Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]

Greg Knight Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 5th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I will come on to that in my speech, but I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions. From the point of view of any person needing to make a claim, the insurer will be liable whether the vehicle is in self-driving mode or the user is in charge. What happens subsequently, regarding whether the manufacturer, the software provider or whoever has to pony up the money, is a matter for the insurer to argue about with them. That will not impact the victim, who will be paid by the insurer.

On the hon. Gentleman’s important point about data, we discussed this last week when I met a roundtable of those involved in the industry, including road safety campaigners and those in the insurance industry. The Bill will ensure that the data can be shared, and the insurance industry is keen for that to happen so that it can properly price the risk. I will say more about this when I talk about the safety framework, but there is a real opportunity here because most road traffic collisions are caused at least in part by human error. The track record of self-driving vehicles shows that this is an opportunity to improve road safety, which is important not just for those who use vehicles but for other road users. There is a balance to strike here. We need to capture that benefit but also ensure that we do not leave anyone exposed without protection, as the hon. Gentleman rightly set out.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

On the point the Secretary of State has just been discussing, presumably the details of all journeys undertaken by automated vehicles will be recorded. Where will that data be stored, and who will have access to it? Could someone access that information for non-driving reasons—for example, someone involved in divorce proceedings or an employer in an employment tribunal?

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend should note that data for these purposes will be protected in the usual way. Data has to be used for the purposes for which it was gathered. There are legal processes for who has access to it, as well as those we will set out specifically for driving purposes. The other things he mentioned will be governed by the usual laws that govern the use of data. I do not want to dwell on those specifics, but they are already covered by existing data protection legislation for the devices that people have in vehicles to monitor their progress or for mobile phones.

I would like to start with safety. Anyone stepping into a self-driving vehicle will reasonably ask: “Can this car consistently drive safety? Will the law protect me if there is an accident? Is the manufacturer regulated and can they be held to account?” Under this legislation, the answer to each of those questions will be yes. The Bill has been built on a bedrock of safety, protecting not just the driver inside the car but road users outside the vehicle.

As I mentioned in answer to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), I chaired a roundtable with road safety groups last week and explained how we are holding self-driving vehicles to a higher safety standard than the average human driver, guided by principles we will soon consult on; how these vehicles must meet rigorous technical requirements before rolling off production lines and being authorised for our roads; and how we will tackle misleading marketing, with new offences for companies that seek to blur the line between true self-driving and driver assistance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

One of the things we will have in place is a duty of candour. We will also set up a regulatory process with investigations of every self-driving vehicle involved in an incident. Importantly, manufacturers will be legally obliged to have that duty of candour to disclose the information, so that these issues can be got to the bottom of. The hon. Member raises a specific case that I will not comment on, and there will no doubt be learnings from that case, but the regulatory approach we are setting up will deal with the issue he just raised.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

Let me make a bit of progress; I want to try to get to a conclusion, because others wish to speak, but I will try to get back to my right hon. Friend in a sec.

In 2019, Google’s Waymo made the UK its first European engineering hub for self-driving technologies. Bosch and ZF, among others, are investing in the UK, drawn by our highly skilled workforce. CAM Testbed UK, a unique cluster of five facilities between London and the west midlands, has received £200 million of Government and industry funding, and we have put £66 million into scaling up self-driving mobility ideas, from buses in Scotland to HGVs in Sunderland, with a further £150 million announced as part of our advanced manufacturing plan. We do not want to lose momentum, and we want to make sure that we push the industry to realise the full benefits of this technology. I hope that the Bill brings certainty to investors, clarity to manufacturers, confidence to the public and demonstrates Britain’s strongest commitment yet to a self-driving future. Before I conclude, I will take an intervention from my right hon. Friend.

[Sir Greg Knight]

The Secretary of State has been generous in giving way. Just to clarify the point, there could be circumstances where a vehicle is in fully auto mode, but the owner bears some responsibility. For example, if an automated vehicle is on full auto and is involved in an accident, but it is then discovered that all the tyres are without tread, surely in those circumstances the owner would bear some blame.

[Mr Harper]

I set out at the beginning that in circumstances where a user is in charge—where they are not purely a passenger with a company providing a taxi or private hire service—and the vehicle is in self-driving mode, the manufacturer or software provider is responsible for the conduct of the vehicle, but the user in charge is responsible for such things as the physical condition of the vehicle and the tyres, and they retain that responsibility. The balance of which of those things caused the accident will be determined in exactly the same way as currently.

In conclusion, as I think the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) set out, self-driving vehicles will provoke excitement from some and nerves from others, but for most of us, it is a combination of the two. Clearly it is an opportunity, but there are some risks. I know that first-hand, not only having visited California-based Waymo and ridden in one of its self-driving vehicles, but having done a journey from my departmental office to this House in a self-driving vehicle designed by the British company Wayve. It was interesting, as it went expertly through busy streets and responded quickly to things. It was a rainy day and a lot of people were darting in and out of the traffic—probably not sensibly—but the car responded safely. I realised the enormous potential of this technology, not just as a growing economic sector, but for a future where transport is safer, more convenient and more accessible. This Bill is a crucial step towards that future, and I take great pleasure in commending it to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Knight Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Browne]

As I outlined in my previous answer, with SAFs we are generating a whole new industry. It is happening across the world. I spoke at the International Civil Aviation Organisation conference in Dubai, and to aviation Ministers from around the world, and all are trying to promote this industry. We are probably more advanced here than anywhere else in the country, and as I mentioned, we are funding 13 different schemes to get the industry going. I will meet SAF producers in the next couple of days, and we want information from them about what is needed. What is needed is certainty, and there are benefits from across the country in both Scotland and England. There are huge economic benefits from this, and it could create many thousands of jobs.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

6. What steps he plans to take to improve traffic flows in towns and cities.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)]

This Government recognise that most journeys in this country are made by car, and that is why we are providing comprehensive support for motorists through our plan for drivers, which includes a package of measures to improve traffic flow, and also through the £8.3 billion investment in road resurfacing. That historic investment in road condition will benefit all road users, as we have set out in earlier answers.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Despite the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister saying that the war against the motorist is over, is he aware that many Labour local authorities have not got the message, with unwanted low-traffic neighbourhoods in place, unjustified 20 mph speed limits being proposed and traffic lights phased deliberately to delay traffic flows, causing added pollution? Will he consider giving advice to local authorities that they should do all they can to improve traffic flows and not disrupt them because of some misguided dogma against the motorist?

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend is right: we are pro-driver, but also pro- public transport and pro-active travel, and those things are about giving people better choices and making sure that councils do not deliver anti-driver traffic management measures. The network management duty requires local authorities to manage their roads as efficiently as possible for the benefit of all road users, including drivers, which some of them forget from time to time. We have also announced new funding totalling £40 million specifically for improvements to traffic lights to keep local roads moving, including deploying machine learning and artificial intelligence to optimise traffic flow to get cars moving.

Draft Aviation (Consumers) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Greg Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Aviation (Consumers) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The regulations were laid before the House on 16 October. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), who is responsible for aviation, sends his apologies. He is attending a sustainable aviation conference—please, no jokes about his taking flights. I hope to be an able stand-in.

The purpose of the instrument is to restate, under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, the key principles of retained EU case law relating to regulation No. 261/2004. It will help aviation consumers to receive the same protections and rights to compensation that they currently have when they experience flight disruption. Regulation No. 261/2004, which will become assimilated law at the end of the year, sets out the full rules on compensation and assistance for air passengers in the event of their being denied boarding, flight cancellation or long delay. Without the draft regulations before the Committee today, important principles that protect consumers in the UK would clearly be lost.

The territorial application of the statutory instrument is England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as civil aviation is a reserved matter. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered this instrument and did not report it to the House at its meeting on 25 October. Under article 438, paragraph 3, of the trade and co-operation agreement, the UK and the EU

“shall consult each other on any matter related to”—

aviation—

“consumer protection, including their planned measures”.

The Department for Transport consulted the EU on the provisions of the instrument, and I am pleased to say that the EU had no comments on it.

I hope the Committee understands the need for and the importance of this instrument, and I commend—

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

The regulations and the explanatory memorandum refer to the tariff payable in compensation. Is that automatically uplifted with inflation, or will further recourse have to be made to Parliament to secure any inflationary increase?

[Guy Opperman]

That is an outstandingly good question, in reply to which I am delighted to say that I propose to get the aviation Minister to write to my right hon. Friend in quite a lot of detail on that point. If he bears with me, however, I might be able to respond to his question in my closing comments.

I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Draft South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (Transfer of Functions) Order 2023

Greg Knight Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Draft South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (Transfer of Functions) Order 2023.

The draft order was laid before Parliament on 8 November and agreed to in the House of Lords on 19 December. It is solely concerned with the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority. Henceforth, I shall refer to passenger transport executives as PTEs and mayoral combined authorities as MCAs.

The draft order was laid at the original request of the former Mayor of South Yorkshire, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), with the full support of the current Mayor of South Yorkshire. The order is being made under section 85 of the Passenger Transport Act 1985, which allows the Secretary of State for Transport to make provision for the dissolution of PTEs and to transfer their functions, property, rights and liabilities to an integrated transport authority for the area. The order will dissolve the South Yorkshire PTE and transfer its functions, property, rights and liabilities to the South Yorkshire MCA.

PTEs are delivery bodies responsible for implementing the strategic transport plans in their area and for securing the provision of local public transport across the area as they consider appropriate. That includes commissioning socially necessary bus services and administering travel concessionary schemes. PTEs have existed in many of our larger city regions, predating the combined authorities, which are now largely responsible for transport planning in those areas.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

The explanatory memorandum that the Minister’s Department has produced, at paragraph 12.2, under “Impact”, states:

“The impact on the public sector is beneficial, as this consolidates two local public bodies into a single organisation, which should lead to operational efficiencies.”

Will there be any departmental review, say in 12 months’ time, to see whether that is indeed the case?

[Mr Holden]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. We are not planning any reviews at the moment. The main issue is that the mayoral combined authority has responsibility in this space. The passenger transport executive operates in the same building, as I understand it, but has to publish its own independent set of accounts, so although they work closely together, the dual administrative set-up continues. Merging them into one means little need to look at what extra can be done, as we are mainly removing the extra administrative burdens that exist currently for the PTE body, but which will now be automatically covered by the MCA. I hope that reassures him. In fact, my first decision as a Minister was to pass this draft statutory instrument, so I have spent an inordinate quantity of time looking at it in depth.

The South Yorkshire PTE was established by the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Area Order 1973. It has variously been accountable to the metropolitan county council, the passenger transport authority and the integrated transport authority.

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

Greg Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Transport and Works (Guided Transport Modes) (Amendment) Order 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Caroline. Orders made under the Transport and Works Act 1992 are the usual way to authorise the construction or operation of local transport schemes, such as railways, tramways or trolley vehicle systems, in England and Wales, as well as transport systems using a mode of guided transport prescribed by order.

The modes that are currently prescribed that can seek authorisation via the Transport and Works Act include road-based and track-based systems, but those are limited to systems guided by physical means, such as cables or tracks. Changes in technology mean that transport systems can now be guided by non-physical means, which might include simple sensor systems that detect paint or other road markings to direct a vehicle, or more complex sensor systems that read the surrounding environment to direct the vehicle. The draft amendment order will extend the Transport and Works (Guided Transport Modes) Order 1992 to allow applications for public transport schemes using non-physical guidance systems to be authorised via a Transport and Works Act order.

The order will not change the process that a promoter is required to follow in seeking authorisation through the Transport and Works Act regime or the way in which such applications are decided. It will simply allow a wider and more modern range of schemes to be considered and authorised under the Transport and Works Act. In other words, should the proposed change be approved, parties impacted by a scheme that will use a form of non-physically guided technology will continue to have the opportunity to submit their views on that scheme. Any views that are submitted will be fully considered before a decision is made on whether to grant consent on a specific scheme.

Let me provide further context and background on what the Transport and Works Act covers. The Act is intended to be a one-stop consenting mechanism for all the powers needed to deliver and operate a transport scheme. An application made under section 1 of the Act can include a wide range of matters set out in schedule 1 to the Act, such as the construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, demolition and removal of railways, tramways, trolley vehicle systems and other transport systems allowed under the Act.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Can the Minister assure the Committee that there will be a joined-up approach here? For example, I notice that this proposal applies only to England and Wales. What assurances can he give me that, if I decide in a few years’ time to go from the north of England to Scotland in a self-driving car, that car will not stop at the Scottish border because Scotland has introduced a different method?

[Huw Merriman]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As he rightly mentioned, the order applies to England and Wales. We have sought the approval of the Welsh Administration, who are content with it. Scotland has its own Transport and Works Act mechanism. My right hon. Friend is right that the issue he raises will have to be taken into consideration when one gets to the stage of looking at a joined-up Union system. However, it will be for the Scottish Administration to move matters forward. I will write to the Scottish Executive, and I will go beyond the point that they are content because they have their own mechanism and actually inquire as to how they would see cross-border activity working in practice. I would just make the point that this is an enabling piece of legislation, so every project under it would itself have to be approved, and Scotland would of course need the same enabling mechanism. However, I will write to my right hon. Friend with the assurance he seeks.

Applicants seeking authorisation under the Transport and Works Act can apply to construct, alter, repair, maintain or demolish roads buildings and other structures, as needed to allow for the delivery of a scheme. If the order is approved, such provisions will apply equally to a guided mode of transport system using sensor technology, where applicants are required to deliver such a scheme. That demonstrates that there is currently wide provision to allow an application to incorporate any of the aforementioned matters where they are necessary and appropriate for the delivery of the scheme under consideration. That will not change as a result of the order. The power to make this amending order is set out in section 2 of the Transport and Works Act but is subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

The term “guided transport” is defined as

“transport by vehicles guided by means external to the vehicles (whether or not the vehicles are also capable of being operated in some other way)”.

The order seeks to cover transport by vehicles guided by non-physical guidance systems. These systems, whether simple sensor systems that detect paint or other road markings, or more complex sensor systems that read the surrounding environment, are external to the vehicle.

To conclude, the order is essential to support innovation in transport and to allow the use of new, more advanced technologies. It had wide support from those who responded to the public consultation on this change. As enabling legislation, it does not impose additional costs on applicants applying for Transport and Works Act orders or on the Government in taking forward and providing consent for such applications. I hope Members will join me in supporting the order, and I commend it to the Committee.

Rail Strikes

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I certainly take that point, but just I heard from another member of our Committee that Network Rail is still striking in Wales, and when it is about Network Rail members of the RMT, that tends to shut the railway down. In my example of when the RMT was striking in the Southern region, that did not shut the system down because that only happened when ASLEF drivers were involved. We will both check the record on that, no doubt, but that is how I am informed.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Huw Merriman]

I will take one last intervention and that is it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

I declare an interest of sorts: I am the son of a trade union rep. I am very proud of the work he did in standing up for the people he worked with to secure them better conditions and safety in the workplace. He always said to me that if trade unions did not exist, we would have to invent them. They play a very important role in our society, and I am certainly not someone who comes to this place as a natural union basher. I will say this, though: I think the RMT has got this strike badly wrong in both timing and tactics.

On timing, it will have a huge impact on a huge number of people across the country, particularly as it falls in the middle of exams and after the horrendous two years young people have had. This will make things even worse. It will have an impact on businesses not just in terms of the huge number of lost hours of work, but for those reliant on footfall from passengers, including Twig at Glossop station where I get my Monday morning coffee every week and Edwards Wine Bar in Hadfield where I often enjoy a drink on my way back from meetings. It will also have a huge impact on workers who cannot get to work, including doctors and nurses. And let us not forget the self-employed, who will not be able to earn money because they cannot work due to the strikes.

The strike is also bad in terms of tactics. It is a self-defeating tactic by the RMT. We are at a very critical moment for public transport and the rail sector. It has had a very difficult two years due to covid, with plummeting passenger numbers and record levels of subsidy just to try to keep the service above water. We are now in a position where we face the need to modernise and deal with the drop in revenue. The strike will only harm that work towards modernisation and sustainability. In the long run, I fear that that will have a huge impact on the industry and the workers the RMT professes to represent.

[Sir Greg Knight]

As a number of train operating companies are urging the public not to seek to travel at all by rail during the week of the strikes, is there not an overwhelming case for requiring road congestion charging and similar schemes to be suspended until the rail network is back to normal?

[Robert Largan]

I sincerely hope that that is a proposal the Government and Mayors look at very closely in their areas.

We are currently dealing with very reduced rail services as a result of staff shortages. The three lines I represent are currently running on very reduced timetables, which are causing massive amounts of problems. The problems we see with this industrial dispute will only make that worse. We have seen this go on for months. There has been a large number of cancelled trains, particularly on the Glossop line. We have seen a lot of work to rule and disputes over rosters, which in fact led to a High Court injunction from Northern to ASLEF only a couple of weeks ago. We are already seeing some problems due to industrial disputes and they desperately need resolving.

I really think the RMT has got its tactics and timing very badly wrong. I hope it can reconsider. I sincerely hope we are able to avoid what I believe would be very damaging and self-defeating strikes.

Future of Rail

Greg Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell]

Today, I will set out why consolidation and intersection with other forms of transport and energy technologies is essential if Britain is once again to lead the transport revolution, and why it is vital that the Government invest in this unique global rail supercluster for rail’s bicentenary. I am ambitious for rail and I am ambitious for Britain.

It will not be lost on anyone in this debate that York is where that revolution will occur. After all, York made the railways and the railways made York. The partnership between York University and Leeds University centres the future of digital and advanced rail, including the Institute for High Speed Rail and System Integration at Leeds University, bringing together the very best of transport, academia and digital technologies with the 13 leading rail education providers in the region, including the Institute of Technology at York College, which I visited recently.

We love our steam trains; whether it is the Mallard or the Flying Scotsman that fills people with greatest pride, our rail heritage is a natural draw for anyone across the network. Today, York has over 100 rail companies, which are at the forefront of engineering, operations, software development, timetabling and planning, providing over 5,500 of York’s top jobs and 9,500 jobs in the surrounding region, and consolidating York’s rail cluster, which is the largest outside London and now eager to take us forward once more.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this excellent debate. Does she agree that there is not a good case, but an overwhelming case, to make York the headquarters of Great British Railways?

Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 28th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) for giving the Queen’s consent. I thank all those who have supported the Bill, particularly those were selected for and attended the Bill Committee without whom it could not have progressed. I was thinking that to speed things up, I could just say, “This Bill is going to save the average motorist 50 quid a year and is one in the eye for the European Court of Justice”, but we probably need to do a bit more than that. The expressions of Opposition Members tell me that I better press on.

My Bill, which received Second Reading on 29 October last year and passed Committee stage on 5 January this year, deals with an issue that was considered in detail during a Westminster Hall debate entitled “Motor Insurance: Court Judgments” on 22 September 2021. That debate was led expertly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who cannot be here today, but I thank her for all her continued support for the Bill.

As an aside, when we have presentation Bills, it is a very good idea, if there is not time in this Chamber for us to debate Second Reading for as long as we would like, to obtain a Westminster Hall debate so that we can get the issue discussed at length before coming to this Chamber. That is a very good example of what happened.

The Bill’s purpose is to remove the requirement for compulsory motor insurance for vehicles used exclusively on private land and for a wide range of vehicles not constructed for road use. People might say, “You don’t have to have motor insurance for vehicles used on private land or for vehicles that are not a motor vehicle.” They would be right that that is the interpretation of the Road Traffic Act 1998 that has stood since its inception. That interpretation was held to be correct by the Government, motor insurance and motorists alike, but then along came the ECJ and the Vnuk case.

In 2014, the ECJ made a decision that confounded the European Union and the British Government. The case of Vnuk extended the requirement for compulsory third-party motor insurance far beyond the scope of the Road Traffic Act. If the ruling is allowed to be enforced in our courts, it will put ordinary people in breach of the law for not having motor insurance for their vehicles used exclusively on private land. To give just a few examples, motor insurance will become compulsory for a golf cart that never leaves the golf course, a ride-on lawnmower that someone uses in their back garden and a tractor-trailer that is never designed to leave the farm. It would also extend compulsory motor insurance to machines that were never intended to be used on any road.

The Road Traffic Act 1988 requires that motor vehicles intended for use on roads and other public land must be insured. It does not require compulsory insurance for vehicles on private land, nor does it require compulsory insurance for vehicles not intended to be used on roads. The whole purpose of this Bill is to return the law of this land to that envisaged in the 1988 Act.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting so far with his Bill. I chair the all-party parliamentary historic vehicles group and meet many motorists and motoring organisations, including those connected with motorsport, and I have yet to hear a single objection to the measure he proposes. Is he aware how much widespread support he has?

[Mr Bone]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has been a staunch supporter of this Bill. To his point, there has been no objection; in fact, there has been tremendous support. I am afraid that in the whole process, the only person who has bowled a bouncer is him—but I will come to that later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

Nice try! It is important that the motor insurance industry knows that the Bill is making progress, so it has not put the £50 on. If we do not do it, that will happen. It is not that people will see their motor insurance go down by £50 per year, but that they will not see it go up by £50 a year. My hon. Friend can go ahead and renew his motor insurance.

I believe that I am correct in saying that, if passed, the Bill will be the first Act of Parliament to remove retained EU law. It will certainly be the first to remove retained EU case law, so it will be a landmark step in taking back control of our own laws. It is just one of the clear advantages of leaving the European Union that we can now alter our laws to ensure that they are interpreted the way that this sovereign Parliament intends.

The Bill will be the first of many post-Brexit dividends to be established in primary legislation. We will deliver the independence that the British people voted for and put pounds back into their pockets. In fact, it would not be a bad idea for the Government to have a Brexit Minister whose sole responsibility it was to root out such savings across the whole of Whitehall—and for that person to be a Brexiteer who had consistently supported that point of view, maybe even a Spartan, and clearly not someone who is a member of the current Government. Does that give the Minister any clues?

The Vnuk judgment has also led the European Union to revise its European directive, because it was as surprised by the decision as we were, although, as with many decisions taken at EU level, the interest of the ordinary motorist has been sacrificed in the name of greater harmonisation between states. The revisions it has made will fail to protect motorists in the EU from the associated costs of the compulsory insurance requirement on private land. Because of Brexit, this Parliament has the opportunity to do better, and that is just what we are doing with the Bill.

I will briefly mention the case of Colley v Shuker, which is being considered by the Court of Appeal next week, as I know the implications of the Bill have been questioned in relation to it. It is clear, however, that the case bears no connection to the Bill that we are considering today, as it involves an accident where an insurance policy was in place. The effect of the Bill is only to restore the statute book to the position that everyone understood it to be before the Vnuk decision.

I mentioned earlier my gratitude to Committee members and I am thankful for their excellent contributions. In Committee, the right hon. Member for Warley raised an important point, which the hon. Member for Cardiff North made today, that the obligation that we have discussed arises in cases where there has been an accident and possibly an injury. It is certainly true that protecting genuine victims and general safety is of the utmost importance when considering insurance requirements but, in most cases, for accidents involving motor vehicles on private land, a different type of insurance policy will already be in place. In many cases, there is even an existing compulsory insurance requirement, such as public liability insurance, employers liability insurance or events insurance.

As previously stated, the Bill does not seek to create new law or to tie the hands of Parliament in making changes to the requirements for motor insurance in the future. What it does is restore the interpretations of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which stood for almost 30 years. In that time, copious case law in British courts shaped the interpretation of that Act and established through precedent recourse to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau in certain circumstances. To give the House an example, although my local Waitrose car park might technically be on private land, were I to have an accident with an uninsured driver, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau would have liability, as established through existing case law. It is impossible to anticipate every possible accident scenario, although the Road Traffic Act has historically proved very adaptable. If, out of the blue, an incident highlighted a deficiency in protection for injured parties, I have every confidence this Parliament would act to rectify that.

I would also like to address the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), who bowled the Minister quite the bouncer during the Committee. I must add my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), for stepping in at the very last minute to deal with the Bill in Committee, as the responsible Minister was unfortunately ill on that day.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire raised a concern about how electric scooters will fall under the Road Traffic Act. It is my understanding that electric scooters would be classified as motor vehicles under the Road Traffic Act and would therefore require compulsory insurance. However, electric scooters are not allowed to be used on the roads, so Parliament will have to clarify that situation. That is not relevant to this Bill, because all we are doing is restoring the law to what it was before the Vnuk judgment.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Bone]

I feel another bouncer coming.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I am trying to be helpful, actually. Although it is, as my hon. Friend says, not a debate for today, does he agree that there is a good case that if electric scooters are allowed on the public highway, they should be insured?

[Mr Bone]

I think the law as it stands requires them to be compulsorily insured, even though they are not allowed on the road. That is a dilemma for the Government to sort out, but it is not, happily, for this debate.

I will move on to a second similar thing. I understand that there is a bespoke arrangement in place for electric bikes, whereby insurance is not compulsory. Although these bikes are used on public roads, they do not have to be compulsorily insured. It is also true that given how expensive the equipment is, many electric bike owners still opt to take out an insurance policy. It may be possible to look at expanding the arrangement to electric scooters, but again that will be a matter for Parliament to consider, and it is not relevant to what the Bill does. My right hon. Friend has brought it up, and it needs to be looked at by the Government.

Finally, clause 2(2) sets out the jurisdictions of the Bill. The provisions in the Bill extend and apply to England, Wales and Scotland only. The exclusion of Northern Ireland is consistent with the convention that Westminster will not normally legislate for matters that are within the legislative competency of any of the devolved Administrations. The Bill therefore does not legislate for Northern Ireland, as the matters to which the provisions of the Bill relate are within the legislative competency of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I understand, however, that the Northern Ireland Assembly is closely following the passage of this Bill, which will set an example that it might want to follow.

I am thrilled that leaving the European Union has given us this opportunity to deliver a clear Brexit dividend and to finally take back control of our laws. I hope this Bill will be the first of many over the course of this Government to deliver on our key post-Brexit objective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marco Longhi]

SORN—that is the word.

At a time when everyone is facing increasing household bills, fuel costs and cost of living, we should make it our priority to get rid of any unnecessary financial burdens. The Bill will reduce the cost of insurance for motorists across the UK. As has been said a couple of times already, implementing Vnuk across the UK would have cost something in the region of £2 billion, covering all existing motor cars, motorbikes, business vehicles, motorsports and other businesses.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I am a car owner too—I think most of us are—but is it not also important that without the Bill, the future of British motorsport could be seriously at risk?

[Marco Longhi]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention and I completely agree with his observation.

It has been calculated that insurance policyholders could face an estimated cost of over £1 billion if Vnuk were implemented, expressed as a potential increase in individual insurance premiums of circa £50 for 25 million consumers. An extra £50 a month is a lot of money for many families; it could mean choosing between eating or heating their homes. Our constituents should keep that £50 in their own pockets, and not cover the costs of some idiots who may cause accidents and fail to insure their vehicles while they are at it. To me, the Bill smacks of pure common sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

We do. Clearly, people do drive from what is now the EU to the UK, but the volume of traffic is very low.

I want to raise a point about why we ended up with this European Court of Justice ruling. As a Europe editor of The Times, I wrote various think-tank reports about EU regulations and structure. I advised the Government and was involved with European law-making for about 20 years. In the Lisbon treaty, there is the principle of subsidiarity. We do not talk about it much in this place. When Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, she talked about it and everyone scratched their heads saying, “What is subsidiarity?” The basic principle is that one should make laws at a European level only where necessary, for example on cross-border issues such as pollution or trade. I cannot see any argument for why the insurance of golf buggies needs a pan-European law.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I join my hon. Friend in declaring an interest as the insurer of several vehicles. Is it not the other side-effects of Vnuk that are so offensive and why we are right to support the Bill? Without the Bill, would it not mean that, for example, ride-on lawnmowers would need to have insurance?

[Anthony Browne]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That ECJ judgment has incredibly wide-ranging implications across many different sectors. I picked on golf buggies, but it affects lawnmowers, agricultural vehicles and electric scooters, as we heard. It is incredibly wide ranging. It is baffling and extraordinary how a Slovenian farmer, Mr Vnuk, getting knocked off his ladder—poor guy; I hope he was not too badly injured and I hope he got compensation—can lead to a series of different judgments, amendments and so on that cost the British motor insurance industry £458 million or a £50 increase in premiums for British drivers, a total of £1 billion a year. It is difficult to explain to voters, even in remain constituencies like mine, what the justification is for that.

Before my right hon. Friend’s intervention, I mentioned subsidiarity as a principle enshrined in an EU treaty. There are various mechanisms in the EU to try to ensure subsidiarity. Parliamentary committees of national Parliaments are meant to have votes and give red flag warnings when EU legislation contravenes it. However, this was not EU legislation. It was a judgment from the European Court of Justice and, as case law has the effect of legislation, it was enshrined in UK law after we left the EU. That raises the question of the European Court of Justice.

I reported on the European Court of Justice. I have visited its buildings many times. I will give one little anecdote about a story I once tried to do. The British Government were appointing a judge to the ECJ. I thought that that was quite an important story. The British Government were involved and the ECJ had, when we were in the EU, a constitutional role in the UK. It could make laws that overrode the national Parliament and the national Government, and could change the lives of British citizens. The Vnuk ruling is a clear example of that. At the same time that I was suggesting to the editor of The Times that I write a story about the British Government’s appointing a judge to the European Court of Justice, there was some controversy over a judge on the United States Supreme Court, as hon. Members may recall—one of them had a nanny they should not have employed, or something. I said, “This is a far more important story. The British Government are involved. This court changes the lives of British citizens. It can overrule the British Government and the British Parliament.”

I wrote my story, and the next day the Supreme Court wrangling was front page of The Times, the main story, and my story about our appointing a judge to the European Court of Justice was a “News in Brief”, a tiny little thing. This is not a pro-remain or pro-Brexit argument, but even when we were members of the EU we had virtually no knowledge or understanding of the workings of the European Court of Justice or its important or significance.

When we were members of the EU, I used to play a little parlour game: “We have the right to appoint a British judge to the European Court of Justice. What is the name of our judge on the European Court of Justice?” I used to ask MPs and so on, and no one had any idea. I searched for his name in newspaper articles and this particular judge was never mentioned—I cannot actually remember his name now. I will save their blushes, but I asked the serving Europe Minister at the time, “What is the name of our judge on the European Court of Justice?” and he had no idea. I thought, “We really do have a problem as a country. We have no understanding or appreciation of the importance of the court, the way it works or the influence it has over our daily lives in this country.”

The Vnuk judgment is not only a clear example of the role of that court, overriding the objections of the British Government and of Parliament, but a clear breach of the principle of subsidiarity, which is enshrined in EU treaty law. There will probably be other examples of retained EU legislation; my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough suggested that there will be a whole series of such bits of legislation that we think are inappropriate for the UK. He suggested a new Government position: a Brexit Minister, someone who has had an interest in this issue for the whole time and is not currently serving as a member of the Government. I wonder who he could be thinking about?

Without repeating that suggestion, let me make another one. I keep coming across different bits of legislation in this place that we can only enact as a result of our having left the EU. This Bill is one example, but there are many others. It would be useful for the Government to compile a list across all the different Departments of all the little things we are doing as a result of leaving the EU, as well as the big things such as reforming the common agricultural policy and so on.

Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 21st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting this far. Only about 1% of all private Members’ Bills make it on to the statute book, so he has done very well. I wish him well as the Bill proceeds.

My hon. Friend referred to the database. May I ask him who is going to fund the costs of that?

[Peter Gibson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He raises a very important point about the cost, which I will address in further detail later in my speech. However, it is safe to say that a notional cost is already being borne by many local authorities as part of their membership of the national anti-fraud framework. It is for the Minister to decide whether to designate that database for the use of this legislation, if we are successful in getting it on to the statute book, and whether the Government fully fund it themselves or pass the relatively nominal cost on to a local authority.

Licensing authorities will then be required to search the database when processing each licensing application to ascertain whether the applicant has had a licence suspended, refused or revoked by another licensing authority. If there is a relevant entry on the database, the authority will be obliged to request further details of that adverse decision and have regard to the information considered by the other licensing authority when making its own decision. To be clear, the database would only record instances in which a licensing authority suspended, refused or revoked a driver’s licence due to safeguarding or road safety concerns: it would not hold details of that decision. The details would remain held by the relevant licensing authority, and would need to be requested on a case-by-case basis where an application is made to another local authority by an individual whose name appears on the register.

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

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2022 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 (Airspace Change Directions) (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Regulations 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. These regulations have a snappy title, if ever there was one. They are made under the powers conferred by the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, which, for ease, I will refer to as the ATMUA Act.

The regulations are about airspace, which must be managed so that it can be used safely and efficiently. British airspace has not had substantial changes since the ’50s and is an ongoing programme of work. Airspace changes can include proposals to, for example, amend airport flightpaths at lower levels, change the classification of particular airspace or alter flightpaths at higher altitudes.

In 2018, the Civil Aviation Authority published its airspace modernisation strategy, which sets out the ends, ways and means of modernising airspace. The CAA is currently consulting on a review and refresh for that strategy. The consultation opened on 10 January 2022, and I encourage all Members with an interest to contribute. The programme of airspace modernisation is under way and includes the wholesale redesign of the UK’s airspace to unlock the benefits of modernisation, which will help to make journeys more environmentally friendly. It will also increase capacity, manage noise impacts, increase resilience and improve access for other airspace users.

The regulations are necessary because airspace change usually relies on individual sponsors. That might be an airport or another sponsor, such as an air navigation service provider, or ANSP. Airspace change relies on individual sponsors bringing forward their own proposals and choosing if, when and how to progress on airspace changes. Before the passing of the ATMUA Act, if an airport or ANSP declined to participate in an airspace change proposal, neither the Department nor the Civil Aviation Authority had any means to ensure co-operation and co-ordination between different airports and airspaces. That meant that one airport or ANSP could hold up progress for everybody, so the modernisation programme, and the benefits to which I have alluded, would be delayed.

Happily, these regulations give the Secretary of State powers—in practice, delegated to the CAA—under sections 2 and 3 of the ATMUA Act to direct a person who is involved in airspace change, who is usually someone corporate, to progress or co-operate in an airspace change proposal, where doing so assists with progressing the CAA’s airspace modernisation strategy.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Are there any circumstances where the refusal to follow an enforcement order could put lives at risk?

[Robert Courts]

That is an interesting question. I think my right hon. Friend is asking whether there is likely to be a safety impact from the refusal of an airspace provider to follow a direction. It is conceivable, but the more likely risk would be to efficiency. Our airspace has not really been amended since the 1950s, when we were dealing with very different types of aircraft in the airspace system from those that we have now. That means that we get issues such as stacking, which leads to wasted fuel. This measure provides an environmental and cost benefit. It is more about that efficiency than safety, although clearly any airspace issue conceivably has a safety impact. My right hon. Friend makes a good point.

The powers that the ATMUA Act gives to the CAA will help to deliver the advantages that I referred to: quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys, and potentially more capacity to make use of our motorways in the sky. If the directed party does not comply with a direction, the CAA can issue it with a contravention notice, which may be followed by an enforcement order. I stress that that is not the first port of call, which would of course be guidance and working closely together. The Secretary of State would first have to consider that it is a strategically important part of the airspace work. There would be guidance, a request for co-operation and directions given together. Next would be a contravention notice, and then finally an enforcement order.

If that enforcement order is contravened, there is the power to impose a financial penalty consisting of a fixed amount, not exceeding 10% of the person’s turnover and/or a daily amount not exceeding 0.1% of the person’s turnover. That is laid out in the ATMUA Act. These regulations set out how a person’s turnover is to be determined, so that there is certainty for everybody. The regulations are intended to deal with the wide variety of persons and the different kinds of bodies involved in airspace change—for the most part, that means corporate persons. There has to be an appropriate level of penalty for non-compliance to ensure that it is both proportionate and transparent.

Under regulations 2 and 3, turnover is limited to the sum of all amounts received in the course of a person’s business and excludes capital receipts and loans made by a third party. Only one year of turnover is used in the calculation, and where the most recent available turnover does not equal 12 months, turnover is calculated on a pro rata basis. It is transparent, proportionate and intended to ensure that the person has the correct amount for the enforcement order. The regulations apply to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They are intended to ensure that we have effective and proportionate management of the CAA and the airspace modernisation programme risk. I commend the regulations to the Committee.