Merchant Shipping (Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships) Order 2022

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation. Clearly, we welcome any steps to prohibit the use of harmful chemicals in anti-fouling systems. The sooner those steps are taken, the better.

As the Minister said, this relates to a convention and decisions taken some considerable time ago. It gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to implement the 2001 convention and subsequent amendments. I have two brief questions for the Minister. First, she gave an explanation that related to the need to use different powers at this point because we have now left the EU, whereas we relied previously on EU legislation. I therefore wish to quibble about paragraph 8.1 in the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:

“This … does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union”.


It does relate to withdrawal from the EU, as so much does, and it is worth explaining how.

Secondly, the Minister referred—I think, though I might have misheard—to getting the regulations on the statute book by next year. Is that what she was saying? I very much hope that that is the case and that the department is being ambitious on this. I would not like to see this legislation—which should surely be uncontroversial—going to the back of the maritime queue. The sooner it can be done, the better. Having made those brief comments, I support the SI.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her explanation of the purpose and objectives of this SI, which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to give effect to the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001. The objective of the convention is to protect the marine environment and the health of human beings from the adverse effects of anti-fouling systems. It does this by prohibiting the use of certain substances in these systems, or at least prohibiting their use on the outer coating of the hull of a ship.

As has been said, the convention was adopted in 2001 and came into force internationally in 2008. It was implemented by the UK through the adoption by the European Commission of a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council of 2003, and by a further regulation in 2009. An annexe to the convention prohibits the use of specified substances in anti-fouling systems, including an additional new specified substance which is prohibited from the beginning of next year.

According to the Explanatory Memorandum,

“the Convention will protect United Kingdom waters from harmful effects of the use of prohibited substances on United Kingdom ships and non-United Kingdom ships visiting the United Kingdom.”

I assume that this is the case, but could I check that the convention applies equally in international waters?

As has been said, on the face of it, the provisions of the convention have taken a long time to be brought into effect. Although the Minister did go some considerable way to answering the point, it would be helpful to have it confirmed again, so I will repeat the question: is that the reality, and if so why? Or is the reality, as I believe it to be, that the terms of the convention have been applied in UK waters for some years, and that the reason this SI is needed relates to our withdrawal from the EU, despite, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out, paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum maintaining that this instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union?

The fact that the instrument appears related to our withdrawal from the European Union is strengthened by the fact that the Explanatory Memorandum states that no impact assessment has been prepared because the instrument

“has no impact on the cost to business”,

including small businesses. That presumably means that no expenditure is considered necessary by any party affected to meet the terms of any regulations the Government might make to give effect to the convention. Or is the argument that it is the regulations the Secretary of State will make that will incur additional costs and not this instrument, which enables the Secretary of State to make such regulations, which is why the Explanatory Memorandum says that there is no impact on the cost to business?

Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Rosser

Thursday 10th March 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this SI and thank the Minister for his explanation. It provides stability for the aviation sector and, importantly, removes much of the incentive for airlines to operate environmentally damaging ghost flights or flights with very few passengers just to keep their slots.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee questioned the Government’s decision to opt for 70%, which was the preferred option of airports, over 60%, the preferred option of airlines. This is a finely balanced decision based on data that is not available to me but which I hope the Government have analysed. I tend to side with the airports and hence endorse the Government’s decision, because airports have a much less flexible business model than airlines. You cannot just park up an airport; you have to keep it functioning, for certain safety reasons, even if you no longer have any commercial income.

I also welcome the Government’s additional reasons for non-utilisation of slots. The Explanatory Memorandum refers in paragraph 12.2 to what I call the game of slots played by certain airlines. It explains how attempts to consolidate valuable Heathrow slots have an impact way down the line on smaller airports—and, it is worth pointing out, on the availability and choice of flights and their price for passengers. This emphasises to me that the airlines have the upper hand here. That is another reason to endorse the Government’s decision.

However, I have one important question for the Minister, which echoes the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, with whom I fully agree. All these decisions were made prior to the recent awful war in Ukraine and its impact on many long-distance routes. There is likely to be a deterrent effect on travel to eastern Europe, which is generally regarded as being potentially affected by political instability. A vast range of frequent short-distance flights for leisure travel, as well as for business travel, to eastern Europe may be affected by this.

The noble Baroness pointed out an important loophole in the rules on overflying Russia and accepting flights in this country that have in practice flown over Russia. It is important that the Government clarify their position and amend their decisions in that regard. Can the Minister tell us what discussions the Government have had with the aviation industry about the impact of the war in Ukraine on it and what trends are emerging from what they can see so far? This is already being described as a second major challenge to our assumption that we can rely on easy international travel.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

We are in agreement with the statutory instrument so I do not intend to speak at any great length. However, I have one or two questions and queries, which may display the fact that I have not fully understood the SI rather than anything else.

The reality is, as the Minister said, that we have slots because of lack of runway capacity and, indeed, airports. Presumably, if we had sufficient runway capacity and airports, we would not need slots. Do the Government accept that that is the case? If so, is that issue of runway capacity and airports, or lack of runway capacity and airports, one that the Government intend to address, since it appears that slots are related to that situation?

There is also a reference in paragraph 6.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the

“allocation of slots to air carriers at congested airports”.

I almost certainly ought to know the answer to this but I cannot think of it offhand. Which UK airports are deemed congested and therefore have the slots? Is it just the obvious ones that we can probably think of, or is it rather more extensive?

I believe the Minister said in his comments that, as a result of the measures that had been taken, the Government were not aware of any flights that had taken place just to retain the slot—that is, ghost flights. I may not have understood correctly what the Minister said but, if I did, how have the Government got this information and how would they define a flight that has taken place just to retain slots? As I understand it, during the waiver period, there were a substantial number of flights at very low capacity. I know that there may be an argument that they were carrying cargo, or they may have been repatriation flights, but does that mean that the Government really have kept tabs on all those flights and have satisfied themselves that none of them was flying purely to retain a slot? Admittedly, with a waiver rule, one wonders why they would have been doing that in any case, but it would be helpful if the Minister could comment on what I believe he said about the Government not being aware of any flights just to retain the slot.

Before the pandemic, can I take it that we were in a situation whereby no flights took place just to retain slots? In other words, in the summer of 2019, how many empty or near-empty ghost flights were operated? Perhaps the answer is none at all, in order to retain an airline’s historic rights to its slots. Is it anticipated that, with the 70:30 ratio, on which there has been a lot of consultation, as the Minister said, there will be no need for any airlines to start to operate ghost flights to retain that ratio? Is that how the figure has been determined as the appropriate one for this summer?

Finally, I come back to a point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred, on the response of the airlines. As I understand it from the Explanatory Memorandum, there were rather more airlines in favour of the 60% usage ratio, and most airports preferred 70%. The Government have decided on 70%. I am certainly in no position to say that they have got that wrong, but the noble Baroness referred to the data on which that assessment was made. I know that I am repeating a question she has already asked, but what data led the Government to decide that the 70:30 ratio was appropriate, bearing in mind that they apparently had airlines more likely to go for 60% and airports more likely to go for 70%? Was it a case for the Government of tossing a coin, or is there some hard data and evidence that led them to go down the road of 70%?

Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for her explanation, including of the error. I am happy to accept that it will be corrected in due course.

The Government are going to some lengths here to comply with the terms of the TCA—but only just. This SI certainly follows the letter of our obligations under the TCA but does the absolute minimum required to do so, and in doing that, actually creates a more complex situation. As with so much associated with the post-Brexit legislation, it makes life more difficult and complex for small businesses.

The new EU regulations are tightening road safety requirements—that is obviously the intention of all this—by applying licensing to heavy goods vehicles that are less heavy than was previously the case. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee notes that this will apply to around 4,200 goods vehicle operators. It also notes that the legislation applies to Northern Ireland, too. In the case of Northern Ireland, the realities of the situation include, of course, not just the protocol but the fact that, in practice, goods vehicles cross and re-cross the border all the time, and can do so even if, for example, they start out in Northern Ireland to deliver goods to Northern Ireland, going east to west and west to east; the route can take them across the border several times. That is the way the road runs. So this could be a requirement for Northern Ireland operators a great deal more often than it will be in GB as a whole. So my question to the Minister is: am I right to assume that the vast majority of operators in Northern Ireland will have to adopt these new licences, at least as a precautionary principle?

In Britain as a whole, people will not need the licence for passenger vehicles—or they will not once the Minister has corrected the legislation. That seems simple enough, but it will also not be needed if the vehicle is not to be used internationally for hire or reward. That is a more complex issue. It is quite obvious if the vehicle you are running is a passenger vehicle, but it is less obvious if it is going to travel abroad. If you are running a Tesco delivery vehicle, you will know that it is not going abroad. But suppose you do small-scale removal of domestic equipment; you might operate for months or years without ever going abroad, then suddenly get a job that involves doing so. For a long time, you would have assumed that you do not need this licence, but that might prove a mistake and you might need to get it. That is why transport managers are so important. As the people responsible for licensing and insurance, it is their job to make sure that that sort of error does not happen, but there are some very small companies in which this kind of role might be overlooked.

The SI allows for a period of exemption so that companies and their managers can gain the required certificates. The Explanatory Memorandum says that efforts have been made to do this in time to allow companies to prepare, but in fact it comes into force on 21 May, which is a very short time span. I accept that the Government will do their best on this from this day onwards, because it comes into force tomorrow, but it is not long for people to prepare.

I welcome the limitation on who can take up acquired rights based on their previous experience. From paragraph 7.18 of the Explanatory Memorandum, it is obvious that training for transport managers increases safe working practices. I welcome the much more stringent requirement for transport managers generally, such as the limitation on the number of vehicles they can supervise, but it is illogical that they can operate an unlimited number of domestic vehicles. If you run a company with hundreds of vehicles, you will have little time to deal with the relatively small number of vehicles that are used internationally. My question to the Minister is: does the nation have a ready supply of properly qualified and experienced people for the role of transport manager, as it will obviously become more complex? Will the lack of transport managers be yet another hurdle for the freight industry to face this year?

I have a question to the Minister about paragraph 7.30 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says that there will not be local advertising of the need for the new licences. So how will the industry know about them? What are the Government doing to inform freight operators in general, especially small companies? The big companies will know, but the small companies will need help.

I have another question for the Minister, about the enhanced role for traffic commissioners that comes from this legislation. They clearly have an important regulatory role, but what additional resources are they being allocated for this important additional work?

Finally, paragraph 7.35 sets out a new requirement for operators to try to prevent “bogus operations”. This is clearly informed by bitter experience of the past. I do not think it is necessary for the Minister to explain it to us here, but there is clearly a problem. As this is obviously a significant and specific problem that is being dealt with in this legislation, can the Minister tell us how such activities will be inspected to ensure that the requirement in paragraph 7.35 is as effective as the Government clearly hope it will be?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I too thank the Minister for her explanation of the content and purpose of these regulations. I take the same view as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, does about the error. I thought I heard the Minister say that a wider review of the SI process is taking place. The only comment I would make is that this is not the first time we have had an error in a Department for Transport SI. I am sure that is much to the Minister’s frustration. Perhaps it is understandable that a wider review of the process is going on. I do not wish to say any more about that subject than that.

I noticed that the Explanatory Memorandum says, under the heading “Purpose of the instrument”:

“The UK is obliged to implement these changes following commitments included in the … Trade and Cooperation Agreement”.


I suppose that is an effort by the Government to make it clear that they are not really doing it willingly; it is because they have to. But some of us thought, perhaps incorrectly, that the trade and co-operation agreement had been freely entered into—in the way that the Northern Ireland protocol was freely entered into—and that the Government thought it was a good agreement. Judging by the Prime Minister’s comments at the time, he thought that was a pretty good deal. I only make the comment—I think this is something the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, alluded to—that whenever we come across anything to do with the EU there is always wording that makes it fairly clear that if the Government had their way they would not be doing anything along the lines of that particular instrument, which is perhaps unfortunate.

As I understand it, the Government are not introducing environmental requirements for HGV operators that stem from UK law. In the Commons, the Minister said that these

“are not required by the TCA.”

Is that now the test when it comes to environmental requirements: it is not whether they are desirable or needed, but simply whether they are “required”? Should environmental issues not be looked at on the basis of whether they are desirable or needed, rather than whether you are required to do it in some agreement or another? Perhaps I misunderstood the point that appears to have been made.

As has been said, these requirements apply only to LGVs on international trips, primarily to the EU. They do not apply domestically in the UK market. It is clear that the UK Government have no plans to regulate further, yet I think I am right in saying that the Minister in the Commons said that the operator licensing system

“continues to be vital to properly manage the use of large vehicles within the UK market.”—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 28/2/22; col. 4.]

I am just interested to hear the response. Why do the Government think that the licensing system would not be needed for LGVs in the UK market? Which parts that are needed for LGVs for international trips are deemed unnecessary and bureaucratic to apply within the UK markets? I presume that that is the Government’s argument for them not wanting to apply in the UK markets, because the Government consider them bureaucratic but are obliged to apply them because of the trade and co-operation agreement, which the Government freely entered into.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Rosser

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Lords Hansard - part two & Report stage
Monday 13th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I was very pleased to add my name to Amendment 61. Alcohol has been a factor in road safety for as long as there have been roads, but we know a lot more about it now and there is worldwide evidence of what works. That evidence has been taken up across Europe and, indeed, across the world, by a large number of countries.

In Committee, I was surprised to hear doubt being cast on this issue on the basis of an apparently disappointing impact in Scotland of lowering the limit. However, this is a very misguided approach, casting doubt on the scientific evidence rather than looking to see, if it has not worked in Scotland in the way that was hoped, why. Indeed, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that there are sound grounds for saying that it has had an impact in Scotland.

There are two factors involved in all this: the level at which it is illegal to drive and the enforcement of that level. There is scientific evidence for the former and a debate to be had on the best ways of enforcement, which is why I did not sign the other amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. That does not mean that I do not agree with it, but I think that there is a serious debate to be had about how you enforce it most fairly. The story in Scotland is that enforcement has been weak. All social change requires a combination of legislation, enforcement and social debate. There has been proper legislation in Scotland and some social debate, but also a lack of enforcement.

I want to concentrate on the statistics. In Committee, I made the point that with Scotland remaining at a stable level and things getting worse in England and Wales, you could say that Scotland was a success story. I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has done her maths and confirmed that this speculation is possibly accurate. However, I want to turn to government analysis, because government statistics say that overall, 5% of casualties in reported road accidents in 2019 occurred when at least one driver or rider was over the limit. In Wales, the figure was 6.9%, which is very disturbingly high. In England, the figure was 5.1% and in Scotland it was 4.6%, despite the fact that Scotland has a lower limit, which you would expect to lead to a higher percentage of those involved in accidents being over the limit.

So the difference might be marginal, but at least these statistics show a positive impact in Scotland—and, remember, each percentage point represents lives saved. I can think of no reason why British drivers and riders should be different from those across the world. We need to modernise, and this should be a top priority for the review of road traffic legislation—but I will be supporting the noble Lord if he presses this to a vote.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I well remember the debates that we had on this issue shortly after Scotland decided to reduce the drink-driving limit in 2014. My recollection was that the Government were in effect saying, “We want to wait and see what the outcome is in Scotland”, while others were saying, “Why wait to see what has happened? Why not just proceed and lower the limit to the same level as Scotland has done?”—which, as has already been said, would be in line with most other countries. The Government held their line that they wanted to wait for evidence from Scotland and would then look at the matter. I may be wrong, but I think that there was a general feeling that if it had had an impact on reducing drink driving in Scotland, the pressure would have been quite considerable on the Government to move, as far as this country was concerned.

Not all the suggested difficulties that might have arisen from reducing the limit in Scotland actually materialised. My understanding is that there was not a significant impact on pubs and restaurants, which is one thing that was said. We did not end up, as I understand it, with the police and the courts in Scotland being overloaded. My understanding—although obviously I will stand corrected if I am wrong—is that the lower limit was generally accepted by the public in Scotland. But it did not have the impact that many of us hoped it would have as far as drink-driving in Scotland was concerned. As I understand it—once again I will stand corrected if I am wrong—there have been academic studies by Bath University and Glasgow University that rather confirm that situation.

This is clearly an important issue and it needs looking at. There must be some logic in saying that one would have expected that reducing the drink-drive limit would have an impact on the level of such driving, to the benefit of us all—but it does not seem so far that it has had a great effect on the number or severity of accidents in Scotland. Views have been expressed this evening about lack of enforcement and lack of publicity for the change as far as Scotland was concerned, but certainly Scotland is not providing a particularly robust evidence base at present, subject to further studies and a more robust evidence base—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to issues concerning the figures. We need to look at all the factors that might contribute to making people safer, including, although it is only one, the level of enforcement, and the culture.

The Government have said that they are putting out what they describe as a wide call for evidence on a number of road safety issues. It is supposed to be starting in a month’s time. I hope we will be told that this will be a major one, because the question is repeatedly asked why we have a much higher limit than virtually everywhere else, and that surely the logic would show that if you reduce the limit you ought to get a benefit from that in a reduction in drink-driving.

So we welcome the call for evidence that the Government are making. I know that I cannot speak for all my colleagues in saying this, but we accept that the evidence from Scotland is not showing that the change has had the effect many of us thought it would have. There may well be reasons for that and perhaps that needs further investigation and study, but our view is that, as long as the Government commit to look at this seriously in the review that is being undertaken and the call for evidence on a number of road safety issues, we should not vote on this issue immediately but wait for that further review. However, we have heard points raised quite validly about whether this review will go on and on, or whether it will be conducted within a reasonable timescale to enable decisions to be made that could involve further legislation.

The Government need to say what plans they have to bring down the level of drink-driving. One hopes that that will emerge from the review that is being undertaken and that the course of reducing the limit might well be part of it. In the meantime, we will wait for this call for evidence and the outcome of the review. We want some understanding that it will be conducted within a reasonably speedy timescale. In the meantime, we could not support the amendment that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe has moved if he decided to push it to a vote.

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2021

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her introduction. This is a complex but very important order. The sixth carbon budget requires reductions in emissions of 78% by 2035, and low-carbon fuels supported via the RTFO have been an important part of that process for the last decade. This SI extends the renewable transport fuel incentive to suppliers of renewable hydrogen used in fuel cell rail and non-road transport, and to renewable non-biological fuels for the maritime industries. It also increases the RTFO obligation by 5% until 2032, and updates emissions criteria.

This is an affirmative instrument which comes into force on 1 January 2022 which, as the Explanatory Memorandum points out, is less than 21 days. Clearly, that is less than the traditional amount of time. Some error has occurred somewhere down the line because while this is important, it is not a piece of emergency legislation. Therefore, it is regrettable that there is not the usual time limit.

Something to welcome strongly is that Articles 13 and 14 of this order strengthen the sustainability criteria. That thread runs through all of this. Are biofuels really sustainable? Are they really being produced in a fully sustainable manner? When you get down to the fundamentals, any land that you are using to produce biofuels is land that you could use to grow crops for food and so on. I therefore strongly welcome, for example, the criteria that would prevent biodiverse woodland being degraded for biofuel production.

As I said, it is a very complex area, because renewable fuels and feedstock originate from across the world. It is possible—indeed probable—that producers would be eligible for multiple incentives, which the UK provides, but are incentives where the fuel and crops originate from. What steps are being taken and what steps will the Government take to ensure that this is not exploited such that there are multiple payouts on one batch of fuel, if I can put it that way?

These detailed plans and arrangements were clearly devised prior to COP 26. How have they been affected, if at all, by the results of those discussions? Where do we go next, Minister?

Paragraph 7.12 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the increase in 2020 in the buy-out price from 30p to 50p. Can the Minister tell us whether this has been effective in stimulating the market?

The part of this we will all have noticed was the increase from E5 to E10 in September for bioethanol in petrol. I recall that, when we discussed the regulations on that, there were some areas where there were exceptions, such as the coast of Scotland, I believe. Were those exceptions envisaged to be temporary, perhaps to let the more distant parts of the UK improve their access to the most modern fuels, or is it envisaged that they will be permanent for those areas?

It is important to note that, despite government targets to phase out the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles, raise the main RTFO target and so on, there remains a fatal flaw in government policy. Emissions from transport are not declining. Cars and vehicles are becoming more efficient, but the emissions are not declining because of the increase in road traffic. That has been made worse because many people have rejected public transport as a result of their fear of Covid. The Government have a major task to get us back on to public transport. I notice that the bus strategy, which has excellent aims, has a huge funding gap; four local authorities have made bids which are equal to the total amount of money available, and there are over 70 local authorities which could bid for it. Clearly there is a funding gap there.

I do not want to dwell on private grief for the Government, but last week was not an easy week for them in the north of England because of the rail announcement. Even with electric vehicles, the Government have a mountain to climb to gain public confidence. I am pleased to see these improvements, but there is still a vast amount of work for the Government to do, and unfortunately some of it involves additional funding.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the order, as has been said, amends the Renewable Transport (Fuel Obligations) Order 2007 to increase targets for fuel suppliers, thus driving the supply of renewable fuel in transport and delivering further greenhouse gas reductions. It amends Article 4 of the RTFO order so that the main obligation on renewable fuel targets increases by five percentage points, from 9.6% to 14.6%, between 2022 and 2032.

Those suppliers that meet or exceed the obligations already acquire renewable transport fuel certificates, the training of which provides a financial incentive. The order extends that financial incentive to suppliers of renewable hydrogen, used in fuel cell rail and non-road transport, and of renewable fuels of nonbiological origin used in maritime transport.

The Government have said that the RTFO delivers about a third of the savings required for the UK’s current transport budget, and that last year the RTFO scheme saved carbon emissions equivalent to taking 2.5 million combustion engine-powered cars off the road. They have also said that the changes made by this order are estimated to deliver the equivalent of an additional 1.5 million cars by 2032. As we know, in 2019, road transport accounted for 24% of all greenhouse gas emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from transport have remained largely unchanged since 1990, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, just reminded us.

How did the Government finally come to the conclusion that a five percentage point increase in the renewable fuel target between 2022 and 2032 would be sufficient in the transport sector to meet our greenhouse gas emission and climate change goals? What, if anything, happens after 2032?

The Government consulted on only three options: increasing the main obligation by 1.5, 2.5 or 5 percentage points, with the Department for Transport backing a 2.5 percentage point increase in the renewable fuel target. Paragraph 10.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Of the 77 respondents that expressed a preference on the amount by which this target should increase, 61 supported an increase to the RTFO main obligation of 5 percentage points or more. These respondents included suppliers of renewable fuel who benefit from support under the certificate trading scheme, and suppliers of fossil fuel who must meet the targets. Those in support of an increase of 5 percentage points or more suggested this could provide long term certainty to industry and would provide a further contribution to the government’s commitment to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Accordingly, the government has decided to increase the RTFO main obligation by a further 5 percentage points between 2022 and 2032.”


There appears to have been a greater commitment to the Government’s net-zero greenhouse gas emissions target by 2050 from the respondents to the consultation than there was from the Government themselves, which begs the question: does the order go far enough? Why did the order reject going beyond 5 percentage points, as some respondents clearly proposed, despite that not even being one of the three options the Government had offered?

Integrated Rail Plan: North and Midlands

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Rosser

Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

This integrated rail plan is in reality about backtracking on government promises to build the eastern leg of HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail. The Government know that HS2 and full delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail would have given a major boost to the economies of our northern cities, because that is what the construction and pending completion of HS2 have already done and will continue to do for the economy of the West Midlands and Birmingham in particular. Leeds and the local West Yorkshire economy will now be denied the full £54 billion of estimated economic benefits of their HS2 link, with Leeds becoming a less attractive venue than it would have been for new and expanding businesses. Northern Powerhouse Rail delivered in full, with a new high-speed line through Bradford, was also set to deliver an estimated £22 billion for northern economies. The integrated rail plan does not address the impact of backtracking on the eastern leg of HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail on the economies of our northern cities and towns, and there was no government answer when I asked about it last Thursday.

Typically, this Government are now seeking to silence opposition to their watered-down plan, since Transport for the North, which is overseen by all the northern mayors and council leaders, has just been told that it will no longer be financed by central government to develop Northern Powerhouse Rail and that in future this work will be funded directly, and thus controlled directly, via Network Rail by the Department of Transport, a reflection of the Government’s centralising tendency and lack of enthusiasm for real devolution of power and decision-making.

The Government’s integrated rail plan, which incidentally says very little about rail freight at all, places great weight on the virtues of upgrades of existing lines and the time in which they can be completed and the costs incurred. In doing so, though, the rail plan and the Secretary of State fail to reflect the very different experience of recent major upgrades. The west coast main line was upgraded at a cost of £9 billion, nearly four times the original cost estimate of £2.5 billion. Despite costs ballooning nearly 400%, the upgrade still had to be reduced in scope from 140 mph top speed to 125 mph with moving block signalling, in-cab signalling, being abandoned; otherwise, the cost would have been up by nearly 600%. The project led to substantial upheaval to existing services over a period of years and was not completed until 2009, very late and 10 years after it started.

Work on the Great Western electrification commenced in June 2010 and was due to be completed in 2016-17, but was not completed until 2019-20. The project ran into major difficulties, causing repeated extensions to deadlines and costs to increase by more than 300%, to around £2.8 billion in 2018 from £874 million in 2013. Despite this dramatic increase in costs, the project still had to be scaled back to keep cost increases merely in excess of three times the original figure. Electrification from Didcot Parkway to Oxford, Cardiff to Swansea, Chippenham to Bath and Bristol Parkway to Bristol Temple Meads, as well as branches to Henley and Windsor, were also deferred indefinitely by the Government in November 2016, with the Cardiff to Swansea electrification being cancelled outright in July 2017.

The message is clear: upgrading routes is not as straightforward as the Government suggest. The hard evidence shows that costs will be very much higher than projected and the time taken to do the work a great deal longer than projected. Statements plucked out of the air about being able to deliver a watered-down version of what was promised a decade earlier than projected fly in the face of the facts and experience. Such statements also fly in the face of the Government’s own document, which indicates that the new lines on part of the watered-down Liverpool to Leeds route will not come into service until the 2040s—the same timescale within which the Prime Minister, in his foreword to the plan, says that high-speed lines under the original plan will have reached the east Midlands and Yorkshire.

Further, on costs, there is no breakdown of costings for each separate project within the plan, or a breakdown of any large figures within each separate project. There is also a further issue: the watered-down schemes outlined in the rail plan are dependent for delivery, on both projected capacity and speeds, on digital signalling. But I believe, perhaps mistakenly, that there is not yet a substantial tried and tested digital signalling scheme as envisaged by Secretary of State already in full operation. Indeed, people have so far been working on trying to develop such a scheme for more than 20 years. If there is a delay in the projected timescale for bringing such an as yet untried signalling development to fruition, even the watered-down schemes as projected in the rail plan will be severely compromised in respect of capacity, speed and timescale.

In the past decade, the north of England received £349 per person in transport spending, while London got £864. If the north had received the same level of spending as London, it would already have had £86 billion more since 2010. Yet this rail plan, worth £96 billion, some of which is in the south at the southern end of HS2, will take well into the 2040s at best to complete, considerably over two decades away. This plan, with its backtracking on previous pledges and reductions in previously stated future levels of expenditure, continues, not addresses, regional investment inequalities. So much for the Government’s levelling up and delivering HS2 in full, including the eastern leg, and Northern Powerhouse Rail.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I recall a particularly funny episode of “Yes Minister” in which the Prime Minister asked Jim Hacker to produce an integrated transport plan. It was called “The Bed of Nails”, and I was reminded of that episode over the weekend as I watched the Secretary of State valiantly trying and failing to sell this plan as a success for the north of England. It takes a lot of ingenuity to produce a plan that almost doubles the time it will take to get, for example, from Birmingham to York, and still call it an improvement on previous plans.

Despite the Secretary of State’s sleight of hand, the plan has not been well received. The Government have managed to unite the elected mayors of the north, the chambers of commerce in Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Birmingham, east Lancashire, Doncaster, the east Midlands and even London, the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, Conservative MPs for northern constituencies and the Conservative chair of the Transport Committee in opposing and criticising the Government’s plan.

Not surprisingly, one of the critics was Transport for the North, and for that it has been stripped of its powers, which seems a very strange approach to levelling up. I join the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in asking the Minister to explain why control of the Northern Powerhouse Rail project will now lie solely with central government—what is it that makes Ministers so sure that they know better than the people of the north about what they need in relation to railways?

The most high-profile decision was, of course, to truncate HS2 by abandoning the eastern leg. Those cities that had expected to be directly linked to a new 21st-century rail line have developed investment plans predicated on that and expected an economic boost along those lines. They now have to start again following a massive no-confidence vote by the Government. As the noble Lord said, transport spend per head is scarcely more than one-third of the size that it is in London. In her answer to me last Thursday, the Minister admitted that abandoning HS2 and reducing the Northern Powerhouse Rail plans

“saves the taxpayer billions of pounds.”—[Official Report, 18/11/21; col. 407.]

I suggest to the Minister that this approach is totally unacceptable. What do the Government plan to do to redress the balance now that their levelling-up promises to the north of England lie in tatters?

HS2 was always as much about capacity as speed. The Government are going instead for a patchwork of schemes, with short stretches of electrification. Digital signalling, which has long been promised, and longer platforms for longer trains will create some extra capacity but it does not compare with what a whole new railway would do. The Government promised to electrify 13,000 kilometres of railway by 2050 and so far have done 2.2% of that. So we are 235 years behind schedule. I ask the Minister: after all the stretches referred to in the plan have been completed, what percentage will we be on?

Finally, one of the reasons for building a new line is that the upgrading of existing lines is enormously disruptive. As a veteran of 10 years of Great Western’s electrification, I can attest to that. What calculations have the Government made of the cost of disruption for the lines they propose to upgrade?

Transport Decarbonisation

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Rosser

Monday 19th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

The Climate Change Committee recently commented on the need for a proper plan from the Government to deliver on their net-zero targets. Britain is behind on its goal for a 78% cut to greenhouse gases by 2035. Transport is now the biggest contributor to UK emissions. In the decade 2009-19, transport emissions fell by 1% only and there is no detail in this delayed decarbonisation plan to show how it will address the problem in the transport sector of the ever-greater pace that is now needed.

The Government now appear to be further upgrading targets on which they are already behind. Diesel and petrol lorries are to be banned in Britain by 2040 and all types of transport will be decarbonised by 2050, yet zero-emissions heavy lorries are still an aspiration rather than a reality, according to the Road Haulage Association. It is not clear who is going to meet the bill for this transition or what it is likely to be.

The Government have committed themselves to net-zero internal UK flights by 2040 but, once again, there is a gap between aspiration and reality with regard to sustainable aviation fuels and hydrogen aircraft delivering by 2040, and overcoming the need to fly less to achieve targets. Again, there is the issue of who will foot the bill for the transition and what it is likely to be. Rather than take urgent action to electrify rail, the Government cancel or defer electrification schemes. Rather than support consumers to purchase electric vehicles and create a nationwide network of electric vehicle charging points, the Government, once again, delay key decisions on all these crucial issues.

The Commons Public Accounts Committee said that the UK faces a “huge challenge” to get to 100% electric car sales by the target date, and commented on the lack of any kind of government plan to manage this major transition. That includes a plan for charging infrastructure, in particular to address the serious disparity in charger availability across the regions, and for sufficient publicly accessible chargers across the country, as a third of UK households with cars park on the street.

We will not be able to reach net-zero emissions without properly supporting the shift to electric vehicles, yet the amount given out to local authorities to fund charge point installation more than halved last year. What are the Government doing to ramp up the rollout of charging infrastructure in the UK? Will they support our plans to provide interest-free loans to help drivers purchase electric vehicles? Why are the Government allowing the sale of new polluting hybrids until 2035, which means they will be on our roads for many years to come?

During the pandemic, large numbers of people took advantage of quieter streets to take up cycling—many for the first time. Surely, we want to embed this behavioural change in seeking to reduce emissions, so why have the Government been so slow to release the funding for active travel they promised last year?

There is also little that is new in the plan to promote walking or cycling, or to help our public transport services recover after a devastating 16 months, during which the Government seem to have done their utmost to revive travel by car and supress travel by bus and rail. The continued wearing of face masks would help restore confidence in travel by train and bus. Instead, the Government say there is no longer requirement to do so and it is just tough on other people who are deterred from travelling as a result. It is contradictory of the Government to talk about reducing emissions from aviation when they are looking at reducing air passenger duty and have instigated inflation-busting increases in rail fares, and to say they are serious about reducing road traffic emissions when they have been promoting a £27 billion road-building programme.

Road transport in the UK releases the same amount of greenhouse gases as it did in 1990. A recent analysis by the consumer group Which? also found that train fares on eight out of 10 popular UK routes were some 50% more expensive than plane fares, despite 80% lower carbon dioxide emissions. The cross-party Environmental Justice Commission has published a manifesto for hitting targets for net-zero carbon emissions, which includes a recommendation to upgrade local public transport. What is the Government’s policy on the future level of rail fares compared to other more polluting forms of transport? What is the Government’s decarbonisation policy on local transport fares? Do the Government agree with the Climate Change Committee that investment in roads should be contingent on their compatibility with the UK’s net-zero target? If so, why are they pressing ahead with their £27 billion road-building programme, or are they now reviewing it?

The decarbonisaton plan refers to numerous consultation exercises on achieving the targets, which would appear to be an admission in itself that there is as yet no clear and credible policy on what exactly needs to be done and by whom, and at what cost and to whom, to deliver these targets. On the transport front, the Government surely also have to create an acceptance across the nation as a whole to walk, cycle and use public transport more and to drive less if we are to play our part in limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees centigrade. The Secretary of State said in the Commons last week:

“We want to make public transport, cycling and walking the natural first choice for all who can use them.”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/21; col. 406.]


The plan does not spell out how this objective will be achieved, what needs to change or how to bring it about.

Recent catastrophic climate events in Canada, America and across the channel in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands have shown the true urgency of the need to address climate change now, not tomorrow. Setting dates and making assumptions about the pace and extent of technological advances to deliver in line with aspirational target dates does not constitute a carefully thought-through policy that sets out hard and credible evidence in support of the plan’s projections and assumptions or a realistic assessment of the welcome increase in British jobs that should be created. Government rhetoric and aspiration are no substitute for firm, specific and credible policy. We have again had the former in this decarbonisaton plan; we still await the arrival of the latter.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, there is no doubting the need for this transport decarbonisation plan and for that reason it is welcome. Transport is now the biggest single source of CO₂ emissions in the UK. Other sectors have managed significant reductions over recent decades, but improvements on transport have been marginal. That is the worrying thing about this plan, because it relies far too heavily on technological solutions. I looked in vain for reference to some of the more difficult choices that are needed.

The Statement reminds us that we are running out of time to tackle climate change and refers to the need to

“take decisive and radical action now”.

Then it goes on to promise that we can all carry on doing the same things: we can still fly to go on holiday, for instance, and technology will come to the rescue by 2050. The events of the last few weeks should surely have taught us that this is a climate emergency. As Canada burns and hundreds drown in Germany and Belgium, surely we must wake up to the need for rapid change.

The Statement has an almost fairytale quality to it, with far too many vapid “world-first” and world-beating references, which undermine the genuinely good aspects of this document. When it comes to transport decarbonisation, we are not in the world’s top tier. Noble Lords need not believe me on all this; the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has complained of too many long-term targets and a lack of short-term milestones, which are essential to make them meaningful.

The Rail Delivery Group makes the point that, if the Government want people to make greener travel choices, they must make use of the levers they have at their disposal to motivate public action. Rail, for instance, carries 10% of passenger miles but only 1.4% of transport emissions, so it is a climate-change winner; but only 38% of the network is electrified. Amazingly, the Government are currently consulting on cutting domestic air passenger duty. The RDG estimates that just a 50% cut in APD would lead to almost a quarter of a million fewer long-distance train journeys, with people shifting to flying as the cheaper option, leading to an additional 27,000 tonnes of carbon emissions.

The Government should use tax levers to make flying less attractive, not more. Funding for railways needs to concentrate on cheaper tickets, simpler fare structures and on making it easier to walk up and go. France has legislated to prevent short-distance flights for journeys under two and a half hours by rail, and the UK should follow this lead. The Government’s first priority must be to use taxation and their own policies to get us back on the buses and trains, which are by far the most carbon-efficient means of transport. That means subsidies, ending the ridiculous 10-year freeze on fuel duty and a change in taxation.

The Government need to look beyond the transport industry to taxation on sources of power. The rail industry is being penalised for moving from diesel to electric and now pays 40% of its electricity costs in taxes, whereas 10 years ago it was only 12%. Meanwhile, air passengers pay a much smaller proportion of their fares as climate-related costs. The Government still have a £27 billion road-building programme, which simply must be reviewed if their plan is to be credible. With their current targets, there will still be many petrol and diesel cars on our roads into 2050 and beyond. The pandemic has encouraged us all back to our cars and we need the Government to be bold to reverse that.

Technology has its place, and there may well be occasional bonuses to be derived from unexpected advances, but it cannot be the sole answer. The Government cannot shirk from grappling with the difficult behaviour change in choices. They can dream up all the targets they like, but they are meaningless unless the Government develop a sense of urgency, stop promising us lots of goodies and start actually doing something.

Britain’s Railways

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Rosser

Monday 24th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Television has given us “The Great British Bake Off”, “The Great British Sewing Bee”, “Great British Menu” and “Great British Railway Journeys” as programmes for our delectation and entertainment. Now the Williams and Shapps plan, determined not to be outdone, but hardly in a display of originality, is offering us Great British Railways. The Secretary of State is at pains to tell us that the proposed changes for our railways, extending the role of the public sector, are simplification not renationalisation. The changes may not mean full public ownership but they are certainly a further step closer to it, and would make the final switch easier, which is no doubt why the Secretary of State doth protest so much.

The plan does a demolition job on the failed, fragmented privatisation of our railways and the insuperable problems it has created, which the Secretary of State now admits can no longer be allowed to continue. The plan is basically a statement of hope and assertions about what the proposed new structure and Great British Railways will deliver. The shadow Secretary of State has already written to Grant Shapps with questions on 15 initial specific points and we await a detailed written response. I will, though, make a few points now.

The plan makes great play of 400 jobs that exist to determine the allocation of blame for delays. The need to do this will seemingly disappear under Great British Railways. Yet the Government talk about incentivising train operators to run services on time. Whether that also means penalties for running services late is not clear. Either way, there will presumably still be a need to determine where responsibility for a delay lies, since it would hardly be appropriate to attribute to a train operator, on a management contract with incentives to run services on time, responsibility for a passenger train delay caused by a track or signalling failure or another operator.

We need to know far more about how the proposed incentives regime will work and its potential rewards and for whom. Even Great British Railways is going to be incentivised. The plan refers to the perverse effect of incentives under franchising arrangements. We could be in danger of going down that same path again, despite the repeated assertions in the plan to the contrary. Train operators will continue to bear cost risk, but there will be incentives to run trains to time, to run clean trains, to run safe trains, to run high-quality services, to manage costs, to attract more passengers and to work with other railway organisations for the greater good. It will be some bureaucracy that will be needed to devise, manage and supervise that sort of regime if these are more than token gesture incentives—and all because the Government are not prepared to countenance Great British Railways operating the rail services itself.

That is also why the plan represents change from what we have at present, rather than the transformative, generational change that the Secretary of State wants us to believe. There is little more than a passing reference in the White Paper to the rolling stock leasing companies. No case has been made for why, almost alone, they need to continue in their present form, or indeed at all, in a situation where Great British Railways will have ownership of the railway infrastructure and assets, apart, it seems, from the rolling stock. This is despite the plan asserting that the new structure will increase Great British Railways’ purchasing power and economies of scale, and bemoaning the fact that we have so many variations in rolling stock.

Likewise, from reading the White Paper one would hardly know that we have elected metro mayors with responsibilities over transport. Giving metro mayors much greater responsibility, certainly for local rail services within their areas, and the associated resources, is not something that appears to be being entertained. It looks as though Mr Grayling’s boast as Secretary of State that he would not hand over control of rail services to a Labour mayor may still inform the Government’s claimed non-ideological approach.

We will need clarity on what specific responsibilities and powers are being transferred from the Department for Transport to Great British Railways, and what specific railway responsibilities and powers are being retained or created within the department. Likewise, we will need clarity on the impact of the proposals on the powers of the devolved Administrations. I assume that the transfer of undertakings regulations will apply to all staff transferred from their existing employer to Great British Railways or any other railway organisation. Legislation will be required to implement some of these proposals, not least in relation to the creation, governance, roles and responsibilities of Great British Railways and other statutory bodies whose remit is changed.

The plan refers to financial resources covering five-year periods. One assumes that also applies to Great British Railways. Those resources need to be guaranteed if service levels and quality are to be maintained and improved, and rolling programmes of investment sustained, but the plan does not make it clear whether that will be the case or how. We are already hearing noises that the Treasury is demanding significant savings. Indeed, the plan asserts that the new structure and working procedures will save £1.5 billion.

I pay tribute to the role and work of railway staff during the pandemic. I hope the Government are determined to see our railways make a full recovery from its effects and then develop further, because the plan blows a bit hot and cold on this. The foreword says:

“Much of the old demand will return … This government profoundly believes in the future of the railways. Without them, our cities could not function … We are growing the network, not shrinking it.”


Yet tucked away in the section of the plan on “Empowering rail’s people”, it states:

“The future of the sector hangs in the balance.”


That is a very different tone. Which represents the Government’s true thinking and intentions will become clearer when we find out whether the emphasis of these changes is on achieving a rapid reduction in costs, at all costs, or on growing the network and recognising that the value of our railways to the quality of life of our citizens and the economic well-being and strength of our country extends far beyond the content of a Treasury financial spreadsheet.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly welcome this long-overdue plan for reform and thank Keith Williams for his work on this. My only regret is that it has taken this long to get here. The industry has been crying out for reform for many years; one in three trains was late in the last year before the pandemic and two-thirds of contracts since 2012 have been awarded to single bidders—hardly a sign of a vibrant, competitive industry.

However, unlike some, I do not believe that the answer lies in a return to British Rail, which ended in stagnation and closures and as the butt of rather predictable jokes. This Statement harks back to the glory days of the 19th century, but the last 60 years have all been a bit of a mess. For a long time, the Transport for London contract structure has been touted as the answer, with the appropriate balance of risk for private contractors yet a fully integrated service. However, Transport for London has said publicly that it took it two decades of experience to get to the ideal contract model.

This is welcome, but it does not mean it will be easy—I do not for a minute imagine that the Minister thinks it will. The sheer scale of the thing is a problem. Great British Railways will be a massive organisation, bringing together Network Rail, many other DfT functions and some of the Rail Delivery Group functions. Currently DfT has three director-generals to cover rail services alone. The new organisation will be enormous and complex, and freedom from direct government interference will be essential for success.

The first problem is that, despite the name, Great British Railways is not really British, because it does not cover most of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or London. Those have devolved services. So, my question is an important one: how will GBR liaise and link in with those other services? It is essential that that link is smooth and coherent. And what about the devolution of services to local authorities, which has been encouraged lately? Local authorities can add a great deal to the standard of service. There must be a role for them in order to raise the threshold. I rather feel that the word “Great” will be at the mercy of headline writers the first time something goes wrong—but I think there is the potential to get a coherent picture of the whole, so long as devolution is taken fully into account.

In interviews, the Secretary of State has indicated the likelihood of fare rises. First, how much power will the Department for Transport have to intervene and dictate fare rises? Secondly, is it wise to raise fares at a time when the Government are trying to reduce emissions and rail services are desperately trying to attract passengers back after the pandemic? Fares are up 50% in real terms since 1997; they are the most expensive in Europe. I welcome the details on flexible season tickets and other long-overdue innovations, but the Government predict savings of £1.5 billion within five years—so are fare rises justified?

The Minister will tell us again that taxpayers have subsidised the railways to the tune of billions of pounds in the last year. In fact, they have subsidised train operating companies, not the passengers themselves. Taxpayers also subsidised Eat Out to Help Out, but the Government are not expecting restaurant customers to pay more now to refill government coffers. So I put in a plea: rather than raising fares, now is the time to reduce them for a short period, to lure people back on to the railways and, as new travel and working patterns emerge, to encourage new leisure rail users?

Finally, freight. The combination of recentralisation, better co-ordination and the current lower passenger numbers provides a big opportunity for bold steps to improve and increase freight services. But that needs capital investment, too; will we get it?

National Bus Strategy: England

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Rosser

Thursday 18th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I first express our thanks to all those involved in the bus industry for the invaluable work that they have always done and continue to do, not least during Covid-19, to provide a vital service to the nation which brings enormous social and economic benefits that extend way beyond crude calculations of whether a bus service is “viable” based on revenue from fares compared with cost incurred. This Statement appears to recognise that point when it says that

“buses are not just an industry but almost a social service.”

I hope that this does not prove to be just a gimmicky phrase.

Over the last decade, we have seen the loss of 134 million bus miles, and some 3,000 local authority-supported bus services have been cut over the same period as a result of government policies that have led to ever-increasing fares—way above inflation outside London—and cuts in local government finances. Bus coverage in Britain is now the lowest it has been in 30 years, despite a rising population. Office for National Statistics figures appear to show that, in January, bus fares were up by 21% on the previous year—the highest yearly increase since figures began. I invite the Government to comment on that. If that is the case, the increase in fares has been some 70% over the last decade.

The Statement says that there will be £3 billion of government investment in the industry to deliver what is said in the Statement about passengers wanting

“more routes and services, easier information and greener buses … simple cheap flat fares”

and

“the kind of frequency that means you do not even have to look at the timetable before you get on the bus—and more services in the evening and at weekends.”

How much does that £3 billion amount to per year, and how did the Government come to the conclusion that £3 billion was the required figure? How many of the 134 million lost bus miles will be restored as a result of that investment?

The Secretary of State said in the Commons on Monday:

“We … would not be putting £3 billion in if we did not expect, as the bus strategy says, to make buses more affordable. It is central to our vision that they are not just practical, but the affordable means of transport.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/21; col. 52.]


Do the Government regard bus fares outside London as affordable at present? If not, what does making “buses more affordable” really mean in terms of reducing existing fares?

The Statement says that, by the end of June, all local authorities, with the bus operators’ support, will have to commit either to a statutory enhanced partnership with their bus operators or to franchising arrangements along the lines of those that apply in London. Local authorities, in collaboration with operators, will then produce bus service improvement plans by the end of October this year. What happens, though, if there is a difference of view between the local authority and the bus operators, since future government financial support would depend on there being no difference of view on whether there should be enhanced partnership or franchising arrangements? The Secretary of State appears to be keeping the power to himself to decide who has the capability and capacity to run franchising, which does not sound much like devolving responsibility, and rather more like continuing with tight central control. If the local authority wants franchising arrangements but the bus operators do not agree, against what criteria will the Secretary of State decide whether the local authority can or cannot run franchising?

The Statement also says that

“we will work with councils to introduce bus priority schemes this year, and we will roll out marketing to attract millions of new passengers to the network—people who have never used buses before.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/21; col. 49.]

How much will the Government invest in this marketing, and what form will it take? How many millions of new passengers will have to be attracted to the network—

“people who have never used buses before”—

for the Government to deem this marketing to have achieved its objective?

The Statement refers to passengers wanting greener buses. The Government promised 4,000 zero-emission buses over a year ago, but very little appears to have happened yet. There are over 30,000 buses in England alone. Under this new bus strategy, what percentage of the bus fleet will be zero-emission in two, five and eight years’ time, and how many new green jobs will be created in the bus and coach sector? We have already seen more than a thousand jobs lost in the bus and coach manufacturing industry since the pandemic started.

At the moment, this Government’s bus legacy is ever higher fares, ever fewer passengers, ever fewer bus services and little or no progress on zero-emission vehicles. If the new strategy delivers a major reversal of that policy, that will be very much welcomed, certainly when it happens. The Government’s responses to the issues and questions I have raised will give an indication of whether the new strategy is largely words, or whether it reflects a clearly thought through delivery plan with clear, specific and ambitious timetabled targets and the resources already committed to enable them to be delivered.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this Statement is obviously welcome because it is so long overdue. We have been expecting it since 2019, and in the meantime the bus crisis has worsened in ways that we could not have imagined. At this point, I must specifically thank all who work in the bus industry and, in particular, remember those who have died from Covid during the last year. They have all undertaken a difficult and unexpectedly dangerous job. Because of the virus, the Government have spent the last year discouraging us from using buses, and it will be a hard task to get us back into the habit.

We welcome this strategy because it inherently accepts that the deregulation of the bus services outside London in the 1980s was a failure. It is a pity that it has taken so long to recognise this.

For the sake of the climate, to reduce congestion, and to reduce harmful emissions and their effects on our health, I welcome the intention to move to zero-emission buses. It is just a pity that it comes a week after the Budget which froze fuel duty and proposed reductions in APD, neither of which suggest a strategic approach to our climate change commitments.

The Government apparently do not have a firm date in mind for an end to sales of diesel buses. The Campaign for Better Transport suggests that 2025 is a reasonable and feasible date. Can the Minister explain how long they expect their consultation on this to run? Every week of consultation eats into the preparation time for the industry.

Encouraging British-built zero-emission buses is an excellent scheme. The Government announced in 2020 that they would invest £120 million in 4,000 zero-emission buses. More than a year on from that announcement, we still see nothing productive from this promise and await an announcement in the spring. The Government have already lost a lot of valuable time on this and the Minister herself recognises that only 2% of our bus fleet is electric. For a more just and equal society, I welcome the commitments to cheaper fares and more regular and frequent services. What the strategy lacks is any detail on how these cheaper fares will be paid for.

Fares are the result of a combination of factors that include several separate funding streams from the Government. They are hopelessly outdated and none of those funding streams incentivise greener vehicles or relate to the number of miles travelled. The emergency funding for bus services increased the confusion, with funding based on historical concessionary fare payments for passengers who were not actually travelling. I can see no detail on this but would welcome any proposals for reform that the Minister can tell us about. For certain, we will not see a significant step towards improvements in fares, such as integrated ticketing, simply by relying on current funding streams.

Most bus companies do not make excess profits. Indeed, in rural areas many have a problem just surviving. Local authorities already point to a £700 million funding gap on concessionary fares and the Government must deal with this long-standing underfunding before they can start to expect a commitment from local authorities for improvements to services. So this Statement needed to be ambitious, and indeed it is, but it lacks a level of detail and realistic steps towards targets that are essential if it is to be useful. For many local councils, the level of bus services is now so low that recovery will require a total revolution in funding. The £3 billion sounds a lot, but as there are 4.2 billion bus journeys a year in this country, I think that sets the scale of things in perspective.

This strategy is really just a skeleton. It has taken the Government two years to produce and lacks so much necessary detail. Therefore, it is way out of kilter to expect local authorities to sign up to either enhanced partnerships or franchising by June—that is less than three months for a decision requiring major financial and legal decisions. Moreover, local authorities are expected to produce bus improvement strategies by October. Many local authorities no longer have the expertise among their staff to responsibly make those decisions—but, if they do not opt for one or the other, they will not get further funding. That is a decision with a gun to their heads. So my question is, will they have the scope to change their minds after they initially opt for one or other route?

Franchising is a complex legal process. The Bus Services Act 2017 restricted franchising to authorities with elected mayors. I never understood why, and strenuous attempts were made to try to broaden this, but that is the law. Can the Minister explain if and when we can expect fresh legislation to allow a broader sweep of local authorities to franchise bus services? Do the Government now accept that some of the best services in Britain are council run and owned, and that the restriction on councils setting up and owning their own services needs to be lifted?

The Statement also refers to very welcome improvements to disabled access, and I want to press the Minister on this. The 2017 Act improved and clarified access priorities. There were further improvements proposed, which the Government did not accept at that time. Can the Minister give us details of what she plans and whether we can expect legislation and when? I would also welcome more details on government proposals for encouraging on-demand services. I agree that such innovation will be important for modernisation. The Minister referred to 17 trial areas. I am very keen to know how these areas will be chosen—or have they been chosen already? What are the criteria? Do they include average income levels, car ownership and so on? Was it a bidding process? Some of the Government’s ambitions rely on new infrastructure, such as bus lanes. Does the £3 billion cover that as well as buses themselves?

Finally, you cannot buy a painting-by-numbers kit and expect to produce a Rembrandt. This Statement is the bare outline of a vision for the future, and there is nothing wrong with that vision, but the Government seem to be leaving local authorities and bus companies to fill in the picture without making it clear where the resources will come from.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Rosser

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 21st January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the raising of this fresh issue. I have had representations from residents in Shropshire about a sudden unexplained increase in aircraft noise in their area. In this case the noise was undoubtedly caused by civilian flights. People who suddenly find themselves underneath flights by the Air Force and the military often understand the need for those, but they may be more concerned about civilian commercial flights.

Even the local councillors could not find the cause. They could not discover where the flights were coming from, or why there had been a sudden increase. Was a new airline operating from a nearby airport? Were the schedules, or the destinations, different? They could not find the answer, and then along came the pandemic, and there was no longer a problem. However, that does not mean that the problem has disappeared for ever, or that it will not be back in the reasonably near future.

Even if that problem does not return in Shropshire, that would not undermine the important principle behind the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for tabling it. Areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks are subject to numerous protections in terms of planning, the natural environment, and the agriculture that can take place within them, but, as I understand it, there is no protection from aircraft noise.

The Bill threatens to make the present vulnerability of such places worse, because airports will now be required to surrender their spare airspace. There might be an airport very close to an AONB but not operating over it simply because there is no commercial incentive to use that route. But now airports are to be asked to give up their spare airspace for use by general aviation, which means that our skies will be even more crowded.

This is an interesting development, at a time when the Government are keen to burnish their environmental credentials. I recommend that they look into this and see whether they can use their new powers to deal with the problem of noise. I urge the Minister to take seriously the suggestion in the amendment that flights below 7,000 feet should be controlled, and allowed only in certain situations.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for his amendment, which, as he said, provides us with an opportunity to debate aircraft noise. I am sure that in her response, the Minister will set out the Government’s position on that. I certainly would not claim to know what all their objectives are on aircraft noise, but I do remember one, although it is unrelated to the specific issue covered in the amendment.

Following the 2017 public consultation on Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, the Government said that their objective was to

“limit or reduce the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise at night, including through encouraging the use of quieter aircraft, while maintaining the existing benefits of night flights.”

As we are discussing aircraft noise, it might be interesting if the Minister could provide some information on the specific certifiable progress that has already been made towards achieving that stated government objective, and what specific further objectives and targets the Government have set themselves for the next three years so as to deliver on the objective to which I referred.

On the specific issue raised in this amendment, I am sure that a great many people who visit national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty have, at times, been conscious of aircraft flying low overhead. An interesting point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about all the other types of protection that already exist for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. In that context, she asked why the goal and objective set out in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, might not also offer a further protection, in view of how aircraft noise can, at times, diminish the enjoyment that people expect when visiting national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The amendment refers specifically to civil aircraft, but presumably there could be an issue with military aircraft in this context as well.

I support the basic objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, seeks with his amendment. I hope that, when the Minister responds, she will set out the Government’s thinking on aircraft noise, not least on the specific circumstances covered by this amendment and the goals, objectives and targets that the Government have set in this regard.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Rosser

Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report stage
Monday 30th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, we received a useful briefing from HS2 prior to this debate. The final sentences read:

“Legislation to complete the Western leg of HS2 into Manchester is expected to come forward in 2022. Extending the line to Crewe is the first step to making this happen.”


There is a total absence of any reference there to the eastern leg. Other speakers have talked about the regenerative impact of HS2. This has already been demonstrated in Birmingham despite the line not being built yet. It is already a hotspot for inward investment, with high-quality jobs being created in major banks—HSBC and Deutsche Bank—as well as, importantly, in Jacobs Engineering.

The Government’s election rhetoric on levelling up won them seats in the north-east, and HS2 is an essential part of that. It is integral to delivering the plans of both the northern powerhouse and the Midlands engine. That means the whole of HS2; as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, without the eastern leg it will be unable to improve the transport links across the country and to create new freight capacity.

This is all essential if the Government are to be able to decarbonise our transport system. Much more important than higher speeds is the capacity that HS2 will unlock. Only a very small percentage of commuters currently use rail in the north of England. For example, 7% of people commuting from Liverpool to Manchester, and 3% going from Hull to Sheffield, use rail. That is because services are slow and unreliable. HS2 will provide additional capacity on existing lines by freeing them up to enable faster, modern trains to provide many more services. Trains are the most carbon-efficient mass transport system available.

Existing rail freight services are far too slow. Freight is the most challenging part of our transport system to decarbonise. Road freight accounts for 5% of our nation’s CO₂ emissions, so it has to be tackled. For example, it now takes 11 hours to send freight by rail from Liverpool to Selby, for the Drax power station. That is an unrealistically long time. It takes only three hours to take the same load by road. The Government cannot hope to improve productivity and create well-paid jobs in the north, while meeting our climate commitments, without revolutionising the infrastructure of the region. HS2 is the key to that—freeing us from reliance on a 19^th-century rail system that is literally buckling under the strain.

What we need from the Minister today is a firm and unequivocal commitment to the eastern leg, with a timeframe that puts it on an equal footing with the west. We will be listening very carefully but, much more importantly, the people of the north-east are listening. They will not forgive, or forget, any attempt to renege on election promises. As noble Lords have made clear this afternoon, the case for the eastern leg has been made perfectly over the years. It is now well overdue for work to start on the details of this project.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I do not intend to repeat all the points made so persuasively by my noble friend Lord Adonis and other noble Lords in support of his amendment. The Conservative Party manifesto for the 2019 election said that:

“HS2 is a great ambition”,


but, as we all know, great ambitions are not always realised in full. The manifesto went on to say that HS2,

“will now cost at least £81 billion and will not reach Leeds or Manchester until as late as 2040.”

Continuing, the manifesto said that:

“We will consider the findings of the Oakervee review into costs and timings and work with leaders of the Midlands and the North to decide the optimal outcome”.


In other words, there was no unambiguous commitment in the 2019 manifesto to complete HS2 via the East Midlands to Leeds, since the “optimal outcome” was dependent on government consideration of the findings of the Oakervee review into costs and timings.

In Committee, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe invited the Government to commit to building HS2 phase 2b to Leeds in full. In reply, the Government said that:

“Plans to provide the benefits of high-speed rail to the east Midlands, Yorkshire and beyond will be confirmed following the publication of the integrated rail plan”,


and,

“that a properly connected line from the Midlands up to the North will be a key part of the HS2 project.”—[Official Report, 9/11/20; col. GC 351.]

As we know, that reply was not a commitment to build HS2 phase 2b via the East Midlands to Leeds in full.

It would thus be helpful if the Government could clarify in their response what the phrases,

“plans to provide the benefits of high-speed rail to the east Midlands, Yorkshire and beyond”,

and,

“a properly connected line from the Midlands up to the North will be a key part of the HS2 project”,

actually mean. Do they mean that the Government are committed to building HS2 phase 2b via the East Midlands to Leeds in full, or do they mean not that the high-speed line will be built the whole way from Birmingham via the East Midlands to Leeds but that HS2 services could, for all or part of that journey, run over existing routes calling at existing stations?

The indications are that the Government are either looking to abandon or scale back the eastern leg of HS2 through to Leeds or, at best, seriously delay its construction and completion. The lack of a clear commitment to the HS2 project in full calls into question the Government’s declared commitment to levelling up, since the eastern leg is just as vital as the delivery of the western leg. Levelling up cannot just mean levelling up the north-west and the West Midlands. It is just as vital to communities in the East Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-east. Indeed, only proceeding with the western leg would leave the cities and areas that would have been served by the eastern leg at a disadvantage.

The Government now have the opportunity to put to rest any concerns over their commitment to the eastern leg by saying, in their response today, that they are committed to the construction and bringing into operation of HS2 phase 2b to Leeds via the East Midlands in full, and giving the date by which they intend it will be completed. The Government can also accept the terms of this amendment. We will now have to see if they intend to take that opportunity. It will be for my noble friend Lord Adonis to decide whether he is satisfied with the Government’s response but, if he does decide to call for a vote, we will be supporting him.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Rosser

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 2nd sitting : House of Lords & Committee: 2nd sitting
Thursday 12th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue. In a way, this amendment goes alongside the previous one on NDAs. You wonder why the use of NDAs is apparently routine in an organisation on this scale. The problem with routine use of NDAs is that, while no individual one is possibly downright wrong, the whole oversight of the scheme gets suppressed. Therefore, it becomes difficult to see those early symptoms of things not working as they should.

We must also bear in mind that it is very easy for an organisation the size of HS2 to look overbearing, unfeeling and unreasonable. It is therefore very much in everyone’s interests that it operates as a good business with the highest ethical standards. It is, after all, a programme and a business for the future, producing something that will be at least 10 years in the making. Therefore, it needs to have modern, responsible business practices.

I suggest to the Minister that, while I am sure she will not want to accept the amendment, it would be an idea for the business practices of HS2 to be given a good look, with this amendment and issue in mind.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I will be brief. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, this amendment is about the attitude and approach of HS2. I tried to make a note of some of the things that he referred to. I think he referred to a highly impersonal manner and to the level of control to ensure uniformity of approach when not all cases are similar. I think he referred to the shifting of the burden of proof, to the delaying of payments and to the challenging of decisions line by line. I think he also referred to how it seemed that the Treasury put pressure on the DfT, which put pressure on HS2 regarding finances, and to how eventually all that financial pressure being applied was reflected down the line in the approach to claimants.

I will listen with interest to what the Minister says in reply and, in particular, to whether she accepts that there is validity in what is being said. The noble Earl clearly believes that there is, and I imagine that he is far from the only one who thinks that that is the approach of HS2. I know the Minister will take what has been said seriously. However, I hope very much that she will be able to offer some words that will at least indicate that she will look at the issue and seek to address the concerns raised.

Covid-19: Transport

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Rosser

Thursday 14th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I begin by expressing our thanks to all involved in the transport industry, and in particular all those key workers on the front line who have kept this vital sector up and running during the pandemic for the use of other key workers and for the movement of essential supplies. I do not know the exact number, but certainly over 50 transport staff have died with Covid-19, the majority in London. We express our sincere condolences to their families and friends.

The devastating consequences of Covid-19 make this Statement on government guidance all the more important, as people are now being actively encouraged to go back to work if they cannot work at home. Indeed, some people who have been able to work from home are now being told by their employer to return to the workplace. Those going back to work are being told to avoid using public transport where possible and, instead, to travel by car, by bike or on foot.

However, this guidance is not a directive and contains a lot of “shoulds” and “coulds”. I am concerned about how practical implementing the guidance will be, in particular in respect of social distancing and maintaining a two-metre distance on public transport. Transport for London has said that, given the national requirement to maintain social distancing wherever possible, capacity on the Tube and buses will be reduced to around 13% to 15%, even once services are back to full strength.

Some 80% of those coming into central London to work come in by public transport. Even if that figure is halved by people still working from home and by more people coming in by car, there will not be the required capacity on public transport if social distancing is to be maintained, as indeed we have already seen. At times, the position will be the same in our other major cities, even though the percentage travelling to work by public transport is nowhere near the level in London.

How will social distancing be maintained? For example, a suburban train, bus or tram coming into the centre of London or another major city will start its journey from the outer terminus with a limited number of passengers. As more passengers join at each station or stop on the inward journey, the train, bus or tram will become more crowded. Under these guidelines, will the operator be expected to have staff at each station or bus stop deciding how many passengers can still be allowed to get on each arriving train, bus or tram, consistent with maintaining social distancing, and preventing passengers joining if maximum capacity still enabling social distancing to be maintained has already been reached? Will the operator, under these guidelines, be expected to stop passengers entering at each station if the platforms already have the maximum number of people on them waiting for a train, consistent with maintaining social distancing?

Are these examples of what is meant by maintaining social distancing wherever possible under these guidelines? If not, how will social distancing be maintained in reality if it is entirely a matter for each passenger whether or not they choose to get on a train, bus or tram that already has more people on board than is consistent with maintaining social distancing? What can the Government tell us today about the extent to which it has been possible to maintain social distancing this week on our trains, buses and trams as they have got nearer on their inward journeys to the centre of London and our other major cities?

For public transport staff, the train or station, bus, coach, ship, plane or taxi is their place of work rather than a means of getting to work. I am not clear how much guaranteed protection these guidelines provide them with. There is no provision for PPE to be provided for front-line staff. The Statement also says that wearing face coverings when using public transport could help protect other travellers, and presumably also staff, from coronavirus—but having said that, the guidance then only advises people to wear face coverings.

If a bus driver, for example, feels that more people have been regularly getting on their vehicle than is consistent with maintaining social distancing, and that their employer has not done as much as could have been done to prevent that situation arising, which they feel puts their health at risk, is it clear in the Government’s view whether the driver has the right to decline to continue working, without penalty, until the situation is resolved, whether by the employer or the intervention of an outside body?

I turn to the Government’s 14-day quarantine proposals, which cover apparently everyone coming from anywhere in the world unless via France or from Ireland. Will the Government publish the advice that says we need 14-day quarantine now but there has been no case for it previously? Why is France excluded and why, just as one example, does Gibraltar find itself included when it has had no deaths from coronavirus? How will the 14-day quarantine period be enforced? More than 18 million passengers have entered the UK since January. Will it be against the law for an individual not to be present at the address they have given? Who will ensure that they are, and which organisation or body has the resources to do this in the current situation?

I have real doubts about the practicality of applying some of these guidelines, in particular in relation to social distancing on public transport, and I suspect that many in the Government do too, unless the vast majority of people returning to work simply choose not to travel to work in this way, and particularly in London. Time will tell, but we can only hope that the guidelines do their job and we do not end up with a second spike in coronavirus cases which could affect anyone, including those of us taking part in this debate today.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I echo the thanks to all those key workers in transport industries who have kept vital supplies and vital workers moving during the last two months. As always, our economy sits on the shoulders of the transport sector. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I want especially to mention bus drivers and others who died, who were particularly exposed to the virus in their work.

I start by reminding everyone that last Sunday’s broadcast by the Prime Minister was essentially for England only. New rules and advice were announced, but they were for England. The situation is different in Wales and Scotland, so it is now a complex picture. That matters, of course, because transport crosses borders.

I very much welcome the investment announced in cycling and walking, specifically the emergency and temporary measures. While I am delighted to see the speed of response, I seek assurances from the Minister that this first tranche of money will be followed by long-term investment in improving the infrastructure for active travel. Indeed, the Department for Transport itself has estimated that it needs £5 billion to nearly double the number of trips using cycling from 2% to 4%. This announcement was of course for £2 billion. Can the Minister give us some detail on how the Government will work with local authorities to ensure that the money is indeed spent well and quickly?

I was also pleased to see the announcement about trials of electric scooters on public roads. Can the Minister tell me a little more about this? Will it involve only scooters for hire or include privately owned scooters?

For me, the peace and quiet in recent weeks, due to the lack of transport noise, has been wonderful. So too has been the improvement in air quality. The reduction in harmful emissions has allowed us to glimpse a view of how to tackle climate change. However, on Sunday, the Prime Minister fired the starting gun on the return to old habits when he advised people to get back in their cars and avoid public transport. I accept that there is an impossible conundrum with public transport. It is not possible to socially distance on most buses and trains; it is therefore essential that every other possible safety measure is taken seriously.

I was disappointed that the guidance issued by the Department for Transport to public transport operators was essentially a series of suggestions. There are many bus operators across the country, many of them small operators with limited capacity. Early in this crisis, the Government recognised the need to take centralised control of train services. I am not suggesting for a moment that they should nationalise bus services, but I am surprised that they have apparently not established a national forum for sharing good practice and providing guidance to bus operators. Will the Minister consider that?

On issues such as screens, frequent cleaning, going cash free and the availability of hand sanitiser, the guidance was very laissez-faire. It was merely a series of suggestions, which I fear can—and in some cases, will—be ignored. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed out, the advice to passengers on face masks states:

“There are some circumstances when wearing a face covering may be marginally beneficial”.


It goes on to emphasise that it is “optional” and “not required by law”. The lesson of the past few weeks is that although we, the public, like to know why we are being told to do something, we also like clear instructions. That instruction on face covering would have been much clearer if it had simply said, “You are advised to cover your face in crowded places.”

I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Rosser

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard)
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, Amendment 32 follows similar lines to Amendment 31 but is much more specific. It amends the Air Navigation Order 2016 to introduce an obligation for geofencing equipment to be up to date and working. It provides that persons in charge who have electronic identification must not switch it off, and must have that identification on a register linked to their name. Currently, we still have drone users without registered drones. As I said earlier, there are good reasons why some people do not, and should not, have to register; the amendment allows for exceptions.

Basically, I have selected some simple steps that can be taken now. They do not anticipate future technological developments; they deal with what exists now. I accept that one might debate many things about how we control and use drones in the most sensible way, but these are simple, basic improvements to the control of drones by government legislation which benefit the whole of society, as I stated in my previous amendment. I do not wish to repeat what I said then. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I have an almost identical amendment to that moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I am sure that nobody wishes to hear me deliver virtually the same speech as the one delivered by the noble Baroness. I support what she has said and hope we will find that the Government do too.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I am very pleased that this group came immediately after the previous one because I too will probably be saying pretty much what I said before. Obviously, geo-awareness and electronic conspicuity are important parts of the delegated regulation. Even though the noble Baroness would perhaps like these to be introduced sooner, I am sure she would accept that, while we are in our transition period, we have to follow EU law. The two items identified in this amendment are already in UK law; there is a three-year transition period in which they will come into effect. The noble Baroness mentioned that new drones can be purchased with all these things. There are people in the model aircraft community who will be very quick to write to all noble Lords to tell them why the transition period of three years is required. I have been at the receiving end of one their campaigns; it involves a lot of letters.

There are many reasons for the three-year transition period. While we were a member of the EU we could not change it, as the noble Baroness, being a Liberal Democrat, well knows. Those two requirements are already there so, from the point of view of the amendments, we can put them to one side. I have been through the registration issue several times: there is an operator and there is a remote pilot; the remote pilot is under the responsibility of the operator and can be under 18. It is nobody’s interest to stop people under 18—a 16 year-old, for example—flying these vehicles.

On remote identification, once electronic conspicuity is ubiquitous, we will be able to link the identifier to the registration system. At the moment, there is literally a physical number on a drone; that will change over to electronic conspicuity once the transition period is over. The model aircraft people will have put electronic conspicuity into all their aircraft by then and the entire system should be ready to go. I hope that, given this explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.