Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st October 2024 Lords Chamber

My noble friend the Minister is trying very hard to get this Bill through and give us some pretty decent answers to some of the questions we are posing. It is very important that, after the discussion on the amendments in this group, he should agree to a regular report, starting very soon, on the current costs and where they are likely to change—increase or decrease—because of this Bill and the changes to the franchises. We have a long way to go, but the costs are fundamental not just to the Chancellor but to the railways having credibility in delivering their projects for the amount of money agreed by government.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly ask the Minister a question for when he comes to respond.

I am very supportive of what my noble friend says in his Amendment A1—that we be clear about the purpose of this legislation—but the Minister will be aware that the Bill will substantially achieve that by amending the Railways Act 1993. Section 4 of that Act, as amended, sets out the general duties of the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road. While they are listed in relation to the Office of Rail and Road, they are added as duties of the Secretary of State under Section 4(3)(a).

Section 4(1)(zb) says that it shall be the duty of the Office of Rail and Road—and, by extension, the Secretary of State—

“to promote improvements in railway service performance”.

Will the Minister confirm that nothing in this Bill would change the continuing duty of the Secretary of State to promote improvements in railway service performance?

Can the Minister also say that it will not change the duties of the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road otherwise listed in that subsection, including

“to promote competition in the provision of railway services for the benefit of users of railway services”.

I am interested know precisely how the Minister and the Government propose to meet that general duty, which is not changed by this Bill.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I am always fascinated when Members of the party opposite attack proposals from this side of the House on the grounds that they are ideological. What could be more ideological than the privatisation of the railway system back in 1994? In my view, Amendment A1, to which the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, spoke earlier, would create another bureaucracy—something the Conservative Party are normally against. No one would say, and I certainly would not, that a nationalised railway will be the answer to all our problems. Having worked in it, I know only too well it will not be. On the other hand, I think if you asked the average rail passenger for his or her view of the current system, they would say that anything would be better than what we have at the present time.

When it comes to ideology, I followed with interest the words of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, who talked about failings in the increased cost of electrification leading to the delay, and in some cases the cancellation, of various electrification projects. My noble friend the Minister, who will respond, has great experience of Network Rail, and he might comment on some of the costings—many of us would take an interest in those matters. I was surprised, to say the least, at some of the expensive projects that Network Rail has embarked upon and the failure of that organisation to work within the original estimates, as far as costs are concerned. I hope it will not upset the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, too much, but his sojourn as Secretary of State for Transport is not looked upon by the railway community with any great favour. His view that in some cases electrification was unnecessary and that what was needed was bi-mode trains did not particularly please passengers. I recently moved home, from the Birmingham area to Gloucestershire, where I now have the pleasure—doubtful pleasure that it is—of travelling on Great Western’s bi-mode trains. They are often subject to cancellation and, again, the usual view from my fellow passengers is that the sooner the railway is renationalised, the better.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley is regarded as an expert on railway costings—he shakes his head, but he should not be so modest; he certainly played a major role with his views on HS2 and its finances. He mentioned the Office of Rail and Road. In the context of this amendment, can my noble friend the Minister tell me what role is envisaged for the ORR in future? I hope he will not be too offended if I say it is a misnomer: it is certainly an office for railways, given that it intervenes on various grounds—in my view, improperly, because there are proper roles for those responsible for railway safety in the industry—but appears to play no role at all as far as the road network is concerned. The fact that something approaching 2,000 people are killed on our roads on an annual basis is not something that detains the ORR. I hope my noble friend can tell me what role he envisages for the ORR in the newly nationalised railway system.

Finally, just to hark back to 1994 and the privatisation Act, fundamentally it adversely affected the railway industry. In 1994—again, I apologise for the history lesson—the railway system in Britain was regarded as the most efficient and effective in western Europe; certainly the subsidies paid to the rail industry in those days were less than those paid in countries such as France and Germany. The sectionalisation of the railway industry in the 1990s, largely at the behest of a Conservative Government—I do not make any complaints about that, as Governments have opinions—led to a much more readily identifiable system of costings for the industry overall. For the first time, we saw exactly which parts of the railway were profitable, which were not and which needed perhaps more money spent on them in the future than had previously been envisaged.

The relationship between Sir Bob Reid mark 1, the then chairman of the railways board, and Mr Nicholas Ridely, the Secretary of State at the time, was an extremely fruitful one. I am not here to announce any great fondness for Lord Ridley but I think that he appreciated what the railway industry was doing, largely at his behest at that time. I understand—although I do not wish to attribute words to him long after his death—that he was more than a little concerned about the mode of privatisation envisaged by the Government at the time, largely because of the success that he felt he had had in improving and defining the railway industry’s relationship with the Government of the day.

I hope that, when my noble friend the Minister responds to this amendment, he will appreciate at least that, whether the railways are privatised or public, all too often railway passengers—or customers, as they are somewhat laughably known these days—do not feel that their views on the provision of the service are listened to or that there is a proper voice for them. It is some years since the transport users’ consultative committees were abolished. Can my noble friend say what plans he has for better passenger consultation in the future?

In conclusion, I hope that my noble friend will not get too bogged down in the bureaucratic desires of the party opposite. Future amendments that we will come to, from the Conservative Party or its Front Bench, appear to believe that railway management has nothing better to do than put together various plans, which no doubt will be torn apart by those who feel that the railways are not delivering the service that they should. I await with interest my noble friend’s response to the amendment. I know that he will bear in mind that we ought to be concerned about the passengers of the future—the passengers of the past having been sadly neglected.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

3: Clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out “only”

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 3 and speak to Amendment 5 and a number of others in the group. We may find this naturally flows from the discussion we listened carefully to on the previous group. Some of the themes might well re-emerge, not least the question of the desirability or otherwise of a mixed economy in the provision of rail services.

We have just approved, for these purposes, Clause 1. Under Clause 1, we have agreed that

“section 23 (passenger services to be subject to franchise agreements)”

is to cease and that, in future, securing the provision of services will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State under the new Section 30. Clause 2 revises Section 30 for these purposes. At the moment, it is a section about the duty and the absence of franchise agreements, but it would become, under Clause 2, the public sector provision of services.

The other thing that is probably important to note is that under Clause 1 we have deleted the existing Section 25, so that there is now no longer a prohibition on public sector operators—all of which is naturally part of the process of implementing a policy, which, as the Minister has told us, is the narrow objective of the legislation.

Why have I thought it appropriate to bring forward these amendments? They are probing amendments to try to examine whether the Bill, even from the Government’s own point of view, is future-proofed against the circumstances that may arise and the objectives that they may seek to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The next time I see our mutual friend Keith Williams I shall tell him that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said he was ghostly.

I thank noble Lords for explaining their amendments in this group, which consider, as we have heard, various alternatives to public ownership. Amendments 3 and 5, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would allow contracts to be awarded to private operators following a competitive process. Amendments 28 and 29, from the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Moylan, would allow franchises to be continued where the current operator is providing a satisfactory service. I do not support these amendments.

The Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to return passenger services into public ownership—having published, for the avoidance of doubt, the detailed plan entitled Getting Britain Moving—and we have a clear democratic mandate to do so. Despite what has been heard this afternoon, public ownership is a change with clear public support. Last month, YouGov published a survey showing that 66% of people nationally agree that railway companies should be run in the public sector; only 12% favoured private operation.

We are determined to return to a passenger railway which is run for the public, by the public, with passengers, not private shareholders, at the heart of the system. We will not leave the back door open to franchising, a model which has failed passengers and taxpayers. We are committed to public ownership because continuing with franchising would mean continuing to pay fees to private operators, ultimately for the benefit of their shareholders, when that money could be retained for the public good. Franchising would not allow us to integrate track and train in the way we propose to do under Great British Railways, which is the only way to put a stop to the fragmentation and waste of the franchising system, otherwise we will not be able to sweep away the outdated, complex and costly mechanisms that make the fares system impossible to understand for passengers, and even now prevent rational change because of “commercial confidentiality”, even though all the revenue risk is now taken by government. There is no benefit to continuing franchised operations on our railways.

Contrary to views expressed by noble Lords previously, there is no meaningful private sector investment being funded by franchised operators at present, so we are losing nothing by moving to a public ownership model. The Government are already reimbursing the legitimate operating costs of private sector operators and receiving all their revenue. Even before Covid, the main private investment in our railways was in rolling stock, which was generally funded by the rolling stock market and not by train operators or their owning groups.

I turn to Amendments 4, 14 and 15, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. These amendments require competitive awards to be made to private sector companies on the basis of a concession model, along the lines of Transport for London’s approach, rather than bringing them into public ownership. These amendments would remove the opportunity to deliver the benefits of public ownership, which, as I have said, a clear majority of the public support and which was a specific commitment in the manifesto on which this Government were elected.

The Government’s first objection is that a concession model would mean the private sector continuing to earn substantial profits. Public ownership will put a stop to the flow of money that already sees in excess of £100 million paid out in fees to the private sector each year, even when operators are bearing no significant financial risk.

A TfL-style concession model would expose operators to more financial risk than the current national rail contracts, which means that operators would want to earn significantly more in profits at the taxpayers’ expense and would price their bids accordingly. Not only would concessions be more expensive than this Government’s plans for public ownership but they would be even more costly to taxpayers than the current contracts.

In addition, the TfL concession model involves a very closely defined and largely unchangeable service specification developed in detail by the public authority, with therefore little room for the operator to negotiate changes post tender award in circumstances where they would always have the upper hand on pricing. Our national railway system is much larger, flows alter over time, and one of the great benefits of GBR is that it will be able far more easily to adapt to changing and growing markets and to save costs without endless contract renegotiation with contractors which, except at the point of contract award, always have the upper hand.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to the TfL experience of contracting the London bus market. In two previous jobs I was responsible for that market for virtually 15 years. It is a different market because there are a large number of small contracts changing hands, so if a contractor is sufficiently unwise to suggest expensive changes when contracts need to be altered then there is the opportunity to at least counter that by the next award of contracts for other bus routes. That has not been the case in the railway market. It is never likely to be the case. It is a different circumstance.

As a practical point, this amendment would abolish the option for the Secretary of State to appoint a public sector company to run services once a franchise agreement comes to an end. What does the noble Lord envisage would happen under this amendment if an operator went bust at short notice, or lost its licence to operate or its safety certificate? What if a competition failed to deliver a satisfactory outcome? Passengers could not wait a couple of years while the Government run a competition for a new concession. I would also ask whether it is the noble Lord’s intention to tie the hands of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, as this amendment would do, and whether they support these amendments. I think he knows that they certainly would not.

Amendment 10, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, was to facilitate Amendments 4, 14 and 15, so I will pass over it.

Amendment 35, tabled by my noble friend Lord Liddle, would allow the Secretary of State, and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to award contracts to either a public/private partnership or a co-operative venture involving staff and passengers. The Government’s approach to this is driven by pragmatism, not ideology, and we are certainly not seeking to close the door on private investment, as I will explain later in Committee when we come to discuss rolling stock.

However, I point out that examples of private investment in our railway infrastructure have been fairly thin on the ground in the privatisation era. Nearly all the enhancements to the network have been publicly funded. The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to electrification, but, as far as I can tell, there has been no electrification ever funded by any party except the Government.

The Government are certainly open to hearing proposals for how private investment might be brought to bear to improve the railway in the future. If noble Lords and others have good ideas, I encourage them to bring them forward as we develop and engage on our plans and consult in due course for Great British Railways and the wider railway reforms.

However, I do not think that involving private finance means that our plans for public ownership of train operations should change. It is fundamental to the Government’s plans for the railway that services should be run by the public, for the public. There are other ways of engaging private capital, short of ownership, and for the most part, even 100% private sector ownership of train operating companies under franchising has not resulted in large investments being funded by those companies.

As for co-operative ventures, I am all in favour of giving passengers and communities a stronger say in the decisions that affect them, but the likelihood of any co-operative venture raising any significant amount of capital—let alone the current circumstances of the owning groups of the present train operators—is, frankly, very small. Our plans are designed to give passengers and communities a stronger say in the decisions that affect them, not least by establishing a new passenger standards authority and by providing a new statutory role for devolved and mayoral combined authorities. We will get to the question of devolution in due course. The Government have shown, through our approach to resolving long-running disputes left to us to resolve by the previous Government, that we are committed to working with the workforce to address the challenges facing our railways.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised a question about future flexibility. The last legislation for the railways has lasted 31 years, and I note that it had a specific prohibition of public operation of the railways system. That might have been reasonable then but it is certainly reasonable now in the present circumstances, given our policies and manifesto commitment, to replicate our belief that public ownership is the right way of going forward with passenger railway operation.

In conclusion, the Government’s plans for the railways are founded on consolidating responsibility for track and train operations within a single entity, Great British Railways, particularly at a route and operating company level. Already, in my short period in this post, as I have said previously, we have had performance meetings with an operator and a Network Rail route. In one meeting, I enjoyed considerably one manager telling me how great collaboration was between the two parties, which were not owned by the same organisation, while the other simultaneously sat there shaking her head vigorously, demonstrating an absence of the very co-operation that I was being told would happen.

My whole professional history tells me that the railway will run better with somebody in charge of both track and train together at a route and operating company level. That is the way that we will deliver better revenue, decreased costs and, particularly, better reliability. This is not consistent with seeking to preserve private sector operation, whether through franchises or concessions, or with awarding contracts to public/private partnerships or arm’s-length co-operative ventures. I am amused to see that Rail Partners has reversed its previous opposition to the concession model post the election, having spent several years previously explaining why it would not work on the national railway network. I rather agree with its previous analysis. I therefore urge noble Lords to withdraw and not press their amendments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this not terrifically long but interesting debate—not least my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who admirably demonstrated the potential benefits of a mixed economy in the provision of rail services and referred to reasons why the Government might in the future need the flexibility that these amendments would offer.

I go back as far as the mid-1980s, when I was a civil servant participating in a spending round not dissimilar to the present one in a Star Chamber, where different nationalised industries had their capital programmes traded off against each other. I have to say that cost-benefit analysis was not a significant part of that discussion; it was mostly a discussion of the political benefits or otherwise. I fear the same will be true in the future and that some investment projects that should be funded will not be. It will be a great pity if that turns out to be the case for rail services in future.

I do not have the benefit of knowing Mr Keith Williams personally. I am tempted, as a former Leader of the House of Commons, to say that we instituted evidence sessions in committee. I wonder whether we could take an evidence session before a committee in this House as well; perhaps we will think about that for the future.

I thank the Minister for at least laying it all out pretty straightforwardly. He may come to regret saying that, essentially, as the 1993 Act was an ideological determination that there should not be public sector operators on the railways, we must now have legislation that says there must be only public sector operators on the railways. I am with the many of those who take another view—not least the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, whose point on open access was about giving the private sector the opportunity under limited circumstances.

HGVs: Charging and Refuelling

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My noble friend raises a very important point. That is why, as part of the decarbonisation of HGVs, the Government are investing £200 million in the zero-emission road freight demonstrator programme, which will look at all the different technologies available. For some vehicles, battery electric will be the best option, but for others we expect hydrogen fuel cells to be far more relevant. Therefore, we need the zero-emission HGV infrastructure strategy, which will examine what a network of green hydrogen sites would look like, as well as the impact on the grid and where on it the additional electricity will be needed.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, a number of HGV fleet operators I have talked to in Cambridgeshire just want decisions to be made and a strategy to be progressed. Many of them think that hydrogen fuel cells will be the best technology for large HGVs, but there is no infrastructure for that, and they are looking for support for infrastructure well before the date on which they have to stop buying new diesel trucks.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I accept it is most likely that a hydrogen refuelling infrastructure will be needed. That is exactly why the Government are taking time, over the next six months or so, working with the stakeholders who sit on the Freight Energy Forum to establish exactly what that might look like. We need to set the strategic direction to ensure that the infrastructure is in place for 2040, but we also need to look at the evidence that will come from the zero-emission road freight demonstrator programme so that it can feed into that strategy.

International Travel

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Let me explain to the noble Lord exactly what is going on here. There is an exemption from the requirement to quarantine, and it applies to a very limited number of specific business activities where these cannot be undertaken remotely or by anyone other than the exempt executive and would serve to create or preserve very large numbers of UK jobs—500 plus. So, that is potentially where his number came from. This exemption has been very significantly tightened since a version of it was in force in December. The qualifying threshold has been increased tenfold, and its scope has been reduced to permit only the most critical activities.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as recorded in the register. The traffic light system is only one side of the coin; the other side is the restrictions that may be imposed by other countries. My noble friend will be aware that the EU has brought in its digital Covid certificates, starting today. Can I ask my noble friend whether the Government intend—and may succeed—to align our vaccination passports with the digital Covid certificate in the EU?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My noble friend makes a really important point, and that is why it is so important that countries are able to go digital where they are going to accept travellers. That is why we are so delighted that Malta has done that in accepting the UK NHS app. Of course, we are working with all our key destination countries to try to align the digital certification for Covid vaccination, and we will continue to do so. There are other considerations as to whether the countries want us there at all, but certainly it is worth building that relationship on digitisation ahead of any change in entry requirements.

Brexit: Road, Rail and Maritime Transport (EUC Report)

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who asked a lot of interesting questions. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response to some of them.

On her latter point about the impact of the internal market Bill, I am not an expert on this but it seems that we are all trying to reconcile the fact that there must not be a hard border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland or between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We could try to reconcile that in the way that the European Union might do, in a legalistic way—that is, by saying that, if there is an absence of border checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there must be border checks between the Province of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That is a legalistic but misplaced view. But, equally, it is a misplaced view on our Government’s part to think that they can simply dispense with the requirement to know, and have some evidence of, whether goods that are leaving Great Britain for Northern Ireland are genuinely at risk of entering the single market elsewhere beyond Northern Ireland. We will have to deal with that issue and, no doubt, we will have many hours of debate on the internal market Bill to try to resolve it—but it has not been resolved in over a year, which is why the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, resorted to the backstop. Perhaps I am in the minority, but I thought that she did a rather good job of putting the backstop together. But there we are—it is too late now.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, I note that the Irish Times published an article today reporting that the Irish Road Haulage Association is looking for a daily direct ferry link from the Republic of Ireland to Le Havre because it is so anxious about depending on access for its hauliers through Great Britain and across the channel links. I am sorry that it thinks that, and I am sorry that confidence in hauliers’ ability to come and go between Great Britain and the continent of Europe is so lacking. That is what we need to deliver.

Noble Lords talked about road issues; I will do so too. I am confident that I can focus on that issue knowing that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is to come next. He will say far more about rail transport issues and will do so far better than I possibly could.

As a former member of the EU Internal Market Sub-Committee, I want to say how much I appreciated the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He did a fantastic job, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, as his successor before the committee was wound up and redistributed. The report we are debating was extremely useful at the time. I do not imagine that we would have thought a year ago that it would be as useful now—but I think that it probably is. Many of the questions derived from the report are exactly as relevant now as they were a year ago; it is just that there is now so little time now to deal with this matter. It must be dealt with rapidly.

I will not reiterate all the questions, but I want to add one or two points of my own. First, important as hauliers’ permits are, the number one issue is hauliers being able to move through borders speedily and with minimising the delay. We knew, and discovered during the course of our evidence-taking, that the cumulative impact of additional delays on the part of hauliers through the port of Dover, for example, would accumulate exponentially. Unfortunately, we are all beginning to discover what exponential trends look like, and they are potentially extremely damaging. The issue is not simply about permits or customs—it is about the smart freight system. That clearly was at the heart of the reason why the Road Haulage Association only very recently, after a meeting with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said that the Whitehall meeting was “a washout”. I think that it was about a lack of clarity about the delivery of a smart freight system.

May I make a further suggestion? It is difficult now to put in place systems that rely on information technologies at very short notice. But for a long time we should have been preparing a trusted trader scheme that would allow the people taking goods across to the continent to do so with much-simplified customs requirements. In particular, it would allow for those border requirements to be made before the hauliers arrive at the port, minimising the checks that need to be made at the port itself. That is what happens with the authorised economic operator scheme but, important as it is, that scheme is far too complex and costly for most small businesses to deal with. It is clear that a simplified version of the scheme should be put in place. The legislation is available: the relevant section on authorised economic operators in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act allows different classes of authorised economic operator to be specified by Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue. So, even now, such regulations could be put together and put in place before the end of the year.

Many noble Lords talked about the availability of permits, in the absence of the community licence scheme, following the completion of the implementation period. We know from evidence given to us that what was available under the European Conference of Ministers of Transport represented only 5% at best of transport needs. So far, there is nothing in what the Commission has published, including its notification to member states on 9 July this year, to indicate that it will make any substantial number of additional permits available. We must therefore be aware that this is not dependent on a Canada-style free trade agreement between us and the European Union since, by definition, Canada does not have any such agreement. It is a separate agreement. A suite of agreements will need to be reached between ourselves and the EU. We should not take the view that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed; we should be getting on and agreeing some things. In this context, although the mandates of the two sides clearly differed, compromise is of the essence. In this area, compromise in making additional permits available for UK hauliers, and for UK hauliers to understand the scale of the permits available to them, would make an enormous difference. The sooner that is done, the better.

I have one final point, on private motoring, in which I suppose I have an interest as, I guess, we all do in one form or another. We understood that international driving permits may, or may not, enable us to drive freely across Europe, depending on the relationship with member states. As others have done, can I ask my noble friend to tell us much more about what the department has done to arrive at bilateral agreements with member states? The Commission’s notification in July said that driving licences

“will no longer benefit from mutual recognition under Union law”

but

“will be regulated at Member State level.”

However, it referred only to member states that are contracting parties to the 1949 Geneva Convention on Road Traffic, whereas we heard evidence that we also need to be aware of the 1968 Vienna Convention on road traffic. In any case, I suspect that what is required is a set of bilateral agreements, so the question is to what extent are those bilateral agreements in place.

Finally, I reiterate the point made by my noble friends who were members of the committee. It is clear that many EU hauliers derive substantial economic benefit from bringing goods to this country and engaging in cabotage in this country. On the face of it, it seems to me perfectly clear that EU member states would want there to be a mutual agreement that would allow many EU hauliers to continue to provide haulage services to and in this country; the permits required for UK hauliers on the continent of Europe are, by comparison, relatively modest in scale. Therefore, it seems to me that there ought to be an agreement available. If the arrangements break down and we are in a position where our hauliers cannot go to the continent and continental hauliers—in particular, eastern European hauliers—cannot act in this country, everybody will lose out, including many of our businesses that rely on eastern European hauliers.

Last Thursday morning, I was on the A14 heading west. Every other large truck that I passed or that passed me was from Poland, principally, or Slovenia, Romania or Bulgaria. Eastern European hauliers are here in their thousands, and we want them to be here because we do not have the haulage capacity to replace them. Therefore, we need this part of our suite of agreements with the EU to be put in place as fast as we can.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Lord Berkeley?

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

His train is late!

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

Can the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, unmute?

Railways: Update

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

I met the noble Lord recently to discuss electrification and we are seriously considering its benefits versus other options. We are trying to focus on the outcomes and what will provide better value quicker. As regards CrossCountry trains, the idea is that more railways will be opened up. I do not believe that will affect competition in relation to that company. On the noble Lord’s last point about parcels and freight, with HS2, as I said, and the expansion of the other railways, rail freight would be expected to increase.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will know that increased communication opportunities between Oxford and Cambridge offer significant national economic potential. However, when will the public have an opportunity to look at, and be consulted on, the route of such a rail link between Sandy in Bedfordshire and Cambridge? I should declare an interest as a resident west of Cambridge.

[Baroness Sugg]

My noble friend mentioned East West Rail, which is a good example of our delivering on the opening of tracks. Since last year, we have been building up the team to work with Network Rail and the department to accelerate the permissions needed to re-open the route and reduce the cost. As part of that, there will be consultation with the people it affects.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

1. What recent guidance he has given to his ministerial colleagues on making statements to the House before they are made to the media.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The ministerial code is clear: when Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made to Parliament in the first instance, and I regularly remind my colleagues of that.

[Mrs Glindon]

Does the Leader of the House think that it is acceptable that the media are reporting that the Government have paused the proposed sale of the Land Registry when the Business Secretary has not yet made a statement to the House?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not aware of the media reports to which the hon. Lady refers. I will, of course, look at them, but as far as I am concerned announcements are made to the House first. I cannot always preclude speculation in the press, which is sometimes well informed and sometimes very badly informed. I do not necessarily reach the same conclusion, but I will ensure that I let her know what the situation is.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

That is all very well, but the Leader of the House has eight minutes and 14 seconds to tell the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that they should not be making a speech to the media about their intention to legislate next week before a speech is made to this House.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know, and the House will have seen, that the Home Secretary will be making a statement. Indeed, I will be making a business statement, too. Sometimes it is necessary for the public to be told at what is, effectively, broadly the same time as Parliament itself.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

2. What recent guidance he has given to his ministerial colleagues about providing timely answers to written questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The Government are supporting the project being undertaken by the House to enable the electronic exchange of parliamentary questions and answers between Members and answering bodies. All Departments are fully engaged in the roll-out of this exciting project, and my office has successfully transferred to the live system.

[Andrew Stephenson]

Will the Leader of the House tell us what effect the project will have on savings for the House and on the convenience of Members?

[Mr Lansley]

I expect the new system to save significant sums in this Parliament and across Departments, including by reducing the costs of publishing questions and answers. The new system will also improve reporting and transparency for Members and the public, through providing dedicated webpages for written answers.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House tell the House which Department is the quickest at answering questions, which Department is the slowest and how the former might tutor the latter?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that we do not measure the average time taken to answer questions, but on the extent to which Departments meet the required standard, my recollection—I do not have the figures in front of me—is that the Office of the Leader of the House most consistently meets it. I might add that although the Department of Health had the largest number of questions, it was the second most successful in meeting the required standard. As for the poorest, my recollection is that although the Department for Education has made some modest improvement, it continues to strive to do better.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the House in scrutinising the Government.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

As a result of the changes that have been introduced in this Parliament, such as the election of Select Committee Chairs, the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee and more generous approaches to permitting urgent questions and allocating time for debating legislation, the ability of the House to scrutinise the Government has been much enhanced.

[Mr Harper]

I asked the question because that is my view also. I was very taken by the letter that you read out, Mr Speaker, from the Clerk of the House, for whom I have the greatest respect. He said that the House is

“a more effective scrutineer of the executive, and more topical, relevant and independent-minded”

than he has ever known it in his 42 years of service, so we must be doing something right.

[Mr Lansley]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I trust that it will not be interpreted as engaging the Clerk in the debate to say that I hope that Members throughout the House agree that what he said is absolutely true. It is important for such scrutiny to take place. I hope in the debate this afternoon to enhance the ability of this House to demonstrate to the public, whom we serve, that we not only debate the matters that are relevant to them, but use the opportunities that we have to hold the Executive to account.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

However much the processes and procedures of the House have been improved, the Government seem to be trying to subvert them by having extremely long recesses. My understanding from the Table Office is that Westminster Hall will not sit again until 17 June. If, as we all expect, the Leader of the House is about to announce that we will rise on 14 or 15 May, it will mean that for more than a month we will have no opportunity to scrutinise Departments in detail. Will he at least agree to bring forward the Westminster Hall debates to 10 June?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady slightly anticipates what would more properly be a business question. At this stage, we tend to have Prorogation and the Queen’s Speech at this time of year rather than November, so they come together with the traditional Easter and Whitsun recesses. That creates a change in the structure of the calendar rather than necessarily an overall reduction in time spent in debate.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What scope there is for local authorities to initiate legislation in Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to encourage Ministers to make announcements to the House before their release to the media.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The ministerial code is clear: when Parliament is in session the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance to Parliament. I regularly remind my colleagues of this.

[Pat Glass]

The Chancellor came to the House this week and announced a Budget that had been largely pre-announced through a series of press releases. I hear this complaint all the time in the House and the usual playground response is, “Well, the Labour Government did it.” May I remind the Minister that, whatever happened in the past, this practice is wrong? What is he going to do about it?

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Lady may have prepared her supplementary question before the Budget took place. The Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box yesterday and announced some of the most important reforms to pensions in nearly 100 years, and benefits for savers. As far as I am aware, there was not even speculation on what he was going to do before he announced those measures. She should know that under the terms of the Macpherson report, which the Treasury adhere to, we are clear on not providing advance information on tax and fiscal measures. That was adhered to in the Budget.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

5. What steps the Government have taken to improve opportunities for scrutiny of legislative proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to improve opportunities for the scrutiny of draft statutory instruments.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The Procedure Committee heard evidence on delegated legislation from the Hansard Society on 29 January this year. I am sure that the Committee would welcome the views of the hon. Lady and others when considering whether to undertake a fuller inquiry.

[Kerry McCarthy]

One of the problems of discussing statutory instruments is that we are often given very little notice of them. We have heard that a statutory instrument on fox hunting may well come before the House. Will the Leader of the House tell us how much notice we will be given, how much time will be allowed for a full debate, and whether the statutory instrument will be debated in the Chamber?

[Mr Lansley]

There are requirements relating to notice in Standing Orders, and I try to give the House notice of business on a provisional basis if it is to be dealt with on the Floor of the House. I looked at statutory instruments from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs this morning, and, as far as I am aware, no statutory instrument of the kind described by the hon. Lady is before the House.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

7. What plans he has to increase the use of pre-legislative scrutiny.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The Government are committed, wherever possible, to publishing legislation in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny. We published 17 draft Bills or sets of draft measures in the previous Session, which is more than the previous Government did in any Session.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Leader of the House. It is clear that there have been some benefits. The recent Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill ended up with a lot of provisions that were recommended on pre-legislative scrutiny, although the process would have been faster if they had been included straight away. Does he agree that the principle should be that, unless there are exceptional reasons, all Bills should go through some sort of pre-legislative scrutiny?

[Mr Lansley]

We endeavour to publish legislation in draft, but it is not always possible. My hon. Friend and the House will understand that, for example, at the start of a Parliament, or sometimes for reasons of policy, measures have to be brought in at a pace that does not permit the kind of pre-legislative scrutiny that we would generally seek. Let me point out that only this week we debated the Deregulation Bill on Second Reading, and that was scrutinised in draft form; and in the previous week, the Consumer Rights Bill came to the House, and that had had substantial pre-legislative scrutiny. I commend to the House how we are continuing to engage in that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

6. What recent guidance he has given to his ministerial colleagues on making oral statements in the House on changes to Government policy.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The ministerial code is clear: when Parliament is in Session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance to Parliament. I regularly remind my colleagues of this.

[Heidi Alexander]

In the light of that, was it acceptable for the Work and Pensions Secretary to announce delays to universal credit via a written statement, especially considering that this information was released to the media before the House?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Lady and the House will know, informing the House by means of a written statement is perfectly in order. As the Speaker himself said on 25 January last year, doing so is

“a legitimate vehicle for informing the House of ministerial decisions”.—[Official Report, 25 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 302.]

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House agree with the recommendation in the first report of Session 2010-11 issued by the Procedure Committee that rather than the Government regulating themselves by means of the ministerial code, a protocol on ministerial statements should be put in place to be enforced by this House?

[Mr Lansley]

I think my hon. Friend will recall that the House subsequently considered that matter and did not pursue and endorse the suggestion.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

As we approach the end of this year—I wish the Leader of the House good cheer—how does he think he has succeeded in getting Ministers to make oral statements in this House? Is it an E minus, or what?

[Mr Lansley]

I wish my hon. Friend a merry Christmas, too. He is an assiduous attendee at business questions. Let us look at the numbers. In the last Session, we made about 94 oral statements, which was a ratio of 0.6 per sitting. In the course of this Session, from memory—I will correct it if I am wrong—we are running at 0.7 oral statements per sitting.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—