of the protections that consumers currently have.
I also welcome this legislation. I am pleased to see the level of interest it has exerted here. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, as part of the Welsh community here today, talked about the problems that Cardiff Airport has faced. As a resident of Cardiff, I welcomed last week’s news that Ryanair will fly two routes out of Cardiff—a new set-up that will do something to replace the loss of the Wizz Air flights.
This legislation deals with a significant problem in aviation. I noticed that the Explanatory Memorandum says that, in 2019, 1.5% of UK flights were delayed by more than three hours; that is 31,000 flights. By 2022, that had gone up to 40,000 flights, which was equivalent to 2.6% of flights. In the first nine months of last year, nearly 19,000 passenger complaints were registered. Those are complaints by passengers who have been unable to get satisfaction or any resolution to their problems from the airline. It is very much the case that some airlines are far worse than others at dealing with these problems. This set of problems needs to be dealt with, and I welcome the Government turning their attention to them.
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023
Baroness Randerson Excerpts(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, my criticism of the proposed legislation is a quite simple one: it will not work. I listened to the Minister who, I have to say, went through his brief faster than any train I have been on recently. It is not a new idea. It was considered by the Thatcher Government and rejected. It was considered by the Cameron Government and rejected. It will not work. The problem is that this has been put together by lawyers who have no concept of how the railway industry actually works, or how train crews are rostered and how people are laid down for their various duties. The rostering of train crews is done at local level. The management and the local district committee—the shop stewards, if you like—sit down at every timetable change in May and December to decide the future rosters. The trade union side will obviously not sit down and discuss rostering under this minimum service level. As for choosing the name “minimum service level”, what else have we had in the railway industry for some time but a minimum service level?
It is not just the Labour Party and the trade union movement that are against this. The Rail Safety and Standards Board has said that it has considerable reservations about rail safety in future. That is not an organisation that one would normally regard as particularly left wing in its outlook. What the Government are proposing will poison industrial relations within the railway industry for years to come.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What happens if a minimum service level driver is rostered and declines to pass through a picket line at a particular depot? Will the Minister prosecute the driver or the trade union of which he is a member? The chance of conflict because of this barmy legislation cannot be emphasised too much. I said earlier—I do not wish to detain the House—that it is not just the Labour Party against it. I commend the Minister to read a paper prepared by Nicholas Finney OBE for the Centre for Policy Studies, that well-known left-wing organisation. He attacked the whole concept because, like me, he says it will not work. Maybe he will be regarded as a destructive member of British society. He is, or was, the chairman of the Wantage Conservative association, so if someone like him feels that this legislation is impractical, the Minister really ought to look again.
I am almost speechless at the stupidity of the Government bringing forward this legislation. I repeat that it will poison industrial relations within the railway industry for years to come, and I beseech the Minister even at this late hour to take some proper advice and not to make this into a lawyer’s dream.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. I regard these regulations as even more inappropriate than the other sets of regulations that we have just discussed, and even more clearly designed just to provoke an adverse reaction from the workers concerned.
In the previous regulations, the Government relied on the argument that the workers concerned—border security staff and ambulance staff—provide an irreplaceable service. The same is not true of railways. If the trains are not running we can usually catch a bus instead, or maybe drive. Obviously rail strikes have an economic impact, but it is not of the same order as that caused by ambulance or border staff strikes. You take away the right to strike only in extreme circumstances, and these are not extreme circumstances.
The Transport Committee in the other House, which is chaired by a Conservative MP and has a Conservative majority, has criticised these regulations and the Government’s plans for the railways. It questioned whether those plans would do anything to improve relations with rail employees—I think we can more or less answer that question here. The committee questioned whether there might be unintended consequences, in that this could lead to other, more disruptive forms of industrial action, such as wildcat strikes. It also asked whether minimum service levels would lead to better service for customers than that already provided by train operating companies on strike days. It was deeply unimpressed by, and expressed its dissatisfaction with, the Government’s one-sentence answer to its suggestions.
Tomorrow, as the Minister will undoubtedly be aware, is strike day on Great Western Railway. As on previous strike days, we regular travellers are informed that a minimum one-hourly service will be provided between 7 am and 7 pm. In my experience, when the company says that a train will run at a particular time, it generally adheres to that timetable—which is not always what we get on our railways these days. So a minimum service is already being provided.
Another obvious concern is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, rail services are extremely complex, with major impacts of one part of the service on other parts of the service, and an obvious interaction with devolved services. Providing a safe minimum service level is therefore very complex. As the Transport Committee noted, the Government have not provided the necessary detail on how they will provide the safe level of service required. In particular, the operation of signal services is so specialised that the provisions will effectively mean that individual staff will have to be specified as being required to work, if a minimum service is to be provided. In other words, those staff will have the right to strike removed from them. In effect, they will lose their rights.
This is bad legislation, badly planned—and so far, as attempted by the Government, badly implemented. I am fairly certain that it will do absolutely nothing to improve either the services for rail passengers or the situation of our train operating companies, which are fighting to provide a reasonable service in difficult circumstances.
Merchant Shipping (Counting and Registration of Persons on board Passenger Ships) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Baroness Randerson Excerpts(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his assiduous attention to these issues. I need to make it clear to the House that I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which drew the attention of the House to our concerns at the less than clear responses to our questions on behalf of the Government.
There are two issues that I want to raise. First—and this follows on directly from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway—these regulations are undoubtedly a casualty of the long-standing backlog that has been built up by the Department for Transport in its international maritime legislation. We in the UK are a maritime nation; we pride ourselves on our maritime traditions and they are an important source of our economic strength. The mess that we have got into in keeping up with the latest legislation on maritime issues, almost all of which is associated with safety, is a source of national embarrassment. The Minister, newly in this role, has my profound sympathies. His predecessor worked to try to deal with this issue, but there is still a long way to go.
In probing behind the official obfuscation of the Government’s explanations, the opaque replies to the SLSC basically lead me to the conclusion that the Government’s new online system is not ready—that they have fallen behind in the work—so the delay is basically nothing to do with giving the industry more time to adapt and so on but is all to do with just not being ready. I am sure the Minister will come back to me on that if I have concluded inappropriately.
My specific question to the Minister is: can he explain exactly how, in technological terms, the numbers on board and personal details are reported now? Surely in this day and age, it already has to be through some form of electronic communication. In the tragic event of a situation where people have to abandon their vessel, surely the ship’s master does not leap over with a paper logbook; it all has to have been done electronically. Are we right to assume that there is an electronic system but that it is not done officially to the right format, in the right scheme of things or on the right computer programme?
The second point I want to make is that this is all about safety, and we must not lose touch with that. This is not about petty bureaucracy but safety, and it is essential that, when an accident occurs—sadly, they do, on a regular basis—rescue services know immediately how many people they are looking for and exactly who those people are. Are there any children, any elderly people or anyone with particular health problems?
I am concerned not only at the delay but—I join the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on this—because the Government have introduced new exemptions, where it is impractical for a ship to comply. This apparently includes, potentially, where a voyage involves a deviation from the usual route. Surely this may well involve an unfamiliar route for the crew on board, and it is in just those sorts of circumstances when an accident is more likely to occur. Can the Minister explain why that has been chosen as a potential exemption?
Finally, most international sea voyages from the UK are to, for example, Ireland, France, Spain, the Netherlands and so on. These are EU countries. Can the Minister answer a specific query that I have as to how this will work? Once the vessel enters EU waters, will not the EU countries concerned require full and proper records of who is on board and in the full, proper and up-to-date format? Will not those who are working the vessel have to fulfil that requirement, even though the UK Government do not require them to? I may have got the wrong end of the stick on how this will work, but I cannot see the EU allowing a British ship to adhere to different standards once it is in its own waters.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, often described as the lifeboat of the UK economy, the merchant shipping industry plays a pivotal role in ensuring the smooth running of people’s day-to-day lives, aiding the transition of goods and ships while supporting over 180,000 jobs in the UK, according to the Centre for Economics and Business Research. On the global scale, the industry facilitates the economy through the wider supply chain, supporting the running of 680,000 jobs.
According to the Office for National Statistics, looking solely at shipping, the sector contributed £6 billion to the economy in 2020, accounting for 19% of the transport industry. I am pleased to share my support for the merchant shipping industry and the introduction of the necessary regulations, which have been long awaited. This instrument will update and modernise the 2021 regulations, implementing corrections in the light of mistakes existing in the earlier legislation. Further, it postpones the deadline for all ships in UK waters to report data on the persons on board by two years.
Subsequently, from 2025, UK-flagged passenger ships, wherever they are located, and passenger ships within UK waters, will have to use an electronic method to report information regarding passengers on board. Search and rescue authorities will then quickly have access to essential information needed in the event of an emergency. This will reduce the loss of, and the risk to, lives at sea.
I therefore empathise with and support my noble friend’s Motion. Indeed, these highly significant regulations are welcome and long overdue. Further, I understand his concerns relating to the inadequate protection for passengers travelling on non-passenger ships. I am pleased that the House has the opportunity to discuss these protections today.
I would like the Minister to provide clarity on three central concerns. First, how did the Government learn of the mistakes in the 2021 regulations and what would be the consequences if they were not corrected? Secondly, given the postponement, how have the Government calculated that there will be no safety risk? Is the Minister not concerned that prolonging its implementation will only prolong the safety risk? Finally, given that the Explanatory Memorandum notes that the consultation on these changes received only seven responses, can the Minister explain the consultation process a little more? Is he satisfied that the results are credible, given how few responses were received?
To support the UK’s global position as a great trading nation, as well as a healthy and thriving economy, is to support the merchant shipping industry. I am positive that this instrument will play a vital role in the future of the industry by strengthening safety protections, and I therefore welcome its laying before the House.
Disabled Air Passengers
Baroness Randerson Excerpts(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question, but I am afraid that I cannot give an answer to that as I stand here. It is above my pay grade to decide what the legislative business will be for the rest of this year.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, some airports have a much worse record than others. Unfortunately, Heathrow Airport has a poor record, going back over a long period. That is a matter of particular concern because it is our largest airport and it is likely to give the UK a poor reputation abroad. What are the Government doing to ensure that all UK airports come up to a much better standard? Some of them are already delivering—but far from all of them.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The Department for Transport has released a new training module on handling powered wheelchairs, for example; it forms part of the department’s training programme. The CAA is responsible for enforcing UK legislation on aviation accessibility and takes action where needed—but I take the noble Baroness’s point about Heathrow in particular.
Battery and Hydrogen-powered Aircraft
Baroness Randerson Excerpts(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s wisdom, and, as someone who travels from Wales, I appreciate his comments.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s Jet Zero strategy set a target for domestic flights to reach net zero by 2040, but instead there has been a big increase in internal flights taken by private planes and helicopters, and many of those journeys could have been made more quickly by train. Can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to discourage the use of private internal flights? Perhaps he can also have a word with his right honourable friend the Prime Minister to suggest that he might favour other forms of transport rather than private jets and helicopters.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
There are security issues for the Prime Minister, which I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate. It is still a free world and people can choose how they want to travel, and we must remember that although we are anti-emissions, we are not anti-flying. We must reduce emissions from aviation while retaining our ability to fly.
Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]
Baroness Randerson ExcerptsTuesday 28th November 2023
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Automated Vehicles Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Automated Vehicles Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this has been a really excellent debate. I start by making clear that I welcome the Bill, especially since, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, pointed out, other countries have been getting ahead of us on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, expressed concern that Northern Ireland would obey the same rules as the Republic of Ireland because they were EU rules but, actually, the international context is heaps bigger than that. This is all in a massive international context.
So the Bill is welcome. It is based, of course, on the work of the Law Commissions, which have provided firm legal foundations. As others have said, there is huge economic significance in the successful rollout of automated vehicles. For that to happen, and be successful, we need high levels of public trust and confidence in safety. Hopefully, once we have in due course persuaded the Minister to accept some of our amendments, we will have a robust legal and safety framework that clarifies responsibility for self-driving vehicles, establishes new safety requirements and an inspection and reporting system, and provides confidence in data ownership and security. Those issues have been raised time and again in this debate.
If this works properly, AVs should greatly increase the safety on our roads, but there are plenty of issues along the way in the transitional phases, many of which have been raised here today. The experience in San Francisco, California is very relevant in this respect because it points out that, even in a city with much wider, straighter roads that are basically in a heaps better state than British roads, there can be considerable, and unforeseen, obstacles.
In Britain we have very crowded, mainly poorly maintained roads. That will intensify the issues. There will be many decades when AVs share the road with traditional human drivers. There have been problems in San Francisco with that. Emergency services have been impeded because AVs do not yet have human sensitivity. If we hear a siren or see a blue light somewhere, a long way away, we can all anticipate that it will be something we have to deal with; we will have to get out of the way. It seems clear that AVs in San Francisco have not yet quite got to that point.
Much of the Bill is taken up with issues of legal responsibility—for example, at what I call the handover point between the automated driving and the human driver. The Bill is complex and technical. It introduces a whole new lexicon, which is hardly consumer friendly. It might be designed to provide legal certainty but it does not enhance driver understanding. The Government need to consider what needs to be done to ensure that, in due course, drivers understand the legal points involved, especially in relation to insurance.
There are implications in all this for us during the long transition period, leading up to that point in the future when all vehicles will be automated. I want to point out two aspects: there will be some AVs driving among human drivers from the near future onwards; there will also be vehicles that are partially automated, as many are already. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, recounted some stories that had a resonance with me as the owner of a car that I regard as more complex than the one I had before, because it tries to do things for me that I think I can do okay on my own. I sometimes think that nowadays you need a driver and a co-driver to handle the technology. The serious point about it is that this halfway house in many cars now exists and we are dealing with it on a day-to-day basis.
For the revolution to happen we need, first, a giant database of all the road signs and regulations in every part of the UK. This in itself is a massive task, because the Government have been moving away from absolute direction to local authorities on road signs. I will give the House one example: in 2016, the specifications for the signs for a ford were removed, so that any old sign will do for telling a driver that there is a ford coming up. I happen to know about this. I put a proposal to reinstate the regulations on fords into a Private Member’s Bill ballot, but I did not get anywhere with it. The point is that, for safety reasons, there are good arguments for having proper, regulated sizes for those signs.
The Government have also recently removed some of the pressure on local authorities to introduce regulations to make it safer for walking and cycling. This “We are the driver’s friend” rhetoric means that there will be fewer regulations that encourage walking and cycling, so the Government are going to have to turn their rhetoric on its head to encourage local authorities to take part in this giant gathering of data. It will of course involve a cost to local authorities, and I notice that there is no financial impact on them included in this.
I referred to a giant database, but it is not just about local authorities. All AVs and the cars that already exist with some self-driving features, such as those that park themselves, are all of course collecting data on us every time we drive them. This in itself has privacy implications, personal safety implications and national security implications. It poses questions on anonymisation of data, on the rights of individuals in respect of personal data, on the retention of data and the disclosure of personal data to insurers. I am sure there are some other things as well that I have not thought of.
My noble friend Lady Bowles concentrated on the implications of data control in the industry and the danger of dominance by big companies. She alerted us to the complex issues in the insurance industry and those associated with access to commercially useful data. My noble friend Lady Brinton also raised concerns about the protection of personal data and the issue of sale of data. Both the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and my noble friend Lady Brinton raised potential problems for disabled people and the need to build disability access into regulations from the start. These issues are not apparently tackled in the Bill, along with issues associated with human behaviour—for example, the difference between the fastest among us to respond to a call to hand over from automatic driving to human driving and the slowest. Those slowest may have been paying full attention but just respond slightly more slowly.
We need to think about another issue: if you regularly use a car that fully drives itself, you will get out of the habit of driving. Will there be a requirement for drivers to have refresher courses on driving if they have not done it for the last month or year because their car has done it for them? I think this will crop up.
We will in due course want to press the Minister on the rather confusing division of responsibilities between various government agencies, as listed in the Government’s proposals.
Finally, I want to deal with the Minister’s introduction, which referred to trial schemes. There is a giant leap from those very limited trial schemes to the transition period. Make no mistake, we are in the foothills of a massive revolution; we are in the foothills of a change in which we will lose many types of jobs that involve driving. There will be a complete revolution, I believe, in public transport and in ownership of vehicles. For public confidence to be maintained during this revolution, we need the Government to invest in the new skills that will be needed—there will be lots of new skills needed —and the training for them.
We have had a division between the enthusiasts, the realists and the doubters. I look forward to our debate on amendments.
Birmingham Highways Infrastructure Private Finance Initiative
Baroness Randerson Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, commissioners were appointed in Birmingham to restore good governance, and good governance usually includes timely decision-making. Does the Minister accept that by leaving this so late, this is poor decision-making that undermines, for instance, initiatives associated with active travel and zero emissions that are necessary to take Birmingham forward in a modern manner?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I totally agree with the noble Baroness that it is not ideal—I said that earlier. As I said, this has been bogged down with issues between the contractor and Birmingham City Council. The Government have worked to come up with a solution. That will be announced imminently and, hopefully, we will be able to get under way with a new contract.
Rail Fares
Baroness Randerson Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what are their plans to simplify rail fares; and what steps they are taking to increase confidence among passengers that, when they purchase tickets, they will always receive the best value for their requirements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, the plan for rail proposes the biggest shake-up of rail in a generation. We have already made progress on fares reform, for example, introducing flexible season tickets and delivering on our commitment to extend single-leg pricing to most of LNER’s network. We announced earlier this year that we would deliver pay-as-you-go to 53 more stations in the south-east and, through trailblazer devolution deals, pay-as-you-go pilots in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, following the fiasco of the Government’s proposed closure of all ticket offices, which was of course resoundingly rejected by the travelling public, we urgently need decisive action to improve rail services. Great British Railways has, it seems, been kicked into the long grass but one aspect, ticketing reforms, to which the Minister’s Answer refers, could be done now throughout the whole network without legislation. The one isolated trial and the Government’s plans simply are not good enough to create the reform that is needed, to restore passengers’ trust and to improve value for money. When do the Government plan to introduce single-leg pricing and the overall reform throughout the whole network?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
At the Bradshaw address, we committed to expand single-leg pricing to most of LNER’s network, and this went live on 11 June 2023. This delivers simpler, more flexible tickets that are better value. Passengers can now get the best value ticket for their journey, safe in the knowledge that a single ticket will be half the price of a return. Previously, some single tickets on LNER trains, for example, cost almost as much as a return. Single-leg pricing is much simpler, putting the price of a single ticket at around half the cost of the old return ticket.
Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023
Baroness Randerson Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I too am a member of the Environment and Climate Change Committee doing a study of this. Unfortunately, I was unable to benefit from the huge wisdom of young people at the school she attended. Had I been there, I would have mentioned that, since we export over 80% of the cars produced in this country, the mandate for sales in this country and the phase-out date has very little effect on British manufacturers. They have to abide by the rules in their export markets. Meanwhile, 85% of the cars we consume are produced abroad.
I want to ask the Minister whether I understand properly how this system will work. Take a year when we are half way through, when the zero-emissions mandate requires any manufacturer’s sales to be at least 50% electric vehicles and no more than 50% combustion engines. Supposing that a manufacturer finds, in the course of a year, that his sales of electric vehicles fall short and the ratio turns out to be 40:60, am I correct that the manufacturer will have to pay a £15,000 fine on all 20 extra vehicles—the difference between 40 and 60—per 100 that are combustion engine? If so, my arithmetic shows that he will effectively have a penalty of £5,000 for every combustion-engine vehicle he has sold. That is a very serious penalty. I do not think people realise quite how serious it is. I am not sure whether the Government have thought through the reaction there would be from motorists if that turns out to be the case, especially as the people who tend to buy combustion-engine vehicles rather than electric vehicles are those who cannot afford expensive vehicles—because electric vehicles tend to be more expensive. They would find themselves paying that fine on usually cheaper, smaller vehicles—to the benefit of the richer purchasers of larger, more expensive, electric vehicles. Am I correct that this is how the system works?
The Minister may say that if manufacturers have excess sales of electric vehicles from previous years they can offset those, and can go out and buy permits from other manufacturers that are, perhaps, only selling electric vehicles. Who will be the manufacturers only selling electric vehicles? They will, by and large, be Chinese manufacturers exporting their vehicles to us. A manufacturer producing only electric vehicles and importing them into this country from China will be able to sell its permits on 50% of the vehicles it sells. It can get £15,000 for each of them and enjoy a subsidy equivalent to £7,500 for every vehicle it sells. Whizzo for the Chinese manufacturers—that far exceeds the effect of the 10% tariff they will have to pay on the vehicles. Am I correct too that we have invented a system that could really subsidise the import of Chinese electric vehicles?
Then I want to ask whether this will all be worth while. If it will reduce emissions, of which I am all in favour, then great. Questions have been raised about the inbuilt emissions of electric vehicles, which are heavier and more expensive than vehicles with internal combustion engines. I do not want to deal with that point. I want to deal with the fact that electric vehicles save emissions only if they use electricity produced from renewables or non-fossil fuel sources. More than 40% of the electricity we produced in this country last year came from fossil fuels. More importantly, 100% of the marginal electricity comes from fossil fuels. If we increase the demand for electricity by switching from fossil fuel powered cars to electric powered cars, the marginal electricity supplied to them will come entirely from fossil fuels, because you can increase the supply of electricity only from fossil fuels. You cannot summon the sun or hail up extra wind but you can increase the supply of electricity from gas-fuelled power plants. We probably will not actually reduce emissions until we have made all our electricity and have spare capacity from renewables or non-fossil fuel power sources. That is not planned to be achieved until 2035, which makes the phase-out date actually have some logic—at least it ties in with something else.
My noble friend the Minister read out a figure about the expected emissions savings. Does that assume that only 40% of the electricity will come from CO2-producing fossil fuels or that 100% of it will? I suspect it is the former, whereas logically it could be the latter. I do not propose to divide the House on this issue, and I rather suspect I would not win if I did, but we should have honest answers to serious questions and not treat this whole issue as if it is a matter of virtue signalling.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I will leave it to the Minister to respond to those points. I am confident that he will be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, but I cannot resist pointing out that it is a case not of summoning up more sun or wind but of capturing more sun and wind through solar panels and wind energy.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Sorry, can I explain that to the noble Baroness? I am very grateful to her for giving way. At present, we use 100% of the electricity generated by wind or sun and it still provides less than 60% of the electricity, so if we increased the demand we would have to persuade the sun to shine at night or the wind to blow on calm days to create extra electricity from them now.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Of course that is not the only option. The other option is to build more solar panels and more wind farms, and I am delighted to see that there is a gradual rolling out of those facilities across the country. The noble Lord is entirely right that as we build more we will use it all, as we should.
I have no doubt about the need for this legislation, because the UK transport sector is responsible for the largest share of domestic greenhouse gas production and has seen relatively little reduction in the amount it produces since 1990, in contrast with other sectors. Cars and vans alone create 18% of the UK’s total domestic greenhouse gas emissions. There are also, of course, strong health reasons to support this legislation, because air pollution in particularly densely trafficked areas is a cause of lung and heart disease, and even has links to dementia.
So the Government’s recent U-turn on their rhetoric about the date for phasing out the combustion engine was at least confusing and at worst reprehensible, because it has slowed down the transition to zero-emission vehicles and has had a negative impact on manufacturers and their investment. They have told me about their concern. The problem is that the media have obediently repeated that change in rhetoric and it has caused confusion.