Goods Vehicles (International Road Transport Permits and Haulage Within the EU) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Thursday 18th April 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. I am sure he will forgive me a bit of a weary sigh, because I remember all this from the first time round. As it gradually dawned on us that the assurances that a post-Brexit trade deal would be the easiest trade deal in history were completely wrong, we realised that we were facing a much more complex set of rules and restrictions for the logistics industry, especially those smaller businesses that wanted to continue to trade with the EU.

Other sectors that have particularly suffered in recent years have been not just those trading from the UK to an EU country but, as the Minister explained, those wanting to operate cabotage services. A badly affected sector is performers—musicians and artists of various sorts—who have found it impossible to take their goods, vehicles, scenery, costumes and so on from one country to another. All this has contributed to a decline in the numbers trading and a deterioration in the balance of trade, which specifically has hit small businesses very hard.

Optimistically, I had hoped that we were over the worst and that we would gradually rebuild our trade, as people got used to the new restrictions. Apparently, that is not so, because this instrument appears to be tightening up the rules. The Minister’s introduction, which was very complex and detailed—and extremely helpful—underlined that this is going to carry on being complicated.

Paragraph 6.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to

“the required outcome of the effective enforcement of posting requirements”,

so my first question to the Minister is: can he explain precisely how and to what extent the system was failing before? In a way, I am interested in the mood music behind this change. Have EU countries complained that UK operators are not doing it properly? Have we had international complaints, or are we complaining about EU operators coming here without the required permissions? What is the scenario that has led to these changes?

I realise that there are references in this SI to agreements that go well beyond the EU, but so much of our trade depends to this day on the EU, and even more did in the past. That was the easy way to do business. It was no more complex to go to the EU than it was to go from Yorkshire to Surrey, for example. Therefore, any step that makes things more complicated is a matter of concern.

To reiterate, my first question is: are the Government tightening up as a result of an international request that we do so? My second question concerns Schedule 3, which lists a series of fees. Are they being increased, compared with the previous situation? If so, by how much? All of this is very complicated, especially if you happen to be a small business, so my third question is: what are the Government doing to ensure the new arrangements are adequately publicised and that that publicity is available well in advance of the implementation?

Finally—I hope that the Minister will indulge me—trade is, of course, a two-way thing. As he will know, from 30 April we will be imposing new import checks on meat and plants, leading to the payment of a common user charge of up to £145 per consignment. Can the Minister explain why the Government have given only 27 days’ notice of the size and scale of these charges? How far is that being advertised? In what way are those new charges linked to this trading set-up that we are discussing, or are they not linked in any way at all? I realise that it is not part of the same piece of legislation, but is it part of a reciprocal deal and agreement? The final words the Minister uttered related to the TCA being part of the agreement. This is, of course, part of a whole package—a whole deal—so I am asking about the relationship between those payments and what we are discussing here.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for his presentation of this SI. He added a certain overview, which is useful. I found myself in a difficult situation with this SI, both because it is complicated and because the normal excellent support I get from the staff in our office was overwhelmed by the fact that the member of staff was doing Rwanda, so I had to try to do it myself.

I set about by trying to understand the thing. I do not know whether it is my age, and that I am just slowing down, but I found it very complex. It was not helped by the fact that the format of the Explanatory Memorandum has been changed—much to my surprise, because I learned the old one and knew where to go. That took me a little while to recover from, but eventually I found that Morag Rethans was my contact. We made contact and she helped me, over quite a long phone conversation, to work through the various bits of the agreement. Yesterday morning, I understood all parts of the SI. I do not think I understood them all at the same time, and my understanding of them has certainly faded a bit in the past 24 hours. I always like the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, because she is so much more diligent than me and finds little corners in what has been happening.

In a sense, I was content to clarify my mind—the Minister may have to correct me on this—that this was a piece of domestic legislation which took the agreements that we have, particularly the TCA and agreements with other peripheral states, as a given. As far as I can see, there is nothing in this instrument that changes our formal relationship with the EU and those peripheral states. What it does is mend holes in our own regulations that make the interface with other states incomplete and messy. The solution is designed to ensure that UK domestic law fits with our international obligations. In particular, it gives an enforcement mechanism to ensure that its impact is uniform, both in the UK and reciprocally with visitors to the UK.

By the time I had made my limited progress in understanding, I could not actually see any particular flaws in the SI, per se. Thinking in macro terms, it would have been great if we had done it sooner, because the closer it had been to the completion of the TCA and so on, the more likely that it would have fitted together. However, that has passed—let us not worry about it.

The problem with this agreement is that we left the club, and the club did not like us leaving. The negotiations that took place with respect to this area—the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and I go back at least five or six years on this issue—left the problems relating to road transport at a disadvantage compared with where we would like to be. Unfortunately, the only way of getting to where we would like to be would have been to maintain membership of the European Union. Since we on these Benches accept that we are no longer a member, it is our responsibility to conclude agreements that smooth the relationship as far as possible. As far as I can see, that is what this instrument does.

I object in many ways to the £5 million in relation to the assessment—saying that you do not need a proper impact assessment. The beauty of a full impact assessment is that the person doing it has to look at other solutions and, by looking at them, we are at least in part reassured that what is proposed is the best solution, having been exposed to other possibilities. I do not see anywhere where there could have been a better solution but it would have been better to have had a full impact assessment, with the team working on it considering all the solutions before coming to this one. With those few comments, I am content.

Moving outside the brief, in a sense, and joining the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, it seems to me that, compared with some of the fears we had way back before this was firmed up, a pretty practical situation has been developed—as I say, this is the UK end of it—and that the biggest damage is in what one might call the musicians and artists area. I would like an assurance from the Minister—this parallels the noble Baroness’s concern—on what, if anything, the Government are doing about that. Is this still a live issue? Can we have some assurance that it is being pursued because it seems to me that, for most tasks, the regulations that exist now are practical?

It seems that, in this area, however, it is a heavy burden. As I understand it, for larger operations, the problem is overcome by dual registration of specialist transporters and so on, but that area, which is so important to the UK economy, starts off with two or three blokes and their instruments in a Transit van. Previously, they could wander around the continent and so on. I know that that is what the Common Market is about and that we are not in it anymore; nevertheless, it is a considerable blow to emerging musicians and artists, so I hope that the Government might make some progress in that area.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Report stage
Tuesday 6th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, I remind the House that I raised national security and people hacking into the system at Second Reading. Group 5 today deals with data protection issues; careful control of data is one way in which to make it more difficult for outside forces to hack into it. However, if you present a complete picture of every road and road sign in Britain to people who are able to drive around the UK, then you are opening a very big picture to the world. There will be people who want to take advantage of that in a way which could be hugely damaging.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his amendments. We had a vigorous debate in Committee about issues of safety. I do not know whether the definition produced in government Amendment 3 is absolutely the last word on the topic, but the Government have moved a long way. I thank the Minister for that amendment, which is an advance and improvement on the original. As the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, said, we need to take into account issues associated with international definitions. Government Amendment 7 is also important as a step forward, because it gives this House an important role at a key point when that statement of safety principles is issued.

The Minister will be pleased to know that I took his advice and went to visit Wayve in King’s Cross. Wayve is a local company which is developing a driverless car—an automated vehicle. I went for quite a long drive around the streets of King’s Cross and can report that I found it surprisingly relaxing. I did not expect to be relaxed but I was. I mention this because one key point was made to me during that drive, as we overtook a cyclist very carefully. The key point was that these cars will always be programmed to drive legally; that is a great deal better than you and me as, from time to time, we lapse from the highest standards. Some people out there drive in a way which does not follow the law—they wilfully drive too fast or inconsiderately, and so on.

Another point was made to me, because during that drive, first, we had a very indecisive elderly lady wondering whether she was going to cross at a zebra crossing and, secondly, we had that cyclist. Of course, those users are always going to be there, because even when we have totally driverless cars, which will be decades on, we are still going to have human nature intervening, so this is a very complex issue.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his contribution. I also thank the Minister for the steps forward that we have made in improving the definition and the role of this House in the statement of safety principles.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I think this group has two subgroups. There is the subgroup of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s subgroup. I am afraid to tell my noble friend that we will support the Davies subgroup and not the Berkeley subgroup.

There are many reasons for this, ending with a very pragmatic one. First, the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, are structurally sound as they separate the roles of Clause 1 and Clause 2. Clause 1, as it will stand after these amendments, in essence says, among other things, that there shall be a safety standard. The clause is headed “Basic concepts”. Clause 2 attempts to address what that safety standard shall be.

We believe that government Amendment 3 is right. It is a very sound definition of “safe enough”. It is built around the well-crafted concept of

“careful and competent human drivers”.

It is today’s standard at its best. It is today’s standard after, as is set out in the commissioners’ report, eliminating the distracted, the drowsy, the drunk, the drugged and the disqualified. It is a high standard but not an infinite standard. It recognises that there has to be a limitation, otherwise the whole pursuit of a standard that is not defined becomes impossible.

It passes what I consider to be the death test. One of these vehicles is going to kill somebody. It is inevitable; the sheer volume of events will mean that something will go wrong. It is at that moment that you have to be able to respond to public opinion, have a standard that is easy for people to understand and defend it. I know this because I have been in that position when running a railway. The 1974 Act that applies to railways demands a standard: that the risk is as low as reasonably practical. It is one of the most brilliant pieces of legislation ever passed. Its impact on safety in this country has been enormous. Its impact on construction and railways, and its crossover impact on nuclear, have served this country well. I believe that this standard, which involves being as safe as a careful and competent driver, is the natural equivalent.

I also note that the law commissions produced three answers. Since they took three years or something to come to these three answers, it seems a pretty good idea to pick one of them. They were options A, B and C. Option C is, in my view, clearly rejected by these amendments. That option was to be

“overall, safer than the average human driver”.

The average human driver includes this wonderful list of distracted, drowsy, drunk, drugged and disqualified drivers. The world is a better place for eliminating them. Option B was

“as safe as a human driver who does not cause a fault accident”.

That is so ill defined that even the law commissions gave up on it. Option A is this one:

“as safe as a competent and careful human driver”.

It passes that test in a way that, when the experts set about turning this into regulations, I believe it will be feasible for them to achieve.

We also support government Amendment 7, which is a compromise. It ensures that Parliament—the importance of Parliament is very much brought out in the supporting documentation—has a positive involvement with the initial statement of safety principles. It also assures us that there will be a negative involvement with subsequent revisions. That is a balance, and we can support that.

I am afraid that government Amendments 3 and 7 have a rather unique advantage that we should not ignore: the name on them is the Minister’s, that of the noble Lord, Lord Davies. But, with the greatest respect to him, if you rub out “Lord Davies” and look under that name, you see “His Majesty’s Government”. Their majority in the other place means that these two amendments will become law—a piece of law that will guide this industry well.

I turn to an issue that is not so directly involved but needs to be there to tidy things up: the principles relating to equality and fairness. What does this mean in this environment? This too is set out in the law commissions’ report. In essence it means that an autonomous vehicle does not come at the expense of any particular group of road users. The policy scoping notes say:

“Government is likely to include a safety principle relating to equality and fairness”.


That is not there at the moment, but I am delighted to be advised by the Minister that this will be changed from “likely to include” to “will include”. This emphasis is particularly important for pedestrians, who must not be sacrificed to achieve the introduction of automated vehicles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, because I think he underestimates the market that will be created. I do not for one minute think that EU countries with high social standards, for example, or the United States of America, will not have a reasonably sized market of people who are elderly and disabled, and that there will not be a demand for vehicles of this sort. The vehicles will be created, and the market will be there as well as here. We are talking about enlarging the market. Instead of diminishing the market, so that it is only for people who are physically able-bodied, we are enlarging it to include a lot of other people, who will be very dependent on vehicles of this sort.

We are gazing into the future. It will not be fundamental if we get some aspects of this wrong, because we will be able to put it right in future legislation. But if we get this aspect of the Bill wrong, it will prove very costly to change course on the design of vehicles, which will have been conceived and built the wrong way. We will then face costs of adjustment as well as huge social costs, because we will have a generation of people who are stuck at home rather than being able to use vehicles as they should be able to.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not take up the House’s time. We have nothing to add to this debate, although it has been very interesting. I have to deliver our judgment, which is that we are pretty sympathetic to this group. Much will depend on what the Minister says, and the extent to which he is able to give assurances may cause our view to change, but we are broadly sympathetic and will listen carefully to the response of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Committee stage
Monday 15th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I will take up the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. You have to start on the right footing immediately. One theme that has run through the amendments to this Bill is that those of us putting forward probing amendments are not doing so in the spirit of wanting to delay anything. I would argue that the purpose of these amendments—the detail may not be ideal; but this is the probing stage—is so integral to getting it right that you must accept that there might be a delay.

This whole project could be seriously delayed by bad publicity, adverse reporting and so on. If one in four people are looking to this brave new world of public transport, which was going to open things up for people with disabilities, and they discover that they cannot get on the new buses or into the new taxis, that will be the sort of really bad publicity that will set this revolution back by a considerable period of time.

I add one little example to those already provided by my noble friend Lady Brinton. I have 30% of normal hearing. I have found a number of times that the requirement to have both audio and visual announcements is not carried out in practice: they either have one or the other. An audio announcement on its own is no use to me at all. It shuts bus journeys off to me in areas where I am not familiar with the stops and layout of the town. If we apply that principle to people in wheelchairs and people with serious sight loss, large parts of the huge potential benefits of this new technology will be unavailable to an increasingly large section of the population. With an older population, this percentage will only get bigger.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has made the point that she can speak twice in Committee. I invite her to speak for a third time to confirm that the two amendments are mutually compatible.

Merchant Shipping (Counting and Registration of Persons on board Passenger Ships) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Monday 4th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his assiduous attention to these issues. I need to make it clear to the House that I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which drew the attention of the House to our concerns at the less than clear responses to our questions on behalf of the Government.

There are two issues that I want to raise. First—and this follows on directly from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway—these regulations are undoubtedly a casualty of the long-standing backlog that has been built up by the Department for Transport in its international maritime legislation. We in the UK are a maritime nation; we pride ourselves on our maritime traditions and they are an important source of our economic strength. The mess that we have got into in keeping up with the latest legislation on maritime issues, almost all of which is associated with safety, is a source of national embarrassment. The Minister, newly in this role, has my profound sympathies. His predecessor worked to try to deal with this issue, but there is still a long way to go.

In probing behind the official obfuscation of the Government’s explanations, the opaque replies to the SLSC basically lead me to the conclusion that the Government’s new online system is not ready—that they have fallen behind in the work—so the delay is basically nothing to do with giving the industry more time to adapt and so on but is all to do with just not being ready. I am sure the Minister will come back to me on that if I have concluded inappropriately.

My specific question to the Minister is: can he explain exactly how, in technological terms, the numbers on board and personal details are reported now? Surely in this day and age, it already has to be through some form of electronic communication. In the tragic event of a situation where people have to abandon their vessel, surely the ship’s master does not leap over with a paper logbook; it all has to have been done electronically. Are we right to assume that there is an electronic system but that it is not done officially to the right format, in the right scheme of things or on the right computer programme?

The second point I want to make is that this is all about safety, and we must not lose touch with that. This is not about petty bureaucracy but safety, and it is essential that, when an accident occurs—sadly, they do, on a regular basis—rescue services know immediately how many people they are looking for and exactly who those people are. Are there any children, any elderly people or anyone with particular health problems?

I am concerned not only at the delay but—I join the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on this—because the Government have introduced new exemptions, where it is impractical for a ship to comply. This apparently includes, potentially, where a voyage involves a deviation from the usual route. Surely this may well involve an unfamiliar route for the crew on board, and it is in just those sorts of circumstances when an accident is more likely to occur. Can the Minister explain why that has been chosen as a potential exemption?

Finally, most international sea voyages from the UK are to, for example, Ireland, France, Spain, the Netherlands and so on. These are EU countries. Can the Minister answer a specific query that I have as to how this will work? Once the vessel enters EU waters, will not the EU countries concerned require full and proper records of who is on board and in the full, proper and up-to-date format? Will not those who are working the vessel have to fulfil that requirement, even though the UK Government do not require them to? I may have got the wrong end of the stick on how this will work, but I cannot see the EU allowing a British ship to adhere to different standards once it is in its own waters.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, often described as the lifeboat of the UK economy, the merchant shipping industry plays a pivotal role in ensuring the smooth running of people’s day-to-day lives, aiding the transition of goods and ships while supporting over 180,000 jobs in the UK, according to the Centre for Economics and Business Research. On the global scale, the industry facilitates the economy through the wider supply chain, supporting the running of 680,000 jobs.

According to the Office for National Statistics, looking solely at shipping, the sector contributed £6 billion to the economy in 2020, accounting for 19% of the transport industry. I am pleased to share my support for the merchant shipping industry and the introduction of the necessary regulations, which have been long awaited. This instrument will update and modernise the 2021 regulations, implementing corrections in the light of mistakes existing in the earlier legislation. Further, it postpones the deadline for all ships in UK waters to report data on the persons on board by two years.

Subsequently, from 2025, UK-flagged passenger ships, wherever they are located, and passenger ships within UK waters, will have to use an electronic method to report information regarding passengers on board. Search and rescue authorities will then quickly have access to essential information needed in the event of an emergency. This will reduce the loss of, and the risk to, lives at sea.

I therefore empathise with and support my noble friend’s Motion. Indeed, these highly significant regulations are welcome and long overdue. Further, I understand his concerns relating to the inadequate protection for passengers travelling on non-passenger ships. I am pleased that the House has the opportunity to discuss these protections today.

I would like the Minister to provide clarity on three central concerns. First, how did the Government learn of the mistakes in the 2021 regulations and what would be the consequences if they were not corrected? Secondly, given the postponement, how have the Government calculated that there will be no safety risk? Is the Minister not concerned that prolonging its implementation will only prolong the safety risk? Finally, given that the Explanatory Memorandum notes that the consultation on these changes received only seven responses, can the Minister explain the consultation process a little more? Is he satisfied that the results are credible, given how few responses were received?

To support the UK’s global position as a great trading nation, as well as a healthy and thriving economy, is to support the merchant shipping industry. I am positive that this instrument will play a vital role in the future of the industry by strengthening safety protections, and I therefore welcome its laying before the House.

Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the regulations which are the subject of this regret Motion amend four retained EU regulations. Two of them are amended to implement revised standards and practices adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization. These involve implementing new safety management systems for the production and maintenance of aircraft. The other two regulations are amended to delay changes in balloon and glider licensing until 2025.

I have laid this regret Motion because I am concerned about the delays and their impact on issues relating to aviation safety. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reported that the original Explanatory Memorandum was inadequate because it failed even to attempt to explain why, in the view of the Department for Transport, these delays were not a problem.

There is a tendency for Department for Transport explanatory memoranda to be rather sketchy. By way of background, it is important to remind ourselves that the department has a long-standing problem with managing its legislation, much of which flows from our international treaty obligations. The department fell badly behind in managing legislation for the maritime sector, some of which was up to 20 years overdue. Huge efforts have been made to catch up, and I pay tribute to the Minister for hers. But now the department is faced with a similar problem on aviation standards. Prior to Brexit, new standards based on the Chicago convention on civil aviation would have been automatically implemented via the EU. Now, we have to do it ourselves. The safety management changes were implemented in the EU in 2021—and, by the way, that was already rather late.

This is two years later for us, and this legislation allows until July 2024 for it to be implemented, after which firms are given a further two years to comply. So we are well behind the curve—a cumulative delay of over a decade since the ICAO regulations were introduced. This picture is becoming familiar. In the past, we relied on the combined resources of what was then the 28 EU nations and their expertise to devise and implement technical modernisation. Now, we have to do it on our own. It is complex, expensive and time consuming, and the delays are putting our manufacturers and aviation industry, in this case, at a disadvantage.

My concerns are as follows. This industry has a complex supply chain, with many hundreds—even thousands—of firms, so it is essential that appropriate safety management systems are in place for the design and production of aeronautical parts. My specific questions to the Minister are as follows. First, the Government say that this delay will not impact safety, but I cannot see how that can be: what is the point of having a safety management system if it does not have any impact on safety? Secondly, as the legislation makes clear, it is for the CAA to review and approve the new SMSs. Can the Minister tell us specifically how much the CAA has been allocated in additional funding to undertake this work? Can she reassure us that these resources will be adequate? The Minister will not be surprised by these questions; I repeatedly ask about resources allocated to the CAA.

The second part of the regulations relates to balloon and glider licensing, changing the current deadline to transfer to the new system, which was inherited from EASA, from the end of 2023 to the end of 2025. The Explanatory Memorandum justifies this simply by saying that

“the CAA is undertaking a … review of private pilot licensing which may result in significant changes to … licensing requirements”.

The Department for Transport calls this the pilot “licensing and training simplification” project. It was initiated by the previous Secretary of State, whom noble Lords will recall is a keen general aviation enthusiast.

As background, it is important to note that the pandemic encouraged major growth in the market for private aviation—I note that the Prime Minister seems to be quite keen on private aviation as well, although I do not think he is a pilot himself. There is now a flourishing secondary market in private flights, and, as a Cardiff citizen, I am acutely aware of the complexities of this market, revealed to many of us for the first time by the tragic accident that led to the death of the footballer, Emiliano Sala. Many of us did not understand how complex this whole set-up was.

There are a number of worrying grey areas relating to implementing the legislation, which again falls to the CAA. The expansion of the market has intensified the obvious challenges it faces in inspecting and implementing the regulations. So can the Minister assure us, once again, that the CAA has adequate resources? My concern is that the UK has a reputation as an aviation leader, with high standards of safety compared with, for example, the USA, where it is much easier to get a private pilot’s licence. We should not sacrifice that in the chase for an ephemeral benefit of Brexit.

I am concerned about what these regulations reveal about pressures within the Department for Transport. Its defence to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s criticism of its Explanatory Memoranda, and the delays in bringing forth this legislation, was that it has to make “prioritisation decisions” regarding regulation. In the light of these constraints, it is worrying that the department also faces additional programmes that will create challenges for it—for example, those imposed by the revocation of EU law Bill, shortly to be an Act. On top of this, there is the general aviation change programme, which now faces its own 25% reduction in resources—I am told that the amount of money allocated to the CAA for that programme has been reduced by 25%—so can the Minister explain why the funding has been cut? Can she explain whether the Government intend to pursue this programme, despite the cut in funding?

Overall, there is huge public concern about basic day-to-day issues that are crying out for legislation in relation to transport. There is technological change and challenge—for example, with issues like e-scooters and e-bikes, which desperately need regulation. There is also a crisis in our railways, which urgently need legislation to create Great British Railways. I am concerned that the Government are pursuing policies such as the reform of private flying while they tell us that they have no parliamentary time in their programme for such day-to-day issues as the state of the railways and the reform of train fares. So my purpose in laying this regret Motion was to give the Minister the opportunity to explain to us why there are delays in aviation legislation now and why there are such huge pressures within the department in terms of prioritising the various strands of its activity, specifically its legislative activity.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I rise again in this crowded Chamber to discuss a transport issue. This sort of debate should be divided into two. Let us first look at the instrument itself, rather than the problems with getting it here. Civil aviation in general is really quite safe. The very sad interruption to that general trend was of course with the Boeing 737 MAX, but, otherwise, the trends have been quite positive. This is based on a mechanism: the Chicago convention and the ICAO processes. I knew this was quite old, but I looked it up and saw that the convention was signed by 52 nations before the end of the Second World War, on 7 December 1944. It became legal, if that is the right term—I do not do conventions often—or rather it came into force, on 4 April 1947.

It is a sort of treaty obligation, but it is a bit looser in being a convention. In practice, the industry, over the years, has understood the value of behaving together. So most significant aviation nations in Europe, one way or another, through the European system, sought to achieve harmonisation with the ICAO regulations of the time. It seems to me, reading through the material, that the essence is one of delay. I think that was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The test, to some extent, has to be: what is the significance of the delay, particularly with respect to safety?

Public Service Vehicles (Accessible Information) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation, and congratulate the speakers so far on raising a whole range of important information that we really need from her. I strongly welcome these regulations, which flow, as noble Lords have already said, from commitments made in the Bus Services Act 2017—which is, of course, back in ancient history, as the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, made clear to us. It is five years since the consultation. I know we have had Covid in between, which possibly interrupted things, but that did not last five years and it is very unfortunate that we have waited so long, because we have another three years to wait in some cases before full implementation. I recall that there was a Secretary of State recently who had a penchant for complaining about audible announcements on public transport, and I wonder whether that is why it has taken so long for these regulations to come forward.

The point I am making in relation to Covid is that if these regulations had been in place more quickly, I think we would have attracted people back on to the buses much more quickly. We have to attract new passengers to deal with congestion and emissions. It is easy, of course, to take what is in the regulations for granted, if you spend a lot of time in London—as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said, 98% of buses and all Tubes have notification of this nature—but there is a failure rate, and I will come to that point later on. Outside London, it is only 25%, and in some areas there is nothing at all.

I draw attention to Regulation 7(3), which specifies what information should be provided, and I am very pleased to see details on volume. Noble Lords may not be aware, but I wear two hearing aids and actually I have very little residual hearing. Without the hearing aids, I would not understand a word anyone was saying here today: even with them, I often miss things. I know the Minister often thinks I do not listen to what she says, but it is not for lack of trying. I am also pleased to see details on hearing loop in priority seats and the wheelchair space, and I am very pleased to see specification on character height for visible information.

I have one point though: the issue of contrast is specified in Regulation 14(5)(b) on page 7. There are good practice guidelines on contrast, which organisations representing people with visual loss are very well aware of, and I am hoping that the Government will take advice and pass it on in terms of the use of the best possible contrast for written information.

There is clearly a public information job to be done as well as training for drivers on these issues, and I would be grateful if the Minister could give us some details about what the Government plan to do to spread this information and good news and raise public awareness of things such as priority seats on buses. We take that for granted on the Tube in London, but that would not necessarily be the case in every part of the country, especially because you cannot see the hearing loop. For someone to have to sit in those seats, public information would need to be available.

I am pleased to see the support from the Scottish and Welsh Governments. It is good to see something on which the Governments across the UK can agree wholeheartedly. It is logical that these regulations exclude demand-responsive transport, but my question to the Minister is about ensuring that any vehicle used on a variable basis—in other words, sometimes for scheduled work and sometimes for demand-responsive work—would have the capacity to provide that information.

My final question relates to something raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young. What happens if the system breaks down, and what happens about the failure by the driver to switch on the information system or to update it from one route to another? What are the penalties for non-compliance and what are the mechanisms to ensure that all bus companies do comply and, if the system has broken down, that the driver makes the announcement? What is the process by which passengers can make complaints if they believe that this is not being implemented properly? Having said all that, the sooner this is introduced, the better.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing this SI. For 10 years, I was managing director of the Underground and, as such, was part of the top team in LT. It is nice to see my former boss smiling at that point rather than frown. For two years, I was chief executive of LT and chairman of London Buses, and programmes from that period resulted in the 98%, of which I am personally proud and proud on behalf of the institution.

I want to introduce an idea of how to make these things happen. The reason why we were so successful is that we would have rules, standards and all that sort of stuff, but we also had a cultural issue. I will get the title wrong, but essentially we had a disability tsar, which meant that whenever hard-nosed people were trying to do things, they were asked whether they had taken account of all sorts of disabilities. It was not just about audio-visual disabilities; it was about things such as stairs, handrails and so on. If you can do that activity from a customer-focused point of view, you get to a cultural difference.

I hope that, insomuch as the department can have some influence in this, it will encourage operators to try to think from the point of view of the customer because there are things that can be done beyond this. One of the most difficult things that we found was the invisible disabilities. The most obvious one is deafness, but you also have intellectual capacity and mental health problems. The more you think from the customer’s point of view, the better results you get .

Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her introduction. I declare an interest as the chancellor of Cardiff University, which runs courses on maritime law, shipping, logistics management and transport education—all pretty intrinsic to the topic that we are looking at this afternoon. As has been said, these regulations relate to the updating of the STCW convention, which was the first international treaty to establish basic requirements and qualification standards for seafarers. However, we have come a long way since then, so the delay in this latest update is, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said earlier, unfortunate.

The regulations update previous regulations; they are therefore important in enabling UK ships to trade and UK seafarers to work internationally. They are welcome because they broaden the scope of the 2015 regulations and, as has been said, now include pleasure vessels. Does this mean that the regulations will include people crewing their friends’ yachts, for example? If so, how large does the yacht have to be before it comes into scope? It has always surprised me that so little experience is required before people put to sea in leisure boats of one sort or another, because we require so much of individuals before they are allowed to drive on the roads. We require very little of people before they set off towards the horizon on what is basically a road that moves up and down unpredictably. However, being serious about this, if these regulations start to extend to new categories of people, they will of course have an impact on small businesses that build, sell and maintain boats.

There are very detailed specifications here for training providers, so my question for the Minister is this: where precisely does all this detail come from? Obviously, it comes via the IMO and is set out under the auspices of the MCA, but how exactly is it aligned internationally? Is it identical from one country to another, or are we able to vary our standards and specifications? In the past, we would have aligned ourselves with the EU rules, but of course that no longer applies, so how much freedom do we have to interpret the standards?

Paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to a specific impact for the instrument of “£1.6 million per year”, but there is absolutely no detail as to how that figure was reached. What does it mean? How did those who write the EM get to that figure, because there has been no full impact assessment on the grounds that the instrument does not really affect small business? I would be interested to know the calculation, or at least the basis for the calculation, there.

Finally, I take the opportunity to thank the Minister for a copy of her letter to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, the chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. That sets out in detail, item by item, the overdue maritime legislation. I congratulate the Minister on making progress with this. It does not look good but it looks a great deal better than it did a few months ago, so clearly a lot of hard work has gone into it. I have a couple of questions about the ones we have not dealt with yet. For speed, I will refer to the itemised numbers on the Minister’s list. We are told that items 8 and 16 are expected in March next year and item 9 by mid-year—let us be generous and call that July—but items 11, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 20 all just say “2023”. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us a little more detail. Do we have a whole calendar year still to wait for those six important pieces of legislation that are already seriously overdue, or can we realistically expect them to come through mid-year? What will the Government do to ensure that we keep up with maritime legislation more efficiently in future?

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. The Government are right to make further provision for the approval of training providers, including powers to remove that approval and to make provision to allow the Government to charge for approvals.

Across the world, 90% of global trade is made possible by the maritime sector, which is why it is so important that it is properly regulated. Highly skilled seafarers are incredibly important to the sector, and anybody with responsibility for safety at sea must be trained. I therefore welcome these amendments to the 1978 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers.

However, I would appreciate clarification on three minor points. First—I think this question has already been asked—the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies is estimated to be £1.6 million”.


Can the Minister provide a breakdown of this? Secondly, has the department collected information on how many other parties to the 1978 convention have implemented these amendments? Finally, just yesterday the department published new merchant shipping regulations. Should the House expect further merchant shipping legislation next year?

One or two speakers have commented on the size and thickness of the document. I compare it with the similar regulations for an airline pilot; they are substantially the same volume. In his career a commercial pilot is required to understand them all and, essentially, absorb the basic principles. This is what keeps aviation safe, and I am sure this is what will keep seafarers safe. The hazards are very similar. Aeroplanes are in the air, and therefore are intrinsically dangerous because they might meet the ground in an unscheduled way, but they can usually avoid difficult situations by virtue of their speed. Ships are much more vulnerable, in a separate way, being at sea and subject to the weather and the elements and not having the provision to run away from trouble in nearly the same way as aircraft. The responsibilities that the senior people on ships have, particularly with the enormous numbers of passengers that some ships carry, are about right.

I also heard some words which might be taken to say that somehow these standards might be reduced to facilitate more ships accepting regulation under a UK flag. That would be totally wrong. I have not read them all, but I read the process that created them and it seems that they are the right standards and that we should not move from them. They will make shipping safer, and that is an entirely good thing.

Transport and Works (Guided Transport Modes) (Amendment) Order 2022

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Wednesday 30th November 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. Planning processes for tram systems have always been notoriously complex and the associated costs have always been high. Are the Government reviewing other aspects of the Act in order to simplify it in line with the new sorts of designs that we will see in future because the costs and complexity deter many local councils, for example, from going ahead with schemes? In time this should be transformational because the built infrastructure required for tramways and busways will be so much simpler than it has been in the past, which should make it much easier to implement.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this instrument to allow applications for public transport schemes using non-physical guidance systems via a Transport and Works Act order. The advance of non-physical guidance systems using sensory technologies is an exciting development in the future of transport; indeed, it is so exciting that we have been studying it for at least 20 years. I am pleased that this instrument will allow consultation on their implementation.

Automation has enormous potential for increasing productivity. If harnessed correctly, it can improve the lives of people around the world but, if it is not properly regulated, there are inherent dangers. The safety of all those involved must be paramount. We must also consider how this will impact employment in the transport industry.

Software will be an essential part of such technology. When you look into it, software auditing is much more frightening than one might expect. We all know from the number of times we have to update our computer or our phone what a moving feast this is. Considerable authority has been given to software in the aviation industry. What agency will have the responsibility for approving these systems, particularly on the software side? Will a new agency have to be set up or will we look to organisations that work in safety-critical software industries?

Can the Minister confirm that my concerns will be considered as part of the Transport and Works Act order process? Innovation such as this should be welcomed as part of a well-regulated and well-legislated framework. Will the Minister briefly explain the department’s wider approach to advancing the use of non-physical guidance systems in transport across the UK? I welcome this order and look forward to its implementation, as well as to the development of new transport systems using this technology.

Merchant Shipping (Safety Standards for Passenger Ships on Domestic Voyages) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for drawing our attention and concern to the situation behind these regulations. I thank the Minister for her introduction and for an excellent impact assessment, which I know her department will have been working on for a long time. I also draw attention to the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which expressed our deep concern very effectively and succinctly.

As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made clear, this all relates to—perhaps we should say “was sparked by”—events 33 years ago: the “Marchioness” disaster in 1989. There were 130 people on board, of whom 51 died. It is a source of national disgrace that it has taken this long to get to this point. I lay no blame at the Minister’s door. We are at last getting to the end of this horrendous saga, but the fact that there was no inquiry in 2000, and that it has taken 22 years since then to get to this final stage, should be a source of concern to all of us. This relates to very old ships that predate 26 May 1965—which, if I can be personal for a moment, was my 17th birthday. That gives your Lordships a perspective on how old the ships are that are affected by these regulations.

The interesting thing that is revealed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report is that there are still large numbers of these ships being used. Some 600 vessels will be required to make changes to their fire protection equipment, 285 will need to comply with life raft requirements, and 86 will need to comply with life jacket requirements. Those numbers are significant. As a nation, we have a fascination for old vessels. I live in south Wales and we are endlessly interested in the paddle steamer trips between south Wales and north Devon. I see the noble Lord, Lord Davies, nodding because he is well aware of that.

We are all familiar with the details of the tragedy of the “Titanic”. I realise that it would not have been affected because it was not in inland waters. However, the point I am making is that what horrifies us about that disaster are the details—and one detail that everyone picks up on is that there were not enough life rafts for the number of people on that ship. If the people who enjoy trips on historic vessels nowadays realised that they do not need to have life jackets for everyone on board, I am sure that they would be horrified, and probably it would reduce the number of customers they have. So I say to the Minister, “Be strong in the face of opposition to this”. To those people who think that they cannot afford to do it, I say, “You can’t afford not to”. They must provide modern and effective means of saving lives.

Of course we all support this, but I will finish very briefly by echoing the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I am worried that even more time will elapse before this has to be introduced. We have had 33 years to think about this. The idea that it will take even longer to be done worries me considerably. I urge the Minister to ensure that there is no question of the Secretary of State’s discretion being brought into play to delay it even further. I cannot envisage why anyone owning a ship such as this and using it should not be prepared to make what seem to be fairly limited adjustments and modifications to bring it up to modern safety standards. So I support this entirely.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this SI, my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his amendment, and all Peers who have taken part in this discussion.

This instrument, to apply safety requirements to certain passenger vessels built before 1965, has my full support, but my noble friend is right to ask why it has not been brought forward until now. These are important requirements relating to fire safety, bilge alarms, lifeboats, lights and life jackets, which have been called for over recent decades. I hope that the Minister will explain why they have not been introduced sooner. Until now, the regulations have applied only to vessels built since 2010, which has left over 600 vessels not meeting the standard.

I hope that the Minister can account for the delay and confirm whether the department has received reports of any safety incidents which may have otherwise been prevented had this instrument been brought forward sooner. Can the Minister also confirm whether any further vessels are in any way exempt? Finally, what steps will the department take to monitor compliance with these regulations?

Seafarers’ Wages Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, we do not have any amendments in this group, but I take this opportunity simply to make the point that we share the concern of those noble Lords who do have amendments in this group. These are important issues that reflect the reasonable fear that employers could use tactics that circumvent the measures in the Bill.

One thing that has been speculated on is that seafarers could be paid at a lower rate when they are outside UK waters to compensate for the higher rate that they must be paid in UK waters. There are things about which the Government can do nothing, but it is really important that the things that can be got right are looked at carefully to ensure that they are absolutely on the nail. I point in particular to Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to emphasise the importance of monitoring the effectiveness of this legislation and engaging with the trade unions. P&O’s tactics—the audacity with which they were announced surprised everyone, I think—exposed the weakness of the current safeguards. However, if the Government attempt to plug the loophole but fail to do so effectively, I fear that P&O would not be alone and other owners would attempt to do something similar—perhaps not as blatantly as the way in which P&O did it, but it certainly could undermine legislation further if the Government’s efforts here are not fully effective.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak on the two amendments in my name in this group, but I commend the other amendments to the Minister’s study, because it is important to achieve clarity on some of these issues.

On Amendment 25, my original involvement with these sorts of issues was in an analogous industry—transport—where I was a shop steward and subsequently an industrial relations manager. In the crew situation, issues with roster patterns and pensions are every bit as important as wages. The way that rosters are handled in particular can have a serious impact on remuneration and a massive impact on quality of life. It is important that there is a proper impact report on these issues, ideally within 90 days.

This leads on to Amendment 26, because this and other issues would be much enhanced if we could develop a proper relationship with the trade unions. The importance of this from the point of view of the trade union movement is exemplified by an appeal—for want of a better term—to the International Labour Organization from the general secretary of Nautilus; the general secretary of the RMT, Mick Lynch; the general secretary of the TUC, Frances O’Grady; the acting general secretary of the European Transport Workers’ Federation; the general secretary of the International Transport Workers’ Federation; and the general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation. I read those out to emphasise that this is a heavy coalition of the trade union movement. Their appeal is set out in a document that I hope the Minister has seen, which centres on what happened at P&O. It helps one to understand how broad detailing and managing the employment conditions of crew is and how important it is to get a hold of this to make sure that crews are properly looked after, both in their remuneration and conditions of work. I therefore commend Amendment 26 to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Mountevans, for joining us on some of these amendments. I will briefly underline some of the points that my noble friend and those noble Lords made.

The complexity of expecting ports to do what is essentially the Government’s job for them will undermine the effectiveness of this legislation. Think about the use of the term “surcharge”. You pay a surcharge when you use a service voluntarily; it has no implication of illegality. If, however, a company finds itself paying a surcharge according to the rubric of this Bill when it becomes legislation, it will have broken the law. In other words, it is paying a surcharge as a fine—and a fine should be called a fine. I urge the Minister to look again at the phraseology here. Let us be clear: if companies are going to be fined, let us call it a fine.

The other issue is the complexity of expecting ports to deny access to the harbour. The international law on denying access to a harbour is complex and it would be difficult for them to do so. They would have to be absolutely sure that there is no question of danger to life. As a result, they will err on the side of caution and it will not happen. As both the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lady Scott said, detaining ships is a normal course of events. It is not done frequently but it is done, and for safety reasons as well. I urge the Government to have the courage of their convictions and give these powers to the Secretary of State, because they are much more appropriately those of the Secretary of State.

It is not as if the Government do not want to be involved, because Clause 11 gives them wide-ranging powers of direction. It essentially gives them control, so the Government want that control behind the scenes but do not have the courage to put their name on the notices. That is a strange approach, so I urge them to rethink the way this is to be done. The impact would be that well-meaning and very important legislation could be undermined. At the same time, it would put our ports in a difficult position, make their relationship with ship owners more complex and create for them, as other noble Lords said, a conflict of interest.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a couple of amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 12, which would create a minimum fine of £1 million. Whether that is the right figure, I am not sure, but the real concern is about the size of the owners; I believe that P&O’s owners have made $721 million in the past six months. There is a real risk that, if businesses of this size take an almost doctrinal opposition to the measure—the P&O debacle showed such a doctrinal opposition to reasonable conditions on board ships—a fine that is not substantial becomes just a cost of business. That would be regrettable; I am sure that it is not the Government’s intention but I would value some feedback from the Minister. How does one assure oneself that the fines are sufficiently large to impinge on the decision-making of these companies? There is a concern that good companies do the right thing anyway. The trouble is that we have a very real example in the recent past of one of these companies not doing the right thing; that is what provoked this legislation.

The second area concerns naming the inspector or inspectors. I tabled my amendment here to draw out how the world will know that this is happening. Organisations that have either a principal inspector or someone like that as a named individual are so much clearer as to who will be held to account for appropriate levels of activity. As a minimum, I hope that the Minister will be able to give me a feel for how quickly inspectors will be appointed and how many of them there will be, as well as assure us that there is adequate inspection capability. We know that this whole issue of minimum wage enforcement is pretty difficult in a land situation; at sea, it will be much more difficult to get the details to know whether an offence or the wrong charge has been committed.

With that, I come to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, regarding the Secretary of State having the authority to determine the tariff, which will really be a fine. I think that harbour authorities are about harbours. I can see why they perhaps must be drawn in at one level but when it comes to becoming a policeman, in essence, that is what the state should be doing. I agree with the general thrust that this should be the Secretary of State’s responsibility.

Finally, I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to the amendments addressing the DPRRC’s concerns.

Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. I had a sense of déjà vu when I saw this instrument on the list for today. To be honest, it is tedious enough that we have to go through the vast list of SIs as part of the replication of EU regulatory structure without having to deal with errors, although it is not surprising that there are errors. One can hardly process the amount of legislation that we have been dealing with for the last couple of years without the occasional error creeping in. I was horrified today to read that Jacob Rees-Mogg has a plan for us to go through all 2,000-plus pieces of EU legislation within the next two years to re-examine them.

May I cut to the core of the issue? The Minister has explained that road transport operators were mistakenly included in the original SI alongside goods operators. One of my questions was going to be about the impact on the traffic commissioners’ powers, but the Minister has explained that. She has also explained clearly the number of cases involved.

My other question is, to go back to the original SI, why are passenger vehicle operators excluded? Why do they not need transport managers in the way that goods vehicles and their fleets need them? Is there separate legislation that covers passenger transport operators or is it that, for some reason, they are not regarded as in need of managers in the same way? Other than that, I am delighted to see that this error has now been corrected and it should, I hope, be fully operational and effective.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the introduction of this SI to amend the errors in the previous regulations approved by this House in March. As the logistics sector experiences an unnecessarily difficult time, it is disappointing that even the initial piece of secondary legislation has problems. There is an important point here in that the Government previously claimed errors in the initial drafting would be rectified through the negative procedure, which clearly has not been the case.

Three months later, the House is finally to approve a technical instrument to right the wrongs of the previous legislation. I hope this will bring this specific matter to a close, though unfortunately it will not solve the chaos that is still plaguing British business. Weeks away from the summer holidays, the Government must bring forward a plan to fix the crisis and bring much-needed certainty.

Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) and Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Law of the Sea Convention) Amendment Order 2022

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

No, the situation will not be different in Wales; as so often, it is a case of “England and Wales”.

I join the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in asking why this is happening at this point. My research suggests that not only is there only one public hovercraft service left in Britain, but there appears to be only one commercial hovercraft service left in the world. If that is the case, hovercraft really are yesterday’s technology. They are even less likely to make a comeback following the huge increases in the price of fuel, because they consume very high amounts of fuel as well as being unreliable as a passenger service, of course, because they are difficult to operate in bad weather—and we get a lot of that in the UK. In modern terms, although hovercraft are exciting and interesting to travel on, they are environmentally unacceptable because of their high fuel consumption.

My suspicious mind led me to wonder whether there was a specific Isle of Wight issue. I would be grateful if the Minister would address in her answer whether specific aspects will be applied to the Isle of Wight service, which, despite all that I have said, is an important part of the infrastructure connections for people living on and visiting the island.

When I had stopped wondering why the measure was being introduced now, after all these years, I wondered whether this was part of the major catching-up exercise that the Minister has bravely embarked on in her department. We know that the Department for Transport has a backlog of marine legislation that long pre-dates her coming into her position there. Is this part of a routine catching up to ensure that we can apply rules to hovercraft that apply to other types of seagoing vehicle? I would be grateful if the Minister could answer my questions now, or in writing afterwards if she is unable to do so immediately.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this order to support the Government in meeting pollution prevention requirements and ultimately making our waters safer in compliance with international standards. Hovercraft are a technical wonder but can be particularly harmful to the natural environment. Although the usage of these vehicles in the United Kingdom is not particularly widespread—indeed, it is not spread at all—Ministers are right to consider how we can eliminate their negative effects.

Although the UK is currently no longer a world leader in sea transport, by decarbonising maritime we can certainly aspire to become one yet again. I hope this instrument can form a small contribution towards that goal.

However, it is disappointing that the development of this order has not been used as an opportunity to properly engage with the limited hovercraft industry that exists today in the UK. While I appreciate the reasons given by the department for not formally consulting on this legislation, I hope the Minister can at least clarify that discussions took place with those who operate in the sector. I also hope she is able to confirm the Government’s wider strategy for improving the cleanliness of the seas through better regulation of the maritime environment.

The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, raised a point about the criminalisation of seafarers, and I am sure we all share with him that this should not be unreasonable. But we are in an environment—I think Grenfell has brought this environment to our attention—in which the assurance that regulations are fit for purpose, which is the responsibility of government and its agencies, and the execution of those requirements must have a clear responsibility chain. I have no idea about the detail of these orders, but it has to be a good thing for seafarers to be required to be responsible for their craft and confident, as far as reasonably practical, that the state of their craft and its operation are properly regulated.

I am all in favour of this sort of regulation. The important thing is that it must be good regulation that is easy to understand and fairly implemented. There is no case for poor regulation. There is much that good regulation does, and in circumstances where it breaks down it sometimes has a catastrophic consequence.

Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 2022

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Monday 13th June 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining so clearly how this will work. The Government launched this SI with much fanfare early last month—fanfare and the obligatory swipe at the unacceptable nature of EU bureaucracy that necessitated the SI. That is called Brexit, and those of us who opposed Brexit pointed out that if you do not belong to the club, you cannot benefit from the rules and, unfortunately, that lesson is becoming all too clear. Hence, we have this measure, which is one of a long line of complex, awkward fixes that we have discussed here in this Committee, over the months and years, to try to defray the damage that we are suffering from as a result of no longer being a member of the EU.

Of course, this order is very welcome as far as it goes, but it has taken a long time to get to this point. Since we left the EU, our specialist hauliers have been limited to, I think, three EU stops per tour, and many of them have already established bases in the EU to overcome this, with a resulting loss to the UK economy. It is not as if the firms in this sector did not warn us that this would happen. I was a member of the EU Internal Market Sub-Committee, and back in 2018, we took evidence from an organiser of major exhibitions who predicted exactly these problems.

One of the phrases the Government like to use frequently is “world-beating”. Often, it is a sad exaggeration, but in relation to the cultural sector it is very accurate. I would prefer to say “world-leading”, but the point is that our soft power through the cultural sector has been immense and is sadly diminished as a result of the constraints on touring in Europe. I have a number of questions for the Minister. It is 18 months since we left the EU. Can she perhaps explain why it has taken this long to get to this important measure? Ideally, it should have come in smoothly and immediately after we left the EU.

Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to a maximum period of transfer for a vehicle to a British operator licence as being

“six months in a twelve month period.”

I understand the concept of “temporary”, but why is six months the definition of “temporary”? Why not eight months or any other number of months within 12 months? Is there a legal basis, or is this something that was just added on?

Paragraph 7.4 says:

“This Instrument does not permit transportation of any item of goods for the intention of being sold on (such as merchandise).”


That is actually a very prescriptive limitation. I was part of a music group many years ago touring in Europe, and we took CDs with us. There would not be CDs now, but we also took t-shirts and souvenir programmes to be sold. It would appear that we would not be allowed to do that now. Such items are, very often, marginal. They are just part of giving that little extra edge to the operator. They are an important part of spreading our soft power, getting the name of the group known abroad.

So why is it that they are excluded? It seems it could incur considerable or disproportionate expense to carry them separately—a whole separate vehicle or separate haulage charges in some other way. It does not, to my mind, seem necessary. Was any consideration given to allowing goods of that type to a certain limited amount—maybe limited in total value or limited as a proportion of the total?

The net result of this SI is that some foreign-registered vehicles will be operating in the UK on British operator licences. This in itself presents enforcement challenges, which I am sure the Minister will have gone through, but could she give us some idea of the numbers expected to be affected by this? Is it hundreds, tens or thousands? What estimate has been given? There is a lack of impact assessment once again. The words used are that there is no significant impact on business. I had hoped that there will be a significant impact on business and therefore I am surprised that an assessment was not made.

Of course, I welcome this hope it does the trick, although the Minister has reminded us that it might not work for everyone. Sadly, we have heard of a number of artists who have stopped touring already and, unfortunately, they will not all return as a result of this. We have lost stature as a result of this situation.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I was expecting a very dry debate on this relatively straightforward SI, but one of the joys of this place is that you are allowed to discover fellow Members meeting by meeting. The idea of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, leading a life previously as a groupie—though I hope not quite at that level—adds a little excitement to this debate, which it perhaps needs.

I welcome the introduction of this instrument to support British touring overseas. The House is aware that, since the UK left the European Union, companies which tour Europe have faced new obstacles in continuing their work and we all hope that this order will help them overcome this. The Government are right to bring forward these new provisions to allow certain hauliers to operate both in the UK and EU without having to pay vehicle excise duty—in effect, benefitting from the single market access rights.

I will not detain the Committee for long but there are three issues on which I would appreciate clarification. First, can the Minister explain why the measures are coming into force in August rather than earlier, especially given that the industry is particularly busy during the summer season? Secondly, the department has estimated that up to 50 specialist events hauliers, which in total have 1,000 vehicles, may decide to use this measure. How was this figure calculated and what proportion of specialist events hauliers does it represent? Finally, what steps will the Minister take to make the industry aware of these changes and to monitor their effectiveness? I hope the Minister can provide clarification on these points.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, that was relatively brief and moderately pain-free, but I will certainly answer as many questions as I can—and will write, as I can spot at least two I am feeling a little bit dubious about.

I think it is worth scooping up comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about what the timelines for this look like, how we ended up where we are now, why it was not done earlier, et cetera. Eighteen months ago, when we finally left the EU, there were all sorts of other things going on. There were not that many tours going on at the time, but we were aware that there was this potential issue with specialist events hauliers. As noble Lords may be aware, we explicitly requested bespoke arrangements for this sector when we were discussing the TCA, but the EU rejected those proposals so we have had to develop from there. It is the case that we went back and 100% checked with the EU whether it was absolutely sure that it could not think of some way for it to proceed. DfT officials raised that matter at the specialised committee on road transport in November 2021, noting that this sector had been disproportionately affected by the TCA and that this would have knock-on effects on artists affecting future cultural exchange for both sides.

We did not get far on that—I am not going to lie—and therefore realised that we would have to speak to the sector, as we would normally do in these circumstances, to understand exactly how we could help it. We did the consultation in February 2022. I cannot remember exactly how many people responded; I think it was something like 28. It was not a huge number, reflecting the relative size of the sector, which is not massive. After the consultation closed, we had to analyse the responses and shape the final policy position because, as I noted in my opening remarks, this does not help everybody and we wanted to make sure that we could help as quickly as possible. That is a very long-winded way of saying—the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, looked at his watch there—that the earliest we can get this into force is in August 2022.

However, I have positive news because we have done an interim measure. It is an exceptional administrative process which basically allows what we are proposing in the statutory instrument to happen now. That means that we have managed to safeguard the process over this summer. If differs from dual registration in that no legislative changes are required and it is instead implemented through an administrative arrangement with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner, but we recognise that that is quite temporary and we do not want to continue that arrangement without a firm legal footing. That is where we are with that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked why six months, and I am afraid I do not have the answer. I think there is a broader issue about vehicles coming into the UK in general, in that they can come in for six months before something has to happen. I will write to the noble Baroness because I do not think that is a good enough answer.

The noble Baroness raised an important point about merchandise, which I thought was very interesting. However, the goal of what we are trying to do today is to focus on certain specialised vehicles. The reason we have this problem is that you load your cultural objects or your things relating to your event into your truck, which itself is specialised for transporting specialised equipment. That is why we are very clear that that equipment must not be amended, altered or sold, otherwise it becomes something entirely different. When it comes to merchandise, you do not need a specialist truck to transport CDs, brochures or whatever; they can be transported by any good courier company. I shall see whether I can find anything more about that. The whole point of this order is to focus on these trucks, which are simply not available to meet the needs of the artist or whoever across the EU, and you would not want to change them.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 (Airspace Change Directions) (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Thursday 13th January 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I follow up that final comment by saying that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has raised some important issues, and I would really appreciate being copied into any correspondence that flows from his comments. Indeed, I would like to be invited to any meetings that the Minister chooses to hold.

Although this SI is evidently very technical, it allows us a useful opportunity to ask some important questions, as noble Lords already have, about the progress of airspace modernisation and its implications. This legislation flows from a policy implemented at a time when our skies were busy and there was an expectation of further expansion.

I want to make clear that it is obvious to me that airspace modernisation is a good and vital thing. It is very important environmentally, but it comes in the “Good but difficult” category because, once you develop new air corridors for an airport, you are concentrating flights over one set of people, who, not surprisingly, will be unhappy at that, whereas all the other people who no longer have those flights going over them are relieved that that is the case. It is balancing upsetting one set of people against pleasing others.

Of course, there is also the balance between the benefits to one airport and another, which has sparked this SI. That issue is probably most acute in the south-east of England, but it can and does occur in other parts of the country.

We are now in a very different situation with aviation, so my first question to the Minister is: how have the Government adapted their policies in relation to airspace modernisation, if at all? Have they slowed down the pace of change as a result of the impact of Covid? Whatever emerges as aviation regrows, and I share the view that it inevitably will, there will be a change in pattern in the short and medium term as various parts of the world recover from Covid more rapidly than others. But there will also be a change in pattern of the type of traveller. I venture that business flights will never recover to the level at which they once were. That, of course, spells trouble for any airport that concentrates on a lot of business travellers. They will have to adapt, and I am sure they will, but it means a change in pattern of use and direction for the traffic.

The crucial point of difficulty in the airspace modernisation process is the consultation with residents. The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that this is planned to start in 2022. I would be pleased if the Minister could explain that to us in a little more detail. What proportion of the consultation with the public will take place in 2022? Will just a few pioneer airports do it, or will most of the public consultation take place then?

It will take time for competition to shift, change and adapt to the new patterns. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether it is wise to go ahead to the point where, in extremis, we start fining airports for lack of co-operation when the whole new pattern of competition is still settling down. The aviation industry has had a very tough time. Airports have suffered badly and had relatively little alleviation from the Government. Therefore, anything that adds a burden by fining them for a lack of co-operation could be the last straw for some of them.

I am, of course, attracted to the idea of penalties for non-co-operation being based on the resources and size of the company concerned, but will this take account of the different treatment of airports in the last couple of years? Aviation has not benefited from total alleviation of business rates in England but it has in other parts of the UK, so there has been a patchwork in the way airports have been treated.

Once again, we are in a situation where the CAA is being given additional powers. The Minister used the phrase “in extremis”. What discretion will the CAA have when taking into account the financial difficulties of an airport as a result of airspace modernisation and the implications for its future business?

The EM says that 71 or 72 organisations are affected, yet there is little assessment of the financial impact of this measure. The process of modernising airspace and consulting the public is very expensive; the cost of familiarising yourself with the legislation is really marginal. I am therefore surprised that there is no full impact assessment. I ask the Minister whether perhaps that should be reconsidered. The whole process could, or will, have a significant impact on some individual airports, because modernisation will disadvantage them. That surely needs to be taken into account at this point in time, which is very difficult for those in the aviation industry.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the introduction of these regulations, which help to determine the financial penalties for those who do not comply with airspace modernisation directions. The Minister will recall that during the passage of the Act, these Benches supported the aims of airspace modernisation; we therefore support these regulations, which assist that process. The aviation industry is critical to the UK economy, and it is in everyone’s interests that we redesign UK flight paths to deliver quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys. On this, can the Minister update the Committee more generally on the process of airspace modernisation and the timetable that is currently being worked towards?

On the specific legislation before the Committee, can the Minister explain why this formula for calculating turnover was not included in the original Act? Can she also confirm how the department determined this formula? The instrument has the support of the Opposition, but I would be grateful if the Minister could provide answers to these questions. I would be quite content to receive a letter in response. On my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s issues, I would be grateful to be copied in if there is to be a meeting or correspondence.

Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments) Order 2022

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Thursday 13th January 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this important environmental measure and thank the Minister for her explanation. In particular, I was fascinated by paragraph 6.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which explains the complexity about which comes first: the ratifying of the convention or these regulations. However, that does not explain why it has taken since 2004 for us to get to this stage.

I realise that we were not alone because, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, just explained to us, it took until 2017 for 30 countries representing 35% of the world’s tonnage to ratify the convention. But it is a serious matter of concern and shame for us that the nations with 70% of the world’s tonnage have now signed up and we have not yet managed to do so, although it will happen soon. It is depressing that, as a once-great maritime nation, we yet again have been slow to adopt international and environmental measures that were a matter of urgency.

Perhaps the Minister can clarify, but am I right that our slowness has simply been because of the huge backlog of maritime measures that the Department for Transport managed to build up? Was it simply overlooked, or has it been a lack of enthusiasm by successive Governments to sign up that has been the problem?

There is a key point, not explained in the Explanatory Memorandum. I am sure that noble Lords will forgive my ignorance, but do ships need new technology to manage their ballast water in the way that will be prescribed, or is it just a matter of better management? I am not clear whether it is that all modern shipping would have the correct equipment, and so on—but I am surprised that there has been no impact assessment. I would assume, whether it is better management or modern equipment, either way there will be costs for ship owners as a result of this SI. However, I welcome the fact that we have finally got round to it.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the introduction of this order to implement the 2004 International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments. The convention ultimately aims to eliminate the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens, which is why the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediment is so crucial. However, given that the UK played a pivotal role in negotiating the convention, it is a shame that it is only now being brought forward. I note that the Minister gave some explanation on this delay but, clearly, it is a matter of concern on all sides of the Committee. I hope that she will produce a full answer and, if there are areas on which she cannot answer today, write to us all.

On the legislation itself, I would be grateful if the Minister could answer three questions. First, are the Government already fully in compliance with the convention? Secondly, what engagement has the department had with the shipping industry over the implementation? Finally, how many countries have ratified the convention, and how many further are in the process of ratification?

We support the introduction of this order and the implementation of the convention, but this is only one step in cleaning up the seas. I hope that the Minister can offer the Committee a brief explanation of the other steps that are being taken by the Government.

International Organization for Marine Aids to Navigation (Legal Capacities) Order 2022

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Thursday 13th January 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome this important measure on maritime safety. I am very pleased to see that someone in the Department for Transport has been much more enthusiastic about signing up to this new convention, opened to signature by the French Government only a year ago, than was the case with the previous convention. It is good to see the UK in an enthusiastic leadership role after recent years when we have been—from the perspective of an internationalist, as I am—withdrawing from our international responsibilities. The development and maturing of international organisations is always good to see, especially one as practical and useful as this one.

I had written down two questions, one of which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has partly answered for the Minister—but I shall still ask it in part. Can the Minister update us on the progress on the other signatories? Are we in good company? The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, gave us some names, but is this regarded by the Government as good progress for something that they clearly support? Since this is a French-based organisation, does the EU join as a group, as one organisation, or do the individual EU countries join—and, if so, what is the progress with that?

I note that IALA will remain consultative. I move on to paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:

“Membership of IALA … will allow the United Kingdom to continue to play an active role”,


et cetera. This question is linked to my previous question. Did our withdrawal a year ago from the EU mean that we were put at a disadvantage in relation to this issue of international maritime safety? Did our previous relationship link in any way with our membership of the EU, and therefore leave us out in the cold somewhat? Was that an important—and very good—reason for wishing to join this convention as soon as possible?

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the introduction of this instrument to help to facilitate and recognise the new International Organization for Marine Aids to Navigation. The Committee will be aware that this new organisation is a transition from the previous International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities, which has functioned since 1957. First, given that only five other nations have ratified the related convention, can the Minister provide the House with an estimate of when the transition will be completed? Secondly, can the Minister confirm whether the support and resources given by the UK to the new organisation will in any way differ from the support and resources given to its predecessor? Finally, can the Minister briefly explain the UK’s strategic aims for engagement in the organisation, as well as related bodies such as the International Maritime Organization?

We fully support the work of the new International Organization for Marine Aids for Navigation, and I am therefore pleased to welcome this order.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

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

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall speak also to the other amendments in my name in this group. Amendment 1

“would require the Secretary of State to exercise functions in respect of airspace change proposals under this Bill in accordance with the Secretary of State’s general duty in respect of air traffic services provided for by the Transport Act 2000.”

Amendment 10 is complementary to this amendment.

Amendment 2 would ensure that

“the Secretary of State must, before making a direction requiring a person to progress an airspace change, consider representations from persons involved in airspace change and be satisfied that the direction is necessary to deliver the CAA’s airspace strategy and is reasonably practicable to comply with.”

Amendment 5 would ensure that, before making direction requiring a person to co-operate in an air- space change, the Secretary of State must consider representations from persons involved in airspace change and be satisfied that it is reasonably practical for the recipient of the direction to comply with it.

Amendment 8 would align the test for the variation of the direction with that applicable to making a direction. Amendment 9 would require the Secretary of State to publish reasons for any direction to progress or co-operate in an airspace change proposal or variations or revocations of such direction made under this part. Amendment 11 would make the Secretary of State responsible for the implementation of the CAA’s airspace strategy and related reports.

Amendment 13 concerns the report on general aviation. General aviation—this was the case in my day, which is now some decades ago, but I think it still persists—particularly light general aviation, is essentially where all our airline pilots are initially trained; that is how they come into the profession and so on. It is important that it is properly facilitated with respect to airspace changes and development. Fortunately, from conversations with the Minister, I believe that she shares that view, and I hope that, in her response, she will set out the Government’s support for general aviation and how its interests will be taken account of in the developing airspace debate. Hopefully, this will leave general aviation properly provided for and, almost as important, feeling that it has been properly consulted in the development.

In summary, this group of amendments seeks to clarify the role of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has a role that is related to the CAA in various processes. It is not entirely clear who is in charge. The Bill as written gives the Secretary of State and the CAA the powers to achieve airspace change, but it is not clear who is actually responsible for getting it done. I would like to hear from the Minister that it is clear that the achievement of improvements and a new airspace capability is down to the Secretary of State, answerable to Parliament, and that his relationship with the CAA may be a partnership but he is the person in the partnership who is held accountable for execution and success.

The rest of the amendments are about requiring appropriate relationships between the parties and the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support the Bill, but I must use this opportunity to say that it is a bit of a mess. That is not surprising, because it has such a long history: the Bill itself is the result of attempts over several years to get legislation of this nature, and of course we had the Committee stage over a year ago.

Since then, there has been a dramatic reversal in the fortunes of the aviation industry—one that we would never have foreseen at the time when we spoke about this last. The impact of coronavirus has undermined all branches of aviation. In addition, of course, since we last spoke we have left the transition period following Brexit, but we are still at the point where we have to adhere to international norms and regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

I move Amendment 3 and I will speak briefly to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 3 would allow compensation for adverse financial impacts. Amendment 4 would empower the Secretary of State to provide that a person who is directed to progress an airspace change is fairly compensated for doing so, and that the compensation can be recovered from another person involved in airspace change where appropriate. Amendment 6 would empower the Secretary of State to require a person involved in airspace change to compensate another person who had been directed to progress an airspace change. Amendment 7 would allow compensation for adverse financial impacts.

One of the problems of getting organisations to co-operate is that some parties are unwilling to do so and they will use the financial impact on them as their excuse, particularly if one party is required to co-ordinate the activity and invest considerable work but is not likely to gain financially from the changes it is developing. Then it will be reluctant to move. Efforts to improve airflow planning over south-east England have been going on for at least a decade. It is important that, if it is a matter of financial limitations, the Bill allows appropriate mechanisms for money to flow between parties and perhaps from government.

This is important between big players, such as the airports and NATS. It is also important in the case of small airports or airfields on the periphery of the controlled airspace, where small changes may have significant adverse effects on them and they are not equipped—particularly financially—to mount a proper representation to have their voices heard without some recognition of the financial burden on them. Clearly, the movement of monies between the parties as allowed for in this group of amendments may not be necessary, but since we are creating a Bill to address all eventualities in the development of modern airspace it is important at this stage to make sure that there are facilities for money to move about and, in extremis, for government perhaps to finance parts of that development. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, our airspace modernisation is a complex but necessary process. It is necessary in the modern world because it enables environmental gains in an industry increasingly under fire for its emissions and where the technological solutions are much more long term than they are in the case of, for example, road vehicles. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has just pointed out, one person’s gain is often another person’s loss. These are useful amendments because there is a real fear of a potential conflict between airports as the modernisation process goes forward.

In Committee, I mentioned that Stansted and Luton airports, for example, are very close geographically. It is not impossible to imagine that what would help Stansted might deprive Luton; for example, a potential airspace route that would cost it money in terms of potential for new services. Since the Committee stage, airports have found themselves in great financial difficulty because of travel restrictions. These amendments are therefore designed to ensure what I assume is an even-handed approach from the Secretary of State down through the CAA and the Airspace Change Organising Group.

The Airport Operators Association remains concerned about the funding of this issue—I raised that in the last group and was delighted to hear that the Minister has agreed to deal with it in her response here. When this matter was raised previously by the Airport Operators Association, the Aviation Minister suggested three sources of funding in a situation where one airport was going to win at the expense of another. The first suggestion was that alternative sponsors might pay. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain exactly what is intended with that proposal.

The second suggestion from the Aviation Minister was that funding might come from the £10-million airspace modernisation fund. That sounds fine but it is actually a relatively small sum so I would be grateful if the Minister could explain whether that is a fixed sum or extra funding would potentially be available.

Thirdly, there was a suggestion of government funding on a case-by-case basis. If the Government have any further thoughts on this, it would be really good to hear them at this stage. I hope that the Minister can put the Government’s intentions on record today to clarify these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, these amendments relate to the CAA’s function to investigate complaints over breaches of licence conditions. Since the CAA has considerable powers, any limitation of those powers needs to be carefully balanced. There are concerns within various parts of the aviation industry about how the dual role of the CAA effectively operates in relation to these issues.

I regret that I am speaking before the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, because I want to listen carefully to the thoughts behind his amendments. It is important to fully understand the purpose of Amendment 20 in narrowing the power to obtain information. I believe it is in the spirit of the other limitations within this group of amendments, which seem entirely sensible.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we fully support Amendments 12 and 21. We put forward amendments in Committee, in the light of conversations with the CAA, which we felt made some good points. We put these to the Government, who said, as Governments always do, “We don’t think much of your amendments but we agree with what you’re trying to do. Can we do it our way?” And my view is, yes, we can do it in the way they wish to draft it.

I turn to Amendment 19. In many ways, the Minister has answered the question: will the CAA behave in a responsible and proportionate way? She has basically assured us that it will, and that it is implied in general legislation.

On Amendment 20, we felt that the CAA’s powers were overly wide. I do not have a more specific reason for tabling the amendment, other than that the two concepts in Amendments 19 and 20 stood together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this is part two of a discussion that we started earlier this week on the SI on this subject, which gave the Government temporary powers. Since Committee stage, a year ago, we have had the impact of the pandemic and the EU has waived the usual 80:20 rules on slot usage. That was welcome because it avoids ghost flights—empty flights, just to keep slots.

In the amendments the Government are giving themselves powers until 2024 to continue to waive the rules altogether or to vary them, possibly by varying the percentages. That is a whole new issue to have entered the Bill—something that was simply not there a year ago. I wondered about the 2024 date and whether the period was a tad lengthy but time and time again in this pandemic, things have taken much longer to play out than we thought they would. On reflection, 2024 seems to allow a reasonable period ahead to give a level of certainty.

Because we did not have these substantial amendments prior to Report today, however, I have some questions for the Minister. First, Amendment 12A involves temporary powers to make regulations about slot allocation. Paragraph 4(d) of the new article it inserts would allow the co-ordinator to “withdraw slots” from a carrier where it is determined that

“the air carrier has ceased its operations at the airport concerned”.

My question to the Minister is: how would that be determined? I have in mind a question similar to the one I asked earlier in the week about Gatwick. Virgin has announced that it will not fly from Gatwick in future and will no longer have a base there. Indeed, it no longer does have a base there—but it retains its slots. Slots are a very valuable commodity, so how is such a situation likely to be approached in future?

My second question is on the same amendment. Paragraph 2(a) refers to “a relevant previous year”, which is later defined as:

“any previous year that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for … comparing levels of … traffic.”

That is an extraordinarily broad and vague definition, as levels of traffic vary dramatically according to the make-up of carriers from specific airports—with new ones coming and going—and to their commercial decisions. It also uses the term of a year, while slot waivers work in seasons to reflect the patterns of demand, which vary from season to season. Can the Minister confirm that the year as a whole will be the point of comparison?

Another point that I raised in our debate earlier this week is that the number of available slots currently greatly outweighs the capacity of the airlines to fill them, because as the pandemic has progressed they have greatly reduced their staff and the number of planes that they own or rent. How do the Government intend to approach this problem, whereby the number of slots cannot be filled by the current capacity of airlines?

Slot hoarding has to be tackled. The 80:20 rule is designed to maintain the competitiveness of the industry, which means fair ticket prices for passengers. If the waiver is exploited it will be bad for new entrants to the market, bad for passengers, and bad for airports. The powers or conditions that the Government have included here, therefore, and the potential to vary the 80:20 ratio, seem a sensible and welcome approach to the situation that we face, and I look forward to the Minister’s explanations.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we generally support these four amendments, and we thank the Minister for tabling them for our examination. Nevertheless, one must recognise that the dilemma brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in his contribution, is a real one. It is important to see these amendments as quite separate from the general problem. Can the Minister tell the House what examination of this problem the Government expect to conduct in the future?

I know from my own experience, which goes back to the 1980s, that slot allocation is a very difficult and challenging problem in the airline industry. One of the problems in life is that when there are many parties to finding an overall solution to the distribution of a scarce resource the solutions you get become very difficult to change: creating a level of change that would address the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would be in the best “Yes Minister” category—very brave. I hope, nevertheless, that the Minister can lay out some of the plans for addressing this issue.

On the amendments as a whole, I have a few questions. The Minister may have answered them—I was slightly distracted, so I hope the House will forgive me if we go over old ground.

First, my understanding is that each season’s solution, under these amendments, will be subject to an affirmative order. I would value a simple assurance on that.

Secondly, the Heathrow authorities told us that in their view the agreements that were being developed through the Worldwide Airport Slot Board were more optimal than the solution we have had to adopt for the summer of 2021. Should, therefore, the parties—the airlines, airports and other stakeholders—come to a worldwide agreement on slot allocation? These things are co-ordinated on a worldwide basis. Certainly, when I was a senior executive the most important date of my year was the IATA timetable conference in October, which addressed the following summer’s slots. If the airlines and airports produce an overall solution, is there enough flexibility in this proposed solution to allow the Secretary of State—I stress allow, not require—to endorse such a comprehensive, multiagency agreement?

Finally, can the Minister assure the House—and the industry—that there will be adequate consultation with all stakeholders for each season that is managed under these amendments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the Minister on her spirited 12-minute speech, which covered all these amendments.

In the heady days of the 1960s, I went to university for three years. Her Majesty was good enough to teach me to fly in the Royal Air Force. At university, I ran the college bar and happened to get a maths degree. It was useful training, which led me into an airline career. Running the college bar gave me first-hand experience in line management, and I am afraid that the only effect of the maths degree was to make me even more pedantic than I was naturally.

Accordingly, when the Minister was kind enough to send a letter setting out these amendments and where they were, I read it and alighted on some of the words used. She wrote to clarify that these were “largely” technical changes, saying that it is important to note that these amendments, if accepted, will not change the policy intention of the Bill and are, “in most cases”, just making minor but essential changes. Either the words are careless, and the changes are wholly technical—though I believe that there is no such thing in most cases—or some of these amendments are not technical in nature. In her response, can the Minister tell me which of these many amendments is not a technical change but has some substance? Or can she assure me that the words “largely” and “in most cases” should have been omitted from her letter and that all the changes are technical?

I ask for this assurance because we do not have the resources to work through such a large number of amendments. We made an attempt—and I commend our adviser, Ben, who worked through them. He could not find anything that was not minor and technical, but I would value the Minister enlightening me and satisfying my pedantic approach.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I have grappled with all these amendments. I wondered whether what seemed minor and technical to me might seem very significant to someone working in the industry. I thank the Minister and her officials for their thorough briefings. However, this all shines a light on the unsatisfactory situation with this Bill—a major tranche of amendments has been produced because of the time that has elapsed.

I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. They underline the need for a much more comprehensive approach and review. Although my amendment was narrowly lost, I hope the Minister will bear in mind the points I have made and the need to look more comprehensively at this in the near future.

As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, as ever, the views of BALPA must hold great weight. It is important that safety is at the forefront of our minds, on all these issues. But because this is a diverse, complex and fast-changing subject, only people actually working in the industry are able to spot the problems when they first appear.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I cannot see anything here which is not detailed and technical. Therefore, I have no objections to the amendments.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I want to speak to the principle behind the amendment rather than its exact terminology.

There was a time when NDAs were exceptional, but well over 300 of them for HS2 show that we have moved a long way from that in terms of commercial procedure. Why do we have FoI questions and FoI legislation? In many cases, processes such as NDAs were being used to hide inconvenient pieces of information. Information is power; it always has been and always will be.

My noble friend Lady Kramer excellently outlined the complex issues associated with this, particularly on proscribed people. That picks up on the Minister’s response when we discussed in Committee the issue of the number of people coming forward as whistleblowers.

However, the issue goes far wider than HS2 and will, I am sure, be aired in this House on other occasions. The Grenfell inquiry is totally separate, but that public inquiry has revealed how important the detail of commercial arrangements is and what motivation there may be for such hiding that detail. There is commercial realism, but nevertheless, there is a balance to be struck. When individuals sign these agreements they often do so without fully appreciating the complexity of what they are signing up to.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too attended the Zoom session on this issue. I thank the Minister and those present for organising it.

I can see that NDAs were necessary in the consultation stage, but there is a question mark, which is difficult to debate, over whether they were necessary in such volume. More importantly, was there possible misuse to suppress whistleblowers? We were given some assurances about that, which, once again, I found at least partially convincing. I hope that the Minister will repeat those assurances for the record.

There is a more general point as to whether NDAs are overly used in public procurement. I believe that there may be a case for more transparency and that the Government should consider launching a general investigation into transparency in public procurement. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that that is a bigger issue and it would be inappropriate to pursue it further at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his sterling efforts to help us poor lay men understand the complexity of the topic involved in these amendments. I have a rather unfashionable approach to experts; I tend to think that we should listen to them. On this occasion, I also urge the Government to do so.

Having reread the Minister’s response to the last debate on this, I did not gather from that a good, clear reason why the well-established practice is being abandoned. It is clear that the 1996 Act is well established and has worked well, and it seems strange to replace a consensual approach to a problem with an adversarial system. In my experience, adversarial systems always cost more in the end. They can also prove very unfair to those who do not have the nature or the money to embark on an adversarial fight, which can often last months and years, and who therefore decline to press their case when indeed they should be doing so. I urge the Minister to ensure that HS2 is approaching this in a sensible manner for the next phase of the development.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. It seems that the 1996 Act covers these issues, and I am very suspicious of why HS2 needs such a significant change to the provisions of that Act for its project. I am not convinced that it needs these powers. I believe that, with modest alterations, good management should be able to overcome any problems. However, one faces the classic dilemma of a specialist area in an important Act, which is that I cannot know that I am right because we have not been able to listen to various points of view other than the expert knowledge of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and it is possible that the project needs these powers. As I understand it, there are likely to be few party walls in this phase of the project. He may be right that a dispute might significantly delay the project. Hence, I am unwilling at this stage to support the amendment if there is a Division.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

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

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I raised in Committee the issue of burial grounds and monuments, and the way in which they are dealt with. I made it clear that mine was a probing amendment, and that my interest was in ensuring that there was encouragement for really good practice in this context. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has taken the opportunity to take the issue further, because undoubtedly the modern, environmentally friendly, way of creating a memorial frequently includes trees. I shall listen carefully to the reassurances that I hope the Minister will be able to give us.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have little to say on these amendments, other than to make a general comment on the subject of burial grounds and so on. It seems to me that the intent in HS2 Phase 2a Information Paper: Burial grounds is appropriate. There are some useful words about how things should go ahead, and it says:

“Any human remains affected by the Proposed Scheme will be treated with all due dignity, respect and care.”


As ever, with the relationships between HS2 and the wider community, the whole issue is a cultural one. If, working within these guidelines, HS2 is constantly positive in seeking solutions, there will be no problems. But if it hides behind officialdom, there may be problems. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us some indication of how the Government will hold HS2 to account with regard to the tone and culture of the relationship between it, the wider public and, in particular, the representatives of the public in this sensitive area.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

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 will not take long, but I want to say simply that when a noble Lord raises an issue of this complexity and technical detail, it deserves to be taken very seriously. While I fully realise that the issue is not really appropriate for debate in Grand Committee because it is much too technical and detailed to encompass within the form of our debates, that does not mean that it is not important. Therefore, I ask the Minister to make sure that when she has had her meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the issues concerned she will set out in some form the outcome of those discussions in a letter to all noble Lords who are participating in this part of the debate today.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I can only agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, because I too would value a letter that gives some explanation. I have always been rather curious about party walls when looking at buildings, and I have often wondered how the issues are sorted out. I am absolutely delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and no doubt his colleagues at the time, created the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. How to overcome all the conflicting desires of the parties concerned seems to be quite a difficult concept. That legislation has lasted for 24 years and, given the number of party walls you see every day as you move around cities, it must work pretty well.

Surely the essence of taking this forward to this particular application should be to maintain the philosophy of the Act by working with what it says and making the minimum number of modifications and certainly not making modifications that would change the philosophy behind the Act and the fairness that has obviously been worked into it for it to have worked so well.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 9th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support the principle behind this amendment. We need a clear statement from the Government endorsing the full HS2 project. Anything less would fundamentally undermine the economic and social case for HS2.

Building only phase 1, from London to Birmingham, would simply make Birmingham a suburb of London, bringing it within the commuter belt. Building only phase 2a would destroy much of the economic case for high-speed rail, because only the more southerly parts of the western route would benefit from the regenerative impact of HS2, and the possibilities for improving local rail connectivity in the Midlands and the north would be much diminished. Put all this together and HS2 becomes much more questionable as an investment.

Sums that seemed eye-watering only nine months ago seem rather less daunting now that we have experienced in recent months the short-term government expenditure necessary to save us from catastrophe. But the pandemic has proved that we now need to invest for a greener future and a more sustainable way of living, and HS2 is a vital part of that.

Reference has been made in this debate to a recent lack of passengers on the railways and other impacts of the coronavirus. We are going to move on from this; there will be a time when people get back on to the railways, and the buses. It is important that the Government encourage people to do that. Therefore, HS2 and its progress need to be part of that picture.

Nevertheless, we still have to ensure value for money, which you do not get if you abandon the full concept of HS2 in the name of cost-cutting. Instead, you destroy the economic case and undermine the environmental benefits, because you are not producing a high-speed railway that is able to compete with internal flights and long-distance car journeys. HS2 will provide additional capacity, taking long-distance passengers off existing lines and leaving spare capacity for more freight and for shorter journeys and commuter trips.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, raises the key issue of continuity. Building a railway is rather like having a mobile factory. The equipment and the skills move along the line with you as you build. Pause the process and the skilled workers disappear to other jobs and the equipment is repurposed, sold off and so on. Getting it all together again costs a lot more than just moving seamlessly on.

Behind this are the lessons of the electrification of the Great Western line, which reveal that message clearly. Expensive mistakes were made in the early stages because it was so long since any electrification of the railways had been done in UK that the expertise had to be built up from scratch. Further projects will inevitably be more cost-efficient, because the expertise, materials and equipment are all available now.

HS2 is, of course, already running well behind the original schedule, so there is a need to build it as quickly as possible. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, addresses that issue in its intention. There is already talk that phase 2b might not be complete until 2040. That is totally unacceptable. The north-east, and the north beyond Crewe in the west, need regeneration now. HS2 is a large piece of the jigsaw of initiatives that are needed.

On 7 October, the Government announced a consultation on several aspects of phase 2b. That closes on 11 December. Can the Minister tell us when the results of that consultation are likely to be made public and what she thinks will be the timescale for the Government’s decisions on it?

We can already see the regenerative impact of HS2 in Birmingham, and shovels are hardly in the ground. The north-east leg via Nottingham to Leeds, and the further part of the western leg to Manchester, need the certainty of the Government’s unequivocal commitment to the whole of HS2 now. I will listen to the tone of the Minister’s response with great interest.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in general, we view the amendment favourably. It seems to have two points to it. The first is to try to secure some continuity, as spelled out by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The concept of continuity in railway construction is a sound one. Unfortunately, it is a sound principle that we tend not to keep to. The key part of the amendment seems to be the question of whether Her Majesty’s Government will commit to building HS2 phase 2b to Leeds in full. For the avoidance of doubt, Labour’s answer is that we fully support the HS2 concept and the concept that phase 2b should be built to Leeds in full.

I think we already know what the Minister will say. Andrew Stephenson was asked this question in the other place on 22 October. He said that

“when the Prime Minister gave the go-ahead to HS2 in February this year, he said that we were committed to delivering phase 2b but how phase 2b was delivered would be subject to the integrated rail plan. We have been making significant progress with the integrated rail plan. Sir John Armitt and the National Infrastructure Commission have already published their interim report. We look forward to their further recommendations and to responding to them before Christmas.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/10/20; col. 1213.]

That caused me to look up the interim report, since it seems central to how the question posed in the amendment will be answered. When I found it and skimmed through it, I came up with two questions. The first is very simple: when will the final report on this issue be published? The interim report promises that it will be published in November. It should be noted that Andrew Stephenson said that it would be published by Christmas. If it were published in November, it might be available before we get to Report, which would be extremely useful. When does the Minister expect the report to be published and when does she expect the Government’s response?

The other perhaps disturbing feature of the interim report is the commitment to a very different methodology from that used in the past. Essentially, what is said about a plan depends on the methodology and assumptions in the analysis that answers the question, to what extent and to what standard should the railway be built? Can the Minister assure the Committee that the methodology and assumptions will produce an answer no less favourable to the Leeds branch than those used in HS2? Put another way, if the criteria used in the original HS2 decision would say yes to Leeds but the new criteria say no, surely, this cannot be levelling up. I have seen precious few examples of levelling up, and a failure to build HS2 phase 2b to Leeds—indeed, a failure to build HS2 in full—surely is a statement that the commitment to levelling up is meaningless.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, with his great expertise, has made a detailed case for these amendments, so I will speak briefly. I want particularly to talk about Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to which I have added my name.

Some elements of the compensation schemes devised for HS2 are relatively generous and go well beyond the statutory minimum, but the noble Earl has set out a series of concerns about how those schemes are applied. Even if everything happens perfectly, it is right to say that it is an emotional and difficult time for many people affected by a project such as this. I want to address in particular my concerns about tenants. Some categories of tenancy are adequately covered, but the committee’s report has drawn our attention to the apparent lack of progress in dealing with an issue that was originally raised in the Select Committee of the House of Commons. Tenants with shorthold assured periodic tenancies, some agricultural tenancies and tenancies for narrowboats all appear to have no rights to compensation—not even to a home loss payment. Once again, those in society who are the least well off and the least likely to have adequate resources are given the least consideration. I call on the Minister to provide a better answer than the one that the Secretary of State was able to give in the other place, and to provide us with information and reassurance that all tenants will be properly compensated and dealt with.

The report also draws our attention to two special cases where it is envisaged that homeowners could lose out badly. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed those and said whether, in future, such people will be covered.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. My amendment was tabled to make sure that these important issues are fully debated. I have been rewarded, in the sense that we have had a debate to which people with a great deal of knowledge and experience have contributed.

When I headed up a large publicly owned enterprise, I faced the obligation of how you pay compensation. You are a guardian of the public purse, but nevertheless you want to be fair in an exemplary way, and that implies being on the generous end of the margins that the regulations and/or the law permit. Generally speaking we got that right, and generally speaking we were able to justify the generosity of some of our settlements by the fact that they went through smoothly with little litigation and no loss of public image.

What seems to be true here is the need for consideration of the whole framework. While the position with freeholders may be satisfactory, tenants in general in this area do not get a fair deal. I hope that the Minister will be willing to go beyond saying, “Well, this is what the regulations say,” to a recognition of the widespread feeling that, one way or another, tenants are particularly hurt by the present situation.

I have had a briefing from the National Farmers’ Union, which has already been repeated, and there seems to be a particular problem with agricultural tenancies. You can see the tremendous importance of security of tenure when it comes to farming. Indeed, as far as I can see from the briefings I have received, tenures were much more secure in the past but have become less so, and the compulsory purchase regulations do not in any way reflect the real impact that compulsory purchase can have on the ability of farmers to carry on trading and, if necessary, move farms in order to continue doing so. The whole value of the investment that they make in the land does not seem to be in any way represented in the compensation.

So I am very pleased for the support for my amendment. I agree in some ways with my noble friend Lord Adonis about the need to get this right. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that there is genuine concern in this area, promise to take this issue away and perhaps, once again, have some meetings before Report to see if we can have a meeting of minds.

International Travel

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the announcement that the Government can now implement quarantine policies for passengers from specific islands, rather than whole countries, begs one question above all others: why only now? The Government’s quarantine policy has been beset by the same question from the outset. We are still yet to hear why they introduced quarantine only in June, after 22 million people had come into the country. For months, even when the virus was at its peak, millions entered the UK without any restrictions or any contact tracing system in place. Even today, we remain in the dark as to whether it is operating as it should be. Can the Minister detail how many calls contact tracing services have made in relation to positive cases linked to flights over the last month? How many fines have been handed out for non-compliance with quarantine rules? And how many people have had a positive Covid-19 test result after returning from overseas travel?

The general policy of air bridges has the support of these Benches, but it can only be as one part of the strategy to prevent infections in the UK. There is not an individual intervention that will suffice, and only a combination of smart, targeted measures will do. The shadow Secretary of State for Transport has repeatedly called for a review of the broader quarantine policy to report as soon as possible. This must consider options for a robust testing regime in airports and related follow-up tests that could safely minimise the need for 14-day quarantine. Until this takes place, it is clear that the Government are not doing all in their ability to beat the virus and safely reopen society, while protecting jobs and the economy. At the very least, it would be helpful to understand whether these policies are even under active consideration. In this regard, can the Minister confirm when SAGE last discussed airport testing, and what is the latest update on the SAGE paper on airport testing?

With the announcement of the islands policy, the Government have also placed a series of Greek locations on the quarantine list. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will publish the evidence and criteria by which locations are included on the quarantine list? With regard to the wider list, can the Minister explain how the UK Government have arrived at a different conclusion from those of the Welsh and Scottish Governments in relation to Portugal?

At a time when the aviation sector is struggling, perhaps more than any other, it would be remiss of me to not mention the impact of government policy on the industry. Can the Minister detail what assessment she has made of the financial implications of the travel quarantine measures on the aviation sector? In recent months, we have seen airlines time and time again announce plans to make significant percentages of their workforces redundant. The pain felt as a result will not be limited to those directly impacted. The consequences for the wider supply chain will no doubt cost further jobs. Poorly handled quarantine policy has only made matters worse for the 1.5 million workers across the supply chain, while the unwillingness of the Government to announce a sector deal suggests indifference.

There must be a sector deal to save airlines and support airports, and this must be based on Labour’s six conditions: it must save jobs, tackle climate change, not condone tax avoidance, not condone dividends at the expense of business viability, support UK suppliers and support consumer rights. The industry is waiting. It is now almost six months since the Chancellor first promised an aviation sector-specific deal in mid-March. Just as the quarantine policy has taken many months to emerge, the response to the aviation industry is taking even longer. Can the Minister finally confirm when the Government are going to give a financial support package to the aviation sector as the Chancellor promised in March?

Regrettably, the Statement fails to answer many more questions than it addresses. It is vital that the Government get to grips with the situation, and this can be done only with a comprehensive review of the quarantine policy as soon as possible. At this crucial point in the pandemic, it is beyond belief that there has still been no real consideration for a proper testing regime at airports and related follow-up tests. Passengers and the aviation industry need confidence that Ministers are not simply making it up as they go along. They will not have received that from today’s Statement.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad to see this small step forward towards a more logical approach to quarantine. I am particularly pleased that the Government are looking at testing combined with shorter quarantine, although news of problems with the Test and Trace system does not convince me that it will be introduced effectively and soon. However, I hope we are seeing the signals of a less chaotic approach from the Government and fewer U-turns, because we are still suffering, as a nation, from the Government’s inexplicable decision to abandon testing and quarantine for returning travellers back in March, which meant that tens of thousands of people entered the UK unchecked from areas which had higher infection rates. Clearly, many of them brought their infections with them.

My first question to the Minister relates to the reference in the Statement to FCO advice. Can the Minister explain why there would ever be different quarantine advice from the FCO and DfT? I realise there was at one point, but that was put right within 24 hours or so. I am asking this question because there are clearly insurance implications for travellers if there are two conflicting sets of advice from the Government.

There is nothing in the Statement about the timescales between the regular quarantine announcements, which usually are made on Thursday—although one was made on Monday this week—and the imposition of quarantine, which is normally at 4 am on a Saturday. Would it not be possible to extend this period to give travellers abroad longer to pack their bags, buy a new ticket and make their way back to the UK? Most travel, certainly holiday travel, tends to be from weekend to weekend. If the Government were to act slightly sooner, it would give people longer. If you think back to the situation in France, which is a country many people drive to on holidays, many people who were in the south of France found it physically impossible to get back to the UK, even if they could get a ticket for a ferry or the tunnel. They could not drive back through France safely to get to the UK before the quarantine was imposed. The tight timescale has done a lot to add to the overall nervousness about foreign travel.

Finally, I want to talk about the situation in aviation as a whole, which, as a sector, is struggling. Airports, in particular, are struggling and time is running out for some of our smaller airports. They do not have major foreign backers, like some airlines. Some are local authority-owned. Many are owned, in effect, by pension funds. You can mothball planes but you cannot mothball airports. For safety reasons, they have to maintain many staff and many of their operations, even when they have few paying customers. For instance, they must have all the experts on site to be able to host emergency flights and landings—for air ambulances, for example.

Unlike restaurants, airports have had no package of measures targeted specifically at them. Unlike restaurants, they have huge capital investment. I urge the Government to devise some tailored help for this beleaguered industry and to do it soon. One example would be relief from business rates for airports in England, so that they come into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is irrelevant in Wales because the Government own the airport. They need this tailored help soon. The opportunity is there for the Government to ensure that the aviation industry becomes more environmentally friendly, because they can put conditions on their help. They can make sure that the development of airports in the future is much more environmentally friendly than it is at this moment. They can do that as a condition of their help. I urge the Minister to consult her colleagues and to announce something soon.

Transport Infrastructure

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

No, it is an impossible bar. Perhaps the noble Baroness would consider writing for the Spectator.

I welcome the Statement—not for what it says, which I will go through with some care—but for what it does not say, because the essence of this Statement is that it does not say “HS2 is cancelled”. That is, frankly, the only substantial point it makes. I want to make it very clear—to avoid all doubt—that Labour supports HS2, Labour supports northern rail and Labour supports the whole concept of a fully integrated, nationally owned railway system owned by the public and operated for the whole nation.

I will try to point out where the hard commitments are in this Statement—so it will not be a very long speech. I was involved in the improvements at London Transport and subsequently TfL, from the King’s Cross tragedy in 1987 until today. I am very proud of my involvement in that and of the people who worked with me. I did not expect to be praised by the Prime Minister in a Statement about northern rail, but I thank him very much. As one who has spent most waking moments over the past 12 years trying to screw more money out of the Government, I am very pleased that the Prime Minister has not forgotten his London roots and ends up saying not only how wonderful the mass transit system is but that there is more to do in London. Can I take that as a commitment for more money and, if so, how much and when? I find no other possible interpretation given the general speech.

The next commitment is, like most of the commitments in the Statement, pretty fluffy. The Prime Minister goes on to say that we are

“being held back by our inadequate infrastructure and so in the next few weeks this government will be setting out more details of a transport revolution”

When is the “next few weeks”? I thought about that phrase. A few weeks is sooner than a few months and more than a few days. Could we settle, say, on the end of March? Can the Minister give us a commitment on when this will happen? We know in this House that Ministers sometimes slip from commitments unless they are very clear, so I hope that she will be able to give us a date.

The first spending commitment is the record-breaking £5 billion of new investment in buses and bicycles. Can the Minister indicate a timeframe for that? It could be anything from a year to 50 years; it has to be set against the fact that, since 2010, the Government have inflicted cuts of £645 million a year in real terms on bus services, with 3,300 routes cut or withdrawn and fares soaring by two and a half times average wages. Just how immediate a commitment is this? Is it over 10 years? Is it over five years? Is it over an even shorter time?

I then ploughed on to see whether there was anything of substance and found nothing more until I got to page 5 of the printed version of the Statement, at which point the Prime Minister said that

“that £5 billion is just the start”.

I love these phrases: “just the start” means there is more. Does the Minister agree that that means that there is more than £5 billion? Will this be set out in the Budget?

The Statement then goes into a whole series of road improvements—you will notice that there is no commitment to any particular project; there is no money; there is no deadline. On the next page, it talks about

“new investments in the rail network across the North”

and then repeats three schemes which have already been announced, once again with no deadlines and no budget. The paragraph concludes with one of the singular commitments in the Statement:

“I can today announce that we will be upgrading the Bristol East junction”.


What a delight that that is picked out to be in the midst of this splendid speech.

I could not find anything of substance on pages 7 or 8, but then I got to page 9. There, the Prime Minister slags off the management of HS2:

“Speaking as an MP whose constituency is on the route I cannot say that the company has distinguished itself in its handling of local communities. The cost forecasts have exploded. But the poor management to date has not detracted from the fundamental value of the project.”


What is he going to do about the management? At no point in the speech that I read does he make any recommendations about that.

Page 10, once again, contains absolutely nothing in terms of commitments. When we get to page 11, we are beginning to creep up to a commitment. It starts in the middle of the page:

“The Infrastructure and Projects Authority considers that this first phase can be delivered for its current projected cost of £35 billion to £45 billion in today’s prices … if we start now, services could be running by the end of the decade.”


Then, on the next page, he says:

“So I am giving high speed rail the green signal.”


That might reasonably be interpreted as a commitment to deliver the first phase, for between £35 billion and £45 billion, by 2030. Will the Minister please confirm that that is a hard commitment?

Further on, on page 12, we now know what the decisive action is going to be to bring this project to boot: we are going to appoint a Minister. Let us hope that he or she is a near relative of the Almighty. There will be a

“Ministerial oversight group … tasked with taking strategic decisions”.


At least we will know who to blame if it all goes wrong.

The Statement goes on to say:

“There will be changes in the way HS2 Ltd is managed”,


and from page 13 we know what these are: the company will be divided in two—at least that is what I think it says. It says,

“so that the company can focus solely on getting phases 1 and 2A built on something approaching on time and on budget, I will be creating new delivery arrangements for both the grossly behind-schedule Euston terminus, and phase 2B of the wider project.”

Am I right in assuming that HS2 Ltd will be divided in two?

Now we come on to the really important question: are these hints and words an equal commitment for the whole project? Is this Statement a commitment for the whole project—phase 1, phase 2 and the northern rail? There is a little hint at the end of page 13 where the Prime Minister says,

“Northern Powerhouse Rail between Leeds and Manchester, which I committed to supporting during my first days in office.”


Once again I ask: is this Statement a commitment to all of HS2 and the northern rail project?

The Statement often says very little, except that,

“we will … explore options for creating a new delivery vehicle for Northern Powerhouse Rail. And we will start treating HS2”—

At that point, I think that the Statement changed things slightly from what has been said previously. I think it suggested that the two halves of HS2, north and south, phase a and phase b, have been divided into two but will now be in one company called High Speed North. I hope that the Minister is capable of working out how that is going to streamline the project and deliver it.

The next two pages are blank of comment. Then the Statement ends with:

“This government will deliver a new anatomy of British transport”.


But what do they actually commit to? Five billion pounds for buses and bicycles, with no programme or timetable; a commitment to build phases 1 and 2a at between £35 billion and £45 billion by 2030; at best an implied promise to do phase 2 and northern rail, with no figures, no timescale and no detail; and upgrading Bristol East junction. This is the most vacuous Statement I have ever heard repeated in this House. To thrive, the north needs a hard, measurable commitment; this Statement does not meet that test.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I feel sorry for the Minister, having to repeat all that. But what the Statement boasted in juvenile, rhetorical flourishes it lacked in detail on all fronts. It reminded me of one of those exercises that teachers give primary school children to expand their vocabulary. But it lacked detail, and transport is all about detail.

Like the noble Lord, I went through the Statement carefully and was struck by the fact that the first thing this Government apparently committed to was net zero by 2050, and the first thing they are going to do is build lots of new roads. Everyone who knows about transport knows that if you build a road, it gets full of cars immediately. We will still have cars from today on the roads in 20 years’ time. The electric vehicle revolution will not come that quickly and we cannot reach net zero if we go on with large-scale road-building projects.

What was said about east-west rail links is good, but it needs to go way beyond the few examples here. There is a lack of detail on buses beyond a nice big, shiny figure. I ask the Minister to provide us with more detail on the buses, because we can have the bus revolution a great deal more quickly than we can have the railway revolution. We could revolutionise our buses within a couple of years if we had the money and the legislative framework to do it.

I was very pleased, of course, to hear that HS2 is not going to be cancelled, but again disappointed and really frustrated by the fact that there are just a few hints of how this will go ahead in the future—a couple of avenues have been closed off, but there is no detail on how it will work or how the future will be better than the past. “We are going to change it, we are going to have a Minister”—with all due respect, it is not ministerial control that has been lacking, but good, solid day-to-day project management. However, we will obviously have to wait patiently for some time still to get the detail that we need.

I say to the Minister that this is a very grandiose series of visions but, in reality, people need certainty and consistency. They need to know the details of what will happen and, given the scale of the ambition in this announcement, it is way beyond the capacity of the Department for Transport to deal with. Work will have to be done across government. I will give just one example of what needs thinking about. If you are to have all these new buses—one hopes they will be electric or hydrogen, but in the short term we are probably talking about electric—we will need to totally reinvent the electricity grid to cope in certain parts of the country. The Minister looks doubtful: I have just come from a lunchtime event where experts in the field confirmed that we need a massive increase in our electricity capacity in parts of the country. There are lots of questions for her to answer.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard)
Monday 10th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, it will emerge as the afternoon goes on that I am somewhat unbelieving that this process will work. One reason I fear it may not work is the sheer lack of resources. The complexity of the trade-offs that will be necessary to work between the various demands to produce an optimal solution will be considerable. As I shall bring out in a later amendment, I believe that it is less than clear who is responsible for making that happen. I will make that point later. The point I make now is that the burden is likely to fall back on the CAA.

The Minister was kind enough to write to me and sort of assure me that money would not be a problem—I hope she reaffirms that. In her letter, she basically said that any additional expenditure that the CAA incurred could be met by industry through an appropriate levy procedure.

The real problem is talent, as is true throughout our economy. The number of people who have the skills to work in this area is limited. Therefore, I would value in the Minister’s response an assurance to the House that the pool of talent available to the CAA, and indeed to other parties involved, is sufficient. If it is not sufficient, what are we going to do about it?

The second part of this group is essentially whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill. Industry has raised the issue that there will be a conflict in the CAA between its responsibilities for policy execution and for regulation. It used to be a feature of the finance sector that firms would declare that there were Chinese walls and that these walls worked. As we know from the financial crisis, they worked to the extent of a bottle of Bollinger. I hope the Minister does not frown too readily; certainly at least one wall went down for the price of a bottle of Bollinger.

We could well have conflict between parts of the CAA. I am sure that they are people of great regulatory correctness, but when the same business has two parts trying to do things that might be in conflict, it is important to know how they can assure society that no conflict takes place. It is simple things, such as whether there will be physical separation. Will the two parts be in different buildings? How will we manage to assure industry, for whom significant financial consequences rest, that the CAA parts which will both be involved in this exercise are properly separated?

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, we also question whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill. I have often raised in this Chamber the fact that the CAA has an extraordinarily diverse range of responsibilities, which it seems to carry out very effectively. I say that with great care, because, while I support the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in the call for there to be adequate Chinese walls, that is not a criticism of the CAA and the way it has so far done its job. However, no organisation is ever perfect. It is important that it is given the resources and set-up that enables it to carry on undertaking its various and broad roles in a fully efficient way.

The Government add to the CAA’s responsibilities all the time. They have done so on several occasions over the last two or three years. It seems always to rise to the challenge, but it is important that the Government put the right structure in place. Therefore, I support the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

I apologise for that. I just feel that the issue of the environment is so important that one should take every reasonable opportunity to raise it. One area where we all know that environmental information about emissions in this country is deficient is the acknowledgment of aviation and maritime impacts. This is clearly an aviation Bill, so it is reasonable to make the inquiry at this point.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, perhaps I can add to that response by saying that, when I discuss airspace modernisation with those who take part in the aviation industry, in one role or another they all raise the fact that this is a key opportunity to reduce CO₂ emissions from the industry. CO₂ emissions from transport are a huge source of problems, and aviation is the greatest part of them, not in percentage terms but because it is difficult to address. Solutions to many problems relating to road transport are gradually coming into general use, but no sensible time limit has been set for a solution to emissions from air travel. It is, therefore, very reasonable to suggest using this opportunity to see how much airspace modernisation has been able to contribute to reducing CO₂ emissions from the aviation industry and to look at other ways in which this might be done.

Events of the last year have shown that, when you put information about the impact of CO₂ emissions in the hands of the general public, they understand and start to take their own steps. However, aviation is a very large-scale industry that is difficult to crack through individual contributions—other than not flying, of course. A lot of people are taking that solution but, in the interests of the aviation industry’s future, it is surely important to take this opportunity to measure how effective airspace modernisation has been in reducing CO₂ emissions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, this amendment guarantees that general aviation is taken seriously in the process. General aviation is more important than people realise. Aviation 2050: The Future of UK Aviation, Command Paper 9714, published in December 2018, asserts that general aviation flying is worth about £1.1 billion and supports 10,000 jobs. It is a significant part of aviation and a significant employer.

There are Members in the Chamber—just about—who are part of the general aviation community. They may disagree with me, but my sense from friends in this community is that it feels unloved or left out. The short philosophical discussion I had earlier was about the fact that there is a general right to airspace—that, because it is owned by the whole community, it should be treated such that restriction of controlled airspace is balanced against general aviation’s right to use uncontrolled airspace.

It is crucial in this day and age in that it generates airline pilots for the United Kingdom. I lived in a highly privileged age when the national airlines generated their own pilots. They paid for my training—more accurately, they paid for me to have fun, but let us get back to the subject. It is very easy in these situations for these small activities to get lost in the consultation processes. The fact that this amendment calls for a report will mean that officials will have that in mind and increase their propensity to be able to show that the needs of general aviation are appropriately taken account of.

General aviation is not universally popular; it creates noise and is seen as the privilege if not of the rich—although private jets are a big chunk of it, and you have to be either rather important or rather rich to use one—then of those involved in sports flying and training. The cost of hiring an aeroplane is about 5p a second—£180 an hour upwards—so you have to be affluent, if not rich, to take part in it. It has different forces working about it in society, which is a good reason for making sure it has its own special place in the process, which this amendment would allow.

The Government set out their position in The Future of UK Aviation:

“The government aims to ensure that there are appropriate and proportionate policies in place to protect and support General Aviation (GA) and its contribution to GDP and jobs. The government recognises that the needs of GA have to be seen in the wider context of civil and military aviation. In areas such as the use of airspace and the allocation of slots it is important to balance the needs of private flying, commercial GA and scheduled aviation, so that all classes of aviation are properly and proportionately considered and the benefits of GA can be supported.”


My amendment goes towards ensuring that that objective is met. General aviation is something of an enigma, but it deserves the special attention that this amendment would require. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for moving this amendment and raising an important issue.

During an earlier part of our discussions today, I felt that one noble Lord almost suggested that by asking the question one attributes blame. The important thing for general aviation—for a start, that is a massive phrase, which incorporates many different strands of aviation—is that its position is recognised and it is given the right to make representations. I notice and particularly welcome the noble Lord’s amendment saying at proposed new subsection (2) that the report of the Secretary of State

“must consult bodies including but not limited to … the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association”

and the General Aviation Safety Council. Many organisations involved in aviation have strong views on this, and in the modern world, it is important that the situation is properly considered and a proper, strategic approach to it is developed.

Just as I stressed earlier the importance of commercial aviation to our economy, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, made the significant point that general aviation is also worth money to our economy—although on a much lower scale. However, the phrase includes such things as the hugely important air ambulance services, so it is important that the views of those involved across the spectrum of general aviation are taken into account. This is not all just about people going out on leisure flights on a Sunday morning.

Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Thursday 21st March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I will start with the licensing of railway undertakings regulations. This SI is slightly more like the type of arrangement that we were promised at the start of this gruelling marathon. It is intended to ensure the minimum change.

Currently, there are two sorts of licence in Britain. One is issued by the ORR to a small number of operators, such as Merseyrail, that are separate from the main network, and it is based on 1993 rules. The rest of the operators have a European licence based on 2005 regulations. If you hold one of those, you can provide services in any EEA member state. This is all part of the European programme to establish a single European railway area. That is a very sensible approach that will be a basis for equal access, competition and common rules on safety, which is very important.

This SI allows operators with a licence not issued by ORR to continue for two years after exit day, whenever that may be. Will the Minister clarify that this is a rolling feast—that it will be two years after an exit day on, for example, 22 June? That would be sensible, but I am concerned that the rules on continuity in these SIs are so haphazard: some things finish in September, some finish in December, some continue for two years from whenever we leave, and so on.

After two years, under this SI, operators will need to revert to an ORR licence. The Explanatory Memorandum helpfully notes that only one operator is currently caught by that rule. Importantly, the SI does not provide for long-term mutual recognition of operator licences issued by the EEA and held by cross-border service operators—that is, the Channel Tunnel. Mutual recognition will depend on future bilateral agreements. Can the Minister update us on negotiations on this aspect?

Eventually, after two years, the only type of licence that will be valid in Britain will be issued by ORR. Existing European licences will cease to be valid and operators will instead need railway undertakings licences. Once again, this is a long, tortuous, bureaucratic process to change the name of the licence.

Finally on this SI, I express my delight that there has been a full consultation, which has been reported back to this House in detail, as consultations should be. It was comprehensive in that it included passengers, freight operators, devolved Administrations and so on, and a draft instrument was produced. It is ironic that this SI will involve minor disruption for a relatively small number of large organisations which to some extent are equipped to cope with it. While we have had a full consultation for this SI, in the case of others that involve major changes for people who are not equipped to deal with them, we were told that they did not get a consultation because the changes were not considered significant or to pose a risk. The truth is that this Government are getting away with a massive distortion of the normal rules followed by Governments; ignoring the consultation process is one aspect of that.

I turn now to the train driving licences and certificates SI, which affects thousands of train drivers, as opposed to a handful of companies. While a full consultation has been done on the previous SI, this one apparently is not important enough to warrant one. In the Explanatory Memorandum there is a list of organisations that attended a workshop, but there is no mention of trade unions. Trade unions are very strong and active in the rail industry and a very important group of people. Were they consulted and, if so, what did they think about these changes? If they were not, do the Government have any intention of having discussions with them?

In 2010, the EU regulations established a standardised regime for the licensing and certification of train drivers, with a standardised layout of licences and certificates, which of course is important to avoid confusion about what documents can be accepted. It includes, for example, what rolling stock they are qualified to drive. I cannot stress enough how important it is that there is clarity on qualifications and certification. That is really important for safety. I have a good friend who is a train driver, and he has explained to me at some length the difference between the levels of qualification and how important those differences are for our safety. Standardised criteria for training and examinations are obviously as important as, if not more important than, in many other professions.

In 2015 the regulations created a new standard for language and eyesight tests. Everyone can realise the importance of that. Facility with the language is as important for train drivers as it is for the medical profession, for example, and eyesight is extremely important.

Sensibly, this SI includes a transitional provision for the recognition of European licences in Britain for up to two years. Can the Minister clarify why the phrase “up to two years” is repeatedly used in the Explanatory Memorandum? Is that because the two years is measured from the end of March and we may not leave then? Or is it because the Government have not fully decided what the end of this story is going to be? I am sure that the Minister will understand that knowing exactly how long your licence is going to last is pretty important for those engaged in the profession—and indeed for the people who employ them.

Paragraph 2.11 of the EM says that only,

“a small number of train drivers”,

use European licences. Perhaps the Minister could clarify how many “a small number” is.

I have a real concern about paragraph 2.13, on the removal of requirements to inform the EEA safety authorities if a driver is not meeting the conditions of a licence. There is a discretionary power included for passing information for a transitional two-year period, but there is no obligation. This is something that I have raised time and again: the transfer and sharing of information are at the core of safety procedures, and yet again this Government are playing politics with the safety of our transport system.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, this is about my 60th SI, so I am into some SI fatigue. Previously I have started by saying how much I regret being here because of the Government’s failure to rule out a no-deal Brexit. Unfortunately, the world has changed. If nobody blinks, our no-deal exit is next Saturday and these rules will come in. I therefore have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes: I think we do have to do this work, for the worst possible reason—because we are in the worst possible place. Brexit itself is bad enough, but the Brexit that is going to be thrust upon us unless sanity reigns—

Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation.

The first of these two SIs relates to training standards in the industry and is based on EU directives 2008/106/EC and 2012/35/EU. The EU-wide process for the recognition of certificates has been very important—indeed, fundamental—in raising safety levels in an industry where international crews are the norm. In 2016, as the Explanatory Memorandum helpfully tells us, 3,410 UK seafarers had certificates enabling them to work in EU and EEA-registered vessels. The SI adopts the usual procedure, replacing “EU Commission” with “Secretary of State”.

It will not surprise the Minister to hear that I am concerned about the reduction once again in transparency in the process because the SI gives the Secretary of State responsibility for the withdrawal of recognition of parties to the STCW convention where standards are not met. What is the procedure by which the Secretary of State will come to that conclusion? Who will advise the Secretary of State? Will there be any right of appeal? We are replacing a well-established, well-understood European process with a process bathed in mystery. Perhaps the Minister could explain whether any further regulations will set out the process and where any advice might be given to the Secretary of State.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew this SI to our attention because of its impact on seafarers. The UK will continue to recognise the certificates it currently recognises but there is no guarantee of the EU recognising our certificates in future. The 2005 directive established certificates of competency; each seafarer must have one, and have it endorsed by the flag state of the vessels on which they want to work. These are known as certificates of equivalent competency. Once the European Commission has approved a third country, other member states can, but are not obliged to, accept seafarers from that third country on their ships. That is an unusual discretion. How does it work in practice? How has it worked in practice until now? Is there a record of seafarers from a recognised third country not being accepted on ships from other EU countries? If there are cases where that has happened, which countries have chosen to exercise this power of discretion? Have we always accepted those certificates?

I am sure the Minister can see where I am going with this. My concern is that once we become a third country our seafarers may find themselves excluded by some EU countries, even though the European Commission has agreed to accept our certificates as compliant with STCW.

There is also my usual concern about how we keep up with the flow of information as the EU changes its standards. It is fine to say that we will hitch ourselves to the current standards, but keeping up with the list of countries recognised by the EU might be more complex than it seems. In this SI, the Secretary of State is given the power to add to or subtract from the list of recognised countries, so I ask the same questions again about that power. What will be the system for this? Where will be the transparency? Who will give the Secretary of State advice? I am even more concerned, because as usual there has been no consultation on this, and it involves individual seafarers. Although companies can be expected to keep abreast of all these changes, individuals should not be expected to have to do so.

I turn to the SI on passenger rights. Officials working in the Department for Transport must be losing the will to live during this whole process. As things descend into farce, it is probably difficult to keep abreast of the pace of these things, but I have to say that this is an unusually opaque Explanatory Memorandum. I draw noble Lords’ attention to paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9, which introduce us to the bunkers and Athens conventions in terms that suggest we chat about them over our cornflakes, so familiar are they to us all. I really grappled with this one; I raise this because if I have misunderstood it, it is because bits of it are particularly complex.

In practical terms, this SI seeks to continue current arrangements on passenger rights and on insurance. I have a technical question for the Minister. In the EU rules on this, the compensation for when things go wrong is currently dictated in euros. It is converted to sterling at the rate for the year ended 31 December 2017. Why are we using something pretty historical for this? It makes it look rather outdated before we start.

Once again, there has been no consultation on this. I want to make an important point in relation to the comments on small business. One after another of these SIs say that there will be minimal impact and only familiarisation costs to SMEs. I am beginning to be extremely concerned that, within each sphere—here we are on maritime—individual businesses are expected to absorb and to familiarise themselves with a number of SIs, not just one. The pace of change for them is adding up to something substantial, and the Government have not consulted them on it.

I also want to ask my usual question: how will the Government keep up with changes that happen in the EU on this? Passengers’ rights are very dear to people’s hearts. If there is any shadow of thought that we in this country have inferior rights, passengers would be extremely angry—and rightly so. Therefore, I am keen that we know how the Government intend to keep pace with change. What will be the process by which the Secretary of State makes decisions to change things when necessary? On whose advice would he act?

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a certain disadvantage in following the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson: she has usually nicked most of my points. I will therefore highlight only a couple.

Paragraph 3.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that,

“EU recognition of United Kingdom certificates will be at the discretion of Member States”.

Clearly, here we have a non-reciprocal situation, where we are providing rights to the EU and it is not necessarily reciprocating. Will the Minister explain the processes the Department for Transport intends to carry forward? Is there reciprocity, as we desire, or will it have to be done state by state? Can it be done through some comprehensive agreement with the EU? What efforts are being made at the moment to try to get a reciprocal agreement?

I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the Secretary of State. To be even-handed, I should say that that is any Secretary of State—one is tempted to ponder on this one in particular, but I will set that to one side. I could not find it in the Explanatory Memorandum, but I may have overlooked it: what political oversight is there in the exercise of the Secretary of State’s powers? If there is none, how can there be transparency in the process? To pick up the noble Baroness’s point, how will he be advised?

Turning to the very important issue of passengers’ rights, although the Explanatory Memorandum is a document in the public domain, it is not one dear to people’s hearts, whereas Hansard is. Paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum seems to say that passengers’ rights will be identical. Will the Minister tell us in plain language that they will be identical, so that it can be included in the formal record?

On paragraph 7.3, I share the view about opaqueness. It talks first about EU member states that are not state parties to the Athens convention. Elsewhere, one got the impression that all EU member states were parties now to the Athens convention. Of the member states, which are not parties to the convention? It tells us little about how the Athens convention works and gives appropriate support and assurance to passengers. Will the Minister spell out what the convention does for passengers? I know it limits compensation, but how does it ensure that compensation will be paid? I recognise that the answer to that might be rather complex, so I am content for the Minister to write to me on that subject.

Licensing of Operators and International Road Haulage (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I start with the big question, as I see it: where does this dovetail with ECMT permits? We have already been through those in relation to an SI. They are already established as part of our no-deal preparations, and there has already been feedback on the fact that only 5% of the industry will be covered by them. So is this an either/or, or is it an either/or that kicks in after December this year? Perhaps the Minister could clarify for me exactly where this regulation stands in the whole thing.

In essence, and I say these words carefully, this SI substitutes a community licence applied for in the UK with a UK licence for the community. No wonder the public are beginning to get frustrated with the whole thing. Given that this applies to thousands of hauliers—thousands of small haulage firms, many with one or two vehicles—they could be forgiven for getting confused over this. That innocuous though confusing change of name hides a fundamental potential change in their rights to operate within the EU.

On Northern Ireland, I have very serious concerns about cabotage and cross-trade. Paragraph 6.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum makes several references to future arrangements in Northern Ireland. There is of course a great deal of cross-border haulage between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The situation is very nuanced because goods haulage is very different from passenger transport. What will happen to these arrangements if Northern Ireland is caught in the backstop? Generally these SIs say, “We’re sorting Northern Ireland separately”, but this one incorporates arrangements for Northern Ireland. That led me to wonder how it will operate if Northern Ireland is caught in the backstop. Am I right to assume that in that situation these arrangements would cease to apply?

Rather obliquely, paragraph 6.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the amendments made by the SI also apply to coach and bus services, but paragraph 7.9 says that there is separate provision for international passenger transport. Could I have an explanation of that?

Importantly, regulation 1071/2009 allows member states some discretion to impose additional requirements of operators, and once again the Secretary of State is to get that power. I repeat my usual questions. What about transparency? On whose advice would the Secretary of State exercise this power? How would it be done? Would there be a role for Parliament? Would there be a negative or an affirmative process? I know I ask this every time, but I assume that the answer is different on each occasion.

Applications for Community licences currently go to the traffic commissioners. Will they maintain that role for UK licences in future? If so, what about resources? I am well aware that the traffic commissioners have a very broad responsibility and their organisations are usually extremely thinly staffed. There is the usual hope that the EU will continue to recognise our rights as usual, but there are EU proposals on this and, as I understand it, they do not give us full cabotage rights. They also extend only to the end of this year.

The Explanatory Memorandum says that it is hoped that this SI will be superseded by full legislation by the end of the year. As time goes on, the end of this year looks remarkably soon for there to be even more legislation on this. To clarify, is this EU offer for nine months after we leave for a rolling nine months following Brexit, which will kick in only when we leave, or has it offered this up to the end of this year and that is it?

Once again, there has been no consultation. That is especially serious in this case, because thousands of hauliers who make their living in international haulage will not be able to rely on a Community licence in future. This is not a minor change; it is fundamental. Again, SMEs are not especially taken into account.

Finally, if you currently have a Community licence, will you have to reapply for it? Suppose you have a Community licence that is valid to this end of this calendar year: are there any events or potential Brexit scenarios, foreseen or unforeseen, that could lead to hauliers having to reapply for their licence within that timeframe? Everyone expects that they will reapply for their licence at the end of the period covered, but is there anything that could happen that would interrupt that licence? Or are hauliers right, and can be confident to assume, that if they have a valid licence until the end of this year, for example, they can carry on working until then? I would be grateful for clarification on that.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I took a slightly more optimistic view of this SI than the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. However, clarification in plain language will help. Paragraph 2.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The UK operator licensing regime will generally remain as at present”.


I wonder whether we could have simpler language than that. My understanding, taken with recent agreement in the EU, is that the situation will be fully reciprocal. I will say it again, because it is a question to which I would like a direct answer. The Explanatory Memorandum uses terms such as “provided that”, which enthused me to look up the European Commission—I will not do this again. On 19 December 2018, it published a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on,

“common rules ensuring basic road freight connectivity with regard to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the Union”.

At the end it says that the regulation applies until 31 December 2019, and that it was “done at” Brussels. I do not understand EU law. Is that now a piece of EU law? Does it, together with this SI, mean that in all respects, except the names of these licences, the situation for operators is identical to where we are now, with, of course, the overriding importance that the agreement of the EU is only until the end of the year?

Aviation Statistics (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, airport operators currently provide their statistics to the CAA, which passes them on to Eurostat. This is to be replaced, according to this SI, with a system whereby airport operators give the information to the CAA, which then provides that data to the Secretary of State if directed—not by legal obligation but if directed.

There are four problems with the SI. First, statistics collected on a national basis are much less useful and meaningful than international statistics. As the noble Lord said, there is no guarantee that this information will be shared internationally.

Secondly, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to even want to see the statistics. What will he do with them? There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to publish them. Therefore, one has obvious concerns about transparency. Statistics should be important for the Government; they are certainly important for the public and the industry itself to monitor performance. The CAA already collects this data, but it will be of much less use for comparative purposes as matters stand in the SI.

The third problem is the impact of changing rules on exactly how the data is expressed and collected. This is the kind of internal thing that happens in any organisation. If you change the order of the questions or one or two words in the questions, you impact the results. It does not matter that much if you are looking across the piece and everyone is obeying the same rules, but we will be collecting our data on a different basis. I more or less guarantee that, within a year or two, we will be told that our data is no longer comparable because of differences in collection procedure.

Finally, there is the new power of the CAA referred to in the SI to impose a £5,000 fine if an airport does not provide data. I am not entirely clear about this, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify. I believe that this is a new power; I am not sure that the CAA has it at the moment. If it does, what is the fine, because £5,000 seems derisory as a fine on a large organisation for failing to provide data? It would cost Heathrow Airport or Gatwick Airport a great deal more than £5,000 to collect the data, so there would be an incentive not to bother. Where does £5,000 come from? Has it been thought through as a penalty that should be paid by a large commercial organisation? It does not seem worth it.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the points made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, are exactly right. I look to the Minister to answer them. I can see why we would want to avoid an obligation, but I cannot for the life of me see why we would not want voluntarily to co-operate with Eurostat. This obviously is a wider question for government as a whole, but in an open society we have to believe that sharing information is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I formally object to the £5,000. It clearly is not within the spirit of the withdrawal Act and therefore the Minister has not prayed that Act in aid but has prayed in aid the draconian European Communities Act 1972. I was not here in 1972 and I have not recently brushed up on the detail, but that Act was created to implement European law. This is not creating European law; it is smuggling in a little correction. I am not going to cause a constitutional crisis by objecting to it, but the Government should not have done it.

Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seatbelts) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I will begin by pointing out that Paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“With exit day less than one year away”.


I keep repeating this because I want to know where these SIs have been all this time. Someone clearly did the work on them a long time ago, and we are now rushing them through this House. Why have they been left to this late stage?

That is my complaint over with. Turning to the issues in this SI, as the Minister has said, it is a simple transposition. But it is an important topic, because hundreds of thousands—probably millions—of British people travel abroad to Europe every year. A very large number of them take their car, and could therefore start off with perfectly legal seat belts only to find themselves in an illegal situation by the end.

This SI basically says “If it is legal in the EU, it will be legal in the UK. If you are exempt in the EU, you will be exempt in the UK”. What about UK drivers going to the EU in the situation I have just explained? Has the EU indicated what it intends to do in the event of a no-deal Brexit? On some transport issues, it has given a fairly clear—if not always desirable—indication. Has it made any comments on this at all?

Those who are in favour of Brexit, including the Secretary of State, want the freedom to develop our own standards. If we do, will we be guaranteed that, when we go to Europe with, say, our child’s bumper seat—which people often take with them on holiday—it will be legal when we get there?

There has been a lot of coverage lately of the end of the EU medical insurance system as it applies to UK residents. Is there a set format for the medical certificates referred to in this SI? Is there a particular form or list of medical professionals who can sign these certificates? My point is, how easy will it be in future for UK citizens to get a certificate of medical exemption that will be instantly recognised as authentic and acceptable, even by someone who perhaps does not speak English? To reverse that, if there is an EU format, then we will clearly be used to it, and the authorities in Britain coming across someone with a medical exemption would know about it. I am trying to tease out the way in which British people will be treated in future when they drive in the EU.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, leaving the EU without an agreement is a thoroughly stupid thing to do, but if it happens, this SI is thoroughly sensible and we will not oppose it. My understanding, which I think is the same as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is that it is not symmetric: that it does nothing for UK drivers in the EU but sensibly addresses the issue of drivers who would unknowingly be breaking the law were this SI not completed. It produces a sensible environment in which friends—as I would call them—from the European Union can drive in the UK.

Merchant Shipping (Recognised Organisations) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, these regulations involve ship inspections. The four sets of regulations this afternoon will lead me to repeat myself on a couple of occasions because the same themes come through in each one. All of them have safety issues at their core. The current EU-based system will be replaced with a UK-only system. As I understand it, it will continue to work within a system of international standards and the new legislation will retain existing criteria for the recognition, authorisation and monitoring of ROs: so far, so good. But ships move about and currently we have obligations to report to the EU to share information. How will this sharing happen effectively in future? Most of our ships will be sailing through EU waters at some point in their journey and many of the ships that visit our shores are EU ships. We need to know how that information is going to be shared in the future because of the safety implications.

The inspection of ships, both UK and foreign ones, is a key issue for the safety of ports. Therefore, I was quite surprised to read that there has been no formal consultation. Reasons were given on each of these SIs why there was no formal consultation. If you take the SIs together they are a pretty significant bundle of legislation and would be worth consultation in the round, if not as individual pieces of legislation.

It states in the Explanatory Memorandum that the Secretary of State will be given power to make subordinate legislation. Can the Minister clarify whether this will be an affirmative or a negative procedure?

Finally, the list of ROs we have been provided with makes for interesting reading. I do not in any way pretend to be an expert in these issues. Can the Minister enlighten me as to how this list is drawn up? How is this rather disparate list of organisations there and how do we change it? What are the criteria for changing it if we want to? I would be grateful for some information on that.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for presenting this instrument. I have no great problem with it but I lack a little bit of understanding. The first thing I would like to be clear on is whether this is a no-deal instrument, that is, something that needs to be processed quickly because it is necessary if we fall out of the EU without a deal—which in my view and that of my party would be the least satisfactory outcome. I can see that the instrument does its work in the event of a no deal; I am not so clear about what happens to it if there is a deal. Will it be repealed or will it be paused? Will it continue to exist? The Minister may find it efficient to answer that question referring to all four statutory instruments if it is the same answer.

Ship and Port Security (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation. The EU regulations behind this provide a standardised regime of protective security for port facilities and the surrounding area, and this SI also covers inspections. It replaces the EU system with a UK system that mirrors the EU one, and in doing so, there is one crucial change: it removes the obligation to provide information to the European Commission. I am sorry to ask again: how will we co-ordinate and share information with the Commission in the future?

The SI says that the MCA will continue to carry out inspections to ensure that ships and ports meet required security standards. Can the Minister say who will set down those standards and require them in the future and how we will align them internationally so that our standards are as good as those of the rest of the world? Since this is an attempt to mirror the EU, how will the Government adapt to changes that the EU makes so that we do not put ourselves at a disadvantage with our current EU partners?

Can the Minister also say what liaison there has been with the devolved Administrations on this? It is not clear from the Explanatory Memorandum. The devolved Administrations have an important role in port administration. We do not want to confuse people totally; the idea that you would have a very different set of standards if you put into the port of Holyhead rather than the port of Liverpool would be deeply unsatisfactory and confusing. The SI gives the Secretary of State power to amend port security regulations by the negative procedure, and the Minister drew attention to that. However, perhaps I did not hear correctly or fully; could she say why the affirmative procedure is not being considered?

The EU can block amendments to the ISPS code if they might lower maritime security standards. This power is now given, in this SI, to the Secretary of State, once again by the negative procedure. We do not want to see lower standards. I am concerned about the danger that we might get out of step with the EU on the highest standards which are set by it and that we might do so simply by default. That is because the Secretary of State would exercise the power through the negative procedure and we would not be given the opportunity to scrutinise it.

This is a serious issue as regards safety and it is important that we are given the opportunity to scrutinise it. I personally would prefer the affirmative procedure, but I will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, once again I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this instrument. I have subjected it to my standard test: is it the minimum policy change required? I also have to admit that I did not understand the overall framework, but that is my fault. I know about aeroplanes and trains, but the sea is a mystery to me. What I have picked up from the instrument is that SOLAS with its ISPS code is an international convention. Is it the case that the international body hands down specifications and requirements that it has previously put through the EU and in the future will make directly to the UK? Are such directions and recommendations mandatory for the UK except as excepted by this instrument?

Drones: Consultation Response

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Monday 7th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her repetition of the Statement. I see it promises further action but unfortunately when I look at the detail I see no clear action specified, except the five-kilometre rule. It seems to me it merely says that there will be more meetings and discussions; there is no specific action in the Statement.

Does the Minister accept that the Secretary of State has a personal responsibility for the safety of operations, particularly at Gatwick, Heathrow and the other major airports? The whole concept of a good safety environment is where one individual can be held personally responsible. In the case of aviation, we have several safety systems but, at the end of the day, somebody has to be responsible. Is it her view that the Secretary of State has this personal responsibility? Does he also have a personal responsibility to the many passengers disrupted because of this incident? I believe that in excess of 100,000 passengers had their travel disrupted by this event.

The present regulations in relation to 400 feet and one kilometre are pathetic. When I was both a private and a professional pilot, if I got within one, five, 10, perhaps even 15 kilometres of Heathrow or Gatwick without direct permission to do so, I would have been prosecuted, paid a hefty fine and had my licence removed. The idea that a kilometre is of any value is absurd, and there has to be a serious question mark over five kilometres.

I note that the Statement acknowledges the wider challenge with prisons and infrastructure, and I am pleased that account will be taken of that—but we have known about this risk for many years. I believe there was an incident at Gatwick as far ago as July 2017 and BALPA, the pilots’ union, has been pointing out the potential hazards of drones for a number of years. Why was there not a plan? Why was there not legislation? The noble Baroness and I spent many happy hours together at the beginning of 2018. We did space; we did ATOL; we did vehicle technology; we did lasers. There was every opportunity to squirrel some legislation on drones into those Bills, and indeed I made an informal offer to her predecessor that we would co-operate if the Government had something to bring forward. Some basic legislation could have been introduced.

Is it the DfT’s view that Gatwick Airport Ltd met its responsibilities? Does it not have a general responsibility for the safety of its passengers? Does it not have a general responsibility to plan in some depth for when things go wrong?

For part of my career, I was responsible for the passengers on the London Underground. We would respond to any risk by making plans immediately to see how we could mitigate those risks and then we would develop those plans. The mitigation, where practical, would be introduced straightaway. Indeed, in the early 1990s we developed plans to evacuate the Underground very quickly. When in 1992 we found incendiaries on trains, we were able to get the people out within something like 10 minutes. I have to admit that we did not have a plan to then restart the Underground, and it was not a good day for our passengers—but at least they were alive and well. Does the Secretary of State accept that he should have had in place, or caused to be in place, a plan? Does he accept that, if a plan does not exist, it should now?

I assume that the new powers will increase police activity and responsibility. Will there be sufficient police resources to make this practical?

The issue of drones has been with us for years, and in my view it has been handled chaotically. This is symptomatic of the whole of HMG at the moment. When will this Government get a grip?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, at last we have some sort of response from the Government on the issue of drones, which, as the noble Lord emphasised, we have discussed repeatedly and urged the Government to take action on. The only positive thing that can be said about the Gatwick incident is that it involved massive economic and personal disruption but not death or injury, which it could have.

There are now millions rather than thousands of drones in the UK. The Gatwick incident ruined travel plans for 140,000 people. In 2017, there were 93 near misses between drones and planes, and 3,500 incidents involving drones were reported to the police, concerning people’s safety and their privacy. These are large figures: this is not a marginal activity. It paints a picture of a big problem, but the Government have been horribly complacent and have dithered and delayed. The consultation that the Minister referred to finished in September, but we have the response only now and—if I dare suggest it—had we not had the Gatwick incident, I do not think it would have come out now.

I understand that action was deferred because of the pressures of Brexit, but the Government have allowed themselves to be distracted from a very important issue. The new regulations that were introduced last year proved in the Gatwick incident to be inadequate, ineffective and unenforceable. The police clearly did not have the right equipment, and I suggest that the dramatic tension of the Gatwick incident turned to farce when the police suggested they were not even sure that there had been a drone, or that it could have been their drone that people were seeing.

The Government’s proposals today are welcome, but they are far too vague. We need action beyond legislation because, as the noble Baroness said, the legislation—whatever it was—was ignored. I would like to press the Minister on the timescale for these proposals. When does she think new legislation will get through this House, given the very crowded schedule?

The Gatwick incident indicated that both the police and the Army did not have the right equipment to hand to deal with drones. That is despite the fact that some of the equipment we are talking about was invented and manufactured in Britain. Will the Minister assure us that this equipment is now being rapidly rolled out to both the police and the Army? I read that it is being purchased by airports but it is important that the police and the Army carry out the appropriate exercises so that they know how to respond—they clearly did not know how to respond prior to Christmas. Obviously, that will require additional resources. I would like some reassurance from the Minister that the Government will provide those.

For satirists, the Department for Transport is the gift that keeps on giving. Over the Christmas break alone, we had the ferry company with no ferries, the drone incident with possibly no drones and today we had the traffic jam with not enough lorries. The Secretary of State said on television with unconscious irony before Christmas that the drone incident was the first time this had happened in the world and the first time there had been disruption for days at an airport. That is because the action was not taken, because the equipment was not there and the police and the Army were not prepared. It is not the first time that a drone has disrupted an airport across the world. Unfortunately, this was our world first and it is not one that we want to see repeated.

Airports National Policy Statement

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for providing the extensive documentation that went with it. Labour’s position on Heathrow was set out by my honourable friend Andy McDonald MP in the other place yesterday:

“Labour will consider proposed expansion through the framework of our well-established four tests: expansion should happen only if it can effectively deliver on the capacity demands; if noise and air quality issues are fully addressed; if the UK’s climate change obligations are met in their entirety; and if growth across the country is supported”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/18; col. 172.]


Labour’s decision will emerge in due course.

The Statement says:

“To ensure fairness and transparency we appointed an independent consultation adviser, the former Court of Appeal judge, Sir Jeremy Sullivan”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/18; col. 169.]


I invite the Minister to set out in a little more depth what the role of that individual was and whether it will continue into the future.

I turn to the Government’s response to the Transport Committee’s report. Recommendation 2 of that report says:

“We recommend that both Houses of Parliament allow the planning process to move to the next stage by approving the Airports National Policy Statement, provided the concerns we have identified later in our Report are addressed by the Government in the final NPS it lays before Parliament”.


Does that mean that we will have a debate in this House on a divisible Motion?

Turning back to the Statement, it says:

“Our draft NPS was scrutinised by the Transport Committee, and I thank the Chair of the Committee and her team for the thoroughness of their work. I was pleased that they, like me and my colleagues in the Government, accepted the case for expansion and concluded that we are right to pursue development through an additional runway at Heathrow. We welcome and have acted on 24 out of 25 of its recommendations. Our response to the Committee is also being published today”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/18; col. 169.]


For the avoidance of doubt, I will tell your Lordships that the 25th recommendation was recommendation 22, which was about an incinerator. Does “acted upon” mean “We have agreed with the recommendation”? Clearly, it does not. The committee’s recommendation 19 is that there should be a seven-hour noise ban at night and the Government have responded by saying, “No, you will get only six and a half”. I have done my best to try to understand the response to the committee, which is vague and, at times, woolly.

On capacity, the Statement says:

“Expansion at Heathrow will bring real benefits across the country including a boost of up to £74 billion to passengers and the wider economy, providing better connections to growing world markets, and increasing flights to more long haul destinations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/18; col. 169.]


That makes it sound like thousands. In fact, the committee’s report says:

“The NPS states that the NWR scheme is ‘expected to lead to more long-haul flights and connections to fast-growing economies’. The DfT’s forecasts show that, at the UK level, the NWR scheme will offer one more destination overall to emerging and fast-growing economies when compared with no expansion”.


One seems a rather modest number.

The Statement touches on savings. It says:

“We took a firm step when I asked the industry regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, to ensure the scheme remains affordable while meeting the needs of current and future passengers. This process has already borne fruit, with the identification of potential savings of up to £2.5 billion”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/18; col. 170.]


Is this saving coming from the mooted scheme, which I believe Heathrow is consulting on, to reduce the length of the third runway from 3.5 kilometres to 3.2 kilometres? If it does, will there be any significant operational impact of that reduction? When, many years ago, I was privileged to be a co-pilot on 747s, 2,500 metres seemed enough, and certainly many of the operations presently at Heathrow require nothing like 3,500 metres. Given how expensive the M25 issue is to this scheme, are further reductions to the runway length being considered?

We increasingly appreciate the importance of air quality, as well as its fatal consequences. What is the commitment on air quality? There is a commitment in the Statement but there was another in the Government’s response to the Transport Committee, which said very solidly:

“No scheme would be allowed to proceed if it did not comply with air quality obligations”.


Can the Minister flesh out what those air quality obligations are?

On noise, once again the Statement is fairly bullish. It says:

“Communities will be supported by up to £2.6 billion towards compensation, noise insulation and improvements to public amenities—10 times bigger than under the 2009 third runway proposal”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/18; col. 170.]


That may be, but Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd has recently proposed a cap of £3,000 on any insulation project. Anybody who has their house insulated against noise knows that that is a trivial sum. Can the Minister confirm that there will be no cap and that Heathrow will pay what it takes to achieve the appropriate levels of noise insulation?

It is a shame to see that the references to the community came right at the end of the document. It is the community that will be very impacted by this scheme. Towards the end of the Statement the Secretary of State said:

“Earlier this year a community engagement board was established, and we appointed Rachel Cerfontyne as its independent chair. It will focus on building relations between Heathrow and its communities, considering the design of the community compensation fund, which could be worth up to £50 million a year, and holding the airport to account when it comes to delivering on its commitments today and into the future”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/18; col. 170.]


Can the Minister set out what powers the independent chair will have? Will she in fact be acting as something like a tribunal and able to direct Heathrow in disputes to provide the appropriate money?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, this Statement has an air of Alice in Wonderland about it. Governments have been considering this problem for 20 years but I am afraid that the question is out of date, and so is the answer. Hub airports are no longer the growth area in aviation; the growth area is now in direct long-haul flights. The idea of concentrating ever more development in the overcrowded south-east will, the Government say, benefit other parts of the UK as well. Yet the report by the New Economics Foundation, Flying Low, shows that a new runway at Heathrow will cost regional airports 14 million passengers a year. It will harm them, not benefit them.

The first lack of reality is on the timescale, since 2026 is ridiculously optimistic. The idea that you are going to build a runway as well as demolishing 800 houses, moving an incinerator and dealing with the public inquiry, with development consent and—I am fairly certain—with challenges in the courts from local councils suggests to me that the Government do not have realistic expectations in that regard. This is important because it will have a big impact on the ability for any airport development to help our trade situation. There is also a level of fictional economics, which is that the Government have assigned this a zero cost by saying that it is a private development. Can the Minister clarify her attitude to Transport for London’s estimate of a £6 billion cost to the public purse for public transport? Who will pay for the cost of the disruption to the M25 and M4?

I greatly regret that there is a very brief paragraph on air quality. We were hardly aware of emissions issues when this problem was first investigated. Can the Minister provide us with more detail on how this development will enable the Government’s compliance with international obligations? Will she particularly address the issue of surface transport access and surface transport within the airport?

This is supposed to be a national statement yet there is only one brief paragraph in it referring to anywhere other than the south-east of England. How do the Government intend to achieve their promise of supporting other airports to make best use of their runways? Is that a concrete promise of support or is it simply wishing them well in the process? Liberal Democrats believe that the Government should be using airport development as a springboard for the development and prosperity of the north and the Midlands. They should be spreading prosperity across the whole country.

Finally, I warn everyone who is interested in this to look carefully at the wording in the Statement, especially that on page two. All the reassurances are couched in weasel words.

“We expect up to 15% of slots”,


will “facilitate domestic connections”. What does that promise to other parts of the UK? The Government expect,

“up to £2.6 billion … compensation”,

to be paid. They expect not at least £2.6 billion, but up to that figure. They,

“expect … a six-and-a-half hour ban on scheduled night flights”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/18; col. 170.]

What exactly are the guarantees, not the Government’s expectations, on compensation and night flight bans?

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 5th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 2. I submitted this amendment to give us the opportunity to clarify further exactly how the Government’s definitions would apply in practice. External organisations still voice concern that the Government are not using SAE International levels 4 and 5, which they regard as an accepted international standard. I accept entirely that it is slightly complicating matters that UNECE is still discussing this issue. I wonder whether, given that it will ultimately produce the precise definition, there could at some point be reference to the fact that these will be standards according to those laid down by UNECE. I assume it will get to the end of its discussions pretty soon, otherwise the roads will be full of automated vehicles without people understanding what they are.

I do not actually think there will be much confusion about level 5—I believe they will not have steering wheels, so it will be pretty obvious that they are automated vehicles—but I still cannot entirely get my head around the wording, at line 9, that they are,

“designed or adapted to be capable, in at least some circumstances or situations”,

of safely driving themselves. That does not suggest necessarily that these vehicles are going to be in a sustained mode of automatic driving. I think that the problem will arise with what are currently called level 4 vehicles, because that is almost a gradation further than level 3; there is no absolute cut-off point between level 3 and level 4. Level 3 cars can be driven on their own in some circumstances. I understand that using the word, “safely” is a very useful way of putting it, but it could be open to interpretation.

The Government have complicated things for themselves by using the phrase, “driving themselves”. The industry does not use that term—it does not say that the car “drives itself”. That is not the technical term that it uses; therefore the Government are using in legislation phrases that might be fairly obvious to the layman but are not used by those who deal with these issues every day.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the number of amendments she has brought forward. She has listened carefully to what we have had to say, and we have certainly made a great deal of progress, but I would be grateful if she would go away before Third Reading and consult a bit more with representatives of the industry to ensure that the categories are watertight. As I have said here before, probably at a much earlier stage, insurance companies are extremely good at arguing that particular situations do not apply to them and the Government are going to have to be watertight in their approach.

Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is along very similar lines in that it seeks clarity. That is what concerns us. I welcome that amendment, as I do the amendments from the Minister which have added some elements of clarity in a potentially complex situation. It is complex simply because we are trying to imagine ourselves into the future.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, and with apologies for being a little late, I shall speak solely to my Amendment 4. As I understand it—and I would value a nod from the Minister—she did not refer to Amendment 4 until I arrived. Amendment 4 is exactly as we moved before and we got some response to it on the issue of consultation. We heard:

“That is something that we plan to do … we fully expect this to be subject to full consultation”.


We got something really absolute only when the Minister said that the Government,

“will absolutely consult on the detail”.

I thought, “Great, those are the sorts of absolute terms I like”, only to see that she also said,

“where we need to make further primary or secondary legislation”.—[Official Report, 9/5/18; cols. 196-197.]

Well, of course you will consult when you are trying to get legislation through.

I accept that the Minister has gone some way to reassuring us but I am fearful that, given the order-making powers for conventional vehicles, Parliament may never see the safety criteria—ever. What I would like from the Minister, given the public concern about the conceptually new way of travelling, is an assurance that the safety criteria will come in front of us in one form or another before there is substantial automated vehicle activity on the roads.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 49 and 50, which are in this group. Before I do so, I reiterate my thanks to the Minister, who has taken on board the criticisms of the Bill that were made in Committee by me and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, in relation to the slight reference to hydrogen in the Bill when it came from the other place. The Government have accepted most of the amendments and have therefore dealt with the confusion of referring to charging hydrogen vehicles when it is not a phrase anyone would use—one would say “refuelling hydrogen vehicles”.

The amendments may appear simple, but they are very significant because the terminology used sends signals to investors and markets about the Government’s wishes and what form of ultra low emission vehicles they are supporting in this legislation. As originally written, it looked as if the Government were backing battery electric vehicles over other technologies, and these amendments put things in a more balanced light and level the playing field considerably.

However, I invite the Minister to think again before Third Reading and change the title of the Bill. The Bill now refers to three specific categories of vehicles—automated vehicles, electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicles—but its title refers to only two of those three categories, so to the less-than-expert observer it would appear that the Government have no legislation to encourage hydrogen vehicles. The Government could have chosen a much more general title, but they have chosen a relatively specific title because the Bill is limited and specific, so it would be sensible to flag up to the world that the Government have this legislation by putting the word “Hydrogen” in the title. I urge the Minister to reconsider this. I have no intention of pushing this to a vote today, but I think it would be useful if the title could be amended at Third Reading.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that a change to the title would be helpful, and I accept her point that it is not something we are going to divide the House on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

I am somewhat confused. I thought we were still debating the group starting with Amendment 29, and my understanding of the rules is that no other amendment is yet moved. Anyway, I will make the speech that I was going to make. I thank the Minister for her help in trying to get me to understand the amendment, those that preceded it and the amendments to the amendments that preceded the latest amendments to the amendment. I have to admit that I am now totally confused. Hence I am absolutely delighted that the Minister has assured us that this group of amendments will be translated into a single government amendment. I will reserve my views on that amendment until I have seen it, and I hope it turns up quite soon. Because that amendment will be tabled, we may choose to bring forward amendments to it at Third Reading, but I will refrain from using the time of the House any more at this point.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I am totally confused as well because I thought we were still on group 7. I am going to confuse everyone even further by moving and speaking to Amendment 33.

Rail Timetabling

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Monday 4th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the national railway is a public service for two reasons. First, most passengers have no choice and, secondly, a vast amount of its expenses are paid for by the taxpayer. One has to ask: who is responsible for this public service? It is very clear: it is just one person, the Secretary of State. He owns Network Rail, he hires and fires the directors, he determines their pay, he can give them directions, he decides what funding they get. He commissions the train operating companies and the various, appropriately complex, conditions on their contracts. He is personally responsible for the mess.

My colleague in the House of Commons said that the Secretary of State should resign. I would not be nearly so presumptuous, but an apology would be a step in the right direction. There is not a word of apology in the Statement. I share his sorrow, and I wish that he would take personal responsibility for the sorrow that he has caused. He failed fully to understand the operation; he did not assure himself that he had sufficient skilled resources to understand the risk. Furthermore, he carries on trying to make the present structure work. The present franchise system does not work. You need much more skill than the Secretary of State has so far displayed to get a profit-maximising organisation with virtually no real competition to maximise the concept of public service. His favoured solution for getting the railway right is a partnership, as he set out in his east coast Statement, but Northern was managed by a partnership and it failed; GTR had a partnership and it failed. Why did it fail? It failed because a publicly owned Network Rail and a profit-maximising train operator do not make natural partners.

The Secretary of State fails to understand the basic financial pressures on the train operating companies. They go on about increases in passenger numbers, but this is much more dependent on external forces such as the economy than anything that the train operating company can do. Revenue is largely outside their control; the road to shareholder value is by cutting costs.

Finally, the Secretary of State’s plan to get us out of this mess, a programme of incremental introduction, is likely to go as wrong as the current mess. I have run a railway in the public sector. It is a complex system, and any change to any part has an effect on the whole system. Change needs to be modelled and tested by high-quality research staff, which takes time and effort and long lead times to recruit and train staff, particularly drivers. Does the Secretary of State have access to such staff? If he has, are they recommending incremental introduction?

To summarise, does the Secretary of State accept personal responsibility for this mess? Will he apologise, and has he got sufficient skilled resources to manage the situation? Is he still convinced that a partnership really can work? Given the continuous failure of the present franchise structure, does he not agree that the train operating companies should be taken into public ownership?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord I am horrified by the tone of this Statement. The passengers, who bear the brunt of all this, have absolutely had enough, and the lack of any shadow of an apology in that Statement from the Secretary of State is going to anger them even further. The Secretary of State lurches from catastrophe to chaos, and I believe that he thinks that he is Teflon man.

I differ from the noble Lord in that I do not believe that nationalisation is the answer. Indeed, when you look at the ability of the Department for Transport to manage things effectively, one shudders to think of what it would do if it was in charge of the whole lot. I do not subscribe to the kneejerk approach to politics that heaps all blame on Ministers; I realise that government is difficult and that Ministers cannot be expected to micromanage. But I have been a Minister in two Governments and I recognise the point where a Minister has to take direct responsibility when something goes wrong. The Secretary of State has reached that point, and he needs to take that responsibility for his part in this debacle. You cannot claim the credit for something if you are not prepared to shoulder the blame when things go wrong. The latter part of this Statement trumpets the wonderful things that are still going to happen in future; the Secretary of State has trumpeted all this in the past and therefore takes responsibility for it.

Why were basic precautions not taken to ensure that a big change like this ran smoothly? It is the coward’s way to blame the staff and managers involved. Transport Focus warned of potential problems with the new timetables last autumn. Why were its warnings not heeded? What meetings took place with Transport Focus, and between it and the train operating companies, to deal with the concerns which it voiced? For how long has this change been planned? Was there any element of speeding it up to get it done by a particular time, which might have been a factor in why it went wrong? Has Network Rail, or the train operating companies involved, ever raised any concerns about either the scale of change or the timescale for it? The Statement says that there were meetings recently and no concerns were raised then. Were they raising concerns some months back? Why were these changes introduced on such a grand scale, involving several train lines? Would a pilot project not have been a good idea? Given the delays to the Bolton electrification project, why go ahead at all with changes on Northern at this time?

The Statement refers to compensation, but it is not precise. Can we please have exact details about compensation to long-suffering passengers? Finally, the Statement referred to the ORR undertaking an inquiry. Will this be entirely independent? Will it analyse the roles and responsibility of Government, as well as of Network Rail and the train operating companies, so that Government can learn the lessons from this and ensure that it never happens again?

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to see that we have, after several weeks’ delay, reached the Committee stage of this Bill. As I said in the previous debate, I welcome it. I was reminded, however, of its very narrow scope when I tried to devise some amendments which seemed to me useful and straightforward but seemed to the clerks, quite rightly, to be out of the scope of the Bill.

I understand the Government’s desire to deal with insurance as the low-hanging fruit of automated vehicles first of all. As we are told, however, that these vehicles will be on our roads in two to three years—and indeed as they are widely being trialled across the world and in parts of Britain—the Government, I fear, are going to have to run very fast to catch up on this issue given the pace of development of technology. I know that the Law Commission is looking at other aspects beyond insurance, at such matters as criminal responsibility and the wider issue of pedestrian and driver behaviour, but there is a serious danger of being overtaken by events. In moving Amendment 1, I want to concentrate our minds on the issue of vehicles manufactured and purchased or simply manufactured outside Britain and the importance of their being properly and fully reflected on the Secretary of State’s list.

The amendment’s intention is to ensure that this list is fully robust. Up to now, our insurance system has coped with imported cars simply because a car is a car. Whether a car is manufactured abroad and imported here prior to sale or manufactured and sold abroad and then imported into this country for use, either temporarily or permanently, this list has to be clear and comprehensive. How do the Government intend to ensure that the list is truly comprehensive? The world is a very big place, and we have a large number of people living in this country with links to other countries who might choose to import cars from abroad. There are also many hundreds of thousands of cars—indeed, millions—being driven on our roads that were manufactured abroad.

Amendment 2 stresses the importance of the Secretary of State’s list being aligned with definitions used in other countries—indeed, that goes for the whole Bill. The insurance industry has produced what it calls the 10 commandments, or 10 points, that a vehicle needs to adhere to in order to be considered automated. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, or UNECE, deals with global transport issues in relation to safety and is currently discussing international definitions of automation. I am told that the Department for Transport is taking a leading role in this.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is concerned that the Secretary of State’s list should follow the internationally accepted criteria as spelled by UNECE and should not be just a UK-specific definition. For this reason, it is keen that this legislation should use the internationally accepted levels used across the world within the industry. These standards were established by the Society of Automotive Engineers International and are apparently used everywhere across the world.

The Government intend the Bill to apply to levels 4 and 5, but, as written, it could apply to some vehicles at level 3. I want to draw attention to a recent court case in which a man was prosecuted for driving a Tesla S down the M1 near Hemel Hempstead while sitting in the passenger seat—there was no passenger in the driver’s seat. He was on autopilot. That is described by Tesla as a suite of driver assistance features including traffic-aware cruise control, which assists with acceleration and deceleration, and auto-steer. Although the reports I read did not specify it, I imagine that the vehicle also has automated emergency braking, because that is quite common in a range of cars. That is level 3, but it meets the definition in the Bill at Clause 1(1)(b), that vehicles are,

“capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving themselves”.

Clearly, the argument here is whether that was safe, but I fear that the Government might find themselves involved in a great deal of protracted court procedure on the definition of “safe” After all, level 3 cars are certainly on our roads.

If I go into a little detail about the difference between the levels, the Committee will see how narrow that difference is and how the Government’s definition in the Bill could be misleading. In level 3, the vehicle controls all monitoring of the environment. The driver’s attention is still needed, but can disengage from safety-critical functions such as braking. Many level 3 cars currently available require no human attention to the road at lower speeds. At level 4, a vehicle tells its driver when it is safe to be automated and when not. The vehicle is capable of steering, braking, accelerating, monitoring other vehicles and the road, and responding to traffic. It can determine when to change lanes and signal but it cannot cope with traffic jams. That is sometimes referred to as the, “mind off” level. At level 5, a steering wheel is optional—there is no need for a steering wheel—no human intervention is required and you do not need brakes or pedals. It is a totally new design of car.

I have gone into that in some detail because I fear that the Government’s definition of automated vehicles as being,

“capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving themselves”,

is oversimplified. They need instead to rely on internationally accepted definitions. The reason the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is concerned is that the levels are so well established and widely used across the world and within the industry that even if technology advances further, as it probably will, all they will do is add a level 6. It is rather inconsistent of the Government. I understand that they want some all-embracing definition that is not subject to change, but in the second part of the Bill, for example, which relates to electric vehicles, the Government are happy to refer to “fast and rapid charging”. That is the same kind of technological term currently in use—the current jargon.

I believe, and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders also suggests, that this could lead to a blurring of definitions. It could lead to legal challenge and the Government could spend a lot of time defining what is safe. Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also deals with the definition of safe driving. I welcome it especially because it touches on the crucial issue of hacking: I am sure we will come back to that in later debates. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 33 and comment briefly on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The debate today will cover several areas, but one of them will be safety and I shall speak more about that later. My amendment covers safety, and lights particularly upon hacking. This is not a controversial Bill as I see it: virtually all the amendments are probing amendments and I hate to say it to the Minister but I think the speaking part on this occasion will be principally hers rather than mine.

Clause 7 sets out the terms for when a car is deemed to be driving itself, or in automated mode. However, it makes no mention of what happens if the vehicle is designed or manufactured faultily, or if it is hacked due to a failure by the manufacturer to install adequate software safeguards. While we all welcome the opportunities that this new technology will bring, we also have to recognise that it will bring new risks. A lot of these risks will be around the software used and therefore may be harder to pick up than in a conventional vehicle. This is a good opportunity to put in safeguards to give protection around this area now, rather than later down the line.

The amendment tightens up this area of the Bill by setting out when an automated vehicle is capable of driving itself safely. This would give the driver protection with regard to liability if it was proven that there was a manufacturer’s fault or the vehicle had been hacked. The purpose of the amendment is to get a general debate started in relation to this area, particularly on the hacking element.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, removing the two words “or adapted” would mean that the Secretary of State’s list would not include vehicles manufactured for conventional driving and adapted for autonomous mode. Those involved in the motor industry regard the concept of adapting vehicles as extremely dangerous. The technology companies—the people who write and design the software for cars—also regard it as very dangerous. The point they make is that their software is specifically tailored to individual car design. The fact that their technology works safely in one car does not mean that it can be shoe-horned into another model, even a similar model.

The clause as written would include individual adaptations by enthusiasts, which would be a very uncertain path to go down. Indeed, if a car manufacturer decided to adapt a current level 3 model—for example, the Tesla S, to which I referred earlier—to a level 4 car, I am absolutely sure that Tesla, in line with standard motor industry practice, would call it the “Tesla S Elite” or something similar. It would be a different model and therefore it would not be an adaptation in the meaning set out in relation to the Secretary of State’s list. What I am really pointing out here is that the concept of “adapted” vehicles would narrowly include those adapted on a one-off basis by individual enthusiasts, and therefore it would not seem reasonable to expect the Secretary of State and the Department for Transport to have the expertise to know whether that was safe.

I want to refer briefly to Amendment 29, which is in this group and stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. A big section of it is very similar to the amendment tabled by Labour in the Commons to the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord on having managed to get this amendment accepted. I could not think of a way of doing it, but he has done very well.

Amendment 29 addresses crucial issues associated with the proper repair and maintenance of automated vehicles. In particular, it goes into detail on the need to establish properly accredited training schemes for those who repair and maintain them. Rather like the repair of electric vehicles, the process is totally different from traditional vehicle repair. I spoke at Second Reading about the need for a process similar to the old CORGI gas safety scheme. That was a highly respected, universally acknowledged scheme and came about as a result of the Government working with the industry. We need the Government to work with industry in the same way on automated vehicles, and I am very grateful that the noble Lord has raised it in his amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 29 in my name. I accept the noble Baroness’s congratulations on behalf of my staff—which is one quarter of a very able lady—who managed to get this past the Public Bill Office. The proposed new clause would protect insurers against accidents caused by vehicles repaired by unauthorised technicians. It would also require the Government to establish a scheme for the authorised inspection, repair and maintenance of automated vehicles by licensed and accredited technicians.

The automotive industry already relies on hundreds of thousands of individuals who support work on and maintain vehicles. As the technology develops, so too must the skills of those working on them. We are already aware of an existing skills gap in the industry. As the technology develops, that gap may well worsen but, as it stands, the Bill does not address a worsening skills gap. If we do not start planning for this now, we will be left with a huge hole in the support structures for these new vehicles.

I am of the generation where I was privileged at the age of 17 to buy a car for seven pounds and 10 shillings. The car was seven years older than me. It tended to go only about 10 miles before having to have its plugs cleaned and so on—which made courting my wife a bit difficult at times. But we were of a generation when the skill of looking after automotive technology was very straightforward, and widely understood by a large section of the population. Now I drive a Prius, and I would not dare touch anything on it. Not only is it unduly complex, but it could be very dangerous, with the very high voltages involved and so on. There is nothing I could do to that car that would do anything other than worsen its performance.

Transport Levying Bodies (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. The regulations come after a period when there has been, not surprisingly, a lot of local discussion and debate about the formation of the combined authority. Having been through a period of change in local council formation in Wales about 20 years ago, I still bear the scars; it is never an easy or happy situation. As I knew that there had been debate about this matter and some discussion about the plans for transport in the area, I took a look at the mayor’s transport delivery plan. There are local concerns about an overemphasis in that plan on Cambridge city and on roads.

I applaud the ambition of the mayor, because his ideas include a Cambridge underground—the Cambridge autonomous metro with underground electric buses. It is ground breaking stuff and a very good idea in many ways, because Cambridge as an historic city with a dense population has a huge traffic problem to solve. However, undergrounds involve tunnelling, which is very expensive. It is therefore not surprising that the amount of money that would be sucked into the Cambridge area has alarmed people in Peterborough, who believe—I think quite rightly, being familiar with Peterborough—that much needs to be done to improve their bus network, such as the introduction of bus lanes and encouragement of ultra-low emission buses, as well as to improve cycling and walking infrastructure and the uptake of rail. Those are much less expensive options.

Then there is a wider picture, because Peterborough and Cambridge are two cities in the midst of a large rural area. I strongly welcome devolution of powers over railways, but, in that wider area, people are campaigning for the reopening of Wisbech station, which was a casualty of the Beeching era, and of the line from there to March. They are isolated communities that desperately need investment. People are also campaigning for the electrification of the Peterborough to Ely and Cambridge line to encourage freight from the east coast ports to the Midlands on to the rail. Of course, there are always demands for better rural bus services, with people emphasising the importance of sustainability and tackling congestion and air quality problems. I am simply trying to set the issues that have been put forward in this debate in the context of these regulations, and I have some questions for the Minister.

First, taking devolution fully into account, infrastructure development is of course an essential part of co-ordinated transport planning. So how does the Department for Transport monitor the way that levying bodies, not just this one but others as well, spend the money they raise? How does the department ensure that transport plans treat the whole area affected by this fairly? How does it ensure that there is co-operation and co-ordination—this is a key point—from one local authority area to another? Because there are certain aspects of transport provision, such as local buses, which are rightly an issue for that area alone, but when you are looking at railways you are almost always linking from one local authority area to another, and the same with road provision. So you have a transport plan from here to somewhere; you cannot just stop it at the border. I am interested in how the Government can ensure that the levy, which is after all a levy on the people of that area, is spent wisely.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I can set the Minister’s mind at rest that we are not going to have a constitutional crisis: this will be one of the thousands of affirmative instruments that will go through without a Division. Nevertheless, I have some mild misgivings.

The draft regulations give authority to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority to levy the upper-tier authorities, as far as I can see without constraint. They give this authority to set a levy in respect of transport. I did not know until I heard the speech of the noble Baroness that they were considering digging holes underground. My experience of digging holes underground is that they cost about £250 million per kilometre and they have a dreadful habit of not coming out at anything like the figure you thought they should. Therefore, this levy, if there is overambition, could be a very significant drag on the upper-tier authorities.

I cannot see in the legislation how that is limited. I saw some words about having regard for the ability of the upper-tier authority to pay, but that seemed to be all, so my first question is: are the upper-tier authorities consulted on the level of this levy? There is a general principle that there should be no taxation without representation. There should surely be some process with proper checks and balances in it.

In researching this order, I went back to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Order 2017, which says on page 5, at paragraph 7.13:

“To give effect to the contents of the deal to devolve powers to the proposed Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, the Order confers local authority functions for public transport on the proposed CPCA, to be exercised by the Mayor. It also enables the Mayor to produce and publish a Local Transport Plan for the CPCA area”.


My second question, therefore, is: has the mayor produced a local transport plan? Has he costed it? Has he explained the criteria for how the decisions on expenditure are made? Surely this transport plan should create a budget which the upper-tier authorities are able to have sight of and have some say about whether or not they are getting value for money for their levy.

Seafarers (Insolvency, Collective Redundancies and Information and Consultation Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, we should congratulate the Minister on bringing this legislation here. Since she took up her role as Minister, it is clear that she has looked into the dark corners of the Department for Transport’s cupboards, dusted off some badly overdue legislation and brought it into the strong light of day. I regret having to say this, but I have to ask again: why is it so late? I understand that this measure is based on the seafarers directive of 2013. It should have been transposed into UK law by October last year. So we are now six months overdue. I know that the Government are distracted by Brexit, but it is a bad symptom of a situation where a Government are really struggling to cope.

Of course, I support the proposals here; on these Benches, there is strong support for the principle behind the regulations. The big issue is whether they really equalise rights for seafarers, bringing them fully into line with those who work on land. We all realise that it is a much more complex issue, because if you work at sea national boundaries are crossed less obviously and supervision of terms and conditions of employment is probably much more complex. There are also complex employment patterns, as the Minister has pointed out.

One can therefore do nothing other than welcome the increased job security that there will be for seafarers as a result of these regulations—and perhaps dwell for the moment on the fact that it is quite ironic they have been introduced as a result of an EU directive at a time when many fishing and coastal communities are among those in the UK where support for leaving the EU was strongest. I fully support the regulations and thank the Minister for her explanation.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I come to these regulations still intellectually exhausted from biofuels and have set myself the minimum objective of trying to understand them. My few questions for the Minister are therefore just to understand them better.

The regulations and their accompanying Explanatory Memorandum seem, as far as I can see, to talk solely about share fishermen, where employed, and I am not clear whether the regulations affect anybody else. I thought that the easiest way to understand this might be to turn it on its head. The objective, we are told, is to turn the rights of seamen into the same rights that land-based workers have. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum identifies five directives, which are set out, covering five areas where in the present situation there is a difference between seamen and land-based workers. I was not clear whether all five were covered by the regulations. In simple terms, asking the obverse question, following the approval of the measure, what differences remain between seamen and land-based workers? If there are any differences, why have they been retained?

Enhanced Partnership Plans and Schemes (Objections) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introductory comments. One of the big questions when we debated the Bus Services Bill last year was exactly how the Government were going to devise a scheme that allowed existing operators to object to a proposed partnership without allowing them to act as a complete block on progress towards improved bus services. We all hope that the enhanced partnerships will provide those improvements, so I strongly welcome the Minister’s realistic analysis of what the regulations seek to do. It seems that the scheme as outlined here is quite a cunning plan, which is well balanced between the operators and the local authorities.

However, we will see how well it works in practice. I am delighted to hear that 30 local authorities are already working on this. One hopes that they are successful because the others, the less adventurous ones, might perhaps follow suit. Given that the Government declare in the Explanatory Memorandum that a review is not appropriate, will the Minister assure us that there will be an element of informal review to assess how well this is working after a couple of years? There might be some unintended consequences or the need for some adjustment, so it is only sensible to allow for review—although I understand the Government not wanting to commit to a formal review process.

The plans set out five stages in the life cycle of an enhanced partnership. The first is when the local authority proposes a plan, the second is when it makes a plan and the third is when it proposes to vary a plan. How will that work in practice? Suppose at stage 1, when the local authority proposes an enhanced bus partnership, the bus operators object. Is there sufficient flexibility in the process for the local authority and the bus operators to meet and discuss the plan, for the local authority to amend it and for the bus operators to withdraw their objections without having to go back to square one? I fear that in practice some local authorities might look at a plan and, if the bus operators object, they might just retire from the field and say that they will not bother with enhanced partnerships again. I am concerned that we have a system that is sufficiently simple and flexible to allow both sides to address issues and concerns and to move on through the process without having to go back to the start.

I hope the system is flexible and that this is a successful way ahead, because the decline in the number of bus services, particularly in rural areas, indicates that for many areas this is the last opportunity for decent bus services to survive—and we know that when a bus service goes, it strikes at the heart of a rural area.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I am afraid that the Minister has not really made my day since she has answered all the questions in my original speech. I shall not waste the time of the House by repeating them. Suffice it to say that I commend the realistic attitude that the Government have taken to how bus companies might behave. I shall press the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about a review. I am not pressing the Government to commit to a review, but should the carefully researched numbers in these regulations prove not to achieve the Government’s objectives, what complexity would there be in changing the numbers? Would it be possible within the parent legislation to bring forward new orders if the reaction of bus companies was excessively to veto apparently viable schemes?

Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, while I am not going to get carried away and divide the House on this issue, I will press it just once more. In my view, Clause 1(1) and (2) in fact describes two crimes. Clause 1(1)(a) says,

“the person shines or directs a laser beam towards a vehicle which is on a journey”,

which is great,

“and … the laser beam dazzles or distracts”.

That is a straightforward crime because I have stopped before the word “or”, so it is not a problem. Then there is a second offence, where,

“the person shines or directs a laser beam towards a vehicle which is on a journey, and … the laser beam … is likely to dazzle or distract … a person with control of the vehicle”.

In my view, it will be incredibly difficult to prove this second crime of being likely to dazzle or distract. That is why I would like paragraph (b) deleted so that it would simply be a matter of proving that a person had shone or directed a laser beam towards a vehicle that was on a journey. That is my reason for pressing the amendment again.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

The noble Lord has my support in wanting to push this issue a bit further. I recall raising in Committee the issue that it would be difficult to imagine why people would be walking around carrying a laser and pointing it at either objects on the road or planes in the air unless they were intent on doing some mischief.

It is also possible that people would find it very difficult, as the noble Lord has said, to prove the intent that is in the Government’s proposed legislation. I understand where the Minister is coming from on this—the Government do not want to criminalise people simply for walking around with a laser pen in their pocket—although I go back to the point, which I believe I made at Second Reading, that we have a situation with knives where we all own them and use them on a daily basis but it is an offence to be carrying a knife in certain situations. So we have managed to sort out the law in such a way that it is possible to distinguish between people who happen to have a knife in their rucksack because they were cutting up their apple for lunch and people who are carrying a knife with the intent to use it as a weapon. I say to the Government that it is probably worth while going back and looking again at applying that approach to the carrying of laser pens and lasers in general.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

I certainly support the principle behind the amendment, but I am aware that the Government are keen to keep the Bill as simple as possible, and I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade us that it is already covered in other ways. It is essential that co-pilots are also covered. Attempts have been made in government amendments to broaden the Bill—for example, to include towers at airports. That is welcome, but it is important that we ensure that the co-pilot—the person sitting alongside the pilot —is covered, because if the pilot is dazzled, undoubtedly anyone sitting next to them will be as well.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, we support the amendment and hope the Minister will consider it. First, I can see no harm in it and no perversity that might come out of it. It is always dangerous in high-tech industries to be too constraining in one’s language. For all we know, the illustrious title of pilot, which both the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and I enjoyed at one point in our lives, may fade away as the operation of aircraft becomes more automated. This catch-all amendment would improve the Bill just that little bit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her amendments. They demonstrate that she has approached this Bill with very much an open mind. Because of the Bill’s technical nature, some experts in the House were able to add some very useful amendments, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, being an example. But it perhaps gives us pause for thought that the Bill, which has been pretty narrowly drafted—fortunately the noble Baroness has tabled amendments to broaden it significantly—still needed quite a lot of amendment. Although this is an issue that the Government have been considering for many months, there were still technical issues that needed to be addressed. That does not suggest that the proposals had been consulted on sufficiently. However, in relation to the Minister’s approach, I am very grateful to her for her assistance.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, we have examined this group of amendments and believe they have significantly improved the Bill. I thank the Minister for bringing them forward.

Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I was pleased to add my name in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monks. As he said, the age profile of offenders tends to be quite young and the amendment reflects the fact that young people are often unaware of the danger and gravity of what they are doing. I made the point earlier today that the fact that lasers are often mislabelled emphasises that it is difficult for people to know the strength of the laser they are using.

The Minister wrote to me in response to points I raised at Second Reading and pointed out that lasers are often bought by young people and children on holiday abroad, and that this is frequently the way in which they come into the country. This emphasises the importance of the underlying points the amendment seeks to make—the issue of parental responsibility and the importance of educating parents in the dangers of lasers. In that way we will educate generations of young children.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

While I have some sympathy with the general direction of the amendment, it touches on a massive subject—the extent to which parents are responsible for the criminal activities of their children. I worry about such a difficult concept being part of this Bill. If there is a problem here, I hope the Government will take this issue away, look at the generality of the relationship between parents and the criminal behaviour of their children and solve it in a wider context than this Bill. I await further discussion on Report before we take a final view.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, the amendment relates to the position of the CAA. We tabled a similar amendment in Committee. As promised, I went away and read Hansard carefully, because at the end of the debate I was still not clear about resources. The then Minister addressed a charging regime for assessing and issuing licences for monitoring and so on. Clause 61 gives the CAA and the space agency the powers to charge for their services. We can safely assume that they will charge the commercial rate to cover their costs, but my reservations were also about the development and expansion of the CAA to take on its new role prior to it becoming commercially viable. That aspect was not addressed in the Government’s response in Committee.

I was very pleased to receive a letter from the chief executive of the CAA setting out its viewpoint. As well as referring to the CAA’s power to set charges, it addresses the preparation issue. It says:

“Until the Space Flight legislation is in force the DfT is funding the CAA team that has been established to focus solely on supporting the Government with the development of the Bill and the regulatory framework, so the CAA will be ready to regulate this UK industry once the statutory powers are in place”.


I am very grateful for that additional information and I am glad to hear that the Department for Transport is funding that team, but I press the Minister for a little more detail. I find it quite difficult to get a handle on how big this team is. Perhaps she could quantify the funding that is in place to assist the CAA. Can she provide some detail on training? In working towards such a regulation, the CAA would undoubtedly look at parallels; for example, the regulation of normal aviation. However, it is surely looking across the world at how other countries regulate the space industry. I assume that there is an element of seeking information from other countries across the world, if not of sending employees to train there. I would be grateful for a bit more information to flesh out the assurances that I received from the CAA. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I support the general spirit and direction of the amendment. The task that the CAA and the space agency will face will be very difficult. I hope that the Government will be able to give us further assurances that resources will be made available to power this learning curve. I hope that there will be enough time for the skills to be in place before real applications come before the regulator. It is easy to underestimate just how difficult this task will be for the CAA and the space agency.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 18th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, Amendment 39 is on a similar theme. It relates to Clause 42 and the operation of orders in relation to the land to be used for a spaceport. A proposal to make an order, or an order itself, under Clauses 38 or 40 may not be challenged in any legal proceedings. Furthermore, such an order becomes operative within six weeks, which is a very short period of time.

On the face of it, these are sweeping powers for the Secretary of State to create rights over land and to restrict the use of land to secure safety. I find it quite difficult to square this clause with the comments of the Minister in relation to the previous debate, in which he assured the noble Lord, Lord Deben, of the legal right to challenge. That is because this clause states specifically that that cannot be done.

The powers referred to in the clause are essentially planning powers, which are normally devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so this amendment is designed to probe how the powers in the Bill that are conferred on the Secretary of State will operate in tune with the powers of the devolved Administrations. We have heard on several occasions that the devolved Administrations are supportive of the spirit of this Bill, but I am surprised, given that it relates so strongly to devolved planning powers, that it makes no direct mention of the devolved Governments. Here I draw a parallel with the Bus Services Bill. That also dealt with devolved powers and referred to the rights of the devolved Administrations in that respect.

As well as planning issues, the Bill deals with the licensing process, which is to be managed at the UK Government level as a UK Government responsibility. I would suggest to noble Lords that there could well be friction between the two sets of powers and between the two levels of government; in fact, it is unlikely that there will not be friction at some point. It is also inevitable that security issues will have to be taken into account, and those powers lie at both the devolved and the UK levels. The point I want to make is that this is a complex picture, so the amendment seeks to formalise the relationship between the UK and devolved Governments and to ensure that they cannot be overlooked.

I have no doubt that those Governments are supportive of the Bill now, but they may not always be so in every case. Good law should seek to allow for every possibility. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 39 and the Motion that Clause 42 should stand part. The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, underline why we support devolution, so we would not want this Bill to reduce in any way the responsibilities of the devolved Governments—along with the devolved city state of Prestwick.

Our concern with Clause 42 as a whole is that we do not understand why orders made under what will be Sections 38 and 40 cannot be challenged, but it then refers to a schedule under which they can. We feel that the drafting could be much clearer so that it takes account of the devolved Administrations and does not reflect an apparent conflict between the schedule and the clauses.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Tunnicliffe

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 16th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 7, I shall speak also to Amendments 8, 11 and 12 in this group. The Bill requires, in Clause 9(4) on page 7:

“As regards risks to the health, safety and property of persons not within subsection (2)”—


subsection (2) is about individuals who take part—

“the applicant must have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that those risks are as low as reasonably practicable”,

and,

“the level of those risks must be acceptable”.

This set of amendments vests the responsibility for certificating that this level of risk has been achieved in the Health and Safety Executive.

I start by thanking the Minister for the time that he has given to talk to us about the Bill—therefore, I cannot pretend that this is a probing amendment. I for one, and the rest of our Front Bench to a degree, feel that the Bill is premature. The two-year gap envisaged between the Bill becoming and Act and the full emergence of the regulations suggests to us that introducing the Bill at a later time would have been more efficient and allowed fuller scrutiny on a more comprehensive Bill. That is particularly drawn out in the whole safety issue.

The bit of the Bill that I have read requires the concept of the risks to what I shall call uninvolved third parties to be reduced to “as low as reasonably practicable”. That is a very widely used concept in the safety world—a complex concept that weighs benefits against risks and costs.

I shall take a view of the benefits of the Bill. The Minister quoted the importance and value of the space industry to the United Kingdom, and I would not in any way demur from that, but we are not talking about creating it or not, or the space industry carrying on in future or not. We are talking about two capabilities. One is about inserting the satellites into orbit and the other is space tourism. I know that some other things are prayed in aid, but that as a generality covers what the Bill will provide.

There is no way in which we are going to be a first mover in inserting satellites into orbit. The Americans, Russians, French and Chinese are all in this business. The Minister suggested that there was a special European dimension, and there may be, but to a degree inserting satellites into orbit is likely to become a commodity, especially as satellites become smaller and less weighty. There is a benefit, but the benefit will have to be judged in the whole balance of achieving “as low as reasonably practicable”.

I find the concept of space tourism extremely difficult to grapple with in safety terms. The nearest thing we have had to sustained space tourism was the shuttle programme. There were 135 missions; two ended catastrophically and 14 people died. I doubt that there is genuinely much of a market for tourism which involves a one in 65 chance of dying. The Virgin Galactic programme has also been mentioned. This has so far resulted in one destroyed aircraft and one dead pilot. Broadly speaking, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act requires that an activity where an employee runs a risk of more than one in 1,000 is unacceptable and should simply not happen. I find it difficult to believe that, with the risks apparent at the moment, space tourism would be certificated in this country in the near future.

Although the benefits of the industry as a whole are valid, it is less clear how great they are for this particular capability. They would also need to be balanced in meeting the requirements of the clause that protects the safety of uninvolved third parties, whose exposure is nicely brought out in annexe C to the letter which the Minister was good enough to write to me and some other noble Lords. It stated:

“The current UK aviation regulatory regime prioritises the safety of the aircraft and its occupants and does not directly regulate the safety of third parties on the ground ... If the level of safety for the aircraft and its occupants is sufficient then by default third parties can be considered appropriately protected”.


This approach is clearly not sufficient in this direction, either in its outcome or in its nature.

Generally speaking, there are two ways of developing a safety regime. There is the accident-led way: an enormous proportion of our safety law—fire law, building regulations et cetera—comes from accidents from which we learn. It may surprise noble Lords to learn that aviation safety essentially has the same basis. When I was involved in the industry in the 1960s, a British-registered jet aircraft crashed about every two years. When I entered the profession it was dangerous, with a chance of dying of about one in 2,000 per annum. Before civil aviation had its many crashes, the military was exploring the edges of the envelope and having similar numbers of them. The industry developed a high-quality investigation regime and slowly learned from these events. It then put them into regulations and co-operation emerged, both in the industry and internationally, which has refined itself into today’s civil aviation regime. I am not questioning its effectiveness, but one has to recognise its background. It is about experimenting, having events and then learning from them. That is my first point in arguing that the civil aviation approach is not suitable for this industry.

Secondly, the hybrid launch concept will not be certificatable within the normal civil aviation system. Basically, you cannot certificate aeroplanes to carry rockets. One has to realise that a rocket is merely a managed explosion. Those of us who remember the early days of spaceflight know that when rockets go wrong they turn into explosions. Carrying a rocket, these aircraft will be highly specialised and certainly will not fall naturally into any certification regime. As the Minister’s quotation illustrated, the consequences on the ground of an aircraft with a rocket on board crashing will have to be addressed. The presumption that the airplane and its occupants are safe will not be proven to the level by which one can disregard the impact of such a crash.

Thirdly, in a hybrid approach, not only do we have to look at the risks to aircraft used to launch rockets, we also have to look at rocket-propelled aircraft. One of the many ideas used to illustrate the potential value of spaceports are rocket-propelled aircraft, which will be an entirely new area of risk. The Bill allows for vertically launched rockets, and these will need to be assessed. Therefore, I argue that the aviation approach is not appropriate or called for by the Bill. It calls for an ALARP approach, which essentially, as I have already said, balances the benefits against the risks. It is a forward-looking approach and is used in nuclear, the railway environment and safety-critical industries. To meet this requirement one needs competence in the ALARP approach. Our amendments argue that that competence is held by the Health and Safety Executive.

However, as important as the requirement in connection with the body certifying that the level of risk has been reduced to as low as reasonably practicable is the requirement that from the beginning we have a single point of responsibility for safety. For most of my career I have been involved in safety-critical environments. It is almost impossible to stress the improvement in safety whereby an individual accountable to his board or organisation goes to bed knowing that if there is an incident in the area for which he or she is responsible, they cannot say, “That was their fault”, because, at least to some extent, it is that person’s responsibility. The most that person can do is join other parties in their responsibility. The responsibility lies with the individual and the organisation. Therefore, I believe that we need a single authority and an ALARP approach as an integrated whole that can look at the benefits and the risks posed by events and the consequences. We argue that only the Health and Safety Executive, with appropriate professional inputs, can meet that requirement and has the experience and skill to deliver this judgment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I associate myself with the intention behind these amendments. In preparing for the Bill, I spoke to a wide range of individuals and organisations involved in the space industry. They undoubtedly take health and safety very seriously and are surprised at the low density of detail in the Bill in relation to those aspects. Noble Lords across the Chamber have said several times this afternoon how exciting and important this issue is. There is undoubtedly lots of enthusiasm but, looked at dispassionately, this is a dangerous activity for those involved in it and others who are not involved but who live in the surrounding area or, indeed, almost anywhere in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out the potential for space tourism without people even leaving the ground as there will be viewing platforms and so on. All these things have to be considered from the health and safety standpoint. I have become increasingly concerned about the clutter in our skies. We are all familiar with planes but we are increasingly concerned about drones, and now we are taking into account space activity. Our skies are crowded and it is important that the Government set out a comprehensive, co-ordinated and truly effective approach to these issues.