Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Time is of the essence: anyone who has a modern car will know that, from time to time, you get software updates on almost a weekly basis. For the safety of the car, there can be no time lapse between a company going bust, or ceasing to trade for any number of reasons, and dealing with updating the software. Who will inherit the responsibility for that? Who will have the legal obligation to do it, and how will it be enforced? I hope that the Government have a full answer on that very practical issue. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, since this is the start of Committee, I reiterate the support on this side of the House for the principles of the Bill, and we want to facilitate innovation as much as possible in a safe and secure way—by God, our economy needs innovation if we are going to get out of the rut of stagnation that we have seen in the last period, which has been too long. There is a consensus behind this measure. The important things that we have to debate are not in this group of amendments but on the questions of safety, which we are addressing next, and on how the Government go about what will be an evolving process of regulation and consult widely at all stages.

On the specifics, these amendments are all probing in their nature: we are not being very specific about how we want to change the Bill, but we are very interested in what the Minister has to say about the issues raised. That is a good reason for putting down the amendments. I will comment on what others have proposed, then on a couple of things that we have proposed.

I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the importance of standards-setting. His example of mobile phones is an area where Britain was able to put itself in the lead and to work to get European regulation in line with what we wanted. As a result, we initially had a very successful industry. I fear that that is not happening in the case of automated vehicles. Someone referred to how we were already behind France and Germany—I think that the briefing we received from techUK said that we were three or four years behind not just the United States, where we know there have been a lot of advances in this area in particular states, but France and Germany. That is a serious concern. The Government should consider seriously all the detailed points that the noble Lord made. There will probably be an argument that they should not be in legislation; none the less, this is our opportunity as a House to say what issues we think the regulation has to take into account. That is a good thing about what the noble Lord has proposed.

I have to say that, when I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, talking about the need for real testing rather than relying on simulation testing, I thought, “Gosh, this is spot on here—absolutely right”. But of course, that shows the depth of my ignorance of the subject, because I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, with all her scientific expertise, countered that argument very well. Of course, the truth is that we will have to rely on simulation in large part, though we should do as much real-time testing as we can and as is realistic.

I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on the importance of interoperability. I hope the Government will take that into account in their future regulatory policy.

In terms of the amendments in my name, Amendment 13 is on the question of foreign manufacturers, as it were, and our attitude to them. I gathered from the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, outside, that it is poorly drafted. I am sure that is right, but what we are trying to do here is raise an issue of concern. We cannot find ourselves in a position that, just because something has been approved in one country that has approved the specifications of its manufacturers, this automatically transfers into the UK. I think that would be dangerous.

I think there are also some national security arguments in this area, given the reliance on the systems on artificial intelligence. I have been reading a lot in newspapers recently about how Chinese electric vehicles are poised to take over the European market and are in a very strong position. What would happen if we thought that Chinese automated vehicles were in such a position in a few years’ time? Would we be very relaxed about that, or would we be anxious that a wider range of considerations should be taken into account? I suggest the latter.

I turn to Amendment 26. I think it is essential that we have a public record of all authorisations, and as much information as possible that people can query. On Amendment 28, to put it in simple terms, as I see it, we have these no-user-in-charge operators. Of course, I am sure the scheme of regulation that the Law Commission devised is sound in legal terms, after they put so much effort into it. However, what is the kind of MoT that these no-user-in-charge people will have to satisfy every year? What guarantees do the people who are running the automated vehicles have to show to prove that they are continuing to keep these vehicles in the state in which they were sold originally? With those comments, I look forward to a reply from the Minister.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I declared my interests in full at Second Reading. I declare them again, only as they are in the register.

I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. This seems a strange way of regulating the pedicab industry. I am not sure why my noble friend is regulating in this complex way. As I understand it, Transport for London will form the regulations, then the Secretary of State will turn them into statutory instruments. They will enter a new queue here to be given the time to be dealt with.

I have had problems in the past with statutory instruments from the Department for Transport. The Public Service Vehicles (Accessible Information) Regulations 2023 were debated in the Moses Room on 16 May this year. It took five years from consultation before they were promulgated here. I am not sure what was achieved in those five years, because the regulations were not changed. The only thing that happened was delay.

I think we all agree that the Bill is urgent, important and should be done immediately. As my noble friend Lord Moylan mentioned, it is good news that the Government, in their Amendment 46, use the word “immediately”:

“Transport for London must, immediately after making pedicab regulations, send the statutory instrument containing them to the Secretary of State”.


Should we not volunteer to propose the regulations as statutory instruments immediately? I understand that, even then, there would be a queue, but the word “immediately” does not seem to have produced the urgency that is truly required.

This is a very good Bill. I disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who said that the taxes are regulated by the Secretary of State. I think he will find that they used to be, a long time ago in the old and hallowed days when they were regulated through the police force—and very much better they were, too—but, in recent years, they have been regulated by Transport for London. It can change things and get new regulations through much faster than would be implied by this structure. So, not only are they closer, as my noble friend Lord Moylan mentioned; they are also altogether faster than the system, which is inevitable with a big department.

I thank noble Lords. I hope that the Bill gets through as soon as possible because these vehicles are a small but dreadful scourge on the streets of London.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I find myself, in my position speaking for the Opposition, in favour of devolution on this issue. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said; I do not know why she thought that I would disagree but I agree totally with what she said.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I did not say that.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

The noble Baroness did.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I did not—at least, I did not intend to imply that.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

In that case, I apologise, but I agree completely with what the noble Baroness said. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Berkeley and agree with the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Borwick, on this issue. It is the responsibility of Parliament to set the framework to empower Transport for London to make these regulations, but their detail should be a matter for it and it should be given the power to do this. One of the amendments I have tabled suggests that we push ahead quickly with this and that TfL should be given the power to get on with it as quickly as possible. I suspect that the real argument one ought to have concerns whether this is a Westminster borough issue or a London-wide one, but it makes the most sense for TfL to have the legal responsibility. I am sure that the borough of Westminster will be consulted by it on this matter very thoroughly.

This is certainly an important principle. If we want speedy action in this area, it should be supported across the Committee. With great respect to civil servants in the Department for Transport, it is also ridiculous that they should spend their time monitoring these, which are, frankly, of minor significance in the overall scope of their responsibilities. I therefore urge the Government to think again on this matter, otherwise, we might have a bit of an argument on Report.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ consideration of the Bill and very much welcome the scrutiny of those here today as it continues its parliamentary passage.

This first group of amendments covers the process for secondary legislation made under the Bill. Before moving on to the amendments tabled by noble Lords, I will explain the purpose of the two government amendments that have been tabled. Amendments 44 and 46 are intended to provide clarity on the parliamentary procedure for the secondary legislation that will come forward to regulate London’s pedicabs. Let me take them in turn. Amendment 44 makes it explicit that Transport for London would have to obtain approval from the Secretary of State to make a pedicab order; this should assure the Committee that there will need to be consensus between the Government and Transport for London.

On Amendment 46, convention dictates that only Ministers may lay orders in Parliament, and Transport for London would therefore be unable to do this. Again, this amendment is intended to be explicit on this point, making it clear that Ministers would be responsible for laying a pedicab order. This is the right approach. The Bill will require that pedicab regulations be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the negative resolution procedure. This strikes an appropriate balance between conferring a discretion on Transport for London to consult and design pedicab regulations, and a scrutiny role for Parliament in their approval. The opposing amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seem to suggest that the Bill’s drafting and procedure is in the right place. As I set out, it will be subject to the negative procedure. The point raised my noble friends Lord Borwick and Lord Moylan on the immediate response by the Secretary of State has been taken on board, and we will go back and look at it.

Some noble Lords challenge this notion, pointing to Transport for London’s experience regulating London’s taxis and private hire vehicles, and the fact that London cab orders are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. However, the taxi industry is well established and the Bill marks the first legislation specifically targeted at the pedicab industry. It is right that there is a role for Parliament. Although the Government understand that Transport for London has no intention to ban pedicabs outright and is primarily committed to making the industry safer, these amendments should provide noble Lords with assurance that Transport for London will not be able to unilaterally prohibit pedicabs from operating.

That leads me to Amendments 1, 6, 10, 13, 27, 29, 30, 37 and 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. They seek to replace Transport for London with the Secretary of State, meaning that the Secretary of State would consult on and design pedicab regulations, as well as holding responsibility for matters such as setting licence fees and imposing civil penalties. I have already set out the rationale for Parliament having a role in pedicab regulations. These amendments would represent a fundamental shift in the Bill’s approach. Transport for London is best placed to consult on and design pedicab regulations that meet its needs. In recognition of what will become a newly regulated industry, the Bill provides a clear role for Parliament.

The Clause 6 stand-part notice addresses the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who has indicated an intention to probe why Parliament has a role in scrutinising pedicab regulations made by Transport for London, instead of the London Assembly. So too does Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. I hope my comments have provided clarity on this matter.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

The only real justification the Minister offered for Parliament retaining this degree of control is the possibility that the Greater London Authority and TfL might want to ban pedicabs altogether. What is his evidence that there is even the slightest possibility of this on the horizon? The present mayor has no intention of doing that—he wants them properly regulated—so is the Minister saying that the Conservative candidate for the mayoral election next year will come out for banning pedicabs altogether? What is the justification for retaining this power? Remember: all this stuff about Parliament retaining the power is nonsense. We know that we have very little control over what happens and over the content of statutory instruments, although we debate them. The power rests with the Minister and the department. Why on earth should the overworked Department for Transport want to spend its time messing around with the detail of whether pedicabs have mirrors and what the level of fines on them should be?

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it might be helpful if I briefly ask my noble friend a question. As I understand it, statutory instruments fall within the Government’s code on consultation, so it would be normal for them to consult on a draft statutory instrument before it is laid. Does my noble friend believe that these statutory instruments will fall under that code of consultation, and that consultation by the Government will be required? How does he envisage that meshing with the public consultation that will have been carried out by Transport for London in preparing the draft statutory instruments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, this is a changing scenario. As the vehicles change slightly in how they are powered and so on, people dream up new and useful purposes for them. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in their amendments, because it is essential that the Government are entirely clear. This is an opportunity for them to put this on the record—which, of course, has legal implications in itself.

The Government need to be entirely clear about the purpose of the Bill. If there is uncertainty, it will serve to undermine efforts to encourage active travel. For example, parents across London are often seen with their children in trailers at the back of their bikes. It is important that that kind of healthy, active travel is encouraged, not discouraged.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, it is our earnest hope that the Government listen carefully to the common sense of the points made on these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, spoke with typical common sense. The Government need to take account of what she said and bring forward amendments to reflect her concerns. I also agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley said on that subject.

With our amendments in this group, we are trying to make sure that there is a flexible mechanism in the Bill so that the definition of a pedicab can be changed in the light of experience. That is sensible so that it can be done quickly to counter any attempts that people may make to escape the Bill’s provisions or get round them in some way. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to that concern in his reply.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this second group of amendments focuses on the definition of a pedicab. I will open my remarks by addressing the Government’s amendments first.

The Government listened carefully to the points raised at Second Reading and have tabled Amendment 50 with the purpose of expanding the definition of “trailer”, for the purposes of the Bill, to include sidecars or vehicles pushed by a pedal cycle. This will ensure that pedicab drivers and operators cannot circumvent the intent of the Bill and future regulations by transporting passengers in a separate vehicle to the side or front of a pedicab. The other government amendment in this group, Amendment 43, is consequential to this change.

These government amendments address Amendments 3 and 42, tabled by my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. The amendment tabled by my noble friend seeks to expand the definition of “pedicab” to include

“a cargo box with seating attached to the front of the pedal cycle”.

Similarly, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord seeks to add “affixed carriage” to the definition so that the Bill captures scenarios where passengers are carried to the side or in front of the driver. As I mentioned, the government amendments have, hopefully, addressed any potential loophole here.

On the amendment tabled by my noble friend, the Government completely agree that passengers sitting in a cargo box should be subject to regulation. Under the current text of the Bill, this would be the case. This is because nothing in legislation defines a cargo box or cargo bike. A cargo box fixed to a bike with seating would form part of “a pedicab”. This is not a separate wheeled vehicle like a trailer; it is a pedal cycle adapted for the carrying of passengers, as per the definition in Clause 1(2). The Government hope their amendments have effectively addressed the issues raised by both noble Lords and satisfied my noble friend that those not in business will not be affected.

I will address Amendments 4 and 5—tabled by my noble friends Lady Anelay and Lord Blencathra—together, as they relate to linked issues. My noble friend Lady Anelay’s amendment seeks to probe whether “reward” captures minor gifts and to clarify the Bill’s intention towards those carrying passengers but not operating a business. My noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendment seeks to exclude trailers designed for the carrying of babies and small children from the Bill’s scope. The Government understand that these amendments seek to achieve similar goals. To be clear, the Bill defines pedicabs in terms of being

“made available with a driver for hire or reward”.

This excludes from the scope of pedicab regulations the possibility of, for example, parents transporting their children using a pedal cycle.

The Government reflected on my noble friend Lady Anelay’s comments at Second Reading and are content that “reward”, as referenced in Clause 1(2), is unlikely to capture the giving of minor gifts. Instead, the Bill’s intent is instances where the reward is agreed in advance of a service being provided. However, the Bill’s provisions 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. Such an individual would be providing a service, and 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. Ultimately, it will be for Transport for London to take a view on such matters in designing the regulations. It may choose to take certain types of pedicab usage outside of the regulations’ scope.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I am rather thrown by what the Minister said at the end of his remarks, which implied that he thought the transport of children to school would be counted as a pedicab and therefore subject to this regulation. Please can he clarify this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a very significant debate. My contribution to this group is Amendment 48, which I will come to in a moment.

I point out that this is a rapidly evolving scenario. When complaints were first made about pedicabs in London, just after the turn of the century, there were no e-bikes. It is therefore a huge mistake for the Government to have limited the scope of this legislation, which is written so tightly that it cannot be expanded to take in new technology. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the missed opportunity of having two random transport Bills and a lack of joined-up thinking on these issues.

At Second Reading, we had an impassioned debate, led in part by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who is not here today, about the urgent need to deal with the much more widespread problems of e-scooters and e-bikes that noble Lords have talked about—their danger both to users, who are mostly young, especially with e-scooters, and to pedestrians. I commend to the Minister the report on this issue of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. I declare an interest as an officer of that group.

The rising death and injury toll has been mentioned by others. There is a prevalence of head injuries because of the centre of gravity of e-scooters, which is different from that of ordinary push bikes. There is a complete inconsistency and lack of joined-up thinking in the Minister and his Government’s thinking on this, given the existence of electric pedicabs.

The noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Hunt, and I all tried, without success, to expand the scope of this Bill. Amendment 48 is my pale imitation of other bolder attempts to do this that were rejected. The reference in my amendment to the need for a review in 12 months is my effort to ask the Government to bring this back in 12 months’ time and expand it, in the interests of a broader outlook.

Many noble Lords across the House raised issues around safety, which the Government have said is at the heart of the case for the Bill. As my noble friends Lord Storey and Lord Foster referred to, it is about the safety both of those operating the pedicabs and of the batteries. Also mentioned this afternoon was the safety of e-bikes in terms of their stopping distance—they are often modified to be able to go faster than they were originally designed to do. We must bear in mind that, if you add the extra weight of passengers and a cab at the back, their stopping distance is often very poor. They are therefore dangerous.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, rightly and justifiably drew attention to the dangers and risks associated with yet another extension to the so-called trials on e-bikes. This Christmas, thousands more e-scooters and e-bikes will be bought. Unsafe practices are becoming so entrenched: riding without helmets, for example, and there are many other issues. These unsafe practices will be impossible to reverse suddenly through regulation in a couple of years’ time, so I support all noble Lords who have spoken on this group of amendments.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, before I get on to the points in this group on e-scooters and e-bikes, including the clause standing part, I will deal briefly with the others. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on Amendments 7 and 9 seem sensible. I can think of no reason why something on those lines could not be incorporated in further government amendments. On Amendment 16, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and my noble friend here spoke on the need for the strict regulation of people who are licensed. Again, we strongly support that.

The main question that people have raised is about e-powered pedicabs, e-scooters and e-bikes. On this side of the Committee, we were hoping that the Government were going to live up to their promise to produce a comprehensive transport Bill, which would have covered rail and bus licensing, and all these other issues. They have completely failed to do that and decided just to go for two relatively minor issues: pedicabs and autonomous vehicles. These have merits in themselves, of course, but it is disappointing that the Government have not given us the opportunity for a comprehensive look at transport regulation.

I hope the Minister will listen to the strength of feeling that has been expressed in this Committee about the Government’s failure to come up with a credible policy on e-scooters and e-bikes. I think he must realise that this is not a party question; it is a question of public safety on which people are looking for action. Maybe this Bill has been drawn up such that it cannot offer that action but, on Report, the House is entitled to expect a full statement from the Government on their intentions to regulate in this area. I ask the Minister quite bluntly: is it his intention that he will come forward with that statement before we come to Report?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

It is a matter for the police to administer in terms of any offences that may be caused, but I take my noble friend’s point. I will take her point back to the department.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned a forthcoming consultation on e-scooters. I realise that this is a difficult issue for him, by the way; I am not trying to be difficult. Can he give us any indication of when it might take place and whether a consultation paper on this subject will be produced in the next month or two? If he cannot do so this afternoon, will he come back to us quickly on the Government’s plans for this consultation? He must recognise that there is tremendous strength of feeling on this issue and that the Government will have to do something to assuage the strong feelings in this House.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I understand the strength of feeling. I will certainly ensure that we write with any information regarding a forthcoming consultation.

I turn to Amendment 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, which seeks to require Transport for London to carry out its pedicab licensing functions with a view to promoting the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. Although the Government agree that these are important aims, the Licensing Act 2003 focuses on the licensing of the sale of alcohol and tobacco, as well as the provision of entertainment. Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing is not included in the scope of the 2003 Act. This means that these objectives do not apply to pedicabs outside London, where they are regulated as taxis. In fact, the taxi and private hire vehicle legislation that applies in England, as well as what applies in London specifically, does not explicitly state the objective of licensing as it was introduced for the protection of the public through regulation. Therefore, the approach proposed by my noble friend does not seem appropriate in this case. I instead point to the relevant statutory duties and requirements placed on Transport for London as a public body overseeing services to the public.

I turn to Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It seeks to expand Clause 2(4) so that pedicab licensing fees could be set at a level that enables investment in wider transport infrastructure in Greater London. The Government feel that this amendment would impose an unfair burden on pedicab drivers and operators—one that goes beyond the established principles on how licensing fees are set by local authorities. It would result in a different approach to pedicab licensing compared to taxis, which pedicabs are licensed as outside of London, and private hire vehicles. The Government’s intention in enabling Transport for London to regulate pedicabs is to help the emergence of a sustainable and well-regulated sector. This amendment may discourage reputable pedicab drivers and operators from continuing to ply their trade.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I apologise for forgetting to mention that amendment in my speech. What made us put it forward is the fact that there are a lot of problems with pedicab parking. They may require adjustments to roads and pavements, which can be quite expensive for local authorities; I know that as a former member of one. It seems only reasonable to us that such costs should be recoverable.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 18, which I am speaking to in the absence of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I agree with all the amendments that seek to amend Clause 2(6). I remind your Lordships, and particularly the Minister, that this subsection includes the word “may”. Unless my amendment returns on Report with the word “must” in it, it will not have any bite. As much as I welcome all these amendments going through, they must go through with mine.

My noble friend Lord Strathcarron did not mention his excellent Amendment 19, requesting

“a prominently displayed registration plate with a distinct number”.

Unless we have that, the authorities really will be toothless, because how can someone report a pedicab that has breached the rules without some sort of identification of it? There is no point telling the police, “It’s the one with the blue lights and the red lights”, because that does not limit the field. I hope my noble friend does not mind me speaking to his amendment.

I have reservations about e-scooters. I admire my noble friend enormously for being brave enough to take one. I run regularly on much the same routes—20 miles a week, since you ask—and e-scooters are a menace for runners, frankly, particularly because they do not obey the rules of the Royal Parks.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, a great diversity of points has been raised on this group of amendments, most of which strike us as sensible. It is therefore up to the Government to see whether they could strengthen the references in the Bill to the issues on which TfL should consider regulating. The consensus that there should be a specific reference to noise is very strong, as this is a major cause of nuisance.

I fully support the reference to the need for pedicab ranks and stands, but it goes back to Amendment 14 in my name, from the previous group, which talks of charging for the costs of putting these things in place. They will require some changes in infrastructure that will cost money, which the local authority and TfL will be reluctant to spend.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

Before my noble friend leaves that point, can I ask him whether he would like to see the same rule applied to taxis? Should the taxi community have to pay for its ranks?

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

In principle, I personally do not see why not.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

It is not necessarily our policy though.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

Frankly, I have no idea what our policy is on this subject, but I am personally in favour of charges being related to costs.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, made some valid points about cycle lanes. You clearly cannot have one rule in place for the whole cycle lane network; you would need some restrictions.

On the more controversial points raised, I am very sympathetic to the need to ensure that batteries are of the necessary technical standard. If there are to be battery-powered pedicabs, they would have to meet the best standards.

The only point of disagreement is on the checks on immigration status, criminal records and all that. There has been a sufficient number of cases of abuse in the pedicabs sector, to my mind, to justify the ability to check these things more thoroughly than in other areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I will follow up on the points about enforcement and penalties. I hear very much what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said. My remarks will focus on something specific to pedicabs and their regulation: the level of fines that could be imposed on them. My Amendments 33 and 34 are relevant to this.

It seems that there is well-attested abuse, by a minority of pedicab drivers, of vulnerable customers, who are overcharged—vast amounts of money in some cases. Yet, as I understand it—I stand to be corrected if this is not the case—the maximum fine is at level 4, which is £2,500, rather than £5,000. I put it to the Government that unscrupulous people will regard a fine of £2,500 as a business expense, thinking they can pay the fine and continue to behave as badly as they do. Therefore, I believe there should be provision for a higher level of fines to deal with unscrupulous pedicab drivers.

[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 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 Liddle (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I thank him for his comprehensive response, which we can examine at our leisure. The one part of it that I find unsatisfactory is the point about fines. I must say to him that, unless the Government move on this issue, we will raise this matter on Report.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)]

We come to Amendment 44.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

We wish to oppose this amendment.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

At page 143, paragraph 8.111 of the Companion says:

“The proceedings and forms of words for amendments and clauses in Grand Committee are identical to those in a Committee of the whole House save that no votes may take place. Normally only one bill per day may be considered in Grand Committee. Amendments, which may be tabled and spoken to by any member, are published and circulated as for Committee of the whole House”.


Paragraph 8.112 says:

“As divisions are not permitted in Grand Committee, decisions to alter the bill may only be made by unanimity. Thus when the Question is put, a single voice against an amendment causes the amendment to be negatived”.


I am that single voice.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. The regulations will apply across Great Britain, and their purpose is to set minimum service levels for specified services that can apply during strikes affecting passenger rail services.

The minimum service levels are designed to balance the public’s need to make important journeys and the impact of rail strikes on the economy with the ability of rail workers to take strike action. Since 2019, there has not been a single day without either a strike happening on the railways or mandates for strikes outstanding. The result has been many periods of disruptive strike action, with widespread consequences for passengers and the wider economy. This Government want to see an end to this disruptive strike action, but the trade unions continuing to call for it has led to these regulations being necessary.

I acknowledge the amendments to the Motion relating to this instrument. The regret amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, references the views of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the detail of the policy in the Act, the retrospective element of the regulations, the fact that the impact assessment was not published at the time of laying, contractual concerns, and concerns for the ability for workers to take strike action. The fatal amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, references concerns around the impact of these regulations on the workforce and about safety, and raises concerns that the Act places undue obligations on trade unions.

In its 3rd Report of Session 2023-24, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that more information should have been provided to explain the policy decision in the Explanatory Memorandum. The committee also noted that the impact assessment was not published at the time of laying and mentioned the issuance of an initial review notice by the Regulatory Policy Committee. I will address the amendments to the Motion and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s remarks but will turn first to the instrument under consideration today.

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 establishes a framework for the making of regulations to set minimum service levels during strikes. The Act provides that for certain sectors, including transport, the relevant Secretary of State may specify, in regulations, the relevant services and the minimum service levels that will apply. These regulations for passenger rail specify three categories of services that minimum service levels apply to, and the associated minimum service levels.

Thecategories are: category A, train operation services; category B, infrastructure services; and category C, light rail services. For category A services, the minimum service level is specified as the

“provision of the train operation services necessary to operate the equivalent of 40% of the timetabled services operating during the strike”.

With regard to category B services, the minimum service level is specified as a list of priority routes to be operated for the specified hours of 6 am to 10 pm during strike action. The priority routes are defined in the regulations and listed in the schedule to the regulations. In addition to the listed priority routes, the minimum service level also applies to any part of the network that is within a five-mile radius of the priority routes and is a loop, siding, or a line that connects the priority routes to freight terminals, stabling facilities, or depots used for rolling stock or for plant, equipment, and machinery used in providing the other infrastructure services. This is to enable trains to travel to and from berthing areas and terminals to the priority routes.

With regard to category C services, the minimum service level is specified as the provision of the train operation services and infrastructure services necessary to operate the equivalent of 40% of the timetabled services during the period of a strike for the relevant light rail system.

I now turn back to the amendments to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the recent remarks by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to which I previously alluded. I regret that the impact assessment was not published at the time of the laying of these regulations. My department has a good track record in the quality of our impact assessments. It was the right decision to revise the impact assessment and allow the committee time to review.

Although I regret that the Regulatory Policy Committee has not yet been able to issue an opinion, it is important that noble Lords can scrutinise the impact assessment in this debate, which is why we have now published the impact assessment. The Act sets out the framework, and it was correct that these regulations set out the policy detail of passenger rail minimum service levels. Each sector being debated today has its own complexities and operates very differently. There is no one size that fits all models.

I now turn to the retrospective provisions. The disruption caused by continuous strike action puts these passenger rail regulations in a different position to other sectors. The Government have therefore taken the step of including retrospective provisions to create certainty for employers that strikes called under mandates secured before the primary legislation received Royal Assent would be in scope. This legislation is not intended to prevent workers from taking strike action. My department launched a consultation on minimum service levels for passenger rail to develop a more detailed understanding of how minimum service levels might impact on staff. This department has at every stage carefully balanced workers’ continued ability to take strike action against the needs of people to make essential journeys by rail. It will be at the discretion of individual employers whether to issue work notices to deliver minimum service levels. There are no plans to compel employers to use these regulations. There is comfort in that the Act includes the safeguard that employers should not identify more persons than are reasonably necessary to deliver the minimum service level.

Finally, I turn to the fatal amendment. Tackling strikes in transport was a 2019 manifesto commitment. As we are seeing now, when the rail trade unions choose to strike, people, including doctors, nurses and teachers, experience disruption in accessing their places of work, schools and vital medical appointments. In some cases, they are unable to travel at all. If the House supports this amendment, it will be voting against protecting passengers from the disproportionate impacts of rail strikes. I beg to move.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great honour for me to speak to this Motion. It marks my return to the Labour Front Bench, which I am delighted by.

Alas, I feel a very personal interest in this matter. My father was a Carlisle railway clerk and a long-standing member of the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association. I was so steeped in Labour and trade union history when I was a student that my thesis was on railway industrial relations.

Growing up, one of the things that I learned about industrial relations, particularly on the railways, was that the right to strike was fundamental but should be used sparingly. Despite employers and employees sharing common interests, there will be conflicts of interest. Collective bargaining to resolve those conflicts will not work unless the unions have the power to strike, even if they rarely use it. That is of fundamental importance.

That power is not absolute. As my noble friend Lord Hendy said in an earlier debate, it is not untrammelled. There must be ballots and regulations on picketing and secondary action. Labour has accepted all that. Our objection to what is being proposed for the railways is that the practical effect of these minimum service levels is to eliminate the right to strike for vast numbers of railway workers—40% by some estimates.

That is correct—you have to think about it for only a second—because if you are to run any trains on the principal parts of the network, you have to keep all the staff in place necessary to keep the network safe and running. Anyone working in a signal box has to be on duty, or in a control room; station staff have to be there, because they play a vital role in ensuring passenger safety; and the permanent way teams have to be there to do their work on maintenance of the track. If that does not happen, you will be running an unsafe railway in an incredibly short time. As my noble friend Lord Coaker said in his remarks about the border staff, this is a wholly disproportionate measure in the case of the railways.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Liddle]

As an amendment to the motion in the name of Lord Davies of Gower, at end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations contain policy detail that was not included in primary legislation, contrary to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; that their retrospective element will create uncertainty; that the impact assessment is not sufficiently robust; that it is unclear whether contractual relationships will impact the issue of work notices; and that they may prevent workers from being able to take industrial action.”

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I will test the opinion of the House on the amendment standing in my name but, before that, I thank the Minister for his carefully considered reply. I did not agree with it, I am afraid; I just do not think that what is proposed is proportionate in terms of workers’ right to strike. I sincerely hope that employers and companies with common sense will not try to make use of these regulations. In that spirit, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Liddle Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 28th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I first make it clear that the Opposition—the Labour Party—support the principle of this measure, although as we have seen in this debate, there is a wide-ranging set of issues that arises, which I dare say that the civil servants who have been listening will be busily examining over the coming days. We are looking forward to a somewhat extended Committee stage, if some of these issues are judged within the scope of the Bill. It will also be a very entertaining one if we continue to have contributions such as those from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and some of the other noble Lords who have spoken.

Why do we support the Bill? It is because we desperately need to move forward in this country to try to raise our rate of economic growth. One of the most obvious ways of doing this is by harnessing, through successful commercial exploitation, the advances in science and technology for which we, as a country, are renowned. So this is part of a big agenda that is crucial to our future prosperity.

We do have a real problem. I will put this in a non-party-political way. In the John Major and Tony Blair premierships, from 1991 to 2007, national productivity rose by 27%. Since 2007, it has risen by 1.7%. So we have a dramatic growth problem. I suppose this is a subset of the artificial intelligence revolution, which we have to be part of if we are going to succeed as a country. My friend and colleague in the other place, Peter Kyle, who is now in charge of innovation and research—whatever that new department is called—sees this question of how we mobilise these technological advances for growth as one of the great progressive causes of our time.

In some respects, the Government have gone about this in the right way, in trying to establish a partnership body through injecting public money in partnership with academic expertise, scientists, engineers and corporations. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that this should not exclude the smaller innovators, but I also very much share the view of my colleague, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, that any partnership work should involve the trade unions. As someone said, this will have enormous consequences for jobs in the future and we must involve the trade unions from an early stage.

The Bill is legal and technical, and it is necessary, but of course it is not the whole answer—it is not a policy framework for autonomous vehicles. Reading it, I thought that, if only we had a magic wand and could bring automated vehicles into play overnight, getting rid of all that we have now, the Bill would be a perfect example of how to regulate that. But we are not in that situation: we in fact face decades of hybridity, or a mixed system—however you want to describe it—and that is the immediate regulatory task.

I will pick the Minister up on one point he made early in his remarks. He mentioned that the safety benefits of automated vehicles were “plain to see”. Well, they might be in this idealised future that we might get to some time, but are they “plain to see” in this hybrid world, which will be the real world of the next 20 or 30 years?

There are lots of issues about what safety standards we set. If we have a significant number of accidents, it will put back the development of these technologies in a very rapid way. I picked up an article in the Financial Times—a great authority—by a Mr Richard Waters, describing what had happened in California, where the regulators have actually halted operations at Cruise, the General Motors driverless car division, because of accidents in California. We do not want to get ourselves into that situation, so we have to move forward in a way that will prevent that kind of eventuality—and there are lots of issues in that regard.

The insurance and legal questions around what happens when a so-called “transition demand” occurs are very complicated. There is the issue that the House of Commons Transport Committee raised in a very good report: what happens to the driving skills of drivers who become gradually reliant on automated systems? How do we keep their driving skills up to date? What sort of test should you have to pass to be a driver who part-relies on automation but is then capable of taking control in an emergency? I know that some people talk about 10 seconds but, if you are doing your emails or talking on the phone to an important colleague, would you be capable of doing this in 10 seconds? I do not know. There seem to be a lot of issues here.

Of course, there are other issues, not just to do with the car, the systems and the driver but to do with the networks within which these vehicles will run. Failings in digital connectivity is the obvious one. I have just finished 10 years on Cumbria County Council and, if someone had told us that we had to spend millions of pounds on the database of our road system, I would have had lots of Conservative councillors getting up and saying, “You’re not wasting your money on all of that—what about the potholes?” We would have a real problem with local authority finance in what strikes me as potentially a very costly exercise.

Then there is the question of regulation of the agencies in the Department for Transport that will have to put these systems in place. There is the question of skills: will the people in the agencies have the right skills to do the job properly? We all know that what will happen is that the brightest and most capable people will be employed by the companies, which will have the sources of expertise. So there are lots of issues that we need to face.

We need an effective system of regulation, and we have to think about how that is going to work. We do not want a system of regulation that holds things back —the man with a red flag who has to walk in front of the vehicle. We have to avoid that kind of regulation. Equally, we have to approach it from the point that people will expect that this new technology will produce not just the status quo in safety but a real advance, with fewer accidents, fewer deaths and fewer life-changing injuries.

The key is to develop a regulatory system that is rapidly adaptable. That is an easy thing to say, but when we think about regulation and the way it works—or the way I have observed it working in Britain in many different forms—we see that it is not very adaptable. We have great crises that result in regulatory reviews; they come up with long reports that make lots of recommendations and then those reports lie on people’s shelves and do not get acted on. We have to be more flexible and adaptable than we have been. Regulation is a good thing, but it has to be flexible and adaptable. We have to get away from the mindset of, “As little regulation as possible is what is good for the country”. We have to have good regulation, not bad regulation, and if we do, we may be able to take advantage of the great opportunities that these technological advances offer.

Birmingham Highways Infrastructure Private Finance Initiative

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I can say that “imminently” is as meant in the English dictionary, which means probably about to happen.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

Will the Minister urge the Treasury to give some thought to the bigger picture on this question? Here we have Birmingham, one of the largest cities in the country and the centre of a region that is prospering as a result of investment, some of which owes its success to the HS2 decision. It has an activist mayor. We on this side may disagree with his politics, but he has certainly managed to put Birmingham on the map. It is a city region on the verge of first-world rank and status. How would it make any sense for the Treasury to consign the highways of Birmingham city to third-world circumstances?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I do not necessarily agree with the latter part of the noble Lord’s comments, but on the first part, I will take his message back to the Treasury.

Rail Fares

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I hear what the noble Lord says, and I think that I will take that one back as well.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

Does the Minister recognise that as long ago as 2019 the Government accepted that there was chaos in the present rail fare structures about which something had to be done? The answer was to set up Great British Railways, which would have new powers to deal with this question. Given the urgency of getting more passengers back on the railway, given the rise in public subsidy to the railways from £4 billion to £13 billion in four years, why have the Government ducked doing this?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Well, again, I will—

Air Travel: Disabled Passengers

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, in his place fulfilling his duties as a Government Whip, having so recently been introduced to the House. We look forward to seeing much more of him.

What we are talking about here is a fundamental issue of equality and we clearly have to do something about it. I shall not speak for long on the issue; we have heard moving contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Ludford. The question is: what are the Government doing about it?

In the case of air travel, this is obviously primarily an international issue, so there is the difficult question of how one enforces standards across the EU, with the US and across the world as a whole, but there is no excuse for the poor treatment of people with disabilities on public transport in our own country. We have to do better than we are at present. The numerous reports of problems are really unanswerable.

What are the Government doing to monitor compliance with the relevant domestic legislation? In the case of airlines, is this something that they regard as the CAA’s responsibility and therefore the department does not have to do much, or is the department itself taking these questions seriously? If it is, what in the near future is it planning to do about it?

Mopeds, Motorcycles and Powered Light Vehicle Industry

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for her intelligent introduction to this brief debate. I agree with many of the points that have been made by other members. The key points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about the merger of typologies and the diversity of what technical change is bringing are things that we have to take into account.

While the net zero dimension of all this is important, it is not the whole story. It is a net zero policy, as someone said, but we have to consider the whole issue in the context of the problems that emissions from these vehicles pose compared with those from cars. Is it proportionate to apply the same tests to them?

A dimension of this that not many noble Lords have referred to is that of industrial policy, which I am personally very interested in. We used to have a thriving motorcycle industry in Britain; it has declined, but there are still some firms that are now growing. What are the Government doing to promote that industry? Do they have a forum of regular consultation with the industry to see what can be done to help it to compete? Of course, that industry needs a clear regulatory framework for the future. That regulatory framework also has to align with what is happening globally, particularly in Europe, because people are not just producing for the domestic market. What is happening on the industrial policy dimension?

I have a couple of other questions for the Minister. Given that emissions from these vehicles, especially when viewed on an all-life basis, are often less than from cars, has the Minister considered taking steps in order to encourage drivers to switch? Have the Government thought about that question? On another point, it has been reported that, increasingly, vehicles in this category are being used for food delivery services. What assessment have the Government made of this? Would promoting electric light vehicles be a good way of reducing emissions from vans that traditionally do this job?

Above all, I think that the simple point is that the Government are dithering on their policy. They have had lots of consultations, but they are not offering the sector any clarity. It is time that they did so. My direct question to the Minister is: are the Government planning to do anything that will give clarity to the industry between now and the general election?

Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Lord Liddle Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I also welcome the promotion of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, to a ministerial position at the Department for Transport. He has spent his whole life in public service in one way or another: in the police force, then as a Member of the Welsh Assembly, as an MP and now in this House. My hobby is history and particularly labour history. One of the most remarkable things about the noble Lord, if I might say so, is that in the whole of the Gower constituency’s existence—it was created by the Third Reform Act 1884—it has only once been represented by a Conservative, I think. It was represented continuously by a radical Liberal, then a Lib-Lab, then Labour from 1885 until 2015, when he won it by 27 votes. That situation has not lasted, but at least we now have the benefit of his wisdom in this House.

I also thank people who have welcomed me back to this Front Bench after a 10-year absence. I am supporting my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, who cannot be here today for personal reasons and apologises for that, but I am greatly looking forward to doing transport. I am a railwayman’s son from Carlisle, so I was brought up in transport. I was a councillor in Oxford, where I think my noble friend Lord Hunt and I would now be described as warriors against motorists, I am afraid, but I think we did a lot to improve the quality of life in central Oxford.

Labour supports the Bill and the Opposition Front Bench will be constructive in its approach to it. I do not see it as a party-political matter but as closing a legal loophole that has been allowed to exist for far too long. In fact, when I looked at the Lords briefing note, it told us that a complaint about this was first made by the London Assembly in 2005. Boris Johnson, when he was Mayor of London, pointed out that this was a legal anomaly in 2012, as did the Law Commission in 2014. No wonder we fail as a country when we cannot manage to get things sorted in some quicker timeframe than this. There has been a cross-party desire to have it sorted: Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, and Adam Hug, the new leader of Westminster Council, along with the distinguished Conservatives whom people have mentioned, have wanted action on this matter. For a long time, it seemed that the Government offered general support but without any promise of action. Now we have action and, although it is too late for many people who have been ripped off, we welcome it none the less.

This has been a very interesting Second Reading. A thought has been going through my mind. I discussed the Bill with the lady who organises the timetables and she said, “Oh, I think we will probably get through this in an afternoon”. Having listened to this debate, I am not sure whether Committee will be got through in an afternoon. It seems to me that noble Lords have raised a lot of points that will need to be explored in Committee.

There is the philosophical point about what we are trying to do through regulation. Are we trying to stop pedicabs altogether or to regulate them so that the rogue operators disappear from the scene? I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s argument that we do not want to stifle innovation and competition in this world. At the same time, the passion with which the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, spoke on the subject would clearly convince anyone that this is a gap in regulation that must be dealt with. We have to get the balance right, for all the reasons that many noble Lords have mentioned.

The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, talked about one of the most powerful reasons—the damage to the reputation of London as a good place for tourism. You cannot have these instances of people being charged £500 for a 500-yard journey written about in foreign newspapers and described on foreign TV without it having a damaging effect. Of course, it will be magnified in any overseas media reporting and made into something that is regarded as a common problem. For that reason alone, we must act.

Noble Lords asked about the framework of the legislation. My view is that it ought essentially to be devolved. Our role is to set the right framework; we can debate the parameters within which TfL should work, but it is fundamentally for Sadiq Khan and TfL to draw up the precise legislation. I have some sympathy with the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about the potential for delay and confusion if the rules come in the form of a statutory instrument which a Minister has to approve. What happens if the Minister, the mayor and TfL are not in the same place? We could have years of further delay. I do not have a settled view, but the role of the ministry must be looked at in Committee.

Noble Lords have made a considerable agenda of points that have impressed me. What the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said about issues of definition must be thought about. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke about e-scooters and e-bikes; we must try to press through this legislation for action in this related area. I think there would be widespread support for that in this House. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, show the benefit of having people with real professional expertise in this House. When we are looking at the criteria that TfL will have to consider, we should debate whether we want to include his points about insurance, how you identify the cabs, fines being treated as a business expense and whether drivers should have some training in the knowledge.

Also, how is the whole thing going to be enforced, and does TfL have the resources to enforce it properly? Those are crucial questions. It is not just about fares; it is about a wider set of issues as well.

I will make one final point, which noble Lords may think a political one; none the less, it has to be made. This Government have chosen to legislate on pedicabs when there is a huge need for regulatory reform in transport, which they are ducking. We need legislation for buses in the provinces, so that local government can work effectively with bus operators to provide proper networks of services. As for the railways, they are in a terrible mess. In the four years following Covid, public spending on the railways—noble Lords opposite should be interested in this point—has gone up from some £4 billion to £13 billion. However, we are not going to get any change in that situation without the regulatory reform—the establishment of Great British Rail—that the Government promised. Now, all they are doing is producing legislation without actually legislating. This is a very bad situation.

In conclusion, we support the pedicabs Bill, although there are lots of issues we will have to discuss in Committee. However, on the wider agenda of transport reform, the King’s Speech has been a great disappointment.

Great British Railways

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

The Government are always looking at what we can do to improve the services and passenger experience on our railways. We are looking at simplifying fares. The noble Lord will know that we have introduced single-leg pricing on LNER and are looking to potentially do a trial around demand-based pricing. All of these things will serve to put downward pressure on prices.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a regular Avanti user. I have been in correspondence with the Minister about the train service fairly frequently. Does she accept that, if one of the big objectives of this Government is to level up between the north and the south in England, and to provide good connections to Scotland, a decent service on the west coast main line is absolutely essential? That does not exist. The proposed legislation, as I understand it, is very short; it is enabling legislation. The fact is that the Government have taken a political decision not to go ahead with this, and I would like her to explain why.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I cannot explain the reason why because that decision has, of course, not been taken. The noble Lord mentions Avanti, and I pay tribute to Avanti, because the quality of its services has improved enormously recently. At the end of May, cancellations on Avanti were just 1.4%—which is very good among train operating companies—and 93.8% of services were “on time”, meaning within 15 minutes of arrival time. Those figures do compare favourably.