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

Sam Tarry Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 21st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I start by thanking the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for his diligent work on introducing the Bill and for the consensual and cross-party way in which he has approached it, working to introduce a Bill that, once it achieves its passage, will hopefully address so many of the safety issues that Members have ably mentioned today, as well as ensuring that both drivers and passengers are protected.

There have been significant calls from councils and pressure groups, for a long period of time—over several years—for the Government to update their taxi and private hire vehicle licensing regulation and to go above and beyond the statutory standards, which many organisations do not think go far enough. That update is needed to address critical issues, such as safety concerns on cross-border hiring and the lack of statutory disability and equality training. This is an issue that is important to many in my constituency. I probably have 3,000 to 5,000 local residents who are private hire taxi drivers and this issue is something I discuss with them regularly. Yesterday, in my constituency of Ilford South, I had a discussion with a number of taxi drivers about the issues facing them. They were pleased to see this Bill back in the Commons this morning.

As the Opposition have previously proposed, we would like to see provision for a driver’s risk to road safety while driving to be assessed in line with DVLA standards, as opposed to the individual assessment of the licensing authority. We proposed amendments to reflect that at an earlier stage. It is an important point. At present, licensing bodies are not required to share information with other local authorities. That prevents them from being able to take informed decisions about granting or renewing a driver’s licence, and creates the conditions for a driver to be refused a licence, or to have existing licences suspended or revoked because of safety concerns, but to be in a position to apply for a licence in another area, where the new licensing authority is completely unaware, as hon. Members have pointed out, of the previous refusal, suspension or revocation. That is completely unacceptable. It puts the safety of taxi and private hire vehicle users at risk. Furthermore, it goes against the recommendations of the DFT’s task and finish group on taxi and private hire licensing, which published its report more than three years ago.

At present, there are still concerns and uncertainty among representative bodies such as the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association as to whether the Government will support the Bill. I am hopeful they are going to, but I will talk a little bit about the other measures that could be looked at as well.

The Government previously indicated that they had no plans to legislate on some of the issues that a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), have raised and instead, they strongly encourage licensing authorities to adopt their new statutory standards, but those standards are roundly felt to be wanting. That is one of the reasons that this private Member’s Bill has come forward—the statutory standards are not quite powerful enough to address concerns.

The current approach focuses on improving licensing through the statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards that were published in 2020, which local authorities have subsequently consulted on and implemented. Representative bodies such as the LTDA believe that the standards do not go far enough and do not deliver on all the recommendations made by the task and finish group. For example, they do not address the vital issue of cross-border hiring, which currently undermines the efficacy of licensing. I urge the Minister to reassess the Government’s approach and to adopt a more robust stance that comprehensively addresses passenger safety and enhances existing licensing legislation through national minimum standards that are legally enforceable.

The existing statutory standards are no longer fit for purpose. Although they urge data sharing between local authorities and encourage use of the existing NR3 database, they do not mandate it, which creates a clear inconsistency in the system.

I reiterate my earlier point that taxis and private hire vehicle drivers operating out of an area for which they are not licensed must be stopped. Enforcement must be shifted to national level, allowing local authorities to issue enforcement within their jurisdiction under national guidelines. The Government must go further than simply encouraging licensing authorities to adopt the statutory standards. It is crucial that there is a renewed focus on non-licensed cross-border working—rather than simply cross-border working—and there needs to be a national enforcement process to prevent any non-licensed cross-border working in the first place.

The GMB union, which represents around 30,000 to 35,000 taxi and private hire vehicle drivers, has estimated that there are many tens of thousands working outside of their driving boundaries. It is high time for proper legislation and robust national minimum standards that are legally enforceable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, I hope in future we can have a comprehensive piece of legislation that would address many of the concerns that have not been addressed by this, on the whole, excellent private Member’s Bill—most significantly, cross-border hire, so that that is tackled in the proper and robust way that it should be. I hope that the Government will support the Bill today, and consider making the additional changes to existing legislation to improve the safety of all users of taxis and private hire vehicles.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sam Tarry Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I am afraid that I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s description of the situation. It does not seem particularly vindictive to pay out £4.1 billion in support of TfL as it rightly battles its way through coronavirus. It is not entirely correct to say that all the problems are related to that; the £13 billion of debt that it has is considerably higher than when the Mayor took over. Putting that aside, I am keen to continue to support TfL. The House will be interested to know that I had to wait more than three weeks for the Mayor to come forward with measures that he was supposed to provide us with in the middle of November.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

Yet again, the Government seem to be engaging in a blatant act of political sabotage of London’s vital transport networks. This week, Londoners have listened to Government advice, done the right thing and worked from home to keep our NHS and communities safe. As a result, passenger levels have dropped by over a quarter, which has had a further colossal impact on TfL’s revenue.

All the while, Ministers continue to force a cliff-edge negotiation on TfL finances in what can only be seen as a political attack that will punish hard-working Londoners for simply doing the right thing. As we saw in last week’s Evening Standard, from transport trade unions to square mile firms, London is totally united in its opposition to these disastrous political manoeuvres. Will the Secretary of State do his job and finally meet the Mayor of London? Can he get around the table today and sort it out?

[Grant Shapps]

It is interesting that the Front-Bench team have taken their briefing directly from the Mayor of London. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not catch what I just said: the letter that I received with the measures that the Mayor had to meet, which were outlined in an agreement, arrived on my desk three weeks late. Not unreasonably, on behalf of the taxpayer, I went back to him and asked him to clarify some of those points.

The hon. Gentleman accuses us, as other Opposition Members have, of playing politics with this issue, which is completely untrue. Yesterday, I received a long and—I am pleased to say—quite detailed letter to clarify some of those measures, but where did I receive that letter? It was in the Evening Standard, not even on my own desk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

I would be delighted to accept that invitation. The UK has a wealth of bus and coach manufacturers. About 80% of the service buses are made in the UK and I look forward to the invitation.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

In February 2020, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet promised to deliver 4,000 zero-emission buses by 2025 as part of the Prime Minister’s “bus revolution”. After all, there can be no journey to net zero without green transport. Yet 18 months later, where are they? Is Santa going to deliver them? No major British manufacturer has even started production yet, nor have any orders even come in. The Department for Transport still seems unable to show how many are on order. Can the Secretary of State and Ministers confirm that the beginning of the release of funding for the ZEBRA—zero emission bus regional area scheme—contracts for building those buses will be given to British-based manufacturers? After speaking to them over the past few days I know that, given the unfolding omicron crisis and passenger levels again plummeting, they are desperate to have reassurances about their future and the future of tens of thousands of British jobs in their industry. Can the Minister enlighten us as to when, if ever, she expects the 4,000 zero-emission buses to be on the road? Exactly how many are in production now? How many are being procured right now?

[Trudy Harrison]

As I said, we already have nine in the north-east and 50 operating in the country at the moment. We have 500 zero-emission buses being supported through the ZEBRA scheme, with £120 million of investment. A further 300 zero-emission buses will be supported through the all-electric bus city scheme and over 100 zero-emission buses have been supported through the ultra-low emission bus scheme since February 2020. In addition, £355 million of new funding was made available for zero-emission buses at the autumn 2021 Budget.

Draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021

Sam Tarry Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 General Committees

Trudy Harrison

- - Excerpts

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I will endeavour to ensure that the impact assessment takes that figure into consideration. We are working with training providers, and we are also looking at potential compensation schemes. My right hon. Friend should, in the first instance, suggest that his constituent accesses the helpline via the Government website.

We should be proud that the UK has some of the safest roads in the world. I referred to the “Tow Safe 4 Freddie” campaign. This will continue. We will draw attention to the importance of motorists doing safety checks whenever they are towing. The removal of the separate test for car drivers wishing to tow a trailer or caravan frees up some 30,000 vocational test slots annually. That equates to up to 550 extra tests a week, or a 37% increase in weekly tests, relative to pre-pandemic levels. This SI supports the streamlining of testing to increase the number of HGV tests taking place. Thanks to the great efforts of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency staff, the backlog of 55,000 driving licence applications for heavy goods vehicle drivers has been eliminated. These are now being processed within the normal turnaround time of five working days.

Keeping our roads safe is of paramount importance, and we will monitor the situation and act if needed, if our roads become less safe. This SI is just one of 32 Government interventions to tackle this issue, to help reduce the strain on our national supply chains, which is affecting every aspect of our daily lives.

Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)

-

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, for the first time.

Our views on this legislation are already on record, so I will not reiterate all the points made in previous debates. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South is here, and I am sure she will have a few things to say about the regulations. We on the Opposition Benches understand the Minister’s rationale for this decision, as the regulations make a technical amendment, but it would be remiss of me not to ask a few questions. We all want the HGV shortage to be addressed. Let us be clear: that shortage has been many months, if not years, in the making. Successive Conservative Governments have had the opportunity to address the problem, and have so far failed to get a permanent, workable solution.

As a result of that mismanagement, MPs are today being asked to make a decision that has significant risks. What do we know? Some 30% of drivers fail the B+E test, and since the introduction of the test in 1997, road safety has improved. Ministers simply do not know the risks associated with this decision, and whether a younger cohort more prone to accidents will begin towing as a result of it. These are serious questions that need to be addressed.

It is not acceptable for MPs to be asked to take a decision blindly, when the Department’s impact assessment of the implications for road safety is either not completed or not being shared with Parliament. The ability of this place to scrutinise the Government has been compromised as a result. We did not hear answers when the matter was debated in the Chamber a few weeks ago. Given that implications of the decision are as yet unknown to Parliament, I would like to press the Minister on the review period. A review of the implications of the decision will take place only every three years. That cannot be right. I ask the Minister to consider a shorter period, and to update the House on towing accident figures quarterly; that will give some reassurance that those involved will be in a position to undertake remedial action swiftly if a problem emerges.

In the absence of an impact assessment, can the Minister explain the thinking that underpins the safety assessment? Baroness Vere said in her letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that there is not currently any statistical evidence to suggest that competence and skills will worsen if drivers do not take a statutory test to tow a trailer. What statistical evidence did Ministers assess to come to that conclusion? Are they conducting an assessment of whether there will be a change in the trend in the age distribution of drivers towing trailers if all current and future car licence holders become automatically eligible to tow, and will that be published?

Although we will not oppose the regulations, we would welcome, either here or in writing, answers to the very serious questions that we have for Ministers, and we would like to put on record our serious concern about the way in which the regulations have been managed.

Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)

- - Excerpts

I rise to speak on behalf of my constituents, but also as chair of the all-party towing and trailer safety group. I put on record my strong opposition to the regulations on the Floor of the House on 8 November. Since then, the Government have created such chaos, through the announcement in September of this measure, which has still not been brought into law, that I have frankly become less assured, and more concerned, as the weeks have gone on. We are now unleashing thousands of untrained, unsafe and unqualified drivers of trailers on to our roads. It really does beggar belief that we are still doing this.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South mentioned the answers Baroness Vere of Norbiton gave to questions tabled by the noble Baroness Randerson and Lord Bassam. I do not know if you have seen answers like this, Mr Dowd, in your time in the House, but the answers we have had to questions asking the Government

“what data they hold on the safety impact of the B+E car and trailer test; and what criteria they will use to review the impact on safety of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021 after three years”

beggar belief. The answer states:

“There is not currently any statistical evidence to categorically say that competence and skills will worsen if drivers do not take a statutory test to tow a trailer.”

In that case, frankly, I do not know why we are taking a driving test at all. Baroness Vere goes on to say:

“Road safety has significantly improved over recent decades for several reasons”—

we do not dispute that—

“and it is therefore difficult to identify how much the car trailer test…has made a difference since it was introduced in 1997…The number of trailer accidents is low, with the proportion of accidents of cars/vans towing a trailer compared to all car/van accidents, as roughly 0.45% in 2019.”

Over the past four years, the all-party parliamentary group on trailer and towing safety has worked steadfastly with the Department for Transport to gather data and information. The problem with further improving safety is that there has not been any more data and information.

Baroness Vere goes on to say:

“In respect of the demographics of the drivers towing trailers, our statistics show that individuals generally only start getting their car and trailer licence (Category B+E licences) from their late 30s and 40s onwards”.

If this is such a crisis, what is stopping drivers in their 20s from driving these trailers without a test? I have the support of the Association of British Insurers and of the Road Haulage Association, because they know that it is not safe—with all due respect to 22-year-olds—to put a 22-year-old on the roads, untested and unqualified, driving those trailers. I have spoken to very many people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s, including people like me who, as the Minister has said, do not need the test. None of us thinks that we are competent to drive those trailers without training and testing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South said, we already know that 30% of people who have been trained and tested fail.

As I said in November, this move is reckless and dangerous. We know that 50% of trailers on the roads are already not compliant, as shown by the APPG’s work over the past few years, and that 30% of people fail the test. We know that the Government do not know the impact of their decisions, and that the so-called review after three years is a hollow commitment based on no data. I hope that the Minister will respond to my hon. Friend by explaining what on earth the criteria will be that are used to assess these regulations when they are reviewed in three years’ time. I will be here in three years’ time, and will hold the Government to their commitments. I promised my constituents Scott and Donna Hussey that I would do all I can to honour the memory of their son through “Tow Safe 4 Freddie”. I am grateful for the fact that the Government will continue their commitment to that campaign, but I am really quite appalled that we are back here again today, and I sincerely hope that, as a result of these regulations, we do not see the sort of reckless and unsafe driving on the roads that I fear we will.

Draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021

Sam Tarry Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 General Committees

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, for the first time.

Our views on this legislation are already on record, so I will not reiterate all the points made in previous debates. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South is here, and I am sure she will have a few things to say about the regulations. We on the Opposition Benches understand the Minister’s rationale for this decision, as the regulations make a technical amendment, but it would be remiss of me not to ask a few questions. We all want the HGV shortage to be addressed. Let us be clear: that shortage has been many months, if not years, in the making. Successive Conservative Governments have had the opportunity to address the problem, and have so far failed to get a permanent, workable solution.

As a result of that mismanagement, MPs are today being asked to make a decision that has significant risks. What do we know? Some 30% of drivers fail the B+E test, and since the introduction of the test in 1997, road safety has improved. Ministers simply do not know the risks associated with this decision, and whether a younger cohort more prone to accidents will begin towing as a result of it. These are serious questions that need to be addressed.

It is not acceptable for MPs to be asked to take a decision blindly, when the Department’s impact assessment of the implications for road safety is either not completed or not being shared with Parliament. The ability of this place to scrutinise the Government has been compromised as a result. We did not hear answers when the matter was debated in the Chamber a few weeks ago. Given that implications of the decision are as yet unknown to Parliament, I would like to press the Minister on the review period. A review of the implications of the decision will take place only every three years. That cannot be right. I ask the Minister to consider a shorter period, and to update the House on towing accident figures quarterly; that will give some reassurance that those involved will be in a position to undertake remedial action swiftly if a problem emerges.

In the absence of an impact assessment, can the Minister explain the thinking that underpins the safety assessment? Baroness Vere said in her letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that there is not currently any statistical evidence to suggest that competence and skills will worsen if drivers do not take a statutory test to tow a trailer. What statistical evidence did Ministers assess to come to that conclusion? Are they conducting an assessment of whether there will be a change in the trend in the age distribution of drivers towing trailers if all current and future car licence holders become automatically eligible to tow, and will that be published?

Although we will not oppose the regulations, we would welcome, either here or in writing, answers to the very serious questions that we have for Ministers, and we would like to put on record our serious concern about the way in which the regulations have been managed.

Electric Vehicles: Transition by 2030

Sam Tarry Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I will briefly touch on some of the useful contributions by many Members from across the House, who have obviously taken the time to contribute to this forward-thinking, progressive debate on such an important subject.

I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing the debate and putting forward so many interesting ideas. I will also briefly mention my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel)—I hope to be able to go for a spin in his Tesla at some point soon—and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). We also heard about the meandering experience of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards). It would be remiss of me not to mention my former colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), who made some important points, as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

Surface transport accounted for 24% of emissions in 2019 and remains the largest contributor to UK emissions to date. After a decade of failing to reduce the UK’s transport emissions, it is good that the Government are finally recognising the scale of the problem. I will touch briefly on the point made by my other former colleague from the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), on the 4,000 zero emission buses that are still missing from action. If we were to speak to Alexander Dennis in Falkirk or, indeed, Wrightbus in Ballymena, we would hear that not a single British manufacturer has an order for those buses on their books, so I want to know whether those 4,000 buses are apocryphal. We will not let this go until British manufacturers have those buses on their books. I do not want to find out that they are suddenly being given to China or another country when we should be supporting British manufacturing.

I am glad to hear, though, that the Government have adopted the Labour policy of phasing out sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030. However, why are hybrids allowed to be sold until 2035? Hybrids are highly polluting when they use their petrol or diesel engines due to their weight and poor fuel efficiency. They are, unfortunately, a lifeline to the fossil fuel industry, and the policy should be reversed immediately.

The Government have also announced that they will help smooth the transition to zero emission vehicles by introducing a zero emission vehicle mandate, which will gradually increase the level of vehicle sales required to be zero emission up to 100% by 2030. Labour fully supports the move, but when will the legislation actually be introduced? Will the Minister confirm whether hybrid electric vehicle sales will be included within that mandate?

Fully electric and hybrid vehicle sales have surged this year, with over a quarter of new vehicle sales being either hybrid or fully electric in 2021 so far, according to the SMMT. However, the UK’s charging infrastructure is falling behind, as we heard from the hon. Member for Rushcliffe. Overall funding for charging given out to local authorities has fallen from £15 million in the previous financial year, 2019-20, to £6.5 million in 2020-21. As many local authorities are not able to use those funds for the remaining schemes, it does need to be addressed, and addressed quickly.

Regional inequalities for charge points are also huge. If the Government are genuinely committed to levelling up, why are they doing nothing to address that regional inequality? The Government have promised a charging strategy by the end of the year, so where is it? Councils have rightly expressed serious concerns that there is no coherent Government strategy about what to build and where. We need urgent action to address regional inequalities, a quick ramp-up of charging, and making charge points easier to use and accessible for consumers. Can the Minister provide an update on this?

The Government have said very little on how the transition to electric vehicles will impact on fuel duty revenues. Does the Minister have a plan to mitigate the loss of that revenue? Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) said, Transport for London must have a sustainable long-term funding package, so that there is no delay to extending EV charging across the network in London as well.

Although it has been great to see surging sales of electric vehicles, they are still unaffordable for many consumers. Labour has a plan to fund interest-free loans for electric vehicles for low-income households and to trial a scrappage scheme for polluting vehicles. That would ensure that the transition to clean, green transport is possible for everyone, not just the privileged few. In contrast, the Government have repeatedly slashed the plug-in grant for electric vehicles. Again, what are the Government going to do to address the affordability of electric vehicles, so that low-income families are not left behind in the transition?

The transition is also an opportunity to create thousands of good, green, unionised jobs in the UK. If the UK is going to remain a hub for automotive manufacturers, we need to ensure that the components for electric vehicles can be built in the UK. Labour has committed to part-financing three battery gigafactories by 2025, but the Government have done little to encourage investment in UK gigafactories. We welcome some of the points made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry): they just need to be accelerated and extended as quickly as possible. That is important due to the new rules of origin requirements in the Government’s Brexit deal. If we want to continue tariff-free trade in electric vehicles with the EU, we urgently need to establish manufacturing capacity in the UK.

We also need to avoid a reliance on imported rare metals such as lithium and cobalt as global demand for them grows. The environmental implications of mining those critical minerals are a serious concern. Furthermore, the mining of those rare metals has highlighted the use of slave labour and the severe abuse of workers’ rights in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo. That is profoundly tragic, and concrete action must be taken to address those concerns. We cannot go green while people are losing their lives to get those materials to us.

We would be able to ease the pressures on supply chains if rare metals such as lithium and cobalt, of which there is currently colossal wastage, were recycled quickly. That could be a quick win for the Government. Significant natural deposits of lithium in the UK could be utilised by ensuring that electronics can be easily disassembled and recycling—that needs to be an immediate Government priority. Unfortunately, there is a wealth of those materials in UK electronics, but they are not currently being recycled. That must change, and it must change rapidly. Will the Government do anything to encourage the urban mining and recycling of those rare metals? Are they considering new standards to require that electronics be easier to disassemble and recycle?

The transition to electric vehicles is a huge opportunity for cleaner air, lower emissions and thousands of good, green and unionised jobs, but the Government must think bigger when it comes to charging infrastructure, affordability and battery supply chains. The Labour party has serious plans to address those issues, and it is time that the Government listened. It is time for a green new deal for the UK—one that is real, supports the poorest, and boosts British manufacturing.

Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021

Sam Tarry Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 General Committees

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under you for the first time, Ms Fovargue. I thank the Minister for his frankness and honesty on this technical error. It would be remiss of me not to touch briefly on the impact that the profound shortage of drivers is having on the haulage sector, and all the organisations and companies that rely on it. It has been exacerbated by long-standing Government inaction and incompetence on this issue. The knock-on effect of the crisis will be more chaos in our supply chains, inevitably leading to more disruption ahead of Christmas, which is such a crucial period for our whole economy.

The SI is obviously just a technical tweak to ensure that we have the right legislation. It demonstrates an inability to establish reliable contingency measures that would helpfully avoid some of the chaos that we have seen for hauliers and local residents in that part of Kent. Although commercial flows in and out of the country should face minimal disruption, we cannot keep relying on short-term emergency measures. I will not reiterate all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on the previous Committee, but it is clear that there needs to be a longer-term solution to this crisis, not just a reliance on emergency provisions. She said that there should be an effort to ensure

“efficient operations at borders, close co-operation with the European Union and working with industry and local communities to identify ways to minimise the disruption.”—[Official Report, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 20 October 2021; c. 6.]

That is something that I think everyone in this House could agree on.

The provisions are deeply unpopular in Kent. They can be quite short term, and are costing taxpayers an awful lot of money. We will not oppose today’s measure, because it is just a technical tweak, but I am glad to have put those points about Government action on the record.

HGV Driving Licences

Sam Tarry Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

The ongoing driver shortage is having a profound impact on businesses and consumers, yet the Government have fallen well short in their effort to boost driver recruitment. The shortages that are crippling our economy and supply chains could lead to disruption and misery for millions in the upcoming Christmas period.

We have a mounting driving test backlog, and it is clear that only the Opposition and our proposals will take the necessary steps to address the issue and invest in upskilling UK workers. It is vital to take the urgent action that is required to boost driver recruitment and get our country moving again to support businesses after a challenging two years. That means putting in place mechanisms to encourage more people to take up jobs in the industry and to make it a more attractive place to work through improvements in conditions and facilities.

The driver shortage demands urgent action, which is glaringly lacking from the Government. Instead of expanding testing capacity through examiner recruitment, increasing facilities and resolving outstanding industrial action, they are taking the short-sighted and short-term measure of diluting testing requirements and endangering all road users in the process.

No one on this side of the House will deny that the shortage of heavy goods vehicle drivers is an international problem, but it has been particularly acute in the UK due to the Government’s incompetence. To put it into context, we are facing a shortage of 90,000 drivers, which is double the number required in Germany and France and six times the figure facing Italy and Spain. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency is currently conducting only 3,000 vocational driving tests a week, which means it would take months to fill the huge shortage of HGV drivers.

Instead of expanding testing capacity, the Government’s answer to the crisis is to increase the legal working hours of HGV drivers, endangering their lives and those of other road users due to an inability to operate safely if they are exhausted. They are already working too many hours on too little pay. The Government should urgently set out plans to improve conditions and facilities in the HGV industry to make it more attractive to a new and more diverse generation of drivers, as well as working with the industry and workers to retain existing staff by resetting pay, terms and conditions.

It is staggering that the Government are not doing all they can to address the crisis, given its significance for our economy’s success. If it was not enough to make UK roads more hazardous, the Government have announced regulatory changes to driving tests that will apparently speed up recruitment. That is all well and good, but when it involves removing off-road manoeuvres and rigid lorry practical tests from the testing obligations for new drivers, it has the potential to threaten road safety for drivers and users.

The way to turn the crisis around is not to dilute testing requirements and downskill HGV drivers, especially as there will be more vehicles on our roads that have not reached the standards that they are currently expected to meet. Will the Minister therefore tell the House what the safety implications will be of the decision to dilute testing requirements? Can she assure all those who use our roads that measures are being taken to recruit more instructors and expand the capacity of existing testing facilities—positive measures that would help to boost driver numbers and would be welcomed on both sides of the House?

It is a further concern that the measures will be made permanent, rather than being a temporary fix until the driver shortage and supply chain crisis have been resolved. The statutory instruments provide for three-yearly reviews before moving to five-year checks, but they do not mandate the collection of any specific safety data to inform those reviews, which make them unlikely to be as carefully considered as they should be. I repeat that they do not require the collection of any specific safety data for the reviews, which is clearly not acceptable. The Opposition are clear that, unless it can be proved that the changes have not affected road safety, we want them to be temporary and reconsidered as soon as the driving test backlog and driver shortages have improved.

The Government also need to address the cost of funding the training and tests of prospective HGV drivers. The ones I have spoken to say that the costs are too high and often unaffordable. We need to have a conversation with the Department for Education about how HGV training could benefit from some of the measures that help other students to access courses.

All of this is happening at a time when the supply chain crisis risks spiralling out of control, so I urge the Government to provide greater clarity on the steps they are taking to address this crisis in food supply chains specifically. In particular, I would like to know whether measures will be reintroduced to suspend competition laws for supermarkets.

If the Secretary of State needs ideas for how his Government can bolster the number of HGV drivers and reverse the current downward trend, he could do far worse than listen to the Opposition. To us it is abundantly clear that, in the same way as for the covid crisis, a dedicated Minister must be appointed for this latest crisis. That Minister should hold an emergency summit bringing together all those who can help overcome this current impasse, including the road haulage industry, training providers, affected business groups and transport unions.

Industry associations such as the Road Haulage Association have understandably been critical of the Government’s proposals because, like many, they have not been properly consulted. The Government must also sit down with the Migration Advisory Committee to assess the extent of the skills shortage in this sector and identify how this can be recognised in the immigration points system. The fact that neither of these have so far happened weeks into this crisis is nothing short of a dereliction of duty and shows how detached from reality this Government are from the needs of our country.

When urgent action was required, time and again this Government have either dragged their feet or run out of ideas altogether. As long ago as July, the shadow Transport Secretary, the shadow Transport Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy)—the shadow Home Secretary, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary and the shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary all wrote to their counterparts to warn that the measures the Government had taken were not enough to address the scale of the crisis. Despite this, the Government continued with their short-termist approach and the crisis has scaled new heights, further compromising the safety of already exhausted drivers, increasing their working hours and putting road users in danger by diluting testing requirements for new drivers. Because of Government inaction, this crisis is now almost certain to continue well beyond the end of this year, ruining Christmas for so many.

As I have already made clear, the Government must do all they can to reverse the HGV driver shortage and the related supply chain crisis, but they cannot do so by diluting tests and downskilling drivers, increasing their hours operating dangerous machinery and vehicles, and endangering all of those who rely on UK roads in the process. Instead, we must see positive changes such as investing in more examiners, expanding and improving facilities, and making any changes temporary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East made clear in the summer:

“These measures just kick the can down the road for another year. This crisis is affecting businesses and consumers now, and the Government needs to understand that.”

But we are determined to ensure that this crisis does not continue for any longer than is absolutely necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sam Tarry Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to Transport orals for what I believe is her first set of questions.

In April, I raised the devastating impact of Government cuts on rural transport networks, which has led to what CPRE calls “transport deserts”. I asked for

“assurances…that significant investment will be offered”

to support rural bus networks and

“ensure that our rural communities are genuinely connected”.

The Minister of State told me:

“There can be no greater champion of buses than the Prime Minister”.—[Official Report, 29 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 501.]

He then gave assurances that funding was on its way.

Six months on, rural communities are still bearing the brunt of the Government’s failure to act. Many of the funding announcements in the Budget were nothing more than rehashed and repackaged initiatives that will do nothing to tackle the transport deserts that blight the lives of ordinary people in so many rural communities, towns and villages. I ask again: will the Minister offer rural bus networks the tangible and significant investment that they so desperately need? Will she offer a firm deadline for when that will be done?

[Trudy Harrison]

As the hon. Member will know, in last week’s spending review, we set out an unprecedented level of support for buses, including zero-emission vehicles. This Government are supporting the bus network through manufacturing and through the infrastructure required as we decarbonise, as set out in our transport decarbon- isation plan.

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

Sam Tarry Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices off or to silent. I encourage Members to wear a mask when not speaking. In fact, we had an update from the House a moment ago, yet to be issued formally, indicating that Members should wear a mask when not speaking. I am waiting for official confirmation of that, but I would be very grateful if Members worked with me. Those who do not have a mask will find some in the corner to my left. Thank you very much for your compliance.

I remind everyone that they are asked by the House to have a lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members passed across their speaking notes or emailed them to [e-mail].

My selection and grouping for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. A single amendment has been tabled, which we will debate before turning to the existing content of the Bill.

Clause 1

Relevant Information

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 19, after “driving” insert

“(assessed in accordance with DVLA standards and associated sanctions)”.

This amendment would provide that a driver’s “risk to road safety while driving” is assessed in line with DVLA standards and not the individual assessment of the licensing authority.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. The thinking behind the amendment is that a driver’s risk to road safety while driving would be assessed in line with Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency standards, as opposed to the individual assessment of the licensing authority. At present, licensing authorities are not required to share information with other authorities, which prevents them from being able to make an informed decision about granting or renewing a driver’s licence. That creates the conditions for a driver who has been refused a licence, or who has had an existing licence suspended or revoked because of safety concerns, to apply for a licence in another area, where the new licensing authority is completely unaware of the previous refusal, suspension or revocation. That is not acceptable. It puts the safety of taxi and private hire vehicle users at risk, and it goes against the recommendations of the task and finish group on taxi and private hire vehicle licensing.

It is paramount that driving standards are tightened. At present, local authorities are using points on a licence to issue revocations; instead of using DVLA criteria, they are issuing individual revocations based on their own rules and the judgment of individual officers. That sets a precedent that allows for dismissals, potentially, based on reasons that are different from those of the DVLA—based on the individual licensing authority and therefore that driver. For instance, due to the nature of the job, a driver may be pressured into speeding by a difficult passenger and then will accrue points unfairly, which results in them ultimately losing their job.

It is therefore clear that DVLA regulation should be the sole framework by which drivers are assessed; it should not be left to the judgment of an individual licensing officer. This would create a consistent approach and help cut unnecessary bureaucracy and reduce time spent in the courts system. I am aware that point has previously been raised with the Transport. At present, there is a great deal of uncertainty among representative bodies, such as the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association, about whether the Government will support the Bill. The Government have previously indicated that there are no plans to legislate, but instead strongly encourage all licensing authorities to adopt their new statutory standards.

The current approach focuses on improving licensing through the statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards, published last year, which local authorities are in the process of implementing or consulting on. However, bodies such as the LTDA believe that those standards do not go far enough. Furthermore, they do not deliver all of the recommendations made by the task and finish group. For example, they do not address the vital issue of cross-border hiring, which currently undermines the efficacy of licensing.

I therefore urge the Committee to consider the approach that I have put forward and adopt a more robust stance that would address passenger safety comprehensively and enhance existing licensing legislation through national minimum standards that are legally enforceable. The existing statutory standards are no longer fit for purpose: while they urge data sharing between local authorities and encourage the use of the existing NR3 database—the national register of taxi and private hire licence refusals and revocations database—they do not mandate it, which creates clear inconsistencies in the system.

In closing, I reiterate my earlier point that taxi or private hire vehicle drivers operating out of an area in which they are not licensed must be stopped. Furthermore, enforcement must be shifted to a national level, which would allow local authorities to issue enforcement within their jurisdiction. The Government and the Bill could go further than simply encouraging licensing authorities to adopt the statutory standards.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington on his success in promoting his private Member’s Bill. It brings our attention to an important issue: how the licensing authorities can best share information to ensure that the minority of individuals who would seek to cause harm can be prevented from obtaining a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence.

As the Bill does not change the decision-making process of the licensing authorities, the amendment is an unnecessary clarification of what we mean by road safety. Clause 1 seeks to clarify which decisions by an authority to suspend, refuse or revoke a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence should be recorded on a database. For those purposes, the broad description of road safety that is in use already would seem sufficient, as all decisions made in relation to road safety should be available for authorities to review when making their decisions.

Those authorities are of course still able to grant a new licence to a driver who has a record on the database. They are not bound by the previous decision, or by the fact that that is held on the database. The guidance that the Government will produce, should the Bill make it to the statute book, would clarify the terms in more detail for the licensing authorities, so that they are clear what decisions relating to road safety and other relevant information should be recorded on the database. For those reasons, the Government will resist the amendment.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell.

Clause 1 defines “Relevant information”. That definition is important because it is used throughout the Bill to trigger when there is a duty on a licensing authority to record instances of a suspension, refusal or revocation of a driver’s licence on the database, or to report concerns about drivers licensed in other areas. Those duties apply only when the licensing decision relies wholly or in part on the concerns related to relevant information.

Licensing authorities are required to carry out an assessment of whether a driver is fit and proper to hold a driver’s licence and to ensure that remains the case for the duration of the licence. Legislation already enables them to take a view of whether a driver is a risk to road safety. Licensing authorities are experienced at taking decisions on what poses a threat to road safety and know that they must justify those decisions. Existing checks and balances ensure that licensing authorities’ decisions can be contested, including the ability to challenge an authority’s assessment of any risk to road safety.

The Bill does not seek to change or influence the decision making of licensing authorities, and nor does it change the right of a driver to contest a decision; it is simply focused on ensuring passenger safety. The Bill includes provisions for the Secretary of State to issue guidance for licensing authorities, which I am sure could be used to provide further guidance on the matter.

Following my explanation and that of the Minister, I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford South will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Sam Tarry]

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure consistency across the country. The GMB, the LTDA and other representatives of the various minicab and private hire drivers across the country are keen to see the Bill go through. I know from our discussions that they want to have that ability in order to be certain that they would not be penalised in one area that was in any way different from the DVLA. I am also conscious that the Bill has been brought before the House many times, in different guises, and I am keen that we get as much Government support for it as possible. The Bill can move forward on a cross-party basis, so that it gets through and makes the changes that need to happen—many are contained in the Bill. It would make a real difference. On that basis, I will not press the amendment.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I thank the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for their contributions, which are incredibly important and powerful. They have my apologies for mixing them up. They appear to have co-ordinated their wardrobes this morning, which led to my confusion. I give them my sincere apologies for that.

[Sam Tarry]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 2 to 9 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I can only say that I share the hon. Member’s concerns. It is something that keeps me awake at night, I must say. In the case of the survivor who I am speaking about, Bella, the perpetrator changed his name while in jail. It is a very simple process that can be done through an online form or on paper. The checks are so slight that they are incredibly easy to evade.

I am deeply grateful for all the work done by hon. Members in the room on the topic. I urge the Minister to refer to the points we have raised, particularly around the cross-border matter and the change of name. This is not a political issue; it is a safeguarding issue, and I hope the Minister takes what we say in that spirit.

[Sam Tarry]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who has a great deal of expertise on this issue and has worked cross party in such a fantastic way to bring these measures forward, I do not want to talk too much about the points I made on Second Reading. However, it is important to note that there is so much consensus across the House on the need for the Bill. The hon. Member for Darlington has worked incredibly hard; he has spoken with stakeholders and taxi users and has reached out across the House in a commendable way. For Members on the Labour Front Bench, this is something that needs to happen as soon as possible, with the Government’s support.

We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham about the harrowing and tragically avoidable situations that the legislation could begin to address. As she explained, the taxi system has been used to abuse people; it needs to transition to being a shining light in terms of standards. I hope that Government support for this private Member’s Bill can make that a national priority.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich West made a good point about SEND transport. It is imperative that everyone, including older and disabled members of our communities, is fully confident in their taxi driver. Recently, we have seen a huge growth in taxi systems; we can pick up our phone and have a taxi at the front door in just a few minutes. As a London MP, I am perhaps more confident than others, given Transport for London’s regulatory framework, but the situation is not necessarily the same across the country. There is the well-known issue of some local authorities, which I will not necessarily name, issuing a vast number of licences. In fact, there were so many licences in some of those cities that the streets would surely be gridlocked with taxis. In reality, the situation in those towns and cities is perhaps more about bumping up the funds available to the local authority than safety and addressing the issues of cross-border working.

In my Second Reading speech, I mentioned how long it has taken for the measures to get to this point. One reason why I was prepared to withdraw my amendment is that I want the Government to move forward on this. Many of the recommendations of the task and finish group are partly addressed in the Bill. It could still go further, but something is obviously better than nothing. We have in the Bill some key measures, which the hon. Member for Darlington has worked hard to put there. It will move things forward, get on the statute book, put national standards in place and, importantly, introduce the database, which can be checked across the country. That is essential to ensuring we do not have a patchwork approach across the country. As in any other sector, standardising safety means setting national standards, and it is important that this legislation makes that happen. I hope we can move forward positively.

[Trudy Harrison]

First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington for the sheer amount of work and dedication he has invested in bringing this private Member’s Bill forward. I also thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House who have expertise in this legislation and in transport going back many years. I should mention the work done by the hon. Member for Cambridge on this important passenger safety issue.

Passenger safety in taxis and private hire vehicles is a priority for this Government, which is why we are keen to support the legislation. I reiterate that the vast majority of licensed taxi and private hire vehicle drivers are fit and proper persons, who are a credit to the sector and their communities. However, we must ensure that those who are not fit and proper people to hold a licence are not able to do so. It has been set out this morning why that is so important, and the implications of getting it wrong.

Last year, the Government issued the statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards, which outlined how licensing authorities can best safeguard many of the vulnerable citizens who use those services. One of the recommendations in those standards is the use of the national register of refusals and revocations, which is hosted by the National Anti Fraud Network. Some licensing authorities are using NR3, but not all. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill would rectify that by mandating the use of a database that records not only refusals and revocations, but suspensions.

There has been reference to the cost of that database. We would hope that it could be in house; it should certainly be not for profit, and would be done at the minimum possible cost. It would give licensing authorities more information with which to make informed decisions on who we entrust with the responsibility of being a taxi or private hire vehicle driver. That can only be a good thing. The more information available to licensing authorities, the better their decision making will be.

The Bill rightly focuses on safeguarding and road safety issues. Refusals, revocations or suspensions relating at least partly to the safeguarding and safety criteria set out in clause 1 must be recorded on the database. The criteria are sufficiently broad to ensure that all manner of safeguarding, road safety and discrimination concerns can be highlighted to a licensing authority making its decision.

Clauses 5 and 6 also introduce duties on licensing authorities in England to report concerns about drivers licensed in other areas and to act on any concerns reported to them. The Government wholeheartedly support these provisions, which would ensure that, where authorities have concerns about a licensed driver relating to the criteria set out in the first clause, they can do something about it. As many on the Committee will no doubt know, a licensing authority can only revoke or suspend a taxi and private hire vehicle driver’s licence if it issued it. Under this duty, if a driver licensed in another area is behaving in an unsafe manner, or other concerns are raised, the authority responsible for issuing the licence must consider their suitability again.

The clauses would greatly improve not only the collaboration between our licensing authorities, but the effectiveness of their collaboration with other agencies such as the police, who may report a concern to the local licensing authority, which may then be under a duty to pass it on to the relevant licensing authority.

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

Sam Tarry Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 10th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to see this Bill before the House today. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for promoting it, and for this thoughtful and very well researched exposition of exactly why this is needed. I hope that, after today’s debate, there will be much support on both sides of the House for this very well-timed Bill, which perhaps should have been brought forward some time ago, by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner).

I am pleased that the Bill will be debated today, given that local authorities have repeatedly called in recent years for this Government to update their taxi and private hire vehicle licensing regulations over and above the current statutory standards, because at the moment they simply do not go far enough. I am also pleased that the Bill contains the very same provisions as the Licensing of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill that was introduced in a previous parliamentary Session by my hon. Friend, whom we heard from earlier. I hope that the work he has done will not be in vain, as this Bill potentially progresses through this House and onwards to make the changes needed to safeguard passengers and enhance the taxi industry.

In 2018, the independent task and finish group on taxi and private hire vehicle licensing published a detailed report that called for sweeping changes to taxi and private hire vehicle licensing and regulation. Its recommendations included national licensing standards, limits on cross-border working, powers to cap licences under certain circumstances and higher safeguarding standards. However, more than three years down the line, we are still waiting for those recommendations to be implemented, unfortunately. This is despite, at that time, the then Transport Minister agreeing the conclusions of that report.

At the time, the Government accepted the need for a national database to achieve a safe service for passengers and were broadly in agreement with the original Bill. However, it would unfortunately appear that the Government have since slightly shied away from taking more robust action to improve licensing and therefore passenger safety. The Minister will perhaps point to the statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards that they published last year, which local authorities are in the process of consulting on and then implementing. However, those standards do not go far enough and, importantly, do not deliver on all of the recommendations made by the task and finish group. In particular, they do not address the vital issue—as mentioned by previous speakers, including the hon. Member for Darlington—of cross-border hiring, which currently undermines the efficacy of licensing right across the country. This is why it is high time for proper legislation with robust national minimum standards that are legally enforceable.

It is also disappointing that it has taken a private Member’s Bill to reach this point. I think that was inevitable, having had to wait so long for this to be brought forward. It is vital that the Government consider the measures set out in the Bill today, which address critical issues, including safety concerns, with the overall existing licensing legislation. It would require taxi and private hire vehicle licensing authorities in England to share information of recent adverse licensing history, such as refusals, suspensions and revocations of a licence, and enable this to be taken into consideration to mitigate the risk of unsuitable people being granted or continuing to hold a taxi or private hire vehicle licence.

Let us be clear: at present, licensing authorities are not required to share information with other authorities. This prevents them from being able to take an informed decision about granting or renewing a driver’s licence. It creates the conditions for a driver who has been refused a licence, or has had an existing licence suspended or revoked because of safety concerns, to be in a position to apply for a licence in another area where that new licensing authority is completely unaware of the previous refusal, suspension or revocation. We need only look at the totally unacceptable situation in Wolverhampton, where drivers who were the subject of serious allegations were allowed to continue their trade—in one case, more than 150 miles from where the original complaint was made. That is clearly unacceptable, as I think all Members on both sides of the House would agree. It puts the safety of taxi and private hire vehicle users at risk, and goes against the recommendations of the task and finish group.

The existing statutory standards are no longer fit for purpose, and we have already heard today about NR3 and the database. While they urge data sharing between local authorities and encourage the existing NR3 database, they do not mandate it, which creates clear inconsistencies in the system. The Bill will help to strengthen these obligations. Indeed, the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, to which I spoke just the other day, has welcomed it as

“exactly the kind of concrete action we need”.

The association acknowledges that the Bill may not be a silver bullet. However, it would be a positive step, helping to strengthen the noble taxi and private hire vehicle licensing trade and—most important—promote public safety. It would also require licensing authorities in England to report any serious safeguarding or road safety concerns to the licensing authority that issued an individual of concern with a licence, requiring the licensing authorities to consider reviewing an individual’s case.

More broadly, the Government should take urgent action and do more to support the wider taxi sector, which has been decimated by covid-19. In my constituency, many hundreds of people are drivers of black cabs and private hire vehicles. Indeed, in London the taxi fleet is now at its lowest number since 1983, at around 13,400 vehicles, a loss of more than 5,000 since the start of the pandemic. We have seen a similar drop across the whole of England. The DFT’s own figures from July 2021 reveal that the number of licensed vehicles in England has decreased by 15.9% since 2020, to just over a quarter of a million. The Government’s apathy towards taxi and private hire vehicle drivers is undermining drivers’ confidence in the future of the trade and deterring many from returning, or—more important, because we want to tackle climate change—from investing in new low or zero-emission vehicles, because they feel that they are being pushed out and overlooked.

I welcome the Bill. The Government must go further than simply encouraging licensing authorities to adopt the statutory standards. I therefore hope that they will support the Bill and make the changes to the existing legislation that will improve the safety of all users of taxis and private hire vehicles.