Rail Manufacturing: Job Losses

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Berkeley

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Yes, I can. The Transport Secretary had a constructive meeting yesterday with Alstom’s chairman and chief executive officer and its UK and Ireland director. We are now in a period of intense discussion with the company on potential options to secure a sustainable future for Alstom’s Litchurch Lane factory. While it would not be appropriate for me to go into the details of those discussions at this stage, I know that the Transport Secretary plans to update both Houses at the appropriate time.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, the potential Alstom order from the Government for extra trains on the Elizabeth line is, allegedly, to cope with more passengers who will come off HS2 and want to go somewhere else on the Elizabeth line. Can the Government confirm that the new trains—it may be up to 10—will have toilets? In a recent incident on the Great Western, there were people stuck on trains for something like 10 hours without access to a toilet—and then they got criticised for jumping on to the track. Surely, in this day and age, the minimum should be to have at least one or two working toilets on such trains, which possibly go for two-hour or three-hour journeys.

Avanti Trains

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Berkeley

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The decision to award the contract to First Trenitalia was contingent on the operator continuing to win back the confidence of passengers, but as with other operators, it is a combination of things. Its train crew issues are linked to its continued lack of driver overtime and ongoing industrial action. There are many issues that contribute to this. It is not always the operators’ fault.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, last week, the Government launched a draft rail reform Bill, which they claimed would put one organisation in charge of all the railways. It is pretty obvious that that organisation will be the Government. How will that actually improve the appalling service that Avanti is still giving, in spite of the Government actually being in charge now?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. We are committed to reforming the railways, and we are getting on with delivering improvements for passengers, freight customers and the taxpayer now. Rail reform remains a priority for government. Our priority for the next 12 months is delivering the improvements I just mentioned, and we are focused on collaborating with the sector to lay the foundations for a reformed industry, taking more of a whole-system perspective within the current legal framework.

Pavement Parking

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Berkeley

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I have not yet had the opportunity to look at my noble friend’s proposed legislation, but as soon as I leave here I will go straight back to the department and do so.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not about time that the Government grasped the nettle and said that roads are for things with big wheels, such as cars, bikes and scooters, and that pavements are for people who are trying to walk? It does not take three years to make a decision like that.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I think I have covered the point the noble Lord raises. I agree that three years is a long time but, in fairness, it takes time to analyse all of this. I undertake to move as fast as I possibly can on this issue.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Berkeley

Report stage
Tuesday 6th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)]

My Lords, we begin once again with the question of safety. I am grateful to colleagues across the House for their constructive engagement on this issue. The Government’s position remains that the safety standard is best articulated in statutory guidance, with the benefit of consultation. This is the most appropriate way of assessing the public’s attitude to risk, which in turn is the only objective answer to the question of “How safe is safe enough?”. This rationale was set out by the law commissions and is not one from which we intend to deviate.

Nevertheless, I have reflected on our discussions in recent weeks and recognise the strength of feeling on this subject. This is a novel area, with an uncertain future. It is therefore reasonable that Parliament should expect to set the parameters within which the safety standard will be defined. To that end, I have tabled government Amendments 3 and 7. This will establish the “careful and competent driver” standard as the minimum level of road safety that the statement of safety principles should look to achieve—in effect, cementing our safety ambition into law. It will also guarantee a substantive debate in Parliament on the first iteration of those principles.

As I have said previously, the “careful and competent” standard is considerably higher than that of the average driver. This means the objective of a significant improvement in road safety is now baked in from the beginning. Further, I recognise the desire to clarify that this improvement in safety applies to all road users. I can therefore confirm that the statement of safety principles will include an explicit principle on equality and fairness. This could include, for example, a declaration that overall safety benefits should not come at the expense of any particular group of road users. Further detail could then specify that training datasets must be representative of different sectors of society. The exact framing will of course be shaped by consultation.

More broadly, I reiterate the point I made in Committee that references in the Bill to “road safety” do indeed already apply to all road users. This is also the case in existing road safety legislation, where offences such as dangerous driving are concerned with the safety of all road users; this includes, but is not limited to, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, motorcyclists and disabled people.

For these reasons, I believe the intent of Amendment 4 is now provided for. Indeed, our proposed Amendment 3 achieves this without the ambiguity created by relative terms such as “significantly better”.

Regarding Amendment 2, Clause 1(3) already establishes that safety is to be assessed in relation to location and circumstances. The safety considerations and appropriate assessment methodologies will vary depending on the location, circumstances, use case and road users in question. It is more appropriate that these details be defined in approval and authorisation requirements, rather than the statement of safety principles.

The first part of Amendment 1 would effectively apply a minimum safety standard equivalent to that of a novice human driver who has just passed their test. The practical limitations of human driving tests constrain the monitoring and assessment of each new driver’s performance to a short time window. These limitations do not apply to self-driving vehicles. We can assess performance in multitudes of situations, including rare ones, and across thousands of miles of driving. We therefore believe safety is best assessed by a combination of real-world, track and virtual testing.

More pertinently, the amendment looks to redefine the phrase “safely and legally” in purely statistical terms. Doing so would contradict the law commissions’ basic principle that these concepts are ultimately defined by public acceptance and public confidence. As I said at the outset, we do not believe it wise to deviate from this principle. I hope that, with the additional assurances of government Amendments 3 and 7, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will agree with me on that point.

Before I conclude, I will briefly address the security point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. Cyber and national security sit at the very heart of our plans to bring self-driving vehicles to UK roads. Vehicles with automatic systems will be subject to detailed technical cybersecurity assessment as part of the well-established type approval process. This will include assessment to ensure vehicles continue to be cyber resilient throughout their lifetime. Before a company can be authorised as a self-driving entity, it must meet requirements relating to good repute, which will include consideration for cybersecurity. We will, of course, be working with the police and the security services to enable this.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. It has been a very interesting series of contributions on the subject of safety, which we will go on debating for a very long time. The Minister, as we know, has moved and made improvements. I will study carefully what he said in his response, because I detect some further studies that may come in future guidance, or something like that. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this group covers the general functioning and underlying mechanics of the regulatory framework. It includes government Amendments 11, 25 and 26, which correct minor and technical drafting issues. It also includes government Amendment 33, which applies the affirmative procedure to regulations setting the maximum penalties that can be levied against regulated bodies. Following careful reflection, we agree with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that it would be inappropriate to leave these regulations entirely to the negative procedure. I am grateful to the Committee for its considered recommendations and hope that this provides sufficient reassurance.

I will begin with the subject of consultation. I know that there have been calls for specific groups to be named in the Bill. Government Amendment 6 therefore creates an explicit obligation to consult the three groups with the greatest interest in the safe operation of the system: road users, road safety groups and businesses in the industry. However, this list is not exhaustive. It is the Government’s intention to ensure that anyone who feels that they are affected can feed into the development of the statement of safety principles. The consultation will be public and therefore open to all, including trade unions.

Amendment 5 looks to include

“other groups whose safety or other interests may be affected by the application of the principles”.

As drafted, this would add little to the existing requirement in Clause 2 to consult representative organisations. Amendment 28, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, instead proposes an overarching advisory council. The requirements he proposes are very broad, explicitly mandating representation from, at the very least, 11 different groups and sub-groups. The noble Lord proposes that the council advise and review evidence from government, as well as reporting regularly to Parliament on

“any related matters relevant to … self-driving vehicles and associated public policy”.

This is an extremely wide remit which could not be carried out by a group of this size without extensive co-ordination, expert input and supporting staff, which would create unnecessary bureaucracy and carry additional administrative costs. I completely understand the noble Lord’s interest in ensuring appropriate independent scrutiny of the regulatory framework. However, in the Government’s view, this is a role for Parliament and the statutory inspectors, both of which are free to consult any group they deem necessary in carrying out their respective functions.

Turning to Amendment 34, the Bill does not look to change the insurance provisions set out in the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act. The Law Commission considered the Act and concluded that it would be premature to change its application now. It determined that change need be considered only if real-world use-cases encounter challenges in settling claims. However, I recognise the points noble Lords have made and assure them that we are working closely with the insurance industry to anticipate potential issues of this kind. My colleague, Mr Browne, is due to meet with the Association of British Insurers imminently as part of this engagement.

The amendment would apply a presumption of liability to authorised automated vehicles regardless of whether the self-driving feature was active at the time of the incident. This would be disproportionate and potentially unfair. Consider, for example, the implications for a human driver who uses their vehicle without ever activating its self-driving features. Further, such a change could lead to risk-taking behaviour. We would not wish to encourage the perception that the safety of self-driving vehicles somehow reduces obligations on other road users.

Moving, finally, to Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the Long Title of the Bill states that it is to regulate the use of self-driving road vehicles on roads and in other public places. To be clear, this means that driveways and other non-road locations to which the public have access are already within the scope of the Bill. Pavements are also covered, as they are included in the definition of “roads”. Clause 4(4) also creates the flexibility to regulate use-cases in which a road vehicle uses both public roads and private land. Therefore, as drafted, the amendment would have little to no effect.

However, I recognise the broader point being made about pavement use and accessibility. Ensuring that pedestrians and other vulnerable road users have safe and accessible spaces, including the pavement, is essential to road safety. That is why there are existing restrictions on the use of road vehicles in these spaces. This question goes well beyond the safety of self-driving technologies. It was therefore not considered by the Law Commission, and any potential future changes would need to be subject to careful consultation.

I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to withdraw Amendment 5.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. I was particularly interested in the comments on my Amendment 34, which I thought would bring some interesting views. I said that I did not think it was a solution, but I am pleased that the Minister is at least looking at this issue with the insurance industry, because there has to be a solution that everybody accepts.

I am particularly grateful to my noble friend, who may or may not divide the House on his amendment on not a supervisory board but a consultation board. I think it is a rather good idea. It is separate from my Amendments 9A and 9B, which I will speak to in a later group, but I certainly support my noble friend’s amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 5.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Berkeley

3rd reading
Tuesday 6th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to those of other noble Lords. Getting this Bill through your Lordships’ House has been very interesting process. There must have been a record number of people who went to see the clerks in the Public Bill Office and said they would like to add something about scooters and batteries, how you should ride scooters and that you should not do it on the pavement. We were all told—quite rightly—go away because it was outside scope. Now, at least the Minister has said that he and his department are looking at that and will also look at batteries, which are a very important part of it. One day, perhaps with this Government or probably the next Government, we might see something about riding bikes, electric or otherwise, and scooters where they are supposed to be, which is on the road, not on the pavement.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I have nothing further to add. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

East Coast Main Line

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Berkeley

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My noble friend will be aware that we had the Williams-Shapps review into the creation of Great British Railways but unfortunately have not had time in this Session to introduce legislation. However, I take his point, which is well made.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister explain why this government-owned railway, LNER, has apparently changed all the fare structures to remove most saver and supersaver fares—presumably with the intention of reducing the number of passengers that use it?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

At the Bradshaw address, the Secretary of State committed to expanding single-leg pricing, on most of LNER’s network, for example. This went live on 11 June 2023. In the plan for rail, we set out our intention to simplify fares and improve the passenger experience. We are determined to find innovative ways to get people back into rail.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Berkeley

Committee stage
Monday 15th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be brief. It has been an interesting debate on this group of amendments because we have started talking about infrastructure separately from what goes on it. That is an important issue to look at because, whether in terms of the comments that I remember the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, making at Second Reading about the benefits of living in the countryside or the comments of other noble Lords who have mentioned the need for proper infrastructure, the key to this—it was in the press at the weekend, I think—is that the infrastructure mapping must be accurate. Who is going to do it?

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggesting putting it on an old railway line. The old railway line is on the maps already, but can you drive down it safely? Is it a guided bus rail, which is another form of getting around? Not only do all these things need to be kept up to date but somebody needs to be responsible for ensuring that they are up to date and for what happens if they are not. I am sure that this is all on Minister’s mind for when he responds, but there is further work to be done here.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the many contributions to this interesting debate. I will try to address the issues that have been raised.

These amendments concern the integration of self-driving vehicles into the existing transport system, particularly the extent to which each may need to adapt to accommodate the other. I begin by clarifying a key point. Self-driving vehicles must be capable of operating safely and legally using the infrastructure as it exists today. There can be no expectation on the part of developers that our roads will change in some way to accommodate their vehicles. Nor do we consider such changes to be necessary for safe deployment.

Vehicles will need to be able to cope safely with issues such as wear and tear, road closures and variation in signage that are found across our road network. This also extends to digital infrastructure. Self-driving vehicles can make use of services such as data connectivity, GPS and digitised traffic regulation orders, but like humans they will need to be able to maintain safety in the event that these services are unavailable. Those which cannot do this would not be authorised.

Government and local authorities have duties to manage and maintain their road networks for the benefit of all users. Over time, local authorities may choose to adapt their networks to leverage the wider benefits from self-driving vehicles. This might include, for example, investing in information systems that can communicate directly with vehicles. However, this is a long-term view. Considering that we are still in the early stages of the deployment of this new technology, it would be premature to anticipate what such changes could look like. Our guiding principle remains that self-driving vehicles must adapt to our roads, not the other way around.

This brings me to Amendments 37 and 50, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. These probe our plans for adapting the road network to accommodate self-driving vehicles, including how this will be funded. For the reasons that I have set out, the deployment of self-driving vehicles does not require any adaptations of our physical or digital infrastructure. This means that there are no associated costs and that the noble Lord’s amendments are therefore unnecessary. It means that the infrastructure reviews proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in Amendments 23 and 24, are also unnecessary, along with consequential Amendments 58 and 60. However, in relation to the noble Baroness’s comments on the condition of the road network, I note that the Government have recently announced the biggest-ever funding uplift for local road improvements, with £8.3 billion of funding to resurface over 5,000 miles of roads across England.

Amendments 51 and 61 call for strategies to be published on the application of self- driving vehicles in rural areas. The Government have already published their comprehensive vision for the future of self-driving technology in the UK, Connected & Automated Mobility 2025. As part of that vision, the policy paper considers the opportunities for self-driving technology to improve public transport and to enhance mobility in rural areas. Furthermore, in October last year, we published the Future of Transport rural innovation guidance, providing local authorities with advice and support to embrace technologies such as self-driving vehicles in rural areas. To publish further strategies would risk duplicating this existing work. On the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, about public transport, our investment in trials such as CAVForth in Scotland and Harlander in Belfast demonstrates clearly that our commitment extends well beyond private use of self-driving vehicles.

On Amendment 48, Clause 47(4)(b) specifically states that the user-in-charge immunity does not extend to the qualifications of the driver. The requirement to hold a valid driving licence therefore continues to apply to the user-in-charge, even while the self-driving feature is active. This is necessary as they may be required to resume control of the vehicle in response to a transition demand.

In a no-user-in-charge vehicle, there is never a requirement for a qualified person to assume control. While a no-user-in-charge feature is active, any person in the vehicle is simply considered a passenger and will not need to hold a driving licence.

Driving licence categories will continue to apply to self-driving vehicles as they do to conventional ones—for example, by weight and number of seats. It would be premature to consider new categories of driving licence at this stage, but it would be possible in the future under the Road Traffic Act. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, feels that this clarifies the position sufficiently.

Amendment 44 concerns the interaction between self-driving vehicles and ChargePoint infrastructure. Self-driving vehicles are not yet on our roads and the technology for automated charging is still very much in its infancy. However, we will continue to monitor the future direction of the technology. Should developments demonstrate a need for regulation in this space, we will consider next steps on consultation. The Government are focusing our current intervention on areas where an accelerated pace of rollout is most needed, such as high-powered chargers on the strategic road network and for local street charging.

Amendments 54 and 56 refer to delivery robot vehicles and devices. It is the Government’s view that the Bill already contains the necessary legislation to regulate the safety of all self-driving road vehicles. In line with Clause 94, any mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted to be used on the road is already within the scope of the Bill.

As I have said previously, the definition of a “road” extends beyond the carriageway itself. For example, it includes the pavement. Delivery robots and devices that meet these criteria would therefore be in scope. However, to pass the self-driving test, they must drive legally and comply with all relevant regulations. This includes construction and use regulations, and restrictions on pavement use by motor vehicles. Any future changes to regulations on pavement use would need to be balanced with the need to maintain safety and accessibility for other road users. All in-scope vehicles will be subject to the monitoring, assessment and reporting requirements set out in Clause 38. This makes additional reporting requirements unnecessary.

I know that my noble friend Lord Lucas, who tabled Amendment 45, is a long-standing advocate for this particular use case. Although it sits outside the regulatory framework that we are proposing, which is concerned only with roads and other public places, I reassure him of our interest in its potential. We are one of the first countries to explore the business case for self-driving mass transit on segregated routes, with 10 feasibility studies under way backed by £1.5 million in government funding. We are already looking at how regulatory requirements could be overseen for segregated routes. Work is under way with the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to establish a firm footing for the kind of deployment that my noble friend is interested in. While the technical regulations being developed in support of the Bill may be a useful guide for these “off-road” applications, the frameworks are distinct.

I hope, as a result of what I have said, that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, sees fit to withdraw her amendment.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Berkeley

Monday 11th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I can only repeat that convention dictates that only Ministers can lay orders in Parliament. Therefore, Transport for London would be unable to do so. The amendment is intended to be explicit on that point, making it clear that Ministers would be responsible for laying a pedicab order.

We do not consider that the Government would have to consult. Transport for London would have to consult prior to bringing pedicab regulations forward.

Amendments 2 and 15 in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley seek to impose a statutory requirement on Transport for London to make pedicab regulations, and would require pedicab regulations to make provisions under the matters covered by Clause 2(6). It is right that the Bill provides Transport for London with a discretion to determine how pedicab regulations are designed. Clause 2(6) provides that flexibility, and Transport for London has indicated that it will introduce regulations covering matters under that subsection. In any case, those regulations will need to be consulted on and, as I have set out, a consensus will be needed between the Government and Transport for London.

Transport for London is supportive of the Bill and the need to regulate London’s pedicabs. As such, the Government expect Transport for London to commence work to bring forward pedicab regulations following the Bill’s passage. I emphasise that Transport for London has been asking for the Bill, so we expect it to be industrious in the forming of the legislation.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken to this group of amendments. There is a big variety of opinions, from “The Department for Transport should do everything”, to “Transport for London should do everything”—I am sure that we will come to that later.

I would like the Minister to reflect on the equivalent structure that the Government might propose if and when we ever get some legislation on electric scooters, which we have all been asking for but are not allowed to talk about on this Bill, because electric scooters are used more widely than in London. However, they are a new form of transport, authorised in certain towns and cities by the Department for Transport with the local authorities’ blessing. When it comes to producing legislation on electric scooters, which anyone can buy, own and use, how does the Minister propose that it is done? Would it be by each local authority, the Department for Transport or a combination of both? What would be the quickest way to get it to work? I leave the Minister with my comments and views on that, on which I am sure he will come back at some stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

For clarification, the Bill’s provision might feasibly capture instances where there is a formal agreement for an individual to transport other people’s children on a daily or regular basis in return for a pre-agreed payment. I can only repeat what I said: it is not clear that this would be sufficiently different to the type of services the Bill intends to regulate to warrant exclusion from it.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

What is wrong with the amendment suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to remove the word “reward”? If a pedicab is for hire then it is for hire; that is quite clear, but “reward” is not. Someone might pay their au pair a reward to take their kids to school in the back of such a vehicle, or they might be paid by someone else to take their kids. The thought of these wonderful parents in west London who are trying to be green and trying to work out whether they are obeying the law or have to apply to TfL for a licence is a bit worrying.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

“Hire or reward” is a recognised legal term in taxi and private hire vehicle regulations. The Bill intends the plain meaning of the word “reward”. A scenario where an individual receives a gift as a thank you is unlikely to be captured under the Bill’s provisions. The reference to a pedal cycle or power-assisted pedal cycle being made available with a driver for “hire or reward” is focused on instances where the reward has been agreed prior to the service being delivered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this third group of amendments has covered a range of policy matters. I will again endeavour to address the issues raised in turn, but I point out at the outset that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to the intentions of the Government to restrict. It is really not the intention of the Government to restrict the use of these pedicabs. We understand that they are enjoyed by visitors; the intention is solely to ensure that they are safe and properly licensed.

Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to place requirements on who Transport for London must consult before making pedicab regulations. The Government understand the intention behind this amendment, but it is not immediately clear that this would have a practical impact. Transport for London is fully supportive of this Bill and has a clear interest in its provisions being applied correctly through regulations. It consults frequently on a wide range of issues and is well versed in conducting public consultations of this nature. In fact, it has already indicated that a pedicab consultation would be extensively publicised and promoted to the pedicab industry, members of the public and stakeholders, including the police, London boroughs and resident and business groups. I hope this provides the noble Lord with some reassurance.

The noble Lord asked about where they can operate. It is clear that regulations may be made for the purpose of regulating pedicabs in London. Practically, pedicabs operate in Westminster and central London hotspots, and Clause 2(1) will also allow Transport for London to place conditions on their licences.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

The Minister said that they operate in London—what is the definition of London? I met some people today who were talking about pedicabs in Paris. Apparently, there is a big problem with them around Charles de Gaulle Airport. I do not know whether that is within the definition of Paris. These people may suddenly decide to sort things out at Heathrow or Gatwick, so is there a geographical limit to which these regulations will apply?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I venture to suggest to the noble Lord that this is a matter for Transport for London when it forms the regulations. It is not for me to suggest, but it might decide that they will apply within the London boroughs.

Amendment 9, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to define objectives to which Transport for London must have regard in making pedicab regulations. Transport for London has confirmed that, in establishing a licensing regime for pedicabs, public safety will be its primary concern. Beyond this, it has stated that it recognises the need for regulations to tackle issues such as noise nuisance, street and pavement congestion and excessive charging. This should offer comfort to the noble Lord about Transport for London’s intentions. These matters are likely to form part of the public consultation and continue to inform Transport for London’s thinking as regulations are developed. Furthermore, issues raised by this amendment such as safety, fare control and licensing are covered by provisions contained in the Bill. Therefore, at this stage, it is not appropriate to constrain or pre-empt the consultation or pedicab regulations by being overly prescriptive in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is seeking to probe why e-scooters and e-bikes are not covered in Clause 1, as mentioned by other noble Lords. The Bill is limited in scope and focused on addressing the legal anomaly relating to London’s pedicabs. As such, practically, it extends to Greater London only and its focus is pedal cycles used for transporting passengers for hire or reward. The inclusion of e-scooters and e-bikes would appear at odds with this scope. E-scooters and e-bikes are generally used by individuals to undertake personal travel. They are not used to transport passengers for hire or reward. Consequently, the issues that this Bill seeks to address do not appear to apply to e-scooters or e-bikes.

There is also national legislation, not limited just to Greater London as this Bill is, that applies to e-scooters and e-bikes. E-bikes are already regulated by the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983, while e-scooters are considered motor vehicles under the Road Traffic Act 1988. As such, e-scooters are illegal to use anywhere other than on private land or as part of government trials unless they meet the requirements of motor vehicles in terms of technical requirements, insurance, registration and so on.

The Government recognise that there are issues with e-scooters that we need to address, but this Bill is not the appropriate place to do so. As has been mentioned, we recently extended the e-scooter trials until 31 May 2026 to continue to gather evidence on how best to legislate for micromobility, including e-scooters, in future. Given the pressure on legislative time, that legislation will not come forward in this Session, unfortunately. Ahead of that, the Government intend to consult on the detailed approach for regulating e-scooters; I believe that that consultation and the future legislation will be the appropriate place for noble Lords’ points to be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I understand where the noble Lord is coming from but I am afraid that it does not alter my response to his submission.

I move next to Amendment 16 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Storey, which I will address alongside Amendment 31, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. These amendments relate to enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks for pedicab drivers and operators. Amendment 16 would make these checks compulsory and Amendment 31 would require the Government to bring forward the necessary regulations within 90 days of this Bill receiving Royal Assent.

Amendment 16 would bring parity for London’s pedicab drivers with taxi and private hire vehicle drivers—including pedicab drivers outside London, where pedicabs are regulated as taxis. Transport for London has been clear that an effective licensing regime must be underpinned by enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks, and has raised the associated risks of bringing forward regulations without this requirement in place. This is a matter that the Government are actively looking into. We have requested that Transport for London submit evidence clearly making the case for these checks; this will be assessed in due course.

However, making pedicab drivers in London subject to enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks will, following the passage of this Bill, require changes to the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002, as amended, and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. There is no guarantee that this can be done in parallel with the Bill.

Amendments 47 and 48 have been tabled in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. They seek to add a statutory requirement for there to be consultation or a review period for pedicab regulations.

Amendment 47 proposes to add a further consultation requirement six months after the Bill comes into force. Its purpose is to assess whether pedicabs should be prohibited in London or have conditions placed on their operations based on safety concerns.

Amendment 48 proposes that a 12-month review of pedicab regulations becomes a statutory requirement, its purpose being to assess the necessity of further regulations. The Government understand that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is potentially to broaden the scope of the Bill so that e-scooters and e-bikes fall within it. As I have set out, the Government are continuing to gather evidence to support further policy development in this area, which noble Lords have already discussed. The Bill’s scope is narrow and focused on addressing the legal anomaly relating to pedicabs in London.

As regards a review, the Government agree that, as this legislation paves the way for the first regulatory regime designed specifically for pedicabs, the impact of regulations will need to be reviewed. The timescales proposed by these amendments would not allow sufficient time to assess the impact of regulation adequately, as there will no doubt be a need for regulations to bed in and sufficient time will be needed to gather evidence. However, the Government are committed to undertaking a voluntary review of the policy five years post implementation and would work with Transport for London to conduct this assessment.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

Amendment 47 has nothing to do with e-bikes or e-scooters; it is about power-assisted pedicabs. It suggests that TfL must consult

“persons as they consider to have an interest … on whether to prohibit … the use of power-assisted pedicabs in Greater London on grounds of safety”.

Many noble Lords have spoken about the safety risks, including me. This is purely about power-assisted pedicabs and whether there should be a review of the safety of the power bit—obviously—of pedicabs. It is nothing to do with e-scooters or e-bikes. I would be grateful if the Minister could either respond to it now or write to me about the grounds of safety of power-assisted pedicabs in the review.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I take the noble Lord’s point; I will have to come back to him in writing on that.

I turn to Amendment 52, the final amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It seeks to bring forward the commencement of this Bill to immediately after it receives Royal Assent. The two-month period is a standard convention for government Bills. A benefit of this approach is that it provides sufficient time for the pedicab industry, in particular reputable operators, to prepare for the introduction of licensing and a regulated industry. In this case, there appears to be no practical advantage to the Bill coming into force immediately. During the two-month period between Royal Assent and the Bill’s provisions coming into force, Transport for London will be able to undertake preparatory work such as developing its consultation.

I turn to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Foster, on batteries, which we will cover a little later on in consideration of this Bill.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I apologise for not addressing that but I will ensure that it is addressed in letter form.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate on this group of amendments. I am sure that we all have a lot to think about. On some things, I hope that the Minister will come back to us with some answers; for others, we will probably have to wait for another Bill—under another Government, even. However, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we come to the final group of amendments, focusing on enforcement. Amendment 28, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to probe the intention and meaning of Clause 2(10). The Bill intends to give Transport for London a level of flexibility in designing pedicab regulations that are workable and meet its needs. This will be central to shaping a robust and effective regime. In achieving this aim, Transport for London has been clear that, as with taxi and private hire vehicle enforcement, it must be able to authorise others to carry out functions under the regulations on its behalf, such as enforcement activities. Clause 2(10) provides for this.

Amendments 32, 35 and 36, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, seek to add to the Bill provision covering death or serious injury caused by the careless, inconsiderate or dangerous use of pedicabs, with accompanying penalties. Of course, any death on our roads is a tragedy. Although we have some of the safest roads in the world, the Government are committed to making our roads even safer. The Government agree that dangerous cycling puts lives at risk. This is why there are already strict laws in place for cyclists, and the police have the power to prosecute if they are broken. They include laws to prosecute cyclists who cause bodily harm under Section 35 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which carries a maximum punishment of two years’ imprisonment. They also include cycling offences under the Road Traffic Act 1991 for careless cycling, with a maximum fine of £1,000, and dangerous cycling, with a maximum fine of £2,500. Furthermore, I am sure my noble friend will welcome the Department for Transport’s response to the consultation on death or serious injury by dangerous cycling, which will be published in due course.

However, we do not consider these amendments necessary. Pedicabs will be treated in the same way as pedal cycles, and their drivers will be treated as cyclists for the purpose of dangerous cycling offences. The exception would be if a pedicab is deemed a motor vehicle, in which case it would be subject to motoring offences.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about enforcement; the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, touched on this as well. Transport for London will have its own enforcement officers who work together with the police on this. I hear what the noble Viscount had to say about enforcement—or perhaps a lack of it. It is an operational matter for police and what he said is disappointing, but I certainly hear it loud and clear. As I said, it is for the police to respond to.

On the question that my noble friend Lady McIntosh raised, the figures, fines and penalties are an issue that lie with the Home Office. As for the Deliveroo L plate drivers and whether they are legally here, again, that is a policing matter. I am not too sure whether they can remain with L plates forever; we will have to write back to her on that. Certainly, that is a point well made.

Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, seeks to increase the level of fines for offences committed under pedicab regulations from level 4 to level 5. This would mean that there would be no upper limit to the fines issued. The enforcement tools in the Bill are comprehensive, providing Transport for London with the scope to design an enforcement regime that can effectively target the rogue operators which have profited from a lack of regulation for too long. Clause 3(2), which this amendment seeks to change, is part of a suite of tools in the Bill.

Pedicab regulations will be able create offences providing for the giving of fixed-penalty notices or the imposition of penalties. These powers are supplemented by the ability to seize, immobilise, retain and dispose of pedicabs. There is also the ultimate sanction of stopping a pedicab driver or operator conducting business by revoking their license under Clause 2(1)(b). The Government expect Transport for London to take a view on how best to regulate the industry, subject to engagement with stakeholders and a public consultation. As the Committee is aware, pedicab regulations will be subject to approval by the Secretary of State. This should provide assurance to any noble Lords concerned by the scope of these powers.

Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to provide parity with civil enforcement powers applicable to contraventions committed by drivers and riders of motor vehicles. The power to impose civil penalties through pedicab regulations is explicitly tied to offences under Clause 3(1). These are not motoring offences; they relate to the provision of false or misleading information in connection with licences and the failure to comply with requirements, prohibitions and restrictions imposed by pedicab regulations. We therefore consider this amendment unnecessary.

I will address Amendments 39 and 49 together, which have again been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. These seek to place limitations on the immobilisation and seizure of pedicabs by making equivalent provisions to those relating to motor vehicles under Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002. This would amend Clause 3(6), which is intended to provide Transport for London with flexibility in designing pedicab regulations. The ability to immobilise, seize, retain and dispose of pedicabs that are illegal, or used illegally, and to target rogue operators will help establish a more sustainable and reputable pedicab industry in London. Limiting Transport for London’s powers in the manner proposed in this amendment could potentially remove the possibility of pedicabs that are not roadworthy, unsafe or are being used consistently in contravention of the regulations, being removed from London’s streets. However, the powers under Clause 3(6), are subject to safeguards in the Bill.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I hear what the Minister says about the impounding of pedicabs and things like that. It may be quite necessary and justified. Are there similar powers available now in respect of TfL and taxis? It should be proportionate, should it not?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I hear what the noble Lord says, but I am not sure that it should be proportionate. If he is concerned about the powers, I was going on to say that the powers under Clause 3(6) are subject to safeguards in the Bill. They are achieved by Clause 4(3), which provides a right to request that a decision to immobilise, seize, retain, and dispose of a pedicab is reconsidered and a right to appeal the decision at a magistrates’ court. I also note that the Bill paves the way for a separate pedicab licensing regime. The intention of this amendment to make equivalent provision to powers to immobilise and seize vehicles under another regime is therefore not likely to be the most appropriate course of action.

Amendment 49 is consequential to Amendment 39, and I have addressed that in my remarks.

I will now move to Amendment 40, the final amendment of this group and the last one that I will address in Committee. It is in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and seeks to expand the list of bodies that could exercise powers contained under Clause 3(6). As I have set out, this subsection contains an important power in the suite of enforcement tools that will be available through pedicab regulations. Transport for London has been clear that it will work with the Metropolitan Police and London boroughs to conduct enforcement. Powers contained in the Bill already allow Transport for London to confer functions on to other authorities, as it deems necessary, to support an effective enforcement regime.

That draws my remarks to a close. I thank noble Lords for taking the time to discuss the Bill today. The diligence that the Committee has shown has allowed for a thorough examination of the Bill and its purpose. I am grateful for this and look forward to continuing to discuss the Bill with noble Lords during its parliamentary passage.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I understand the noble Lord’s concern. It is something that we will discuss back in the department, but whether it will change is another matter.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this fifth group of amendments. We have had some very useful discussions and I shall read Hansard with great interest tomorrow. We will see whether we come back on this on Report or have some further meetings. I am sure that the Minister will be open to meetings—he has already said he would be. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Low-traffic Neighbourhoods

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Berkeley

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what are the health benefits of low traffic neighbourhoods.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)]

My Lords, when implemented well and with good community engagement, low-traffic neighbourhoods can improve air quality and bring the obvious health benefits of increased cycling and walking. The Government continue to promote traffic management that enables more choice in how people make their journeys. That is why we are carrying out a review to ensure that, where they exist, low-traffic neighbourhoods are delivering the attractive choices for active travel that we all want to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply and welcome him to his new post, but why did the Prime Minister order a review of low-traffic neighbourhoods? I quote from the Telegraph:

“I just want to make sure people know that I’m on their side in supporting them to use their cars to do all the things that matter to them”.


Does that not include the health of their family, or does the car come first?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his welcome. On 30 June, the Prime Minister announced a review of low-traffic neighbourhoods to be carried out by the Department for Transport. The review is intended to focus on the processes for creating low-traffic neighbourhoods, including understanding the consultation and engagement processes that were followed for such schemes and the views of local communities impacted by them. The review will focus on the schemes installed since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic and will not look at historical street layouts.

Hammersmith Bridge

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Berkeley

Monday 18th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

To put things in perspective, I say that Hammersmith Bridge is a grade 2 listed suspension bridge that was opened, in its current form, in 1887. Since its opening, the structure’s use has changed dramatically, with the bridge carrying modern motor vehicles until its closure, for safety reasons, in April 2019. The government-led task force was set up by the DfT in September 2020 to work towards the safe reopening of the bridge. It brings together key stakeholders—the local authority, the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, Transport for London, the Greater London Authority and the Port of London Authority. The current priority for the department is to deliver the stabilisation works and develop a business case for the second stage of the works.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, this is all very well, but it is surely unreasonable for the Government to expect a local authority—the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham—to pay 33% of the total cost of reinstating this wonderful old bridge. Surely it is part of our national heritage; the Government should pay a much larger percentage and make sure that the work goes a bit more quickly, too.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Ownership of the bridge was transferred to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham as part of the Local Government Act in 1985. The local authority has a legal duty to maintain the highway, and the responsibility to maintain the bridge and make decisions on its repair lies solely with the borough.

Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services Licence Modification Appeals) (Prescribed Aerodromes) Regulations 2022

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Berkeley

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in yet another short debate on navigation systems. I was very grateful to the Minister for writing to noble Lords to clarify things after the last debate, but I was sorry that I did not get a letter saying that she had arranged a meeting with the Minister for Aviation. I hope that she may tell us more about that today.

I wanted to update noble Lords on what has happened on EGNOS since the last debate. I have been given a copy of a letter from Robert Courts MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Air, to Jim McMahon MP, a Labour shadow Secretary of State, dated 22 June. The letter explains why the Government are not going ahead with EGNOS, and basically says that, in discussions with the European Commission, the Government decided that it was not considered to offer good value for the taxpayer.

I have been reflecting on what that means. Having talked to people in the Highlands and Islands, and Loganair, and having been in the Isles of Scilly last weekend, I discovered that the issue of safety of life, which the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, mentioned, is actually quite serious. In Scilly, there is no ferry in the winter, so people rely on air. There was a time between Christmas and new year this year when some people got delayed and had to spend five days in a hotel with their family, which does not come cheap.

More importantly, the Isles of Scilly and many of the Scottish islands rely on air help for medical emergencies—either a helicopter or a fixed-wing plane, depending on the circumstances. If people cannot fly due to bad navigation, usually fog, their health is at risk. I am not sure how the Minister for Aviation can say that that is not good value for money. I do not know how much he puts on a life that is lost because you cannot fly, when there is an alternative.

The Minister may not have the answers today, so perhaps she could write, but what is the actual cost of reinstalling EGNOS? There must be a cost from the European Union, even as a temporary measure. If there is an alternative, what is it, and when will it be ready? We need answers to those questions, because at the moment a lot of money is being spent on abortive attempts to keep EGNOS going, or not even start it. Maybe some of those who spent the money will look to have compensation, but it is more important that we find a solution that can be done and, I hope, worked with the European Union, even as a temporary measure.

I conclude by noting that the Channel Islands, which are not part of the UK air traffic system, have EGNOS. They have confirmed to me that they are continuing to use it, and as far as I can gather it does not cost them very much, if anything at all. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that she can soon give us a date for meeting the Air Minister.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for raising this aspect of air traffic services, and it is a pleasure to follow him. I should perhaps draw attention to my role as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation and as an aviator who is often confronted with inclement weather conditions, when the provision of satellite-assisted navigation is of enormous help.

At the conclusion of the Brexit negotiations, a number of reasons were put forward from various sources as an explanation for the loss of the high-accuracy guidance provided by the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service, EGNOS, ranging from running out of negotiating time to the EU demanding an excessive amount of money to remain within the Galileo system. Seeking clarification in a Written Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on 20 April last year, I asked

“what financial contribution the EU requested for the UK to continue to access the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service Safety of Life service; how the request compared with the UK’s previous contributions; how they assessed value for money in view of its impact on aviation; and what plans they have to renegotiate access to this service.”

It was a disappointing response. I was told:

“The UK sought to negotiate a service access agreement on


EGNOS

“with the EU. However, the EU required participation in the programme along with the full associated costs of participation, as per previous years, for continued access to the EGNOS Safety of Life service. For all programmes under consideration, the Government was clear it would only participate where the terms were in the UK’s interests, and in this case, it was not considered value for money.”

The question of financial contribution was not answered.

I am bound to say that I find that quite astonishing. The whole purpose of EGNOS, which provides localiser performance with vertical guidance, commonly known as LPV accuracy, is the safe operation of aircraft. The clue is in the title: Safety of Life service. Surely this should be in the UK’s interest, and everyone else’s.

The loss of this service has had enormous financial implications for airfields, many of them small training establishments, which have assisted in EGNOS-assisted approaches. What is more, student pilots training for commercial licences have lost the opportunity to undertake the necessary practical training for those airfield approaches within the UK, with the prospect of moving to European training schools and consequent loss of revenue to UK training establishments.

Above all, it is the safety access which the EGNOS service provides and which has now been lost due to the Government putting value for money before the Safety of Life service. My question is simple: how much would it cost to retain that facility, or is it still the Government’s position that finances override the safety aspect of EGNOS?

In answer to a further Written Question of mine a year ago, I was informed:

“The Government continues to explore options for mitigating the loss of the LPV capability.”


Perhaps the Minister can update the House on exactly how much further forward we are on those much needed options and what the timescale is.

This is an extremely important issue on which the aviation community feels sorely let down, so I ask the Minister to do whatever she can to reinstate this important service, which, on the face of it, appears to have gone completely off the radar. I look forward to my noble friend’s response.

As we are considering aviation licensing issues, perhaps I can ask my noble friend’s indulgence for a moment longer on the issue of a recently adopted regulation resulting in pilots now being prevented from flying in UK airspace using US FAA flight crew licences. This is having a particular effect on helicopter operations. As the Minister will know, many pilots in the UK have FAA licences due to the costs involved with the UK’s authority, the CAA, which is one of the most expensive authorities in the developed world. I believe that Article 2(1)(b)(ii) of UK regulation 2018/1139 is the element causing problems for owners. The legislation applies to all third-country licence holders, including FAA licence holders resident in the UK, and all third-country aircraft registered in the UK.

The pressing issue is residence within the UK. If it was a case of the aircraft residing elsewhere, it would not be an issue. The legislation does not consider aircraft on the FAA register separately, as they are on a third-country register. Pilots and engineers who work on aircraft hold a multitude of different licences, not just FAA ones. Rather puzzlingly, the FAA instructor who conducts checkrides is invariably also a UK CAA examiner. Therefore, it is difficult for operators to understand why they should now be stopped from flying. We have a frustrated section of the aviation community unable to fly for business, with multimillion-pound helicopters and experienced private and commercial pilots having been made redundant through the legislation. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how the DfT plans to address the issue.