Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Debate between Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Campbell-Savours

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I will intervene briefly to make what I can only describe as a very trivial point. The Industry and Parliament Trust wrote to me and a number of my colleagues in the last few weeks telling us that there would be a breakfast meeting in the House on 1 May. I do not think that it realises that some of us simply cannot turn up for breakfast meetings on this extremely important issue. I raise this in the Chamber because it is important that it realises that these are problems for some Members. I would have attended because it is a fascinating area of development.

In particular, my interest is in the possibility of applying this kind of technology to lorries, which is what has happened in America. There have been tests. In so far as commercial vehicles are the major polluters, we should be doing everything possible to ensure that they are in the front line of the shift to this technology. As I said, I hope that the Industry and Parliament Trust has that in mind when it arranges these meetings in the future, because it means that some of us are denied the opportunity of the very excellent work that it does on many issues that come before Parliament.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I did go to that breakfast, so I have heard the hydrogen manifesto, as it were. I also attended a dinner last night arranged by ChargePoint and witnessed my first outbreak of range anxiety among electric car owners, who explained at some length and some volume that 120 miles with the lights on meant about 50 miles. The battery electric formula has still a long way to go. There are many areas where hydrogen might be used, the classic example being buses in London. Hydrogen needs greater emphasis in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to bring forward amendments to produce a little more balance in the Bill so that it does not so blatantly presume a battery solution.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Campbell-Savours

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 17 in my name.

The National Trailer and Towing Association has long campaigned for the periodic inspection and testing of light trailers. One of the main barriers to that is the lack of a trailer registration scheme that covers category O1 and O2 trailers. Noble Lords are aware of the tragic case of Donna and Scott Hussey’s very young son, Freddie, who was killed in 2014 when he was hit by a two-tonne trailer that had come loose from a Land Rover. The family and their MP, Karin Smyth, have been campaigning ever since for better trailer safety to try to prevent further serious injury and deaths. What is needed—and what Amendments 16 and 17 provide for—is the creation of clear evidence based around weights and categories of trailers in relation to their safety and the number and nature of trailer-related road accidents in the UK.

The Government need to take action on this, rather than making vague promises to consider this in the future. There is a strong argument for looking specifically at the safety of trailers in the O2 category, weighing between 750 kilograms and 3.5 tonnes. With a genuine data collection exercise and assessment of evidence, the Government would be in a position to make an informed and responsible decision, befitting Her Majesty’s Government, on whether trailers in that category should be registered and subject to stringent safety testing. The data presented in the Minister’s letter mostly conflates that of trailers below 3.5 tonnes and large—category O3 or O4—trailers above that weight. This is misleading because the data referring to these large trailers is irrelevant to the central issue. We are not questioning the safety of large trailers of this nature because, as has been highlighted, they are already subject to robust safety procedures and checks and subsequently have high pass rates. Those figures, and comparisons with non-GB countries, relate only to large tested vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, not the lower categories of trailer with which we are at present most concerned.

Crucially, any analysis of the Department for Transport data on the safety of trailers below 3.5 tonnes shows some major gaps in reported data. This makes it impossible to describe the best attempt of Ministers to argue on the Government’s behalf that we have a representative assessment of how safe or unsafe domestic users of trailers are on our roads.

The statistics presented in the letter on incidents involving light trailers do not represent all such incidents, but only those reported and recorded by police. Road traffic incidents reported to the police include only those involving a personal injury and that occur on public roads. The DfT therefore clearly states in its annual report on road casualties:

“These figures … do not represent the full range of all accidents or casualties”,


in Great Britain, and goes on to include details of other sources of statistics with vastly higher recorded accidents and road traffic injuries.

We would also like to draw a distinction between the current method of capturing data on trailer safety after an injury has occurred in an incident, and the DfT’s failure to lead any kind of initiative to collect data on the roadworthiness of smaller trailers using stop-and-search-type testing to prevent such accidents occurring in the first place. This has been highlighted by Avon and Somerset Police as an urgent priority. It argues that its own evidence of checks shows the unsafe condition of the majority of domestic trailers, which, despite being overwhelming, is still ignored.

The evidence presented by the National Trailer and Towing Association and others shows the shocking safety standards of many untested trailers under 3.5 tonnes. According to it, a large proportion of such trailers would fail any roadworthiness test. When the Secretary of State undertakes a data-collection exercise and collates comprehensive data on the number and nature of trailer-related road accidents in the United Kingdom, it is vital that this includes data gathered specifically on the safety of trailers in the O2 category.

The logic of the concept that trailers should be registered and tested seems at first sight overwhelming: 750 kilograms of trailer traveling at 70 mph out of control can do as much damage as a small car travelling at 70 mph. Clearly, the solution is that they should be registered and inspected. The Minister will tell us that this is unnecessarily bureaucratic, too complex and disproportionate. Indeed, that was exactly the position that I took in 1960, when I was told that I had to have an MOT test for my car, which, being seven years older than me, seemed to have shown through time that it would manage. We are a long way on from then, and we now accept the MOT test as part of our lives. In fact, MOT testing is one area where our requirements are significantly ahead of the EU’s. We are going to tighten the MOT test at, I think, the end of this month, which will have a significant impact on many car owners. We are willing to be quite brave in imposing this testing regime on vehicles, particularly private motor vehicles, and to some extent we have been rewarded in recent years through a reduction in the number of tragedies.

This is about people dying, and it is about Freddie. But, as I said, the Minister will argue that it is disproportionate. That is why our two amendments are so stunningly reasonable. I will go through them briefly. Amendment 16 would require the Secretary of State to do three things: to collate data, to then take a view of registration and say when they should be presented in a report. The key words are in proposed new subsection (2B): “or not”. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to collate data and make a decision based on them whether to register trailers. Amendment 17 is similar. It would require the report to decide whether it is necessary “or not”—this is at the discretion of the Secretary of State—to introduce a mandatory safety standards testing scheme. The last part of the amendment would enable and empower the Secretary of State to make regulations to introduce such a scheme.

While we believe that registration and examination will be a key improvement in safety and would have saved this little boy’s life and those of other people who die in events relating to trailers, we accept the charge of proportionality. Somebody must take an analytical approach to it and make a judgment on whether this would be grossly disproportionate to the benefits gained. That is why both amendments would allow the Secretary of State to make decisions based on evidence. We are insisting not on registration or a testing scheme in the amendments, but that the Secretary of State goes through an orderly, analytical process and comes to a decision. I beg to move.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I spoke at length in Committee on this matter. I do not intend to do so today. This is a very good compromise arrangement. The Government would ultimately take the decision. We would simply establish a framework on which basis a Government can take the decision. I hope the Government will accept the amendment.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Campbell-Savours

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 22nd March 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Could I ask some questions? First, have we an estimate of the number of trailers that fall under the various categories nationally that we might be able to talk about during the course of the Committee? Secondly, do we have any information on the number of accidents that have taken place? If so, do we know what proportion of those accidents have entailed the trailer being overloaded in default of other law?

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

Is the Minister going to grasp the general subject of trailer safety under this group or the next?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 19, I shall speak also to Amendment 20. These two amendments say in effect that if a trailer is registered, it must have a registration mark and that registration mark must be fixed to it. The Minister will probably call my attention to the Interpretation Act or something. Really, it is just a probing amendment to receive an assurance from the Minister that these “mays” will in practice be interpreted as “musts”. I beg to move.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If it is about fixing the certificate to the trailer there will be a danger that that can be easily removed, particularly on small trailers. On timber trailers there will be a particular problem, so if the Government were to go down the route of smaller trailers, which obviously I hope they do not, they may have to find some way of burnishing it into the wood or people will simply steal certificates and put them on their own trailers. If it is an aluminium trailer, again, it could be unscrewed unless it was riveted on in some way. All I am arguing is that if we go down this route, let us have a system that works and does not allow people simply to—if I may use the term—nick a certificate from one trailer and put it on to their own trailer for a few days while they are using it and then return it to the original trailer.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Campbell-Savours

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 13th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I want to correct the record on something. I said that we ran on quota permits but we ran on non-quota permits. I just checked my notes.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I did not read Hansard for last night’s debate; I was there. There is no doubt about the extent of the concern expressed by Committee Members last night about permits and trade and the impact on society. I therefore support Amendment 1. Having been a negotiator, I was alerted to the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, so I looked at what it said—that:

“It is an objective of the Government, in negotiating a withdrawal agreement from the EU, to seek continued UK participation in the EU’s Community Licence arrangements”.


I have to say, as negotiating briefs go, I have rarely seen one less prescriptive. It simply expresses a direction of travel and, broadly speaking, I support it. Similarly, I support Amendment 7, which once again gives more guidance than anything seriously prescriptive from a negotiator’s point of view.

I am grateful to read the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I think we have an amendment for every recommendation but I will check that before the next sitting. It would be easier if we had correspondence and the Government gave in in advance. We have here what one might call a contingency Bill—that is, a Bill to create an Act of Parliament against a contingency. All the committee is saying is that it is wrong to leave powers lying about. That relates specifically to Clauses 1 and 3. On Clause 1, the report states:

“Given that regulations under clause 1 might prove to be unnecessary, we recommend that the Bill should contain a sunset provision, extendable if necessary, to remove the regulation-making power in clause 1 if it does in fact prove to be unnecessary”.


In almost identical terms, Amendment 11 refers to Clause 3. In examining Clause 2, we could not see any reason why the same logic should not apply, so we have also proposed Amendment 10, which refers to Clause 2.