Drones: Consultation Response

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

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.

Operation of Air Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, the whole House should be grateful to my noble friend for having alerted us again to this crucial issue. There has been a lot of talk about holidays, but we must remember that a lot of families cross boundaries with sick or increasingly frail relatives; certainty about travel is actually crucial to their way of life. I cannot help feeling a little cynical; I believe many members of the public who have been blindly supporting the idea that “we must get out” will have a rude awakening when they are hit by the realities of what will happen on the travel front.

This is not just about air traffic, which we are talking about today. What disruption will happen to other means of communication, such as Eurostar or the ports? No definite information is available. Over and over again, those of us who are active in the community hear, for example, from business people, “Please just get some certainty into the situation; it is impossible to operate in the current atmosphere of uncertainty”. That also applies to universities and higher education.

There is one thing we must be very careful about: if one set out to design a nation that was utterly dependent on international relations in all aspects of its economic, private and social life, it would be difficult to come up with a better example than the United Kingdom. Central to a Government’s approach to what is happening should be how we get this right and preserve what we have. We must be careful not to join, inadvertently, a sort of emergency operation that asks, “What are we going to do about the catastrophe about to overtake us?” The real challenge is to say, “We must not let this catastrophe overtake us”. It is immensely urgent that we ensure an opportunity is given to all sane people in Britain, and in Parliament, to say, “No, we cannot go on with this nonsense; we really have to think again about leaving the European Union”.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interest. I am in receipt of what is, for me, a substantial British Airways pension and, if this disruption were such as to cause British Airways to go broke, I would not get all of it. I have consulted the Registrar of Members’ Interests and am assured that the interest is sufficiently tenuous to allow me to speak. I have a rather more acute interest in the fact that my wife has planned a holiday in the Canaries on 18 April.

I will speak from a presumption of no deal. There is an acceptance that the execution of the intent of this SI will depend on agreements. As I have to take part on probably 70-plus SIs between now and the end of March, I usually avoid general debates on Brexit, but when agreeing these SIs, it is necessary to look at two issues. First, are they technically valid? I have looked through them and there has been a good debate on them in Grand Committee, and I think that they are technically valid. Secondly, what is their chance of being successfully executed? I will speak to only the second question.

The whole of this SI depends on there being agreements to carry on flying. Indeed, in Grand Committee the Minister said that the Government would be seeking multilateral agreements with the EU in order to allow aviation to continue. However, she said that, failing that, we would have to fall back on bilateral agreements. There will be a requirement for 27 bilateral deals with the EU and, if I have read the briefings properly, 17 bilateral deals with non-EU countries presently enabled by EU agreements, including the US—a US under a President who strongly believes in America first. This would mean that if a multilateral agreement were not concluded, 44 sets of negotiations would have to be completed by 30 March next year.

The logic of why that will work is set out in a number of places, including at one point in the Explanatory Memorandum before it was revised, but I thank the Government for publishing a document called Flights to and from the UK if there’s no Brexit deal, which was published on 24 September 2018. It explains the logic of why we will succeed in achieving, first, traffic rights and, secondly, appropriate safety recognition. The paragraph on traffic rights states:

“If there is ‘no deal’ with the EU, airlines wishing to operate flights between the UK and the EU would have to seek individual permissions to operate from the respective states (be that the UK or an EU country). In this scenario the UK would envisage granting permission to EU airlines to continue to operate. We would expect EU countries to reciprocate in turn. It would not be in the interest of any EU country or the UK to restrict the choice of destinations that could be served, though, if such permissions are not granted, there could be disruption to some flights”.


So, if there is not a multilateral deal, the whole concept falls back on an expectation that the EU will reciprocate. A similar section on the same page relating to safety says:

“The UK would expect this recognition of equivalent safety standards to be reciprocated by the EU in its ‘Part-TCO’ authorisations”.

Rail Franchise Agreements

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, Northern is working hard to reduce the number of cancellations experienced on the line which the noble Lord mentions; they are currently running at about 4%, which is obviously not good enough. If the last train of the day is cancelled, Northern operates a last train of the day policy, which should ensure that passengers who are travelling to Brierfield, Nelson and Colne are not left stranded. If for any reason that service does not arrive, there is a 24-hour helpline, and service will then be provided. I have been assured that onward transport has been provided in all circumstances, but from what the noble Lord has said, that is not the case and, as I said, that is not good enough. I will be happy to arrange a meeting with the noble Lord and the Northern franchise where we can discuss further how better to make improvements.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the problems outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, are symptomatic of the structure of the railway. It is the structure that is wrong, and it is the structure that caused the May timetable chaos. Fortunately for us, the Transport Select Committee in the other place reported on that today. At paragraph 63 it concludes:

“The Secretary of State for transport is responsible for the structure of the system that controls and runs our railways. He is at the apex of this system … It is therefore not reasonable for the Secretary of State to absolve himself of all responsibility”.


Does the Minister agree with the committee, and does she further agree that things will not get better until the Secretary of State accepts his responsibility or stands aside for a more proactive and responsible candidate?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I should make clear that the Secretary of State and the department have accepted responsibility for the role we played in the implementation of the timetables in May. It is clear from the difficulties with the introduction of the timetable over the summer, from problems experienced with some major investment projects and from the collapse of the Virgin Trains East Coast franchise that we need to see significant change, but that, as the noble Lord said, is in the structure of our railways not in our Secretary of State.

Railways: CrossCountry

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I agree that we need to invest in our public transport to enable people to get to work on time. Between 2015 and 2020 we are investing more than £13 billion to improve connections across the north to get people to work and to visit family and friends. We have also seen recent announcements for the Tyne and Wear Metro in the previous Budget and investments in roads to deliver that commitment.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the Question was almost certainly provoked by the CrossCountry public consultation, to which the Minister alluded. The Question has also provoked me into reading it. Excellent document as it is, I am sure she will agree that it will create many more demands than there will be resources to meet them. It will also create an enormous number of trade-offs. Have the Government developed the appropriate algorithms and criteria to resolve these trade-offs and, if those trade-offs are seen to be not the revenue-maximising solution, will the department accept some revenue sacrifice in the interest of passengers?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord and other noble Lords agree that, when setting these requirements, it is of course important that we speak to passengers to understand what they want from the service. The decisions on services will be informed by the consultation responses. We will assess the ideas against the department’s objectives for the franchise, and will undertake financial and economic assessments to make sure that we deliver the best possible service for passengers and value for money for both passengers and taxpayers. On sacrificing revenue, we do not make the decision solely on the basis of returns. We will always put passengers first but we need to be mindful of value for money for the taxpayer.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I also welcome these amendments. I share the noble Baroness’s concern about the method of allocation of permits, but I think that we have gone as far as we are going to get on that one. I was particularly interested in the Minister’s comments about Amendments 5 and 6, which she said did not apply to Northern Ireland. I thought the whole point of trailer registration, in Part 2 of the Bill, was that it was a necessity to have trailers registered in case there was a need for any trailer to go outside the UK on to the continent, or into the EU, following Brexit, which of course would also apply to the Republic of Ireland. My logical mind therefore thinks that, if a trailer cannot be registered in Northern Ireland, it cannot leave Northern Ireland—or the UK—for the European Union, which means it cannot go across the border to the Republic.

Notwithstanding that, in Amendment 11, if a driver does take a trailer into the Republic that is registered in Northern Ireland—which apparently it cannot be—they can still be fined. This seems slightly illogical because, if I were a trailer owner in Northern Ireland and not able to register it and therefore go into the Republic, that would not seem quite right to me. Can the Minister explain where I have got it wrong or whether there is something more that needs to happen?

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, but also that we have gone as far as we can in those areas. On government Amendments 5, 6, 7 and, I think 8, my research assistant, Catherine Johnson, who drafted the original amendment passed in your Lordships’ House, assured me that the Minister has accepted your Lordships’ amendment but put it in her own words. Accordingly, we support the government amendments and thank the Minister for her efforts.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for participating in this short debate and for their support for the amendments. As ever, the scrutiny and analysis of noble Lords has improved the Bill—in particular, on the important issue of trailer safety. The points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, will be covered by the report, and we will work closely with the devolved Administrations. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, Amendments 5 and 6 relate only to the trailer safety report; the rest of the Bill applies to Northern Ireland.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have been clear that our priority is to maintain and develop liberalised access for commercial haulage as part of our future relationship with the EU. It is in no one’s interest to put up barriers to trade, and we will seek to agree a reciprocal deal that allows hauliers to continue to travel freely between the UK and Europe. I agree with the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on limited permits. We are confident that we will secure a liberalised approach and avoid the need for any new documents or processes—or, at a minimum, that all hauliers who seek a permit can get one. However, as a responsible Government, we are preparing for all outcomes through the Bill.

Road Maintenance

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

I certainly agree with the noble Lord on that. We have introduced the lane rental scheme, which has encouraged utilities to work together at weekends and in the evening to reduce congestion and the inevitable annoyance to motorists. We saw disruption to drivers cut by half in Kent and London, where we ran a pilot, and we are looking to extend that across the country. On licences and permits, we absolutely encourage local authorities to use permit schemes for works on the roads, which will help with planning. They will also ensure that utilities work together. Around 65% of local authorities use permit schemes now, and we encourage others to join.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether Her Majesty’s Government believe in value for money? If the answer is yes, will she explain how patch and mend delivers value for money on a whole-life basis? If the answer is no, does she accept that Her Majesty’s Government are storing up a massive bill as roads self-destruct under the present policy?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I can certainly confirm that this Government believe in value for money. We are spending a record £23 billion on the enhancement, renewal and maintenance of our roads up and down the country, and will continue to invest in that to provide better journeys for motorists and to cut congestion. We have seen improvements and that our investment is making a difference. A, B and C roads combined have seen a gradual improvement, with fewer roads being considered for maintenance.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, at the risk of causing a bit of trouble at this stage of the Bill, I cannot see why it matters particularly where the charging points are in a motorway service station. If you are going to park your car and go off to have a drink, you might as well plug it in while having it. If you do not want to do that but have a high-powered, high-speed charger you can probably do that as if you are filling up with petrol. The general principle in the Bill is all right but I suspect that the commercial pressures on the operators will persuade them to put the charging points where they are most convenient.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for bringing forward these amendments, which seem to have produced a consensus on all the issues which were brought up on Report. I must agree with other speakers that the Bill is narrow and, to be fair, it is generally our role to scrutinise Bills. While we have done that, there has to be much wider consideration given by government to this whole area. That consideration has to work with other parts of government and local government, so that we do not trip into the area of sovereignty conflict. Fortunately, that seems to have been effectively solved by the amendments and the consultation. It is an important area to get straight if we are to achieve the spread of charging points that will be necessary, particularly to achieve our air-quality targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

Before the Minister sits down—because it seems to me that I have to use that ridiculous device—I reciprocate the thanks to the noble Baroness, her co-pilot the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the team. They have set a very high standard of involvement with the Opposition and the political parties and, I believe, with individuals. It is a standard which I hope the Government will copy in all areas. We have made great improvements to the Bill, and I do not think there has been a Division on anything. We are there, and I thank the Minister for that. I also thank my massive team of one-fifth of a person, Molly Critchley, for all her support.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, we have concentrated very much on charging points, but the Bill was amended on Report to cover hydrogen refuelling points. They may not need exactly the same thing, so I would like an assurance that the way they are treated will take account purely of what they are for rather than making the broad assumption that they are charging points and therefore electric only.

Heathrow Airport

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer as a Statement, but it is, in my view, not realistic. Having looked at Tuesday’s Statement, liabilities about cancellation were not covered but there was certainly a commitment to surface access, with extensions to the Piccadilly line, improved connections to Crossrail et cetera. Without these surface transport improvements, the air-quality commitments will be unachievable, and they have to be met. The statement of principles document has allowed Heathrow Airport Ltd to set out what it will not pay for. On surface access, it has essentially said that it will pay for the roads that have to be moved and no more. If HAL is not going to pay, what are Her Majesty’s Government going to do, given the commitments they have made on surface access? In reality, the Government are committing themselves to billions of expenditure. I have extended the odd Tube line, and it is very expensive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, there is a huge amount of pent-up demand at Heathrow and I imagine that those flights will be some of the first coming in when the new runway is built, which Heathrow expects to be in around 2026. I have spent much time in many regional airports and they have all been welcoming of the expansion of Heathrow, particularly on the domestic connectivity point where we expect to see up to 15% of slots reserved for domestic flights.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, if the Minister will forgive me for extending my question, she ran through a number of schemes which she said were committed. Who is committed to paying for these claims and under what sort of process are they committed?

[Baroness Sugg]

The schemes which I mentioned—those that are already in progress on HS2, Crossrail and the Piccadilly extension line—are already committed and agreed on. The other two to which I referred for southern rail and western rail are still in development.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

But who is paying for the committed schemes?

[Baroness Sugg]

Those schemes have already been currently funded, and I will have to write to the noble Lord with exact details.

Airports National Policy Statement

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

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

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

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.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their broad welcome of these amendments. As I said, standards will be set separately to the Bill, both internationally and domestically, using long-established procedures that are well understood by industry. I take the noble Lord’s point, given the public concern on this and the fact that standards are usually set in this way. I fully expect that when the standards are developed, there absolutely will be an opportunity for both the public and Parliament to be consulted on them. I cannot confirm today what mechanism would be used for that. But as the noble Lord pointed out, given the concern and given that this is such new technology, different from what we have seen before, I fully expect that to happen.

The SAE levels lack the precision needed for technical standards and are not currently recognised as a technical standard in either the technical committee or the forum looking at use within the UNECE, and that is why we do not believe they should be referenced in the Bill. We have worked closely with the industry—yes, the insurance industry but also the motor manufacturing industry—on these definitions. We will certainly get in touch with them again before Third Reading to check that they are content.

The noble Baroness asked about the reference to,

“in at least some circumstances or situations”.

That is in the Bill because we expect the first automated cars to be used only in specific areas, such as on motorways. There will be a procedure to safely hand back to the driver. On the point about “safely driving themselves”, this is where the line is between partly and fully automated vehicles, which will not need monitoring by the driver. That is the differentiation. At level 3 the driver needs to monitor and to be able to take control at any point, whereas at levels 4 and 5 they do not need to monitor in any way. But I take the noble Baroness’s point on the usefulness of the SAE levels and I will certainly take that back to our representatives on the UNECE. As I said, we play a leading role in that. I am sure they are discussed but I will make sure they are and will look at whether they can be referred to when the standards are set.

As I said, technical standards and future regulations will be developed with the appropriate level of scrutiny and consultation, just as current road traffic laws and vehicle standards are developed. We do not believe that a consultation clause is needed because we are confident that there will be appropriate scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, proposed a reporting amendment to ensure that the Bill’s proposed insurance framework for automated vehicles is in place and working effectively. I committed to consider whether there was anything further we could do in this area. I absolutely agree that there is value in reporting on the impact and effectiveness of Part 1, so I have tabled Amendment 7 to determine whether this legislation is effective.

Given the uncertainty around the timing of the introduction of automated vehicles, rather than set a date in statute for issuing the report we have chosen to require the report to be laid before Parliament no later than two years after the list of automated vehicles is first published. We want the report to be as meaningful as possible. That will be possible only if the measures have been in operation for a period of time, with automated vehicles being added to the list and insurance policies being offered to drivers of those automated vehicles.

Subsection (1)(a) of this proposed new clause will require the Secretary of State to report on both the impact for consumers and industry and the effectiveness—whether or not the definitions and list work as intended—of the listing of automated vehicles. I hope that this provision will go some way to reassuring noble Lords, given the conversation we had on the previous group. Subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause addresses the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in Committee: whether the obligations and duties required by the other clauses of this part of the Bill are working to deliver an effective framework for insuring the use of automated vehicles.

I can reassure noble Lords that the insurance industry supports our intended approach to reporting on the Bill’s impact and effectiveness, and that we will work closely with the industry when delivering the report on the operation of this part. I hope that the amendment provides reassurance that we will report on the effectiveness and impact of Part 1 of the AEV Bill, in order to ensure that it is functioning correctly, and that noble Lords will support it. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I could spin this out but will the Minister settle for “Thank you”?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I could spin this out too but I am pleased that the noble Lord welcomes the amendment. That is probably all I should say on this matter.

--- 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.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

Shame!

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

“Shame,” somebody said. The hydrogen compatibility amendments that the Minister has brought forward are very welcome. She illustrated their value by talking about what the Government are doing in investment in hydrogen. I cannot reasonably expect an answer now, but I wonder whether the Government have a fuller programme than the one she describes because, as far as I could understand from what she was saying, she was talking about the vehicle end of that, whereas I feel that with such a new technology some knowledge of government investment in the total hydrogen picture—the means of production, what the economics look like and so on—would be extremely valuable. If she is able to put that together in an interesting letter for all of us who have been involved in this debate, I would be very grateful.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, on the subject of title change, I think the Minister is absolutely right. I have some previous experience of trying to change the title of a Bill: the department was quite determined that the title could not be changed but further advice from the clerks of this House assured me that it could be, and that was accepted. So I hope there will be no misunderstandings this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, Clause 10 seems a crucial part of the Bill. We absolutely need a widely available, dense network of charging points if we are to get people to move to electric vehicles. If the Government want to discourage diesel vehicles, making diesel available only at motorway service stations would be a pretty good way of doing it. It is clear that what is in the Bill at the moment is vastly inadequate. For large parts of the country, motorways are irrelevant. I include my home town of Eastbourne in that; I do not think that I use the motorway from one end of the year to another. By and large, petrol retailers are small and specialised.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out, these charging points are not in the petrol station parts of motorway service stations. They are in the parking bits associated with all the things you can do for 30 minutes while you wait for your car to re-charge. You do not want to sit next to a petrol pump for 30 minutes. You want to be doing something—at a sports club or a nail bar, or whatever it is that you are going to fill the time with. It is at these big car parks, which are associated with something you can do for 30 minutes, that we ought to insist on charge points. We should insist not because it is in some way disadvantageous to these places to put them in but because, as my noble friend Lord Deben pointed out, some people are being remarkably slow—probably because there are not many electric vehicles around at the moment—to see the advantage of being at the front of the wave in putting in charging points. It is at these big car parks around the country—there are some of them near all of us—that we have to insist on charging points. That is what will make the difference to the take-up of electric vehicles.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, Clause 10 involves the classic dilemma of taking rights over private property for the greater good. I commend the fact that the clause is there, but whenever such rights are debated, you debate both breadth and reasonableness. I will listen to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, on that breadth with interest, because I think there is a case for an incremental improvement in the breadth and power of this clause.

My three amendments are about the other side of the coin: that the regulations should be reasonable. Amendment 27 seeks assurances on the whole matter of how the regulations shall be reasonably applied. Amendment 42 is about notice. We need to be assured that private owners will not be immediately required to do things and that there is appropriate and adequate notice. Amendment 43 relates to the consultation process being appropriate.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the co-pilot is in charge of this group of amendments. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to this group and made the case for seeking to expand the scope of Clause 10 beyond the destinations that are so far defined in it.

The amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington—Amendments 21, 23 and 28—seek to expand the scope of Clause 10, so that privately owned large car park operators would also be required to ensure provision of charge points at their premises. A number of noble Lords and Baronesses have spoken in support of that group of amendments. It is important that we carefully consider which location should be captured in Clause 10. As my noble friend highlighted in Committee, we believe that the Government should regulate only where there is a specific need and not where we are confident that market forces will deliver the necessary infrastructure to meet the needs of EV drivers. I seek to reassure noble Lords by giving examples of what is now happening in the private sector.

First, perhaps I can deal with my noble friend’s comment about the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I think it is providing a number of spaces and that the Government are taking the initiative in encouraging it to do better. Indeed, through the Government’s on-street residential scheme, we have just provided funding for 50 additional lamp post charge points to be installed. I hope that is of some reassurance to my noble friend. But we are already seeing the private sector taking the lead, with charge points going in at destinations including car parks and supermarkets, as these locations begin to appreciate the advantages that offering charging facilities will ultimately have in attracting the growing number of EV drivers to their shops or to use their services. For example, NCP, one of the largest car park operators in the UK, already offers charge points at some of its car parks and is investing to grow the number of sites offering this facility.

Electrical vehicle charging points have been installed in car parks at Heathrow Airport and around 500 charge point connectors have been installed in the UK in the last 30 days. The Office for Low Emission Vehicles has also worked closely with the British Parking Association to develop guidance for its members on investing in and installing charging infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, I shall move the amendment she has tabled. I shall not speak at any great length on it. The change which has been tabled is welcome, but it falls considerably short of what we were hoping for and, in particular, what the mayors were hoping for. They do not feel that the Bill gives them the powers to tackle the fundamental problems they have with air pollution. They see it as an important part of several pieces of equipment they need to tackle air pollution. In particular, as I said in my earlier intervention, they have to be able to bring pressure to bear to ensure that there are more electric charging points in car parks. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, made the point very clearly. Most people using electric cars are not concerned about long journeys. They have bought their electric cars for good green reasons and for other reasons, and they are using them principally in cities. They are looking for the infrastructure to back them and, in particular, they find that in many areas in which they park there is no facility.

The mayors recognise this. They know what their cities have and what their citizens want. I am sure they will feel that while they welcome this change, there are a lot of words but little change and little benefit for them. Others may speak on this but we hope that the Government might take this away, reflect on it and see if they can come back and do better on it next time around. I beg to move.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I apologise if there is any confusion on this issue. Obviously, having amendments to a government amendment can lead to confusion. As I said, we will bring forward a government amendment, taking on board other comments, and we will endeavour to do that as soon as possible.

On Amendment 33, on extending the power to local transport authorities, we have a number of combined authorities with a directly elected mayor which are designed to deliver their strategic transport priorities across their city regions. We support the devolution of powers to authorities when local decision-making will support improved delivery of transport outcomes. Mayoral combined authorities and the Mayor of London provide an appropriate level of democratic accountability and strategic oversight, which individual local authorities do not necessarily have. We have made the decision to devolve certain strategic powers to metro mayors and metro mayors only and, in this case, we do not think that we should extend them to other local transport authorities.

I will move on to the issues involved in Amendment 29. We discussed London councils, TfL and the mayor at length in Committee and I mentioned this in my opening remarks. We welcome the new taskforce which has been set up and is well represented by all these organisations. There is a real will to work together to deliver these rapid charge points. We are encouraged by that and look forward to seeing progress made.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My understanding from the Minister’s opening remarks is that Amendment 29 is in the pot to be brought together with the other amendments in a new amendment being brought forward at Third Reading.

[Baroness Sugg]

Yes, the plan is to bring forward one amendment. We aim to combine Amendments 29, 30A, 31, 32A, 33 and 33A into one—we hope simplified—government amendment. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I make it clear that these are only regulation-making powers under Section 10, which is solely for large fuel retailers and service area operators. That is what these devolved powers refer to. I acknowledge that they do not go as far as the metro mayors want. I do not suggest that we get into another conversation about widening the scope of the Bill and the powers of the metro mayors. The Government’s amendment is related purely to those operators. We will come back to this ahead of Third Reading.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred to the DPRRC memo. We will go back to the committee with our response and I will copy in all noble Lords. Under Regulation 16(4), the first regulations made following a request by a metro mayor would be subject to the affirmative procedure so the first use of the powers would be debated by Parliament. However, any further exercise of the power is expected to raise similar issues to the first such exercise. Any such regulations would also have been subject to two periods of consultation: the metro mayor would be required to undertake local consultation before asking the Secretary of State to make regulations, and under Regulation 16(3) the Secretary of State would be required to undertake consultation before making the regulations. We think that is sufficient. I am afraid I received the letter only yesterday evening, but we will reply in the coming days and I will make sure that all noble Lords are copied in.

As I said, we will endeavour to come back as soon as possible with a revised government amendment which I hope will simplify matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I too am grateful to the Government for the amendment. I particularly congratulate them on subsection (2) of the proposed new clause which, for those who do not have the amendments with them, states:

“Each report must be laid before Parliament after the end of the reporting period to which it relates”.


A Government who could lay the report before the end of the reporting period would be some Government. This provision has no timescale, which could allow the report to be laid before Parliament 45 years after the end of the reporting period to which it relates. That is quite a commitment and again I congratulate the Government on their drafting.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I believe that we asked for this provision in Committee, and if we did not, we meant to do so. Either way, we thank the Minister.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I am grateful for the broad welcome expressed by noble Lords for the reporting amendment. I can reassure my noble friend that we will lay the report within two years of the Act being passed and further reports every 12 months after that. I did raise the issue of this wording and I have been assured that it has many precedents.

As this is the last group of the day, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I know that some believe that the Bill is too narrow in scope and does not go far enough in the provision of electric charging infrastructure. I would like to point out that infrastructure is just one element of Part 2. We have also made provisions on access, connection, information, data, smart charging and now reliability. While I acknowledge the views of noble Lords on infrastructure, we have sought to address any issues where we find them. Again, it is a part of the Bill, not its entirety. Indeed, the Bill forms only a small part of the work that the Government are doing to ensure that we have a successful transition to electric vehicles. I may as well say one last time that our upcoming “road to zero” strategy will set out our plans in more detail.

I have listened to the arguments put by noble Lords throughout the passage of the Bill and I have moved amendments to improve it. Again, I thank noble Lords for their constructive engagement.