Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (First sitting)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Steve, we had better move on, as we have only three or four minutes left.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Q I will be very brief. The Bill introduces the new concept we are moving to—the exposure to manufacturers’ liability. Has the Bill got it right in terms of the balance between insurers’ and manufacturers’ liability? Secondly, Mr Wong talked about accessibility cost. The cost of insurance will be key. Is the insurance industry ready for this? Clearly, premiums should be cheaper if we are getting errorless driving, but is the insurance industry sophisticated enough and ready enough to make that offer to consumers in the first instance? Lastly, on the issue of updates, does that present fresh exposures to manufacturers for the duration of the life of that vehicle on every software update iteration? Have you given any thought to how that plays in the context of current consumer protection legislation and issues of limitation? Does that now cause us to revolutionise the way we look at people purchasing vehicles? Are they going to be out there forever with software with little or no control? Any thoughts or comments?

David Williams: I think the Bill does have the balance right. It focuses on the road user. That is why we have got the Road Traffic Act 1988. Therefore the Bill has to focus on the safety of road users rather than insurers and manufacturers. As an insurer, we can price for anything. You have a balance with regard to how much liability finally rests with the motor manufacturer. That can develop over time, and they have definitely got some skin in the game. If they are negligent they will be called to account and will need to indemnify the insurer; so I think the balance is right.

With regard to whether the insurance industry is ready, in the past I do not think we have been, for things like this, but the fact that we already have the Autonomous Driving Insurance Group, which meets regularly and is very well attended, that the Thatcham motor vehicle research institute is all over it, and that AXA alone is involved with three of the Government-backed consortia means we are ready—we will be ready.

David Wong: On software updates, we believe that the “state of the art” defence principle applies here, which means at the point when the vehicle, together with the systems, including software and firmware, are being developed, the manufacturer has done its utmost to ensure that it is completely secure and, based on the scientific knowledge and the technology at that point in time, has done its very best. Of course, software updates are always, basically, a moving target; it changes every hour—but the “state of the art” defence applies in this case.

Steve Gooding: I think the motor industry will have to answer for this, because if you think of your home computer, every now and then you get a message saying “Your software is going out of support”. I think we need a bit of reassurance from the auto sector that we are not going to find that a vehicle we buy next year, and then in seven or eight years’ time is in the second-hand market, gets the message that “this vehicle is going out of support” and is therefore judged in some sense to be no longer roadworthy.

David Wong: It is reasonable to expect that vehicle manufacturers will continue updating, upgrading and patching the software, as do computer manufacturers and software manufacturers. However, even as Microsoft has decided, after a while, to discontinue the support for Windows XP and Windows Vista, one must not expect vehicle manufacturers to continue supporting particular software 20 years’ down the road, even if the vehicle is still roadworthy.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Q Within its scope, does this Bill do enough to position the UK as a global leader in vehicle technology? If not, what is missing? If you do not have the time to answer, maybe you can email me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

Q Mr Evans in an earlier answer described the purpose of the Bill being to take reserve powers to allow stepping in to stimulate the right kind of infrastructure where the market does not provide it already. May I press you a little more on what that is, and on whether the Bill is hitting the right target? The stress within the Bill is on the provision of charging infrastructure by what it describes as “large fuel retailers.”

A lot of the discussion we have had so far has been about the importance of having rapid availability of charging points, and sometimes smart charging points, in a much more dispersed area than what might be described as large fuel retailers—typically, the motorway service areas. Is the emphasis on that right? If it is not the right emphasis, do those powers need to be applied more broadly? If those reserved powers are applied more broadly, what safeguards need to be in the Bill to ensure that unreasonable regulatory requirements are not put on a whole dispersed range of potential electricity suppliers?

Robert Evans: That is a good point. The powers that we are looking at are primarily around the provision of information to the user, the ability to have smart charging should you need it, and the interoperability. Those sorts of questions are dealt with in the Bill and are key topic areas for the industry. On the question of where infrastructure is located, supermarkets are an interesting one. We have a situation in which not everybody has off-street parking. When one comes to a place such as London, it is not practical to put charging all down London streets. Supermarkets become an extremely practical, pragmatic place for charging to be accessible, along with retail shopping centres, in a crowded city such as London. The consideration of that, along with motorway service areas, which is about allowing people to travel distances across the UK, are two strategic priorities. That is not to say that there are not other areas. The Government have provided incentives for the deployment of infrastructure in other locations and have obviously taken a view that maybe the market can deliver in those locations.

Quentin Willson: However, technology does exist that would allow you to charge at a street lamp post, although admittedly that could be for slow charging at night. For people who do not have parking within their house and have to rely on the street, this facility could be available on every single lamp post in the UK.

[Andy McDonald]

The whole discussion has been predicated on the basis of saving the planet. What about reducing emissions? In the context of automated vehicles and vehicles generally, it is all about their obsolescence, not about sustainability. Given that we have talked about the updating of automated vehicles and the relationship of manufacturers with the end user throughout the duration, are we missing a trick here? Though there is nothing in the Bill that requires software updates, necessarily there will be that relationship.

Should we not be thinking about a new way of using automated and electric vehicles across the piece? Should we be having people owning vehicles, or should we be making the offer for that relationship to be maintained so that it is a sustainable product that can be revisited? At the moment there is going to be an obligation to keep in touch with these automated vehicles for their lifetime. We heard in earlier evidence that there will come a point where that is cut off. Are we talking about an opportunity for a whole new way of using the services provided by an independent, personal mode of transport?

Quentin Willson: This is the big cycle of change now, like televisions, aeroplanes and the internet. We will see car ownership decline and will be buying or leasing vehicles as a service, not a product. The long-term vision is that this is going to be based largely on electricity and some on fuel cell, and that we will be calling driverless vehicles on our phones to come and collect us. They will then drive to our destinations in what is known as a green wav; they will be hooked up and connected to junctions, to the road system and to traffic lights. These zero-emission, automated, self-driving cars will drive in platoons and, it is hoped, eliminate congestion and pollution. That is the superordinate goal, which perhaps is as near as 2040. But it will always be powered by electricity. The whole structure of who owns what is changing. As we are seeing with consumer habits now, they are buying cars on personal contract plans; they do not own things anymore. That is what the long-term future looks like.

[Andrew Selous]

Beginning with Quentin Willson, we are aware of the 2050 date that the Government have for all cars and vans to be zero-emission. My understanding for why that date was picked is that it is linked to the need to decarbonise the UK. To what extent do you think the legal issues that the United Kingdom is having with air quality at the moment mean that there might be a case for revisiting the speed with which we try to electrify the market? At the same time, I would be interested in your comments on what is happening internationally. I mentioned Norway and China earlier. There are different models and approaches that may not be suitable for the United Kingdom, but I would be interested if you could speak to air quality and the international perspective on these issues.

Quentin Willson: I had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport in January to tell him exactly this. The brutal fact of the matter is that possibly only 10% of consumers in the UK have driven an electric car; the vast majority are still hanging on to what I call the Clarkson effect—all that baggage about electric cars being slow, hopeless and driven by people who read The Guardian and hug trees. That has set the whole electrification of UK roads back enormously. We do not have a way of connecting with consumers when it comes to electric cars. We are informed, and the respondents to the consultation are informed, but I have been talking to groups of consumers for the past five years at test-drive events, and you would be surprised how few of them have actually even sat in an electric car.

I believe that there is potential here for the Government, and that is what I told Chris Grayling. I believe that there is potential for us to have national test-drive events whereby people can go to supermarkets, drive electric cars and undergo what I call the transformational moment, the damascene moment, when they get into the car with all their accumulated baggage about how bad it is and how unfeasible for their lifestyle, and then they come out as a completely converted person, who goes on to convert other people. It must be an extremely important part of the Government’s strategy to talk to the consumers out there who have little or no faith in the electric car industry and obsess about charging and infrastructure, when actually 90% of all EV drivers charge at home. We must not miss this essential point to move forward and to engage people with the process of electric cars.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Second sitting)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear oral evidence from the Association of British Insurers and the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record, starting with Mr Forbes?

Iain Forbes: My name is Iain Forbes. I am head of a team called the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles, which is a policy team based in the Department for Transport and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Ben Howarth: I am Ben Howarth. I am policy adviser for motor insurance at the ABI. As part of that I have led all our work on the Automated Driving Insurance Group and drafted our response to the CCAV consultation that pre-empted the Bill.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Q Good afternoon, gentlemen. Thanks for coming. I have a number of questions. At the beginning of the Bill, we are told that automated vehicles are what the Secretary of State says are automated vehicles. Clearly, some thought has gone into the criteria for so-designated vehicles. What are your own thoughts and observations on how we can be sure we are getting that set of criteria correct?

Ben Howarth: From an insurance perspective, that is one of the clauses we particularly welcomed when we saw the Bill. One of our concerns in advance was that it would not be clear to the customer what cars needed this new insurance system, so the clarification that the Government are going to take responsibility for doing that is really welcome. It means basically that we know what cars we need to have this new insurance for, and the customers will know that as well.

In terms of criteria, it is relatively simple. It is more about the user than the technology. I think the technology might not move that much, but it is the point where the user can feel confident that, when the car is in automated mode, it can deal with everything. Thinking about the worst-case scenario of an accident, if the car senses it is going to go into emergency mode, the car is able to do something to deal with that, which does not require the driver to come back in. We feel that if there is any point where the driver needs to come back in, it is not really an automated car. It is that tipping point where the car is completely capable of dealing with every situation. It might not carry on driving, but, at the very least, it would do an emergency stop and get you into a safe stop manoeuvre. That is the tipping point, or distinction, that we see.

Iain Forbes: Just to underline that, the measures in the Bill are designed to deal with the sorts of situations where a vehicle can drive itself in automated mode and not require the oversight of a human when the driving test is being operated. The particular mechanism by which those vehicles are going to be certified is an active topic of discussion at international regulatory forums. We have actively participated in those discussions, but we felt it was important to flag at the outset of the Bill that that would be clear to people in the insurance industry and elsewhere, to make sure they were able to understand which vehicles these measures apply to and which ones they do not.

Ben Howarth: In practice, we would be hoping that, from an insurer’s perspective, it is pretty easy to find that out, just by looking at the licence plate or the VIN number. There would be a clear definition that this is a car with automated functionality.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Of course, we are now entering a major shift, because we have to have insurers who are going to be picking up the tab for accidents involving automated vehicles. Presumably, as we progress, we will be getting errorless driving in automated vehicles. That is the objective, and incidents will result. Therefore, we should be looking forward to cheaper insurance policies, but that may not automatically be the case, if you pardon the pun. How progressed or how ready is the insurance industry to deliver products that would make fully automated vehicles accessible to people in terms of costings, including the cost of insurance?

Ben Howarth: We are very advanced as an industry, particularly in the UK. Because of the clear message that the Government have given, we are perhaps ahead of our contemporaries in other countries. The two really important criteria in terms of the cost of insurance will be the volume of accidents. We are fairly confident—Thatcham Research has done quite a bit of research that suggests the number of accidents is going to come down a lot once we get automated driving. That will obviously reduce the number of insurance claims, which will inevitably have an impact on the cost of insurance.

One factor that we probably do not know about at this point is the actual cost of the vehicles themselves, and how much they cost to repair. We might have considerably fewer claims, but very high costs associated with repair might have an impact. That said, that is something that is happening already. Vehicle technology is changing a lot already, so it is not a case of a huge tipping point in technology once we switch to fully automated cars. The technological change will happen more steadily, so I am very confident that the insurance industry is ready to deliver competitive insurance products that will be affordable, will help people and will make them want to take up this technology.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Will you help me on another matter? When an accident is caused by an automated vehicle, we are told in the Bill that the insurer is liable for the damage, but when the automated vehicle is involved but is not insured, it is the owner of the vehicle who is responsible for the damage. I am wondering what your view is on whether that ought that to be the person in charge of the vehicle, rather than the owner. We might have the perverse situation of a stolen vehicle being involved in an accident but, according to this, the owner of the vehicle would be in the frame. Do you understand?

Ben Howarth: I think I know what clauses you are referring to and my understanding of them is that that covers publicly owned vehicles and Crown Estate vehicles. They would not have insurance because they do not need them. In those cases, where it is a publicly owned vehicle, the liability would fall on the public body. It is a separate arrangement for genuinely uninsured driving—private cars that are uninsured.

[Andy McDonald]

That is really helpful.

Iain Forbes: That is exactly right. That clause covers publicly owned vehicles. We anticipate the situation being similar to the situation at the moment for conventional vehicles. It is often the case that they self-insure, rather than going through an insurance company.

[Andy McDonald]

Q I do not know what your handle is on this, and that was terrific clarification, but do you not see that it is possible to interpret it in the way I did? A vehicle that has been stolen is not insured, but the owner of the vehicle is picking up the cost, not the person who stole it.

Iain Forbes: Certainly, our legal team has been through the regulations to effect that as the policy aim, but if the Committee has comments, we have to look at it.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Finally from me, we are in the world of upgrades, which will present opportunities for manufacturers to continue to engage with the vehicle, in effect. I was wondering whether you had applied your minds to any future product liability exposures with the advent of new software. What does that mean in terms of those future liabilities and in terms of limitation, because current liability, once you part with the vehicle, has a 10-year limitation, although we have got some issues around extensions for people with disability insurance and so on? But if it is a product liability issue, there could be a succession of products that could give rise to liability. Is that factored into your thinking? Is it relevant? Have you dismissed it?

Ben Howarth: That is very relevant. When the consultation first came out, one of the questions was, “Do we bolt product liability into the motor insurance policy?” We looked at it in quite a lot of detail, and that was our initial assumption for how it would work. When we thought about it, those issues that you referred to and the fact that product liability lasts for only 10 years made it feel like too much of a change for product liability to be put directly into a Road Traffic Act situation. That is why we came to the conclusion that it should be a primary motor insurance policy, with the option then to recover from manufacturers.

Our conclusion is that you probably do not need to change the product liability, as it is kind of a backstop and it will not affect the original claimant. There might be a case on some occasions, if it is an older vehicle. We do not know quite how the market is going to develop—whether cars will be on the road for 10 years or longer in this situation, or maybe the product liability will renew itself every time there has been an upgrade. Let us assume that it does not, and you do expire at 10 years. My understanding is that there will still potentially be the option for a civil liability claim, so you might be able to argue that the manufacturer is not product liable, but they are in effect acting as the driver, so there is another claim that you might be able to bring.

[Andy McDonald]

Q You could be caught with a person with a disability, or a child, who is not subject to ordinary limitation; it would be from the date of their majority. There could be an action on the attaining of that majority and your product liability recompense from the manufacturer is effectively null and void.

Ben Howarth: Yes. I think that is factored in. The Bill means that that is a problem for the insurer, rather than the victim. I suppose part of the calculations that insurers will make is how many of those claims they will be likely to face. Are they insuring vehicles that are over 10 years old? That might have an impact. What is important in the Bill is that it makes that a problem for us as an industry. It will not affect, say, a disabled person who is using these vehicles. I think that is the insurance we need at the moment.

[Mr Hayes]

Q On this insurance issue, there has been quite a lot of speculation about what might happen to the products that the industry offers, which will clearly have to evolve. We were told that again this morning. Is it your estimation that that will affect premiums? One would expect premiums to fall, given the fact that these cars will be safer; many of your claims are related to human error, after all. Is that how you see things developing? However, we are also told that many people who cannot currently drive will now be able to—the infirm, the elderly, some disabled people. In a way, that is the most exciting thing about this development. How would that affect your assessment of premiums?

Ben Howarth: On the first case, I would think of it more in terms of claims costs than actually speculating on what the premiums would be. Obviously, if the number of accidents comes down dramatically, that is going to have a significant impact on the costs that insurers face. Motor insurance is very competitive, and it is inevitable that, if we see a significant reduction in costs, we will see a significant reduction in the premiums charged. So I think we can be pretty confident of that. As far as we know, it is still four or five years before these products will come to market.

Looking ahead to the cars you are referring to, where, say, there is a severely disabled person who possibly cannot drive at all at the moment, we are probably thinking about a level 5 car that can go from A to B in fully autonomous mode. It is fair to say that this legislation is primarily aimed at cars that will be manual for some of the time, automated for the rest: more of a level 4 car. Once you get to level 5, that is probably the point at which the insurance system is going to have to change more significantly.

Where the Bill is really helpful is that it allows us to learn from the first developments, get an insurance function in place and see that that system works. It is probable that we are going to have to evolve further once we get to a fully automated car. David Williams, who was one of your witnesses this morning, is one of the insurers involved in trials of fully automated technology. There is a significant degree of interest from insurers in the next generation of technology as well; but it is probably fair to say that this Bill is more around a level 4 car. I prefer to think of it as a binary distinction between automated and not-automated. I am not completely convinced about the levels and how useful they will be for consumers. It is probably fair to say that we think of it as level 4.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

It makes up about 50% of insurance profits in the UK.

Ben Howarth: I am sure that individual insurers will look at the potential impact on other parts of the market, but we have not.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Returning to the issue of software, clause 4 devotes a lot of attention to when insurers will not be picking up the can—something that we are familiar with. Can you say a little bit about how you are expecting software to be updated? What is the process for doing that? We all update our phones; we plug them in and press “install”, and the phone tells us when it is done. What is the current state of knowledge? Where are we, scientifically, on achieving that?

Linked to that, what responsibilities should there be on manufacturers to provide updates and tell the owners or users of vehicles that those updates have to be made? As I read it, there is nothing in the Bill that places any obligations on manufacturers to do that. A lot of time is devoted to when the software has not been updated, but where is the principal obligation for the manufacturer to do it? There are a lot of questions, but I am wondering whether that loops back to the definition and whether that needs attention to ensure that we have addressed the obligation. So how is it done and what are the obligations on the manufacturer?

Iain Forbes: Those are good questions. To answer the second one first, what is important about this Bill is that it is looking just at the insurance regime for these vehicles. It will have to work in concert with other parts of the law, including the system by which vehicles are approved for sale. You might imagine that if vehicles that operated automated systems were to be approved for sale there would be a close look at what would be necessary to ensure that the systems were updated where necessary to take account of any changes that were important to ensure safety.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Have we got this the wrong way around, then? Surely you have to establish how something happens before you start dealing with its insurance consequences. This is putting the cart before the horse, isn’t it?

Iain Forbes: We are focusing on this now because this is an area where in consultation people told us that it was important to set out a framework now to allow insurers and manufacturers to have those discussions about what might be necessary to inform the products that come to market when these vehicles do in four or five years’ time. In the meantime, we need to be working very hard to ensure that the appropriate approval regime for these vehicles is also in place. The vehicles will not come to market without that, so this will have to work in concert with another part of the law, which will say how these vehicles will be approved for sale.

Ben Howarth: If I can add one other thing, I think that the Bill is intended to do a new thing by protecting someone who is in the driving seat as, because they are not in control of the vehicle at the time of the incident, they are being treated as a victim. If they have done something to the car that means that they are responsible for the accident—perhaps they have not maintained it properly—it is reasonable to put it into their insurance policy that that is not something that they could claim for, as they would not be a victim. That is what these policies are broadly intended to do. I take your point that we absolutely need to define what updates need to be made and who is responsible for them, but if you turn it the other way by insuring the person in the driving seat and ensuring that they can claim if they are injured, the situation changes if they caused their own injuries.

[Andy McDonald]

Q If we are getting into a discussion on clause 4 about failures to update software, where is your starting point? You are basically telling me, “Ah, we’ll do that somewhere else separately. We will have to get those regulations on board.” All that I am suggesting is that that is out of sync and we should be looking at the processes first, at least for what we are expecting, before we start dealing with the insurance consequences.

Iain Forbes: To answer the first part of your question about how this is done, that is likely to develop over time as new systems come to market. It is already the case that some manufacturers upgrade software systems by asking customers to take their vehicles to a dealer and some do it over the air, in a similar way to how a phone is updated, for example. That is an area that is currently the subject of international discussions, and indeed the UK is co-chairing the international regulatory group that is having a look at how over-the-air updates will function in future.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Really, what the manufacturer would say is that if a vehicle has not been updated for one reason or another, or if they discover some other technical reason to shut it down, they will make sure that vehicle does not shift. Is it within the contemplation of the industry to take it that far?

Iain Forbes: What we need is systems that are transparent to people who are using them and that provide appropriate protections so that they feel confident using them. That is part of the discussion that we are having internationally at the moment.

[Kit Malthouse]

Q I have a couple of questions. We have a problem in this country with uninsured cars. Given that these cars are likely to be connected to the matrix in some way, do you think that it would be sensible for the Government to take a power to require that the car has to check whether it is insured before it moves? When I go and buy my tax disc, the system checks that the car is insured before it allows me to do so. Should these cars be required to do the same?

Iain Forbes: We are at too early a stage in the development of the technology to be able to consider that, but it is certainly something we could look at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

Q Good afternoon, gentlemen. Could you help me with the issue of shining or directing a laser at a vehicle? The Bill as drafted states that it will be an offence to direct

“a laser beam at a vehicle which is in the course of a journey, and…the laser beam dazzles or distracts a person with control of the vehicle.”

I am concerned about that, because I have never flown a plane and I have never, to my knowledge, had a laser shined at me. I am just thinking the matter through. Is that the totality of the thing that concerns you all, or are there other instances short of being dazzled or distracted that would cause you concern and cause you to think that something ought to be an offence? Also, although such an activity may have taken place, the driver or person in control of the vehicle might have no knowledge whatsoever of it having happened. I do not understand the experience. Does someone who is in control of a vehicle experience it only when their eyes are actually dazzled, or is there another perception of the event having taken place?

Steve Landells: From a British airline pilots’ point of view, our main concern is the distraction as well as the dazzle. As it stands, the dazzle has to be part of the offence. Our view is that it would be better to have the offence being just the pointing of a laser at a vehicle, because from an aviation point of view, if you cannot prove the dazzle and distraction—if it is not reported or the police do not know where the aircraft is going—you may not end up with the second part of that offence.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Would you even have to know that it has happened for an offence to have taken place?

Steve Landells: From our point of view in BALPA, no. It is about the act of shining a laser at the aircraft. If we see it, it will be reported, but if we do not see it, we would still like to see an offence there. The problem is that as the power of lasers gets greater and greater, there is a higher chance of injury occurring.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Thank you for that. Does anybody else want to comment on that aspect of this offence?

Paul Watts: From a helicopter perspective, again the dazzle and the distraction are the main concern, especially as helicopters operate in a much lower-level environment than airliners, and we rely on flying visually and visually avoiding other aircraft, buildings and obstructions. We also share the concern about the power of lasers and the frequency range—the fact that it may be possible in the future to have lasers that are not even visible. Again, we would like to see it being about somebody attempting to shine a laser at an aircraft, rather than having to show that it dazzled and distracted the pilot.

Martin Drake: It is possible to sustain an injury from a highly collimated laser—one where the beam is very narrow. It is possible to sustain an injury from that laser without having the dazzle and distract element. If it comes through your aircraft windscreen at a 90° angle, the dazzle and distract can be reduced, but if the pilot were to have that go into his eye, he could get retinal damage without getting the dazzle and distract element. I would say that that was fairly rare at the moment, but as the power of the lasers goes up and the frequency of the lasers changes, that is a concern that we have.

Simon Bray: Obviously the dazzling and distracting is the effect on the driver, pilot or whoever is in the cab. That is where the harm and the potential danger are. As well as having a victim, the legislation enables us to investigate more readily to prove an offence. If it were merely in the general direction of a vehicle, that would be more tricky to prove unless we were at the other end of that particular laser and had an opportunity to get into more of an investigation at that end of it.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Although we are not specifically restricting this discussion to aviation, because it could be another vessel, I think BALPA has suggested in evidence to the Committee that it is equally important and significant when lasers are shone at air traffic control towers. Have we got a history of that happening? Is it a significant risk? Would you prefer to see the legislation embrace air traffic control towers, rather than just vehicles, as currently described?

Martin Drake: There certainly is history of it in the USA, and I can think of a couple of times in the UK where a laser has been shone at the air traffic control tower. For an air traffic controller working the tower—that is the control bit that does the final approach and the controlling of the aircraft as they depart, so it is within close proximity of the airport—most of that is done visually. If his or her eyes were to be affected, it could reduce their capability of seeing aircraft close to the airport. They would then have to come off duty and be replaced fairly rapidly. It is not as common as shining at aircraft, but it does happen.

Steve Landells: Can I expand on that slightly? It depends on the airport’s procedures, but I know of one airport where, if a laser is shone at the visual control tower, they take the visual controllers out of that tower. You effectively shut down the airfield.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am sorry; what did you say?

Steve Landells: They take the visual controllers out of the tower to protect them, and if that happens, the airport is effectively shut down.

[Andy McDonald]

Q What do you think should be happening to better control the availability of the devices themselves? What restrictions would you prefer to see in place to stop the devices being acquired?

Simon Bray: There have been discussions about whether to deal with some of these items as offensive weapons. Clearly, if there is an intent to shine and to harm someone’s eyesight with one of these devices, you can deal with them in that way, provided you get the evidence behind it that demonstrates possession of an offensive weapon with intent to cause harm; likewise if you assault someone with a laser. The difficulty is investigating and proving those instances.

What the Bill does do is provide blanket legislation that is suitably serious—more so than the different sorts of legislation that we are having to use at the moment. It is an advance on what we have currently got. I definitely take the point that were we to have additional powers restricting sale and possession, it would be easier for us to deal with things before they take place.

Richard Goodwin: Colleagues I have been working with in the Department for Transport are working with colleagues in the Department responsible for business employment, looking at potential import restrictions and some of the issues around how we control the sale of some of these lasers. That work has been going on for seven or eight years, and during that time the availability and power of lasers has increased and the cost has come down. There is a Department looking at that control now, and clearly we support that.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Finally, changing tack totally, can the police officers help me with an unrelated matter in the Bill about diversionary courses for road traffic offenders? Have you come prepared to speak about that at all? Could you give some indication of your experience of those courses, how effective they are and, just as importantly, the evidence base that you may or may not have on whether they are effective and reduce repeat offending? Are you able to comment on that?

Simon Bray: It is not my area of expertise and I have never had to undergo one of those courses myself. There is a good look at diversionary methods at the moment. There are certainly plans to streamline the various diversionary methods and out-of-court disposals around the country. Clearly, that would fit in that overall picture, but it is not specifically traffic.

[Mr Hayes]

Q As you know, gentlemen, the CAA says that many of the incidents involving lasers are unreported and it is probable that there are many more than those of which we currently know. Is it your view that it is a growing problem? How do you think the proposed legislation will help with reporting? If you think it does not do enough, what more could it do?

Paul Watts: I am from the National Police Air Service and we saw it as a growing problem, probably about three or four years ago. Over the last three years, we have averaged out at about 100 incidents a year, so it seems to have plateaued somewhat, but it has gone from a low level to a very high level. We would welcome any legislation that makes it easier to catch an offender, but we would also still like to see a reduction in the availability.

We did see a tailing off of offences after the first few prosecutions for endangering an aircraft came into play. Over London, there was a reduction in the number of times a laser was used and less of the casual targeting of an aircraft. That seems to have tailed off and we seem to be back to a level of use that seems fairly stable and fairly high. On average, about 100 offences a year are reported through our safety system.

Simon Bray: I do not know whether Richard wishes to comment on the Met figures.

Richard Goodwin: We took a view that this matter was so serious that, despite the fact that it is not currently a reportable and recordable offence under Home Office counting rules—the legislation will change that—on 1 April last year we started reporting all lasers reported to us as crimes in London. I know that colleagues in Scotland have done the same thing. Across the year, we are averaging around 100 to 120 incidents within London being reported to us. The CAA figures are slightly higher.

Colleagues from BALPA did a survey of their members, which indicates that the figures are drastically underreported. We can get into the reasons for that, but some of it could be the perception that as pilots they were not being treated as victims and the matter was not being taken seriously. The legislation will give the degree of gravity that we think the offence deserves and it will have an impact on the aviation community, pilots and captains. It will show them that we as the police will take it seriously, because we will have a consistent recording of all offences, particularly across aviation.

Richard Moriarty: We at the Civil Aviation Authority would strongly support the measures. Our figures show that laser incidents are at about 1,500 a year. That is probably an underestimate, for reasons that have been suggested by other panel members. To put that in perspective, that is three or four incidents a day in and around UK airports. We have talked before about injury to pilots and often these attacks are during their peak workload—either landing or take off, in and around airports—so there is a real aviation and public safety aspect, which it is very important to get right. We would strongly support it for those reasons.

Beyond the Bill, we are interested in continuing to work with other authorities and Departments on other measures to complement this, whether through import controls or working with the police on offensive weapons. The good news is that the provisions in the Bill will send a very strong signal that we all take this risk very seriously.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Carry-over motion: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

We were here last week debating the Bus Services Bill, when I said that another transport Bill would be along in a minute—and here it is. I thank the Secretary of State for his summary and account, and I wholeheartedly agree that the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill—VTAB from now on—presents an opportunity to put the UK ahead of the curve on transport, will encourage research and innovation that will shape how we travel in the future and will create the high-skill jobs that our economy needs, as well as tackling our environmental and climate change challenges.

Let me take this opportunity to place on record the Opposition’s thanks to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), for his collegiate attitude and co-operation. We share his objective of making this the best possible piece of legislation as it passes through the House. The Opposition are not opposed to the Bill; we are broadly very supportive of it. There are, however, some concerns about the impact of some parts of the Bill, so we shall press the Government on some issues and table amendments in Committee. Of course, the Bill alone is no substitute for the wider policy framework required for the UK to take advantage of the opportunities presented to us, but it is an important Bill that we wish to support.

Part 1 deals with automated vehicles and insurance. We expect ultra-low emission and connected and autonomous vehicles to play an important role in our country’s transport in the years to come, so it is right that the Government are seeking to address some of the issues relating to autonomous vehicles. Last year the UK automotive industry added some £18.9 billion in value to the UK economy. It supported 169,000 people directly in manufacturing, and some 814,000 across the industry and throughout supply chains. Forecasters have estimated that the overall benefits of ULEVs and autonomous vehicles are in the region of £51 billion a year, creating an additional 320,000 jobs.

If we are to build on that—which is increasingly important following the UK’s decision to leave the EU—it will be necessary for the UK to take advantage of the economic and social benefits that those vehicles present. Their uptake will play an important role in the tackling of the air quality crisis which leads to 40,000 premature deaths each year as well as hundreds of thousands of cases of respiratory illnesses, which is choking many of our towns and cities, and which the Government have hitherto failed to address. Such vehicles will also be vital to the UK’s meeting of its climate change objectives, for which the Government currently lack a clear plan.

In recent years, the Government have failed to reduce the number of casualties on our roads, against a backdrop of cuts in road policing and the scrapping of road casualty targets introduced under Labour. Those are pressing issues which the Government need to address here and now, but the potential 25,000 casualties a year that could be avoided by 2030 represent a significant opportunity to make our roads safer.

It is vital for us to introduce the legislation that is needed to facilitate and encourage investment, innovation and the uptake of vehicles of this kind, but if that is to be possible, a definition of autonomous vehicles will be necessary. At present, there is no clear distinction between advanced driver assistance systems and fully automated driving technology in UK policy, standards and legislation. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to prepare, keep up to date and publish a list of all motor vehicles to be used on roads in Great Britain that are deemed to be

“capable…of safely driving themselves without having to be monitored by an individual”

for some or part of a journey, and the definition of an automated vehicle will be a vehicle that is included in the list drawn up by the Secretary of State.

There is a need for collaboration between the Government, manufacturers, insurers and consumers to develop a viable and practical system of classification to identify when a vehicle is deemed to be “automated” or “autonomous”. The dividing lines between automated and autonomous vehicles are not always completely clear. The Government must give more details of their plans to classify vehicles as “automated”, and consult widely on the definition and criteria for adding to the list of AVs in the Bill. In Committee, we will be pressing the Government for that to be subject to secondary legislation.

Resolving the issue of how automated vehicles can be insured is essential if they are to become a feature on British roads. We therefore support the Government’s action to ensure that vehicle insurance policies facilitate that in the future. We are, however, concerned about the potential costs to policyholders, and contention over liability between manufacturers and insurers. It is imperative that, in the event of technological failure in an AV, it is easy for consumers to establish quickly where liability rests, and are able to make a claim as appropriate. At present, insurance law in the UK is driver-centric. Drivers must have insurance in order to provide compensation for third parties for personal injury or property damage.

The Government’s intention is to emphasise that if there is an insurance event, the compensation route for the individual remains within the motor insurance framework rather than through a product liability framework against a manufacturer. However, the Bill does provide insurers with the capability to claim against manufacturers of vehicles if the automated vehicle was driving itself and was deemed to be at fault for the incident. But this is not clear-cut, and the Association of British Insurers has expressed concerns that existing insurance practices would need to be significantly altered to deal routinely with road traffic accidents involving automated vehicles. The Government themselves acknowledge this in their impact assessment for the Bill and say this might result in increased administrative and procedural costs for insurers.

Although the Bill does enable insurers to claim from the manufacturers where the vehicle is in automated mode and deemed at fault for an incident, the Government acknowledge that there could be significant teething problems with this system, particularly with early disagreements between the parties about liability. As such, it is difficult to estimate how different insurance premiums will be when automated vehicles are fully functional and on the road.

The roll-out and proliferation of autonomous vehicles should produce significant safety benefits, with driver error being either significantly reduced or eliminated. While that should consequently lead to reduced premiums, a great deal of work will be necessary as we prepare for this new environment, to better assess whether that will in fact be the case. If there are increased procedural and administrative costs for insurers, there could be higher premiums. If that is the case, there would be a severe impact on the uptake of AVs in the UK, making the Government’s actions self-defeating. We believe that the Government must review at regular intervals how the insurance for AVs is working, so Labour will be pressing for a review date on the face of the Bill.

Let me now move to the second part of the Bill relating to electric vehicles, charging and infrastructure. Electric vehicles and alternatively fuelled vehicles are key to reducing air pollution and meeting the UK’s climate change objectives, as well as presenting economic opportunities. The uptake of electric, hybrid and alternatively fuelled vehicles is already under way and increasing, yet we note that the Government are still 1.5 million vehicles short of their 1.6 million ULEV target for 2020, so it is imperative that action is taken to encourage their uptake.

The section of the Bill on EV-charging infrastructure is largely about enabling secondary legislation and will not have significant impacts in the short term, but if the UK intends to be a global leader, we agree that we need to take broader action sooner rather than later. Given the importance of future-proofing the legislative framework in this area, Labour recognises the need to use secondary legislation, but we will be seeking commitments from the Government to consult properly and widely throughout the process.

We will also be seeking assurances and a review from the Government of how the provisions of the Bill fit within a broader strategy for reducing harmful vehicle emissions and promoting a switch to ULEVs and EVs. For uptake to be encouraged, electric vehicles need to be practical, affordable and convenient for users, which means putting in place the necessary infrastructure. There are currently nearly 12,000 charging points for electric vehicles in the UK, but at present there are multiple charging point operators, each with their own plugs, software, customer charges, billing systems and payment methods. They are also unevenly distributed: as reported in The Times last September, there are more charging points available on the Orkney islands than in Blackpool, Grimsby and Hull combined. It is therefore welcome that this Bill seeks to increase the number of charging point facilities and to address their harmonisation and standardisation. The Bill will allow the Government to require co-operation and the sharing of facilities, and information from operators allowing the Government to ensure interoperability for charging regardless of what specific EV a person might have, if necessary.

Clause 11 gives the Secretary of State the power to introduce regulations that require operators to provide information about public charging points, such as location, operating hours, cost and interoperability, and these too are welcome. Of course it is right that this legislation should be put in place, but it alone will not be enough successfully to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. It was counterproductive of the Government to slash the grants available for ultra-low emission vehicles and electric vehicles and to cut the plug-in grants for EVs and for home charging. In May last year, the grant for purchasing an electric vehicle was cut from £5,000 to £4,500, and the grant for hybrids was cut from £5,000 to £2,500. The electric vehicle home charge scheme grant was cut from £700 to £500 per installation.

There are further issues that are not addressed by the Bill, which the Government must get right. They must ensure that the grid is capable of meeting the additional demands that electric vehicles will bring. That must be planned for and closely monitored as electric vehicle use becomes more common. The Government must also develop a strategy to tackle the skills gap, because without training the necessary personnel, we as a nation will not be able to support the growth of this new generation of vehicles and will miss out on the benefits that they present. On infrastructure more broadly, the Government must ensure that regulatory divergence does not develop between the UK and the EU as a result of Brexit, and that regulation and standards are maintained. This is essential if the UK is to be the vehicle manufacturers’ location of choice for the development, testing and deployment of automated and electric vehicles.

The third section of the Bill relates to aviation, and Labour broadly welcomes the proposals to strengthen the role of the Civil Aviation Authority in respect of seeking licence modification changes. We recognise the need to implement the ATOL reforms in order to comply with the EU package travel directive. We also note that stakeholders are supportive of the proposals in the Bill. The proposed changes will allow the Civil Aviation Authority to modify licences more quickly. This is in line with recommendations from a report on NATS and will give NATS greater financial certainty. However, we are keen that the Government restate their commitment that the licensee will not find it unduly difficult to finance its activities and that these proposals will not be a subtext for the sell-off of NATS.

Clause 18 will bring ATOL up to date and ensure that it is harmonised with the latest EU package travel directive, extending to a wider range of holidays and protecting more consumers as well as allowing UK travel companies to sell more seamlessly across Europe. Labour welcomes the extensions, which will ultimately help to protect more holidaymakers, but we want clarity on how UK consumers will be protected by EU-based companies, as they will no longer be subject to ATOL but to member state equivalents. The implications for ATOL after Brexit are also a cause for concern. Hidden in the Bill are proposals that the Secretary of State will require only an affirmative resolution to significantly reform ATOL and the Air Travel Trust fund. Labour recognises the merits of some reforms, but we believe that an impact assessment, full consultation and full scrutiny will be required before any fundamental changes are made to this well respected consumer protection.

These issues bring to the forefront uncertainties over the future of UK aviation following the decision to leave the European Union, and Labour has been clear that whichever framework is chosen, the Government should prioritise retaining an essentially unchanged operating environment. They should prioritise air services agreements as part of the exit negotiations, and, as is customary, such agreements should be negotiated separately from and prior to the UK’s negotiations on trade with the EU.

On the three miscellaneous clauses in part 4 of the Bill, I shall deal first with clause 21, which relates to powers to designate premises for vehicle testing and to cap testing station fees. In principle, we do not oppose the changes that would allow Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency testing to take place on private premises, but we believe that the Government should provide further details as well as reassurances that the changes will not adversely impact existing testing facilities and staff. While an increase in the number of testing facilities across the country is to be welcomed, and while the Government have intimated that existing public sector facilities will not disappear before alternative facilities are available in the vicinity, we want more detailed assurances.

Secondly, in part 4 of the Bill, we are pleased to see in clause 22 that the Government are now beginning to tackle the dangers of lasers that present hazards and the offence of shining or directing a laser at a vehicle, which could result in terrible consequences if left unaddressed. It has proved too difficult to enforce the existing offence of endangerment by shining a light, so we support the creation of a new offence for the act of shining a laser beam, which could carry a maximum penalty of a fine and five years’ imprisonment. While that is to be welcomed, we encourage the Government to look at the ready availability of such devices and how that might be curtailed. When we heard from the Secretary of State, there was some confusion about the change of offence from endangerment to the act of shining a light, so it would be appreciated if the Minister clarified that.

On aviation safety, the lack of action on drones in this Bill is a concern, as hon. Members have already indicated. There were 70 reported near misses with aircraft in 2016. The Government are not addressing the problem at the required pace, and Labour will seek to amend the Bill in Committee to regulate drones in order to address aviation safety concerns.

Turning to clause 23 and the courses offered as alternatives to prosecution, Labour broadly agrees with the Government’s proposed measures on diversionary courses, which clarify the basis on which diversionary courses can be used as alternatives to fixed penalty notices and be charged for. However, the Government should bring forward an assessment and review the effectiveness of such courses. It is imperative that there is some basis on which to establish that the programme is worth pursuing, but there appears to be little evidence at the moment. It is important to remind the Government that legislation alone is not enough to keep our roads safe at a time when police traffic officer numbers have been cut by a third and when progress on reducing deaths and casualties on our roads has ground to a halt.

In conclusion, Labour broadly supports the Bill, which marks the beginning of an exciting new era in transport technology. We are committed to securing the best possible framework to ensure that the sector flourishes.

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Andy McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I begin by placing on the record my relief that the Bus Services Bill is finally having its day in the House of Commons. We have been waiting for this piece of legislation for some time—and you know what happens, Mr Deputy Speaker, you wait an age for a Bill and then another one comes along in a minute, namely the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill.

I would like to thank all those involved in the passage of this Bill so far—the noble Lords on both the Government and Opposition Benches, members of staff and Clerks of the House, as well as my Labour colleagues, of course, both Front and Back Benchers, who have campaigned relentlessly for better bus services and have paved the way for the Government’s change in policy and this Bill.

The original Bus Services Bill has been expertly scrutinised and amended, leaving us with a much improved piece of legislation. Labour supports the Bus Services Bill, and we welcome the changes made in the Lords, which we hope to retain as the Bill goes forward.

Buses are an integral part of the UK’s economy and social life. Sometimes, a disproportionate amount of attention is paid to our railways and to aviation, but it is buses that play by far the most important public transport role for the greatest number of people. This is clear when looking at the number of passenger journeys alone. For example, there were 1.7 billion passenger journeys on our railways last year, a figure dwarfed by the 5.2 billion passenger journeys made by bus. Whether people are travelling to work or school, visiting family or attending a hospital appointment, it is more likely that they will do so by bus than by any other form of public transport. Buses provide a vital service to people in all areas of the country, supporting local economies, tackling congestion, combating social exclusion, and lessening environmental and climate change impacts.

This is why we want to see local authorities empowered and enabled to support thriving bus services, and to reverse the long-term decline of bus services that was brought about by the disastrous deregulation of bus services in England outside London by the Conservative Government in 1986. This Bill is an acknowledgment that the deregulation of bus services has not worked.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I apologise to my hon. Friend for being late for the debate. Members will know that I have other duties on a Wednesday. Does he agree that the Bill and its related secondary legislation and guidance should enable a simple and straightforward process for metro mayors to introduce bus franchising in their area if that is what they and their combined authorities wish to do?

[Andy McDonald]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. If this is to mean anything, making this happen in reality must be a smooth and quick process rather than a long and protracted one.

The rationale behind deregulation was that turning services over to the market would give the customer the final say; companies would compete and, as a consequence, would better cater their services to passengers. In theory, it is a competitive market, but in reality most bus services are provided by five large companies that avoid competing against each other. Since deregulation, bus use in metropolitan areas has decreased by a half and in non-metropolitan areas by a fifth. Meanwhile, in London, where buses were not deregulated, bus journeys have increased by 227%, mileage has increased by 74% and London journeys now outnumber bus journeys in the rest of England, while fare increases have been lower than in the city regions.

[John Pugh]

In London, a lot more schoolchildren use buses. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that more could be done in the context of this Bill to encourage youth to use buses?

[Andy McDonald]

I would always want to see our young people encouraged to use our bus services. I was somewhat disappointed when I heard what the Secretary of State said about young people and their access to buses. He might want to reflect on that as the Bill proceeds.

[Gordon Marsden]

As my hon. Friend will know, the background behind the inability of local authorities to subsidise travel schemes for young people is the huge cuts to local authority funding over the whole period of this Government and the previous one. Is it not scandalous that this Government have brought nothing forward in any shape or form to permit major improvements, particularly for young people, students and apprentices, in this area?

[Andy McDonald]

Indeed. I could not agree more. One of the critical issues facing our young people today is getting from A to B—to get to their further education colleges or to go after job opportunities, especially when they have to work with the Department for Work and Pensions in trying to find work and are then penalised if they do not get there. It is critical to have a properly integrated transport system across the country so that young people can benefit from it.

[Andy Burnham]

If I am successful, I would be looking to give young people in Greater Manchester, particularly 16 to 18-year-olds, concessionary or free bus travel. In my view, that could be a replacement for the education maintenance allowance, which was so wrongly scrapped by the Conservatives. Does my hon. Friend believe that that policy could be worth looking at as a Labour policy for the next general election, using the powers granted by this Bill?

[Andy McDonald]

I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. If that initiative, which tries to redress the imbalance that has been visited on our young people, is to be put in place in areas such as Manchester, I am convinced that it will completely appeal to people and that it will be the right measure to address the deficit that he so accurately described.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Has the hon. Gentleman costed Labour’s new policy of giving free concessionary travel to 16 and 17-year-olds?

[Andy McDonald]

Suggesting that we will not extend assistance to 16 to 18-year-olds says more about the hon. Gentleman’s attitude towards young people than it does about Opposition Members.

Under the current system, bus companies determine their routes and provision of services on a commercial basis, which means that commercially unprofitable but socially valuable services are left for local authorities to support. Since 2010, more than 2,400 routes have been downgraded or withdrawn. A combination of Government cuts and commercial operators deciding provision on a commercial basis means that individuals or communities become isolated, cut off from employment, education, healthcare, and friends and family.

[Mr Betts]

The Secretary of State derided what was happening before deregulation when, in fact, bus services were affordable and available. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Under the current arrangements, we often see bus companies over-competing on the main routes, but providing no services at all to the wider-spread communities. With regulation, we can use the same resources and the same number of buses to provide a better service to those currently disenfranchised communities.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes an entirely proper point. That problem is repeated throughout this country. People on our outlying estates do not even have access to bus services, because those services are run on narrow channels. Operators exploit those narrow routes for the singular purpose of maximising commercial profit, and they do not give a hang about the socially important things such as ensuring that people are connected in their communities.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Let me disabuse the hon. Gentleman. On this variety of choice and the duplication and triplication of routes to which he refers, he can come to Dorset, Somerset or anywhere in the south-west and he will not find such issues. That is a metropolitan problem from which we would love to suffer.

[Andy McDonald]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the fact that there are vast swathes of towns and cities that are not served by a comprehensive bus network. They are left isolated for considerable lengths of time. Some inner-urban areas have no services whatsoever on a Sunday. That is the reality of the bus services in this country at the moment.

I am delighted that we have an opportunity to put buses front and centre of the national conversation about transport. This Bill is to be welcomed, as is the historic U-turn of the Conservative party towards re-regulation of our bus services, which is something that Labour has consistently fought for.

Although this Bill appears to be an acknowledgment by the Government of the failure of the deregulation of buses, the Bill as originally drafted did not go as far as we would have wished in remedying the underlying problems in the current model. In its current form, the Bill gives local authorities a number of options to improve bus services, allowing authorities to work in partnership with private operators, to plan and run their own network of bus services, or, if they wish, to keep things as they are. The recognition that local authorities can best judge what services they require and should be allowed to select the model that best meets their particular needs is welcome, but, if changes made in the other place are reversed, the freedom to deliver the best services will be taken away.

Powers to re-regulate local bus services should be available to all areas that want them, not just to combined authorities with an elected mayor. Not all areas want a combined authority, and the Government do not intend that every area of the country should be covered by a combined authority. That does not mean that the Government should prevent those non-combined authority areas from improving bus services solely on the basis that they are not combined authorities.

[Chi Onwurah]

The point that my hon. Friend makes is particularly appreciated in Newcastle and Tyne and Wear where we do not yet have a combined authority and where we do not seek to have a mayor, but where we have long sought to have better control of our bus services. Our bus services are critical in Newcastle, as they are how we get to work. I have received so many complaints and concerns about the bus services. Will he urge the Secretary of State to ensure that Newcastle and Tyne and Wear can finally control their own services?

[Andy McDonald]

I have no hesitation whatsoever in urging the Secretary of State to do exactly that. Newcastle has a proud history of focusing on trying to deliver the best possible services for its people. To be prevented and excluded simply because it does not fit the devolution model currently on offer is basically to deny localism to huge swathes of our country, which cannot be the intention of any sensible Government.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Has the hon. Gentleman made an assessment of which local authorities would want to take up these opportunities? In 2000, the Labour Government introduced a contract scheme, which they described as similar to franchising, yet not a single authority has used it. Where is the evidence that more authorities want these powers?

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the quality partnership schemes that Labour brought in. Interestingly, what he says makes my point. It is up to local authorities to make the decision for themselves. It is not a question of people on the Labour Benches telling local authorities what they should or should not do; local authorities should have those options made available to them. From the way this Bill might be amended, it looks very much as if that choice will be denied to them.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

Having agreed to insert free bus passes for 16 and 17-year-olds in our manifesto in the run-up to the next general election, will my hon. Friend also agree to insert some words saying that we will allow local authorities, if appropriate, to set up their own municipal bus companies? It is purely a matter of ideology, which is why we had deregulation of buses in the first place. The Government are refusing to allow, from a localism point of view, local authorities that wish to establish their own municipal bus companies to do so. Why should they not be allowed to do so?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point. It is absolutely right that local authorities should have that freedom. To restrict them in this way, as the Government purport to do, is basically to say, “You can have devolution in England, but you will have it only on the terms that we decide are available to you.” In other words, authorities can do what they want as long as the Government agree with what they are doing—[Interruption.] Yes, any colour as long as it is black.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

As one of the few MPs who made their living for several years as a bus driver, I do welcome this Bill. My hon. Friend is extolling the virtues of localism, but may I caution him that localism is all well and good as long as there is the money to go with it? At the moment, we see a huge imbalance in England between the money spent on London for public transport and the money spent elsewhere. He pointed out that the reason why public transport works better in London is partly due to the fact that there is non-deregulation, but it is also due to the fact that funding is far better. Will Labour commit itself to adequate funding for this localism of bus services?

[Andy McDonald]

I think that I am being invited to write a manifesto at the Dispatch Box. I am quite happy to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you could just give me a few minutes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the gross imbalance in spending in this country. In the north-east of England, we spend £229 per head of the population on transport, compared with £1,900 per head in London, so there is an imbalance. Undoubtedly, that must be corrected if we are to rebalance our economy in the UK.

It is interesting that this denial of opportunities to start up a new municipal company flies in the face of some of the more successful companies in the country. Why on earth would people not want to have a look at that as an option? There is no suggestion for a single second that there will be a mad rush of local authorities wanting to do this. They will want to weigh up and do what is best for their localities. Why on earth a Conservative Government would want to deprive them of making that choice is beyond me—or perhaps it is not.

[James Heappey]

I warmly welcome the shadow Minister’s announcement that he supports the view of many rural Conservative MPs that transport infrastructure spending should be redistributed to the regions, away from London. Too much has been spent there for too long, while too little has been spent in rural areas in particular. Does the Mayor of London agree with him?

[Andy McDonald]

I am sure the Mayor of London well and truly acknowledges that other parts of the country outside London need to have the benefit of investment, but this does not have to be an either/or. It is a question of priorities and making sure that we do not ignore vast swathes of the country.

We won on an amendment on Report in the other place to extend powers to re-regulate bus services to all areas. I hope that the Government’s stated commitment to devolution and improving bus services is not restricted to those areas that have struck deals for combined authorities with elected mayors. Labour was successful in removing clause 21, which would ban local authorities from forming their own bus companies and replicating the success of existing municipal companies. As the Minister is surely aware, municipal bus companies often outperform their rivals. Nottingham City Transport, for example, achieved a 97% overall satisfaction score in the most recent Transport Focus survey, while none of the big five bus operators broke 90%.

Removing the incentive to profit from operations can allow a greater focus on the social and economic purpose of bus services, meaning that buses can better cater for the social or business needs of a particular geography. Labour did not introduce a clause mandating municipal operators, but simply removed a clause prohibiting them, because we believe that there is not a one-size-fits-all model for running bus services. Indeed, there are a number of solutions for different areas, and it follows that, given the success of existing municipal bus companies, localities may judge that the municipal model is best suited for their area and may wish to attempt to replicate that success. If the Secretary of State is committed to devolution and believes that devolved authorities should be allowed to choose the best model to meet their needs, I hope that the Government will accept that the option of municipal operation should be preserved and that clause 21 should not be reintroduced.

We have an opportunity with this Bill to make significant improvements to bus services and, as a consequence, the social and economic life of much of our country, but Labour wishes these opportunities to be available across England, not just in some areas, and to be available to the fullest extent possible. We are happy to support this Bill, but ask that the Secretary of State listens to the forthcoming arguments—on both sides of the House, no doubt—and commits to transforming bus services in England for the better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We are well aware of the importance of the A64 to my hon. Friend’s constituency and, indeed, to the economy of Yorkshire. I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend, as will my hon. Friend the roads Minister. We will ensure that progress in the road’s development continues as we move towards the start of the next investment period.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

A report by the Office of Rail and Road on Highways England revealed that the road investment strategy is in chaos. The agency is £1 billion over budget, the cost of 31 projects has more than doubled, and there is little evidence that 60 major schemes can be delivered on time. The strategy is beginning to look more like a fantasy wish list than a deliverable plan to improve England’s road network. Will the Minister take this opportunity to try to reassure the House that it is not the comedy of errors that it appears to be, and will he guarantee to deliver it on time and on budget?

[Chris Grayling]

Let us be clear about the road investment programme. It is a £13 billion programme that is currently delivering improvements around the country, and is on track. It is absolutely not the disaster that the hon. Gentleman says it is. Let me also remind him—Conservative Members will remember—how ineffective 13 years of Labour government were in dealing with infrastructure challenges. We will not be taking any lessons from Labour Members.

[Andy McDonald]

It is about time the Government took responsibility. Labour has been warning consistently that this Government have been over promising and under delivering on investment in England’s road network. We were promised the biggest upgrade in a generation, but the ORR is now warning of the deterioration of England’s roads. The number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads is already rising, so can the Minister explain how he will guarantee road user safety and mitigate the increased safety risk caused by his Government’s failure to manage investment in England’s roads?

[Chris Grayling]

The Labour party neglected our roads for 13 years. The hon. Gentleman needs to travel around the country today and see the schemes that they did not do, that we are doing: dualling the A1; building the link road between the M56 and the M6; smart motorways; starting the progress, finally, on the A303 and developing the tunnel there; as well as smaller schemes around the country. Last week I was in Staffordshire, seeing an important improvement to the A50. None of that happened when the Labour party was in power. It is, frankly, bare-faced cheek to hear them saying what they are saying now. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that in the autumn statement we provided an additional £75 million to improve Britain’s most dangerous roads.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

The Bill certainly does give the Secretary of State the power, if required, to make TROs himself and to prohibit or revoke TROs that unnecessarily hinder the delivery of the railway. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is therefore yes, but we cannot allow a significant national project to be held up over the small matter of a TRO. As I have said, the best thing to do is to work with the highways authorities; these are some backstop powers, just in case that does not deliver the consensus required.

The powers were subject to significant debate and amendment in the House of Lords, and I am glad to say that the powers we are considering this evening represent the correct balance between giving the Secretary of State the powers necessary to construct HS2 and providing reassurance to local highways authorities about how they will used. Clearly, we hope there will be little or no need to rely on them, as the regular meetings established with local highways authorities will be used to consult, agree, monitor and generally supervise the local traffic management plans. However, the powers are needed to ensure that, if those arrangements fail, HS2 can be delivered in an efficient manner.

The remainder of the amendments make technical clarifications in relation to the changes to the Housing and Planning Act 2016, update references and make corrections. I urge the House to agree to the Lords amendments.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am pleased to contribute to the progress of the Bill once again. I was fortunate enough to have been able to contribute to it in Committee, and I know the Minister will share my enthusiasm for the fact that this Bill will soon receive Royal Assent. High Speed 2 is, of course, the brainchild of a Labour Government, but I give credit to the coalition Government and the present Government for providing continuing support.

[Mr Spellar]

For purposes of clarification, HS2 was the brainchild of the last year of the last Labour Government. All previous Transport Ministers had treated it with considerable scepticism.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s clarification, but if a party is in power, it is in power. Whether or not this happened in 2009 or 2010, Labour were still the Government of the day.

There are some points of disagreement between the Opposition and the Government on HS2—I shall return to them later—but the consensus that exists across the House and among businesses and industry experts on HS2 is to be welcomed. Projects of this scale often require the support of successive Governments and support from the Government and Opposition Benches, so it is reassuring to see a consistent approach to this critical investment in our nation’s rail infrastructure.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Is not the hon. Gentleman rather ignoring the fact that most Members are not affected by this project, so they show very little interest in it at all? If MPs’ constituencies are affected by the project, Members are of course passionately engaged. In fact, that consensus has really gone by default.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Let me say that our time should be devoted to the amendments, and I am bothered that we might stray into other areas that should not be debated. I have allowed a little latitude, but I do not want us to open up into a general debate. Let us keep to the amendments.

[Andy McDonald]

Let me just say that this project benefits the entire country in its construction and its reach. I shall leave it there, Mr Deputy Speaker.

HS2 helps to address the severe capacity constraints on our rail network and improve connections between cities in the midlands and the north of England and beyond into Scotland. HS2 is vital for unblocking the capacity constraints that are undermining punctuality and constraining economic growth.

I would like to place on record my thanks to all Secretaries of State and Ministers, shadow Secretaries of State and shadow Ministers and Members of both Houses who have contributed to and carried the Bill forward. I want to pay tribute to all the Clerks who managed the petitioning process and provided invaluable advice and guidance throughout. I would like to pay a particular tribute to the great professionalism and dedication to his task of the late Neil Caulfield, who as Clerk to the Committee was immensely patient and attentive, giving me his time to ensure the smooth progress of the Bill. He is very sadly missed, but not forgotten.

This is a large and complicated Bill and has been subject to the highest levels of scrutiny throughout the process, and we now have a much improved Bill. We will support the Lords amendments to it. The majority of the amendments are without controversy and simply seek to tidy up the measure and make small changes where necessary. It is not necessary to debate them in any detail.

The most significant change to the Bill is the new schedule on traffic regulation, which, given the identified effects of the redevelopment of Euston station, is particularly pertinent for the London Borough of Camden. I acknowledge the consultation that took place following Committee with local highway authorities, which informed the changes to the new schedule. Entirely legitimate concerns were expressed that the new schedule as originally drafted would have given powers that were too wide ranging and could have caused a lack of proper regard for the residents of London—concerns expressed by Camden Borough Council and Transport for London. To a large extent, these concerns were addressed in the changes made to the new schedule, but some issues are still outstanding. I understand that the discussions between the promoter and both TfL and Camden Council are ongoing, and that an undertaking has been negotiated, but not yet received. I understand that the undertaking will say that the use of these powers will not affect bus lanes, cycle ways, the safer lorry scheme and the congestion charge zone.

Is the Minister able to give assurances that the promoter of HS2 will meet the costs incurred by local authorities in putting in place and removing traffic regulation orders required by the Secretary of State? Can he also give assurances that the Secretary of State will be required to provide justification when seeking to use these powers? The powers are needed for construction, but Labour’s position from the start has been that the impacts of construction on affected areas must be mitigated as much as possible, and such assurances would be appreciated. Pursuant to the new traffic regulation, will the Minister tell us what plans the Department has to minimise the number of HGV journeys on London roads, in the interests of the environment and public safety, during the redevelopment of Euston station? No fixed target has been endorsed, and the issue is crucial to London residents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has strayed off the point, but I am sure that he is approaching the end of his speech.

[Andy McDonald]

There are two more sentences, Mr Deputy Speaker.

HS2 does not have to be a Deutsche Bahn HS2 or an SNCF HS2 or Nederlandse Spoorwegen or Trenitalia state-run HS2, but it can be—if I may paraphrase the Prime Minister—a British red, white and blue HS2, and the Government should guarantee it.

[Mrs Gillan]

HS2 may well embrace young people’s entire careers, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) suggested, and they will have good careers out of it if it is built. However, I do not underestimate the fortunes being made—by the top echelons of HS2, certainly, but also by people who are benefiting from very lucrative contracts at the taxpayer’s expense.

I presume—and I am hardly surprised—that the Government have accepted the Lords amendments. A number of them correct inaccuracies, many of which have been and continue to be attached to this project, and which have been a source of great anxiety on the part of people directly affected. I join those on both Front Benches in saying thank you to their lordships, who were restricted in what they could do. They were unable to amend the Bill significantly—they could not make any additional provisions—and we are therefore dealing with a group of amendments that the Government are, of course, able to accept in their entirety because they do not do that much to the Bill.

I must say that I would welcome the acceptance of Lords amendment 4, which I call the “land grab” amendment, because it would limit the power of the state to acquire land compulsorily in association with the project for the purposes of regeneration or development. I think it fair to say that the current Secretary of State for Transport, when lobbied by me and by many others—particularly the CLA—responded very positively. Such a sweeping power would have added insult to injury, namely the plundering of property that has resulted from a project that is as ravenous for land as it is for taxpayers’ money. Without the amendment, the Government would have been able to buy up land for lucrative developments virtually without control.

However, some of my constituents have serious concerns about schedule 16. They believe that HS2 has only to give 28 days’ notice to enter, do what it likes to the land and pay no compensation until the job is finished, which they believe could take many years. During those years, my constituents would have to shoulder the loss of value to property and income. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) believes that there are constituents fighting to prove that they are affected by HS2, whose applications for compensation have been successful, but who are still struggling to agree on a value for their property. When the Minister responds to these amendments, I wonder whether he will care to say something in relation to that and this land grab amendment, which I am grateful the Government are accepting.

Airport Capacity and Airspace Policy

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for Transport for advance sight of his statement.

Aviation is key to ensuring that the UK remains an outward-looking trading nation post-Brexit, and Labour has consistently been pushing for a decision on runway expansion in south-east England, so after years of dither and delay, it is welcome that progress is finally being made. We have been calling for action on airspace modernisation for some time, and although we cannot see it, our airspace network is in dire need of modernisation. It is over half a century old but is still among our country’s most vital pieces of infrastructure. Modernising airspace will involve tough decisions, but the benefits are huge. It is in the national interest for the Government to ensure that they deliver a balanced and sustainable airspace solution.

However, there are outstanding issues, including how Heathrow expansion can be squared with meeting the UK’s climate change objectives and demonstrating that local noise and environmental impacts can be minimised. This can be achieved, but only in the context of a coherent aviation strategy that works for the country, not just for London. It starts with confirming our membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency, as well as taking action on cleaner fuels and improving road and rail access to our international gateway airports.

As the Secretary of State knows, business loathes uncertainty, and aviation is no exception. What assurances can he give that the UK’s continued membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency is and will remain an absolute priority? What does his commitment to leaving the single market mean for leaving the single aviation market? The Committee on Climate Change cautioned against relying on carbon trading for Heathrow to achieve its emission targets, as that option might not always be cheap and available. Will he provide an update on whether he plans to reject that advice?

There is increasing concern about air quality, which is linked to 40,000 early deaths a year. David Cameron’s former aide—now Baroness Camilla Cavendish—claimed that the existing policy on air quality “overclaims and underwhelms”. Given that inadequacy, what further and stringent measures will be proposed to mitigate the expected expansion at Heathrow?

Key to improving air quality, alongside a move to reducing vehicle emissions, is encouraging more people to use public transport to arrive at our airports. Enhancements are needed to Heathrow’s rail services if the objective of having public transport usage of 55% is to be achieved. I invite the Secretary of State to outline what progress he is making and how he can ensure that the business beneficiaries of such enhancements will make a fair contribution. If we are to secure the modal shift to accessing airports by public transport and in the context of the aviation strategy, I invite him to confirm that the National Infrastructure Commission will be asked to inquire into the issue of surface access at all our international gateway airports and seaports.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to fulfilling our legal requirements on air quality and obligations on carbon, and I note the reference to Heathrow striving to meet its public pledge that airport-related public traffic will be no greater than it is today. But it is not simply about the volume of traffic; it is about vastly reducing the emissions that come from such traffic. Much of that relates to ultra-low emission vehicles, which will be key to securing our shared objectives. The modern transport Bill will hopefully progress the agenda considerably, so, finally, will the Secretary of State tell the House when we are likely to see that Bill?

[Chris Grayling]

May I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his support for my statement this morning? He asked a number of questions, which I shall answer, but I very much welcome the principle of support. This is a long-term project for the country, and a shared vision across this House of the need for expanded capacity is important. I know that there are individual Members who have disagreements, issues and local challenges, but his supportive comments are welcome for the project and I am grateful to him.

Let me seek to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions. First, we have not reached a definitive position on the European issue. Obviously the negotiations have not started and we have not yet triggered article 50. I am acutely aware that aviation is one of the sectors that we need to handle with great care, working out the best way of protecting our sector and delivering the right connectivity for the future. I will come back to the House at an appropriate moment and provide more information, but, as he is aware, we are not really in a position to provide detail of the negotiations in advance. However, I appreciate that he will want to understand in due course where we have got to, and we will endeavour to make sure that we keep the House as fully informed as we properly can, given the negotiation process.

As the hon. Gentleman said, aviation is not included in the current climate change target. It is clearly an issue, however, and has been since the recent agreement in Montreal, subject to an international strategy going forward. We are consulting today on things such as the smarter use of airspace. Through airspace reform and the technology that is now available to us, we will be able to avoid, to anything like the degree experienced at the moment, planes stacking over the south-east of England, emitting additional emissions into the atmosphere and using up more fuel. That is one of the benefits that comes from the smarter use of airspace, which will help to make a contribution, as will cleaner, newer generation, more fuel-efficient aircraft, which I think we will see extensively in this country over the coming years.

On the issue of NOx, diesel and emissions on the surrounding roads, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is much more a car issue than a plane issue. It is about the propensity of congested areas to cause a genuine public health problem, so it is a broader issue for the Government to address than simply the airport. We have already made a start, with the incentives that are in place for low-emission vehicles and the expansion of charging points that we set out in the autumn statement. We will also shortly be seeing the Bill that he mentioned—it would have been here by now, had we not had a bit of other business to deal with in the House. The issues in that Bill will be important, but I am well aware, and the Government are well aware, that we will have to do much more on the emissions front. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will come forward in due course with further proposals to tackle what is a broader issue than just airport expansion. It is one that we cannot possibly wait until airport expansion happens to address, and we will not.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of rail services, and we already have significant plans for their development. The arrival of Crossrail and of HS2 at Old Oak Common will make a significant difference to public transport access to Heathrow, as will the proposed modernisation of the Piccadilly line, which will significantly expand capacity on that route. We are now also starting the development work on rail access to the south and the west of Heathrow airport, and he is absolutely right to raise this issue. It is something that we are now working on and the private sector will make a substantial contribution to the costs.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman raised the importance of land and surface access to ports and airports around the country. I can confirm to him that we are looking at this in a variety of forums. As we move into this post-Brexit world and in a world where we need to facilitate trade, I am particularly concerned to ensure that where there are blockages, congestion points or limitations around ports and airports, we take the necessary steps to address those, and we will.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his supportive comments, and will obviously try to keep him and the House as informed as possible.

Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who has campaigned for a clear road map for ultra low emissions vehicles for some time, on securing the debate.

Ultra low emissions, electric and alternative fuel vehicles and technologies offer huge opportunities for UK plc. The UK automotive sector added £18.9 billion in value to the UK economy last year, supporting 169,000 people in manufacturing directly and 814,000 across the industry and throughout the supply chains. If we are to sustain those numbers, we must strive for further growth and investment in more high-skilled design and engineering jobs. Supporting our ULEV market must be a priority for this Government.

A strategic approach to ULEVs must be a priority not just for growth’s sake but for the sake of public health and the environment. However, the Government have presided over nothing other than an air quality crisis that is poisoning our towns. We know about the 40,000 deaths in the UK every year. Brixton Road in London breached its annual pollution limit for 2017 after just five days, and the Government are legally required to produce a strategy for improving air quality by 24 April, following a judicial review in which a High Court judge described the two previous plans of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as “woefully inadequate”.

Sadly, the Government are failing on the environment. Yes, new registrations for electric, hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles are increasing year on year, but the Government are more than 1.5 million registrations short of their 1.6 million target for 2020. The UK is also legally bound to provide 10% of transport fuel from renewable sources by 2020, and it does not look like that target will be met, given that the proportion of energy from renewable sources fell last year from 4.93% to 4.23%.

Labour believes that clean air is a right, not a privilege. I will address some of the barriers, but we must consider all the levers for change. It is imperative that the Government recognise that the transition towards a low-carbon sustainable future is a journey in itself. The future vehicles market is still young and emerging, and we need a properly structured pathway. That means focusing not on purely electric cars but on all cleaner cars, including hybrids, and thinking about how taxation and grants can effectively incentivise uptake.

It is clear that the Chancellor’s changes to vehicle excise duty lacked any consultation, and the industry is calling for the changes that are due to take place in April to be delayed. Will the Minister review those concerns with his counterparts in the Treasury and consider whether focusing on CO₂ alone remains rational? There are also concerns that cuts of £500 and £2,500 to plug-in grants for electric and hybrid cars and home charge points may not be allocated as effectively as they could be. Will the Minister outline how those cuts help to encourage motorists to shift to lower-emissions vehicles?

The prominence and accessibility of the wider infrastructure is also key to shaping consumer choices. We recognise some of the Government’s work towards that and welcome their broad aims for the imminent modern transport Bill. It is essential that we have a good network of smart and easy-to-use charging points, and it is key that charging stations offer common standards and appropriately accommodate drivers. We must be wary that, at least initially, even rapid charging might take much longer than filling up a petrol car. Preparing for the wider impacts of a surge in use of low emissions electric vehicles is also key. Will the Minister therefore outline what the modern transport Bill will include and when it will be published?

Does the Minister have a plan to address the concerns of the Institute of the Motor Industry, which warns of the huge skills gap in licensed technicians—just 1,000 of 250,000 are currently trained to fix such vehicles? We must ensure that all small garages and mechanics have an opportunity to upskill and are not left behind. Without action, insurance premiums and waiting times for maintenance will be higher, not lower. Will he also update the House on developing operation restrictions through the clear air zones plan and his Government’s third attempt at an air quality plan?

The key for the industry is uniformity; a patchwork of different plans would be troublesome. Given the size and weight of heavy goods vehicles, the technology is far more problematic for such vehicles, but their impact is huge—they contribute between 20% and 30% of emissions. The Minister will know the importance of the Automotive Council, introduced by the previous Labour Government to get things moving. Hopefully he can work with it.

Labour is pleased that the Government are taking seriously the transition to ultra low emissions vehicles, which will be the single biggest incremental change in transport for a century. However, we need effective consumer incentives and a customer-centred approach to upskilling and infrastructure as well as making full use of the public sector’s procurement power. Only then can we hope to reap the full benefits of the migration to ULEVs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I assure my hon. Friend that I have every intention of doing so. This is a partnership arrangement that brings together London, Kent County Council and my Department to do the right thing for passengers. It is interesting that the Mayor could offer no proposals to expand capacity on these routes. I intend to bring forward proposals that do offer expanded capacity for passengers on those routes.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s leaked letter reveals that he reneged on the suburban rail agreement because of his obsession with keeping services “out of the clutches” of a potential Labour Mayor—those are his words. He has put party politics ahead of passengers and clearly prefers to see trains running late than running on time under Labour. Will he now agree to an independent assessment of the proposal by a respected figure outwith his Department, given yesterday’s revelations of conflicting commercial interests, to restore credibility to the process and ensure proper consideration of the needs of long-suffering passengers?

[Chris Grayling]

I cannot believe what I have just heard from the hon. Gentleman. He talks about putting party politics before passengers in the week when the Leader of the Opposition said that he would join a picket line to perpetuate the unnecessary strikes on Southern rail that are causing so much damage to passengers. I will not take the hon. Gentleman seriously until I hear him condemning those strikes and telling the workers to go back to work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Government’s franchising policy lies in tatters, with desperate attempts to retrofit contracts to protect operators’ profits and, as revealed yesterday, National Express taking the money and running, selling the c2c franchise to the Italian state. The Secretary of State’s director of passenger services awarded the disastrous Southern franchise, while owning shares in the company and advising the winner bidder. The country has had enough of these sleazy deals. Is it not way past time for franchising to be scrapped and the UK rail industry to be revitalised through public ownership?

[Chris Grayling]

The clock ticks ever backwards. The Opposition do not want inward investment or private sector investment in our railways, but, of course, we still do not hear from them any words on behalf of passengers about the strikes. The Labour party takes money from the rail unions and defends them when they are on strike, no matter what the inconvenience to passengers is. The Opposition are a disgrace. They should stand up and say that these strikes should stop. I will say one thing about the Mayor of London: at least he had the wit and wisdom this week to say that the strikes are wrong. I hear nothing from the hon. Gentleman about the strikes being wrong.

Rail Infrastructure (Train Operating Companies)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government’s plans for train operating companies to take responsibility for track and infrastructure from Network Rail.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

The hon. Gentleman has clearly misunderstood our plans, so let me explain them to him.

This morning I laid a written statement in both Libraries of this House setting out my vision for reforming the railways in a way that puts passengers at the heart. This is about providing better and more reliable journeys for passengers.

Britain’s railways are crucial to our economic future, and we have seen very substantial growth in passenger numbers since privatisation, but this growth brings challenges and the impact of disruption can be immediate, significant and wide-ranging. So our railways need to adapt and change in order to be able to cope with this huge expansion in the number of passengers. We are spending very large amounts of money trying to tackle the challenge, with new and longer trains, more capacity being introduced across the country, and big projects like Crossrail and small projects that make a difference locally.

Earlier this year, Nicola Shaw recommended that Network Rail should devolve responsibility to the route level. I support the principles of the Shaw report, and I support Network Rail’s reform programme, but there is more to do.

I therefore intend to press ahead with Sir Roy McNulty’s recommendations on how to make the railways run better and more cost-effectively. I will do this initially at an operational level. In order for all those involved to be incentivised to deliver the best possible service for the passenger, I expect the new franchises, starting with Southeastern and East Midlands, to have integrated operating teams between train services and infrastructure, working together in the interests of the passenger. I will also be inviting Transport for London and Kent County Council to be more closely involved in developing the next Southeastern franchise by embedding their own representatives in the team that develops, designs and monitors that franchise.

We will continue to develop the model for greater alignment of track and train as further franchises are renewed, including the option of joint ventures. In the meantime, my Department is also publishing an update to the rail franchising schedule, which I am placing in the Libraries of this House.

I also want to bring new skills to the challenge of upgrading our railways. I will begin by looking at the reopening of the link from Oxford to Cambridge. I am going to establish East West Rail as a new and separate organisation, to accelerate the permissions needed to reopen the route, and to secure private sector involvement to design, build and operate the route as an integrated organisation. This East West Rail organisation will be established early in the new year and chaired by the former chief executive of Chiltern Railways, Rob Brighouse.

These reforms will set the railway on a firmer footing for the future. We can, and will, make sure our rail network plays its part in making this country a country that works for everyone. I will bring forward in due course a new strategy for our railways with more detail on what I am setting out today.

[Andy McDonald]

Private companies will only engage with the Secretary of State’s plans if they believe that they will be able to extract yet further value from Britain’s railways at the expense of taxpayers and commuters. Not only does this mean poor value for the public, but it also risks compromising safety. The last time the Tories privatised the rail tracks it resulted in a series of fatal accidents, which led to the creation of Network Rail in the first place. Now the Secretary of State wants to start us on a slippery slope back to the bad old days of Railtrack, with profit-chasing companies being entrusted with the safety-critical role of being responsible for our rail infrastructure. Has he not learned the lessons of Railtrack, or is he simply choosing to ignore them? Why does he expect things to be different this time?

Will the Secretary of State explain how his planned “integrated operating teams” will be different from the “deep alliances” between Network Rail and South West Trains, which were abandoned, and from the similar arrangement between Network Rail and ScotRail, which is performing abysmally? Will the same system of regulation apply in his new landscape? What discussions has he had with the Office of Rail Regulation about this? What costings have been done for this programme? Has a cost-benefit analysis been carried out? It is time for our railways to be run under public ownership, in the public interest, as an integrated national asset in public hands, with affordable fares for all and with long-term investment in the railway network. Sadly, today’s announcement will take us further away from that than ever before, but an incoming Labour Government will redress that as a matter of urgency.

[Chris Grayling]

Fortunately, there is not an imminent Labour Government. The trouble is that Labour Members want to turn the clock back to the days of British Rail and of the unions having beer and sandwiches at No. 10. We want to modernise the railways and make them work better. This is not about privatisation. I am not privatising Network Rail. I am creating teams on the ground with the same incentives to work together in the interests of the passenger. An essential part of that —the bit the hon. Gentleman has not spotted—is that the Shaw recommendations on route devolution, which will give real power to local teams to make decisions about their routes without always referring to the centre, will make it possible for those alliances to work much better than they have in the past. We know that where there have been alliances, they have made something of a difference, but they could do so much more.

This is not rocket science. If the trains are being run from over here and the tracks from over there, when things go wrong we get two separate teams waving contracts at each other rather than working together. Of course our railways do not maximise their potential. This is about forging teamwork on the ground to respond to challenges, to plan better and to deliver a better service to passengers. That is what we should all be aspiring to. Moving the deckchairs around, renationalising the railways and taking away hundreds of millions of pounds a year of investment in new trains from the private sector would take our railways backwards and make the travelling public worse off. This is a sign that, as always, the Labour party has not made it into the modern world.