Draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2024
Anthony Browne Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2024.
The legislation amends the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007 so that recycled carbon fuels—RCFs—are eligible for support under the renewable transport fuel obligation scheme. The RTFO scheme places an obligation on fuel suppliers to drive the supply of renewable fuels. In practical terms, it helps deliver the E10 in petrol and biodiesels.
The amount of renewable fuel that should be supplied is a percentage of the volume of relevant fossil fuel supplied in a calendar year. That obligation is met by acquiring certificates that are issued for the supply of sustainable renewable fuels. Those certificates can be redeemed at the end of an obligation period, as well as traded between parties. The value of the certificates provides a revenue stream for producers of renewable fuels and provides demand for their products in the fuel market. The RTFO scheme has operated successfully since 2008, but it is important that it continues to adapt as new technologies and opportunities for emission-reducing fuels are developed.
We committed to supporting RCFs in the Government’s transport decarbonisation plan and this statutory instrument delivers on that goal. It is the product of two consultations with industry and in-depth working with industry experts and across Government Departments. By broadening the available feedstocks for eligible fuels, the instrument will help to maximise the greenhouse gas savings that can be achieved under the RTFO scheme and encourage the development of a new industry.
What are these new fuels? RCFs are fuels produced from fossil wastes that cannot be avoided, reused or recycled, and that have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions relative to petrol, diesel or kerosene. To date, the RTFO scheme has only supported purely renewable fuels, but emerging technologies and production methods mean that it is possible for fuels produced from fossil wastes to contribute to emissions reductions to a similar degree as renewable fuels.
For example, municipal solid waste—such as the greasy pizza boxes that we all know, or dirty yoghurt pots—can be processed using advanced techniques to form alternatives to fossil diesel and jet fuel. Producing those fuels can be a more sustainable and green way of utilising the wastes compared with their alternative end-of-life fate, which would usually be incineration in an energy-from-waste plant or being sent to landfill. The UK is leading the way in developing many of the technologies required to create those fuels, supported by grant funding from the Department for Transport via the future fuels for flight and freight competition, and more recently the advanced fuels fund.
Renewable fuels already contribute one third of transport’s emission reductions from the current carbon budget. Widening eligibility to include RCFs will ensure that such fuels continue to make that important contribution as part of the transition to the electrification of road vehicles.
The Government have also committed to introducing a mandate for sustainable aviation fuel. That will come into effect from 1 January 2025 and will operate in a similar way to the RTFO scheme but for the aviation sector. Introducing RCFs into the RTFO scheme now sets a helpful precedent for the forthcoming mandate, and including RCFs in both schemes is important as production processes mean that many facilities will produce road fuel and SAF at the same time.
Supporting RCFs under the RTFO scheme will also increase the range of feedstocks eligible for support and encourage the innovation needed to increase deployment of low carbon fuels in harder-to-decarbonise vehicles, such as heavy goods vehicles. RCF production utilises many of the same processes and technologies that need to be developed to increase the efficiency and capability of chemical recycling. Providing extra investment into those processes will lead to wider waste management benefits in future.
Recent amendments to the Energy Act 2004, made via the Energy Act 2023, permit RCFs to be included in the RTFO scheme—as well as in other renewable transport support schemes, such as the forthcoming mandate for sustainable aviation fuels—provided that they cause or contribute to a reduction in carbon emissions. The change to the 2004 Act recognised that RCFs can play an important role in decarbonising different transport modes, including harder-to-electrify vehicles such as heavy goods vehicles and airliners.
On the statutory instrument’s specific content, it amends the RTFO order to add wastes of fossil origin as an eligible feedstock for fuel production. Importantly, it also designates RCFs as development fuels, which can be used to fill a sub-target within the RTFO scheme designed to encourage the supply of novel and strategically important emerging technologies for fuel production. As a development fuel, qualifying RCFs must also meet additional eligibility criteria that ensure that only fuels that comply with existing fuel standards can qualify. That mitigates any air-quality or compatibility concerns, as the fuels will essentially be chemically comparable with transport fuels that are already in use today—indeed, they will often be indistinguishable from them.
The measure will allow RCFs to claim one development fuel certificate per litre of fuel supplied, which is half the amount for similar eligible renewable fuels. That recognises the fact that truly renewable fuels remain more valuable, while still rewarding emission savings from RCFs. To ensure that we mitigate any unintended consequences, the measures also introduce detailed sustainability criteria that ensure that support is provided only to fuels that are produced from genuine, non-recyclable wastes, and that they provide carbon emissions savings of at least 50% compared with traditional fossil fuels such as petrol or diesel. The criteria ensure that the policy complements the waste hierarchy and avoids incentivising the creation of wastes, while still delivering emissions savings compared with the alternative likely end-of-life fate for different waste streams.
In conclusion, as I have said, fuels supplied under the RTFO scheme currently deliver about one third of all domestic transport carbon savings under the current carbon budgets. However, it is vital that we expand the range of feedstocks that we use if we are to continue to grow their contribution and meet our net zero goal. RCFs have the potential to deliver emissions savings across the transport sector while also supporting the efficient handling of waste, and provide an opportunity for a valuable, emerging UK industry, which we should all support. I commend the statutory instrument to the House.
Anthony Browne
I will try to avoid saying something so terrible that the Opposition parties change their mind on this legislation. I am glad that there is cross-party support for the measure, and I thank the hon. Member for Wakefield and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for that. I can answer some of the questions that have been raised, but some of the answers they will have to wait for.
Both hon. Members asked why the SI has taken so long. It is a very complicated policy. We had to ensure that there were no unintended consequences and work with the industry on the details of it, because there are interplays between different types of fuel that have impacts in other areas. We had to analyse all that, but we finally got there and we are introducing the measure today.
The hon. Member for Wakefield asked whether RCFs can be used for SAF or road fuel. They can be used for both sectors; indeed, as I said in my introductory remarks, if we speak to the oil producers, the production technology is very similar, so it is much easier for them to co-produce those fuels.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North asked a lot of questions about sustainable aviation fuel. I am the Minister for sustainable aviation fuel as well, and the legal requirement is to publish the revenue certainty mechanism by 26 April, which is next Friday. I do not think Governments should break the law— I will just put it like that.
The answers to many of the other questions that were asked will come out of forthcoming strategies. We have one on the low-carbon fuel strategy that will come out later this year, which looks at the whole range of low-carbon fuels, the interactions between them and how we maximise their benefits across all modes of transport and indeed other uses. There will also be a strategy published later this year—it is no secret; it is public knowledge—on how we decarbonise the maritime sector, which is a complex sector with many different uses. Many of the more detailed questions that the hon. Gentleman asked on maritime will be covered in that strategy, rather than in this Committee.
I think I have answered all the questions; if there are others, I encourage hon. Members to ask them. I should have said at the beginning, Mr Rosindell, that it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship—it is great to see you here. I thank the Committee members for their time and consideration, and I thank the Clerks and the staff for the work they have done.
Question put and agreed to.
RNLI Bicentenary
Anthony Browne Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing this very moving and important debate. He spoke very eloquently of the work that the RNLI has done over the centuries. I know he has been a long-term champion of the RNLI and has dedicated a lot of his time in Parliament to supporting and helping it. I enjoyed many elements of his speech, including the gold teeth and the vintage Ferraris that have been donated, but most importantly the tales of tragedy and heroism that he mentioned, particularly the tale of the Salcombe lifeboats in which 13 out of 15 died. That is absolutely devastating.
I am very pleased to see so many contributions from across the entire United Kingdom. I notice that we have contributions from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and from the south coast to the north coast of England. We even had a contribution from inland, which just shows how important the RNLI is to everyone across the UK—I say that as somebody who also represents a landlocked constituency.
I am delighted to be able to offer the Government’s congratulations to the RNLI on the momentous occasion of its 200th anniversary. I am sure that Members from across the House will want to join me in thanking the RNLI, its volunteers, fundraisers and supporters for their amazing contribution to the saving of lives over the past two centuries. Through the courageous and dedicated actions of RNLI volunteers, more than 144,000 lives have been saved over the past 200 years. That works out as 700 lives per year—almost exactly two lives for every single day of the past 200 years. That really is quite a phenomenal achievement.
Damian Collins
Does the Minister agree that we should also be thankful for the on-land volunteers who support the RNLI, including Judith Richardson in my constituency, who has given more than 50 years’ service? She was one of the last of the “lady launchers” who, until 1977, used to help to drag the boat physically out to the sea.
Anthony Browne
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work that the RNLI does not just coastally, but inland, as he says. I know that the remit of the RNLI has expanded over time.
The RNLI has launched more than 380,000 times in the past two centuries, showing amazing dedication and commitment. Last year alone, RNLI lifeboats launched more than 9,000 times in one year, aiding more than 10,500 people and saving 269 lives. In addition, RNLI lifeguards carried out almost 3 million preventive actions and attended more than 14,000 incidents, aiding 20,000 people and saving another 86 lives. It is testament to the commitment and skills of the RNLI and our lifeboat volunteers that the UK has one of the finest lifeboat services in the world, which continues to uphold the finest traditions and values of the RNLI as proudly today as it did 200 years ago.
I will briefly remind the House of the history of the RNLI and its contributions to our society, which my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes touched on. The founder of the RNLI, Sir William Hillary, was so appalled by the loss of life at sea that he set about creating an institution dedicated to the preservation of human life from shipwreck. He initially went to the Government to appeal for support, but the Government of the day, in their wisdom—or lack of it—said no. He was forced to go to other supporters and philanthropists and managed rapidly to get support, which helped to launch the institution we see today. It is notable that all the fundraising over the past 200 years, which reached a record last year, is really a consequence of that initial Government decision to say no. The RNLI might have ended up a very different organisation if the initial Government decision had been different.
It was the drive and dedication of Sir William that led to the institution that we know today. He laid out 12 resolutions that formed the foundation of the RNLI and that still stand firm today, remaining part of the RNLI charter 200 years on. The RNLI has grown extraordinarily over the past 200 years. It now has an income of more than £200 million, more than 2,000 staff and more than 30,000 volunteers. I pay tribute to the visionary founders of the RNLI for their leadership and support over the years. The continuing dedication of the RNLI to saving lives at sea and its volunteer ethos remains a cherished cornerstone of British society.
I put on record our tribute to the brave volunteers of the RNLI who risk their own lives to save others at sea and around our coastline. It is in large part due to their personal commitment and skill that the UK has one of the best records for water safety in the world. I also pay tribute to the families of our search and rescue volunteers. They are often forgotten, but without their never-ending support, our volunteer services would not be able to continue their vital life-saving operations.
I pay particular tribute, as other hon. Members present have, to the brave RNLI volunteers who have lost their lives while trying to save others over the past 200 years: more than 600 volunteers have lost their lives, and 2,500 medals have been awarded for bravery. I know many Members will be aware of the tragic loss of lifeboat volunteers from their constituencies over the past two centuries—we have heard various examples of that this morning. The loss of every RNLI volunteer is keenly felt across a local community, impacting friends and family. Local memorials remain a reminder of the sacrifices of the RNLI crews who have been lost. As part of this bicentenary anniversary, local services and events are planned to commemorate RNLI volunteers throughout its illustrious history.
I will turn to some of the comments that have been made in what has been a very moving debate this morning. We have heard many extraordinary stories of tragedy and heroism, among various other issues that have been raised. I was touched by the story of the Traveller, raised by the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), where eight out of 10 people died. The hon. Lady spoke movingly of the impact on the local community of Hoylake. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) paid tribute to the wider work that the RNLI does, particularly with safety and support in the community. He mentioned that when he goes on his Boxing day walks, it is good to see the boats out there.
The landlocked hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) asked whether the RNLI could help out with inland rescue. While search and rescue is the responsibility of the police, he makes a valid point, and I completely understand the importance of trying to learn lessons from the RNLI to help to improve search and rescue inland. He made a point about local people in boats and boatyards, and whether they can be called on to help, and I will absolutely take that away to see if anything can be done to improve that.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) paid tribute to the work of the RNLI in Northern Ireland, where it has 10 lifeboat stations. He raised a question about Government support, which makes up only 1% of its total funding, and questioned that. The RNLI is obviously independent of Government—very proudly so; if Government funding increased, there might be a risk that it would end up being more Government-controlled.
His Majesty’s Coastguard, some representatives of which are here now, works closely with the RNLI; calls come through to the coastguard and it works out whether it needs a helicopter, which is run by the coastguard, or whether the case should be handed over to the RNLI. I understand that that relationship works very well. The RNLI is very proudly independent of Government: it does not take instructions from Government and it decides its own operations, and I would not want to compromise that.
I pay tribute to the stepmother of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and her work for the RNLI. My hon. Friend also mentioned the extraordinary case of Henry Blogg, who was involved in saving 873 lives over 53 years—a quite extraordinary achievement. I was sad to learn what is happening to his ship, the Bailey. That is fundamentally an issue for the local authorities in my hon. Friend’s area, but if he wants my support in any way I will be happy to do what I can to help save the Bailey.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) talked about the fundraising achievements of the RNLI in her constituency and in particular the Anglesey aluminium chimney demolition, which raised over £10,000 in one go. It must have been fun pressing that button and seeing it go down!
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), paid tribute to the RNLI, but also raised the issue of migrants in the channel. I put on the record that my position and that of the Government is exactly the same: the RNLI cannot ask people whether they have a visa before deciding to rescue them, and it is absolutely right that it rescues everyone who needs rescuing. That is very much the Government’s position.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), whose contribution added a slightly different tone to the conversation, has been in dispute with the RNLI over the allocation of resources and a bequest. I am told by the RNLI that the chief executive and the regional lifeboat manager have responded to my right hon. Friend’s questions directly on a number of occasions, and that the Charity Commission has responded to her complaints about the use of bequests but has advised that it is satisfied with how the RNLI has handled the legacy funding.
My right hon. Friend did recognise that the RNLI is, as I said earlier, independent from Government. This is not a dispute that the Government can get involved in. The RNLI is independent: it decides the distribution of its assets. I am advised that the RNLI generally does a really good job at working out the best allocations of assets to make sure that it is most effective at lifesaving, and it would be inappropriate for me as a Minister or for the Government to intervene to influence the independent decisions of the charity.
Dr Coffey
I have not asked the Government to intervene. I appreciate the extraordinary work that the RNLI does, as I highlighted in my contribution. There was a particular recent incident that I thought needed to be raised. Frankly, before anybody seeks to insult me about representing my constituents, they should remind themselves they are insulting those constituents. I am not asking in any way for the Government to intervene— I never have. It is right that the RNLI continues to be a thriving institution after 200 years; I wish it at least 200 years more.
Anthony Browne
My right hon. Friend has made her point well; we agree about the issue of independence.
In conclusion, as we have heard, the RNLI’s achievements over the past 200 years have been absolutely exceptional. Since its foundation in 1824, not a single year has passed without outstanding rescues and courageous and selfless acts. Advancements in life-saving assets and innovation to support its lifesavers through busy summers, wild winters, wars and pandemics have been at the core of everything that the RNLI has achieved. I invite Members to join me in thanking the RNLI for its support and dedication over the past 200 years. I wish it well as it seeks to inspire and engage a new generation of supporters, volunteers and fundraisers, and as it works towards securing life-saving services for the next 200 years.
National Networks National Policy Statement
Anthony Browne Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Guy Opperman
I will try to address some of the points that have been raised.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), mentioned freight. He will be aware that we published the future freight strategy, which is a long-term plan, in June 2022. It was developed with industry and sets out a cross-modal approach to achieve the long-term vision of a freight and logistics sector that is economically efficient, reliant, resilient, environmentally sustainable and valued by society. I am the co-chair of the Freight Council, alongside Isabel Dedring, who is an independent industry representative. The “Generation Logistics” campaign, which we hosted in the House of Commons, and the work that the Road Haulage Association and others are doing to drive forward true change in freight should genuinely be admired.
Turning to the points raised by the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), I take his two out of three cheers as being damned by faint praise. However, at the same time, no one is pretending that the statement is perfect. It is a work in progress—we all understand that. The document runs to over 100 pages and has been available for public consultation and oral hearings, and the Transport Committee has done an assessment of it, to which the Government have responded, so with respect, it is a substantial approach to this particular issue. I endorse the comments that he made about the future plans.
The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), whom I will insult by calling a friend of mine, raised a number of points, and I will ensure that the Rail Minister responds to him. On the electrification of vehicles, I push back gently. One has to be aware that the network of publicly available charge points is rapidly increasing, with almost 57,000 installed—a 47% increase since March 2023. Clearly, more can be done—no one would dispute that—and I echo and share his desire. He makes the fair point that we need more charging points, and I take that on board. As for the Great Western delays, the Rail Minister will respond on that.
The hon. Member for Reading East and others raised the state of the roads. The allegation was made that there is no vision either to support local authorities or to address that, and that there is no long-term levelling-up plan for the north. With respect, the Prime Minister’s decision on HS2 has done a number of key things. The first, obviously, is that £8.3 billion has gone out to local authorities up and down the country, responding to the HS2 profile over 11 years. On average, that is a 30% increase in funding over the past year for every local authority—genuinely game-changing amounts of money—and the long-term funding pattern allows local authorities to invest in the future. That is something that every local authority says it wants more of.
Turning to the aspiration to support the north, one of the key decisions was to ensure that almost all of the HS2 money was spent in the north and/or the midlands as the areas affected by HS2. That is why the money is going into Network North and into the local transport fund that was announced, which has seen hundreds of millions of pounds going out to lots of different local authorities. Some local authorities have seen their transport budget increased by nine times.
The types of announcements that the Government have made also outline their direction of travel in relation to this issue. With respect, I will outline five things that the Government have done in the past 10 days alone. I was proud to announce the safer roads fund, which is spending a further £35 million in multiple locations across the country to try to enhance their road safety. Last Friday, the Secretary of State announced the ZEBRA scheme—for those who do not know, that is the zero-emission bus regional areas. There are dozens of locations up and down the country with hundreds of zero-emission buses funded and supported by this Government.
On Saturday, I announced active travel fund 4, which is worth £101 million, and saw some of the schemes that are being put in place in Darlington with the excellent Mayor, Ben Houchen, and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). I have also been with my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) to see the £1.2 million that is going into the Medway active travel scheme. Clearly, the Automated Vehicles Bill is something that this Government have also championed.
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend and co-Minister, and partner in optimism—I think that is the best way of putting it—is addressing some of those points.
There was further criticism in relation to the issue of climate change. I would gently push back: clearly, there has been a lot of change in Government policy since the national networks national policy statement was designated in 2015, particularly the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero by 2050. The transport decarbonisation plan, published in 2021, set out how transport’s contribution to net zero will be delivered, and the Environment Act 2021 introduced a more stringent approach to environmental protection and opportunities for enhancement of the natural environment. We have also seen the publication of road investment strategy 2 and the integrated rail plan, as well as support for rail freight, including the announcement of the rail freight growth target in December 2023. The NNNPS has been reviewed to reflect those changes in Government policy and to remain a robust framework for decision making on nationally significant infrastructure project schemes. Clearly, there are ongoing challenges in certain courts to the development of roads, and we await the decisions of those courts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) tempted me to become the Home Secretary. As we all know, the chances of that are our old friends slim and none, but I will take up with the Home Secretary the question of whether there should be a population growth assessment.
I thank all colleagues for their contributions today.
Oral Answers to Questions
Anthony Browne Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
I wish to make it clear that the dismissal two years ago by P&O Ferries of nearly 800 seafarers without notice and without consultation was completely unacceptable, which is why this Government introduced a comprehensive package of measures to improve the welfare of seafarers and to stop the abuse.
On the specifics of the question, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency periodically inspects vessels that enter UK ports to assess their compliance with international standards, including those in the Maritime Labour Convention. We expect all operators to meet if not exceed those standards, and the UK continues to play a leading role internationally in driving up working conditions across the maritime sector. We are pleased that, just this weekend, P&O Ferries has committed to signing the Seafarers’ Charter along with four other operators. We will work with P&O Ferries to support it in its application for chartered status and assess its welfare standards against the charter’s requirements.
Charlotte Nichols
Two years on from P&O Ferries’ shocking attack on seafarer jobs, trade union rights and employment law, the legal loophole that it used to escape criminal sanctions has still not been closed. The P&O seafarers were UK-based workers, but because P&O Ferries had flagged its ships out to Cyprus, Bermuda and the Bahamas, P&O and, crucially, the Government knew that criminal sanctions, including fines for the offences that it committed, would not apply. Why have the Government not closed that loophole?
Anthony Browne
As I said, the Government have introduced a comprehensive package of measures to stop the abuse of seafarers. In particular, we have introduced the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023, which will come into force this summer and ensure the minimum wage for seafarers in the UK. We have the minimum wage corridor that is opening up this summer with France, ensuring the minimum wage across the channel, and we have the seafarers’ charter, which raises standards far higher. As I said, P&O and four other operators have applied to join it.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Last Sunday marked the two-year anniversary of P&O Ferries illegally sacking 786 workers, but two years on nothing has changed. This week an investigation by ITV and The Guardian revealed that P&O Ferries is not only paying many of its workers less than half the minimum wage but forcing staff to work 12-hour shifts seven days a week for up to 17 weeks at a time. France’s maritime Minister has called that “dangerous” and “not moral”, and has changed the law to stop it happening. The Seafarers’ Wages Act will not curb that treatment, nor will the Government’s voluntary charter, so when will the Government act to prevent those exploitative practices from happening in our waters?
Anthony Browne
The Government agree that seafarers should obviously not be working so hard that they are fatigued, that it is dangerous, and that operators have a duty to ensure that that is not the case. The Seafarers’ Wages Act is obviously primarily focused on wages, and will ensure that seafarers get paid the minimum wage within UK waters. One provision of the seafarers’ charter will ensure that the operators have rosters so that seafarers are not fatigued and overworked. The Department will monitor compliance and work with the operators to ensure that seafarers are not fatigued.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Further to the points made by the Labour Front Bencher, it is just over two years since nearly 800 P&O workers were summarily sacked and thrown off ferries. We will finally debate the Government’s utterly supine and ineffective fire-and-rehire code of practice next week, but it is just over two months since the Government claimed that they were making substantial progress on implementing the nine-point plan for seafarer protections. The Seafarers’ Wages Act still has not come into force, alongside a toothless and voluntary seafarers’ charter, which will not change how P&O operates, even if it signs up to it. We all know that in this House, so is it not time that the Government took meaningful action and got behind our seafarers?
Anthony Browne
The Seafarers’ Wages Act will come into force this summer. Unfortunately, it takes time to pass legislation, and we had to consult on it. No one wants it to come into force quicker than I. The claim that the seafarers’ charter will have no impact is completely untrue. The operators will have to abide by the terms of the charter, which will ensure that seafarers earn the minimum wage throughout their engagements, that they get overtime payments of at least 1.25 times the hourly rate, and that they have rosters that ensure that they are not fatigued and safety is not compromised. The Government will monitor the compliance of the operators with that charter.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
The UK ferry sector is a highly competitive commercial market. There are currently a significant number of links to Europe offering a variety of freight and passenger routes from many locations, including five new routes since 2021. Ferry routes are developed on a commercial basis by private sector operators to provide services that meet wider passenger or freight demands. As such, the Department does not currently intend to undertake any such assessment.
Neale Hanvey
The reinstatement of a direct ferry link from the Forth estuary into Europe addresses three key objectives: an environmental objective of reducing road congestion and carbon emissions from heavy goods vehicles; improving import-export resilience; and delivering economic opportunity to Scotland. Industry agrees and ferry operators stand ready to deliver a route, but the Scottish Government lack the courage to support Project Brave. What can be done to encourage the Scottish Government to invest a modest amount of pump-prime funding to realise the economic and environmental benefits that would be felt by all across the UK?
Anthony Browne
As I said in my initial answer, the UK Government see the ferry sector as a commercial market and do not subsidise it. As the hon. Gentleman points out, however, this is a devolved matter—in Scotland, ferries are the responsibility of the Scottish Government—so he should make his protestations about that route to the SNP Government, because it is up to them to decide what to do. I totally understand that they are slightly worried; they have an undistinguished track record on ferries, with various fiascos—maybe it is because they try to get ferries that can hold motorhomes.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I thank Ministers for facilitating discussions with the operators of the search and rescue helicopter service based in my constituency about the proposed response times. They have been fairly productive so far, and we will see what the outcome is. It is apparent already that the decisions are made solely on the basis of the number of calls and not the nature of the work undertaken. If the contract conforms to that, can we ensure that future contracts do not leave us exposed in that way?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
I know how important the helicopter search and rescue services are in Orkney and Shetland. The right hon. Gentleman has been a big campaigner for them, and has asked various questions and secured various debates on the matter. A review is going on about the recent incident data which will report in the summer, and we expect to publish it by the end of the year. That should include the answers to his questions. We are investing more than £1 billion in the new search and rescue service. The number of bases will go from 10 to 12 overall, and there will be no closure of bases and no change to services in Orkney and Shetland before October 2026.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Anthony Browne ExcerptsTuesday 19th March 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Automated Vehicles Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Automated Vehicles Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 March 2024 - (19 Mar 2024)
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I rise to ask a short question to the Minister and to support my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central.
I have the pleasure and privilege of serving on the Transport Committee, along with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. To reinforce the point that my hon. Friend made, there is broad, cross-party support for the concept, but the widely held assumption that self-driving vehicles will prove safer than human drivers is not a given.
Having looked at the whole issue in some detail, the Select Committee produced an excellent report, which I recommend to members of this Committee. It was published on 15 September last year, and one of its conclusions is:
“Optimistic predictions are often based on widespread self-driving vehicle usage that is decades away, or assertions about human error that ignore other risks”—
for example, changing weather conditions. It continued:
“Safety must remain the Government’s overriding priority as self-driving vehicles encounter real-world complexity. Given this, we question the Government’s proposed ambition that self-driving vehicles must be as safe as a competent and careful human driver.”
The Committee felt that that was
“too weak and too vague”
and called on the Government to
“set a clearer, more stretching threshold.”
I will come back to this in my contribution on clause stand part, but I just wanted to put that to the Minister and to reinforce the points made by the Opposition Front Benchers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sefton Central, for his comments at the beginning. I agree that there has been a large amount of cross-party support for the Bill, as was shown on Second Reading, and I appreciate the work done in the House of Lords to strengthen it. When we come to the clauses on which there is agreement, I will try to move as rapidly as possible so that we can spend more time on the clauses to which amendments are proposed.
The shadow Minister set out that the Bill is quite unusual because we are legislating for an industry that does not exist. Things are moving rapidly, but fully self-driving cars may be decades away, as the hon. Member for Easington said. However, we need to prepare for that now and try to think of all the different future scenarios.
Before coming to the amendments, I want to put something on the record about clause 1, because it is fundamental in setting out the concepts underpinning the Bill. It defines what it means for a vehicle to travel autonomously—in other words, without human-controlled monitoring with a view to safety-critical interventions. It establishes that that can be achieved through a vehicle having one or more self-driving features, and that those features can be specific to locations and circumstances. For example, it may have a motorway chauffeur feature that can drive the vehicle only on dual carriageways, or an urban delivery feature that operates in a specific geographic area.
More significantly, the clause introduces the self-driving test—the principle that there is a threshold of safe and legal operation above which the vehicle can be considered legally self-driving. That will be set out in more detail in the statement of safety principles introduced by clause 2, which we will come to shortly. We all share the ambition that automated vehicles should be as safe as possible; that is why in the Lords we inserted the statement that they should be as safe as a “careful and competent” human driver.
Before I deal with the amendments, I want to refer to the points that the hon. Member for Easington made. As I am sure he knows, I have read the Select Committee’s report, which is very good and insightful. Eighty-eight per cent of collisions—we are not meant to say “accidents” —involve some form of human error, whether people are speeding, not paying attention, distracted by the kids in the back, looking at their phone, angry or drunk. Self-driving vehicles do not do that. A careful and competent driver will have a far lower rate of accidents than an average human driver.
Grahame Morris
I am familiar with the statistics, and the Minister is absolutely correct, but I think we have to stretch our minds and think of scenarios that a competent human driver can reasonably anticipate. An example would be anticipating the movements of a blind or partially sighted person. We know that a blind person, because it is part of their training, tends to stick to the kerbs and corners. I am not convinced as yet that autonomous vehicles have the algorithms or knowledge to differentiate, so we have to set the bar—the standard—as high as possible.
Anthony Browne
I thank the hon. Member for that comment. I think he is right to say that autonomous vehicles at the moment probably cannot distinguish between blind or partially sighted pedestrians and ones who are not, but what we are setting out in the Bill is the statement of safety principles in the abstract, with the ambition that automated vehicles are as safe as a careful and competent driver. What that means will be set out as a result of detailed consultation with—as we now set out in the Bill—road users, road safety groups and the industry. Concerns about whether a self-driving vehicle can interpret whether a pedestrian is blind or not would come in at that level of detail, rather than in the ambition that we have here.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the Bill is not trying to solve all the challenges or deal with all the problems that we know come with autonomous vehicles or artificial intelligence, but is trying to create a framework within which those problems can be tackled effectively and safely?
Anthony Browne
My hon. Friend is spot on; that is the entire point. We are creating a framework with a lot of flexibility in it because, as various Members have noted, this is moving technology. If we look back in 20 years’ time to where we are now, we will say, “Oh, that was very basic.” Things will change: technology will change; our understanding of the technology will change; and our understanding of how humans interact with the technology will change. That is why it is really important, as my hon. Friend said, that we keep the legislation flexible so that we can advance it.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
I wonder whether the Minister has considered whether it would be better to start with a stricter level of safety and then, as we get used to the technology and understand its limitations, perhaps look to reduce it to the levels that are proposed.
Anthony Browne
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. The Law Commission, whose work feeds into all this, recommended three standards of safety, and we have chosen the highest. There is a risk that, if we set the bar far too high, it will be impossible for the industry to develop in the first place. There is a balance that needs to be struck.
Robin Millar
I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being generous with his time. Does he agree that it is easy to ban stuff, and that an over-regulatory approach is anathema to the development of the kinds of solutions that we are hoping will address these issues in due course?
Anthony Browne
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is very easy for Governments to ban things, but we need to nurture the industry so that it grows, because there are huge opportunities to reduce road fatalities and injuries overall, and to improve road safety overall, if we get this right. Indeed, that is the overriding reason why we are interested in this area: it is not about making it more convenient for different groups of people, or whatever; it is about improving road safety. There are arguments about accessibility and about economic growth, but it is road safety that is really important. If we get it wrong by banning the technology or making it too difficult, we will miss opportunities to improve road safety.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does the Minister also agree that, if we were to ban the technology, with the direction that it is going globally, other countries would lead the way? We would miss out on the opportunity to have more jobs, more innovation and more finance coming to this country because we would have allowed other countries to progress with the technology while we were stifling it.
Anthony Browne
Absolutely. Clearly, this is an industry that is developing globally, and we want to be part of that. I think that we all recognise that there are huge economic opportunities here, as well as opportunities for improving road safety. There is a risk that, if we set the standard far too high right at the beginning, the industry will not be able to develop and we will lose out to countries that are more flexible in their approach.
Anthony Browne
I will, although I am conscious that I need to make headway at some point.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful. That is quite an important point about regulation and not banning things, but can we just be cognisant of what has happened recently where we have taken a more laissez-faire attitude, such as in relation to pedicabs or the electric cycles that are littering the pavements?
Grahame Morris
Nobody wants to ban them completely, but if we had taken a harder line at the outset on the framework in which they operate, many of those problems could have been avoided. That is all that we on the Opposition Benches are saying.
Anthony Browne
I thank the hon. Member for his comments, and I appreciate the support that there is in the Committee for the regulation of pedicabs. The problem with pedicabs was that there was no regulation; it was a free-for-all, basically. That is indeed why we are legislating here to create a regulatory framework. It is really quite detailed legislation that builds on at least three years’ work by the Law Commission of England and Wales and by the Scottish Law Commission. I absolutely agree that we need regulation, but it is a question of getting the balance exactly right.
Grahame Morris
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I had the great pleasure of your company on the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill Committee.
There are a couple of key issues in the Bill, and safety is one of them. Of course, the other major element is insurance liability. I think it is reasonable to discuss that and consider the implications. I do not want to regurgitate the explanatory notes, but clause 1 would establish a self-driving test and make provision for the Government to classify a vehicle with features that meet the test as an autonomous vehicle. The clause states that a vehicle would satisfy the self-driving test if it has at least one feature that would
“allow it to travel autonomously”.
The Minister described some of those features: motorway driving and parking features, and others.
Importantly, to travel autonomously, a vehicle would be required to do so “safely”—
“to an acceptably safe standard”—
and “legally”—
“with an acceptably low risk of committing a traffic infraction.”
The Minister referred to the Law Commissions for England and for Scotland, explained how the definition was arrived at, and cited the 75 recommendations and so on. However, the Opposition and many organisations believe that we must hold autonomous vehicles to the highest level of safety standards because it is important to gain the confidence of the public so that they can feel comfortable interacting with them.
I thank the Transport Committee Clerks and organisers who arranged for a number of Committee members to have a ride in an autonomous vehicle with Wayve yesterday. I have been fortunate to do that on a couple of occasions with the Transport Committee, and there are obvious signs of improvement. However, it is a confidence issue—for safety reasons, there was a driver there who could intervene, and we only did a little circuit from Whitehall over Westminster bridge past St Thomas’s and Lambeth Palace, and back past Parliament Square. Even though there was no intervention from the safety driver, there is the issue of how someone would feel if there was no driver present. It is psychological— one must have the confidence to do that.
I was in an autonomous bus quite recently with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. It is a confidence issue. One cannot underestimate the public’s willingness to engage with this technology if that confidence is not there. Part of the argument we are making with amendments 19 and 20 is to try to ensure that we have the highest possible level of public confidence and trust.
As I mentioned earlier, the Transport Committee’s findings were published in its report on self-driving vehicles on 15 September. The Committee expressed concern about the assumption that self-driving vehicles will automatically be safer than human drivers. We said that that is not a given. Rigorous safety measures must be an overriding priority for self-driving vehicles as they are faced with the complexities and unpredictable nature of real-world driving.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the definitions of “safety” and “legally” in clause 1(7)(a) and (b), which I have just mentioned. They define “safety” as only
“to an acceptably safe standard”,
while “legally” means
“with an acceptably low risk of committing a traffic infraction.”
The Opposition and many organisations do not believe that those provide adequate protections for drivers, passengers and pedestrians, and they are unlikely to achieve the improvement in road safety that the introduction of AV technology could deliver. I support amendments 19 and 20, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central and Labour spokespeople, which propose to
“leave out ‘an acceptably safe standard’ and insert ‘a high standard of safety’”,
as well as
“leave out ‘an acceptably’ and insert ‘a very’”,
when referring to the low level of a traffic infraction. I would like to add that that is a position supported by Cycling UK, as stated in the written evidence submitted to the Committee.
While we accept that self-driving vehicles could potentially reduce casualties—we learned yesterday and in previous examples that the traffic management systems do not allow those vehicles to speed, so there would be less speeding than with human drivers—there are others factors to consider. During the Transport Committee inquiry which led to the “Self-driving vehicles” report, Becky Guy from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents told us that, while many collisions involve human error, there were often other contributory factors. That was a view shared by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which said that accidents attributable to humans are often caused by poor road and vehicle design and difficult driving conditions, such as rapidly changing weather conditions. Therefore, we cannot rely on the omittance of human error to improve the safety of our roads. We must hold AVs to a high standard of safety with a very low risk of committing a traffic infraction by supporting amendments 19 and 20. Without those amendments, there is a risk that the safety standards for AVs will not be strong enough.
Anthony Browne
As I set out in my response to the hon. Member for Sefton Central, when he was making the case for the amendments, there is not a sufficient appreciation of the word, “acceptable”. I know that in English it can sound a bit vague, but it means what is acceptable for the public and Parliament as expressed through the statement of safety principles. I completely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Easington that we need to bring the public with us and it is about confidence—absolutely.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
Would it be helpful to set out how we have already embraced elements of self-driving in transport? For example, I doubt there will be a driver in this place who does not rely on anti-lock braking systems when using their car. Self-parking is now quite common and autopilot is used when we are flying across the skies. Driverless trains are in operation, as are Starship robots. There are already elements of self-driving provisions on our roads that we have come to accept. I think it would be helpful if the Minister could perhaps set out how the sensory equipment in those vehicles—the lidar, the radar and the sonar—is so much more powerful than the human eye and other aspects of human sensory facilities. In addition, perhaps he could set out that human error is often the cause of accidents in this country.
Anthony Browne
I agree that technologies are evolving all over the place in lots of different modes of transport, and we are at the beginning of a revolution. I think that self-driving cars are probably a different order of magnitude.
Anthony Browne
Yes, as the hon. Member for Easington said, that is slightly different, but the technologies are related. Self-driving cars are of a different order of consideration because there is literally no human there and the cars may travel at speed, so we absolutely have to ensure that they are as safe as possible.
Grahame Morris
I am inclined to agree, and I think it is a bit of a red herring as well. Language is important. I know the Minister said that “acceptable” has a legal meaning according to the Law Commission, but the point I was trying to make in the previous debate is that this is all about public confidence and perception, and what is acceptable to you, Mr Vickers, may not be acceptable to someone else.
We have to ensure that standards are as high as possible. It is certainly not anyone’s intention on the Opposition side to put off investment or scare it away; the potential is enormous. What we are trying to do is ensure that the legislative framework is not so prescriptive that it has a negative effect, but that it sets a standard that can be emulated by the rest of the world. I know we will come back to standards, European comparators and so on, so I will press on.
Clause (2)(2)(a) establishes a safety ambition that self-driving vehicles should be expected to
“achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or higher than, that of careful and competent human drivers”.
We heard that in the debate on clause 1. In my view, that safety ambition lacks clarity, and I ask that we clarify the meaning of a careful and competent driver in the Bill. “Careful and competent” is difficult to adjudicate, and the comparison should be made with a driver who is supported by existing assisted systems, fitted as standard to new vehicles. The assessment of automated vehicle safety must take into consideration all road users and how they will interact when engaging with AVs, especially if they operate in ways that would be considered unconventional when compared with a human driver.
I do not know whether you have been following some of the international events, Mr Vickers, such as the AV trials in Australia. The computer programming and the autonomous control systems are programmed to anticipate various scenarios, including how a pedestrian or another road user, such as a cyclist, will react. What defeated the trial in Australia was the unpredictable nature of kangaroos crossing the highway, because they do not cross in a straight line, but zig-zag and bounce about, which caused all manner of problems with the response of the AVs. We have to anticipate scenarios such as that and set the standards and framework accordingly.
The safety ambition needs to take into consideration both incident frequency and incident severity when assessing safety performance. There needs to be a clearly defined capability and operational constraint for systems, to ensure that users understand their roles and responsibilities when using or owning an automated vehicle. That is especially important in evolving technologies where there are transitions between the automated driving systems and the user in charge—the hon. Member for Copeland mentioned driver assistance systems—but also as new technologies develop and users are increasingly removed from the driving task.
We must also consider disabled people. Autonomous vehicle systems must be developed with an understanding of pedestrians with sight loss and their needs, which may differ from those of sighted people. As I mentioned earlier, people with sight loss will move around the built environment differently and use building lines, kerbs and tactile pavements for navigation. The increasing number of non-standard road layouts could present challenges to automated vehicles in inaccessible environments such as shared spaces and roadway. Floating bus stops, for example, may cause all sorts of problems, being away from the pavement across a cycle lane.
The movement of pedestrians with sight loss may prove especially difficult for autonomous vehicles to predict. That is why I, like various groups representing people with disabilities, including the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the Royal National Institute of Blind People, believe that the consultation process on the safety principles must be strengthened. As this is a recent technology that could develop in different ways, it is sensible to review the principles in the medium term to determine their effectiveness. I think the Minister has indicated that he is going to do that.
Amendment 21 stipulates that the principles must set out the assessment of the safety impact of AVs on different types of road users in different types of locations where the vehicle is travelling, which would be a reasoned improvement to the Bill. I am disappointed that Lords amendment 28, which was tabled by the noble Lord Liddle and would have created an advisory council, was defeated by the Government. It is disappointing that the Government did not accept that amendment as the Government proposals in amendment 5 really do not go far enough, even though they do ensure some level of consultation. I will leave it at that.
Anthony Browne
I thank the hon. Members for Sefton Central and for Easington for their contributions.
Clause 2 does indeed relate to the statement of safety principles. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Easington was suggesting that we include in primary legislation a requirement for kangaroo-detection technologies in cars. I have not been to Easington recently, so I do not know how many kangaroos they have there. I jest; the hon. Gentleman made a lot of very sensible points, although they are not for this stage of the process but for the statement of safety principles. The level of detail he was talking about will come at that stage. As I have said before, and as is in the legislation, we will consult with road user groups and road safety groups. We have already done so, and we committed to them to carry on that process.
I want to make it clear that we think the amendments are unnecessary because they are, in effect, already in the legislation. We share the ambition completely: autonomous vehicles should obviously be safer for all road users, and particularly for vulnerable road users, including partially sighted pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians and so on. However, that is actually already clear in the legislation. As with the highway code, references to road safety already legally apply to all road users, including the groups that I mentioned. The Government have already committed in the policy scoping notes that the statement of safety principles should be fair and equal and apply to all road users so that some are not advantaged at the expense of others. We have already committed to that.
Grahame Morris
I rise to speak in support of the amendment. May I ask questions of the Minister, and back up the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, my colleague on the Opposition Front Bench? We are talking about safety principles. In an earlier debate he mentioned the advisory committee. I know we are not debating them yet, but I have been looking at some of the new clauses. It has been suggested that on the advisory council there are: representatives from consumer groups; organisations representing drivers; road safety experts; relevant businesses, such as automobile manufacturers; vehicle insurance providers, because that is a key issue; providers of delivery and public transport services; the trade unions, because it is possible that many individuals will be displaced or that there are issues around deployment; the police and other emergency services; highway authorities, because there is the issue of the digitalisation of the data for autonomous vehicles; groups representing people with disabilities; and groups representing other road users, such as cyclists and pedestrians.
If the safety principles are to operate, it is important that we get this right. The Minister has said that it is a moveable feast, and that the Government will set the ambition but the standards would be amended—presumably improved—as time goes on. I do not want to sound like a broken record, but when the Transport Committee was looking at that aspect of the proposals we received evidence from a number of witnesses, including the motor manufacturers.
David Wong from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders had concerns, when looking at safety principles, about the definition of “competent and careful”. Many organisations are not confident that that is precise enough. David Wong stressed that his organisation agreed with the terms and the ambition. Professor Siddartha Khastgir from the University of Warwick said it would be difficult to translate the
“abstract concept into something that can be implemented by engineering”.
A number of the witnesses that the Committee heard thought that the Government’s ambition was too lax, and that a more stretching target should be set. That is quite interesting. We were talking about perception, and Ed Houghton from DG Cities told the Committee that when researching public attitudes to self-driving vehicles, he asked participants, “How much safer does it need to be for you to want to use autonomous vehicles over the long term?” People said that it needed to be twice as safe, or 10 times as safe, for them to use it. That is the level of expectation that consumers have, and we should recognise it. It has to be the best that it can be before they will be able to trust it and buy into it.
Safety has to be at the heart of the Bill if the public are to trust the technology and enable the UK to become a world leader in AV technology.
Anthony Browne
Clause 2 relates to the statement of safety principles, which we have previously discussed. I will not go over that again, other than to reiterate that a lot of the issues that are being discussed now and in the various roundtables that we have had with road safety groups and so on are valid issues, but they are issues that need to be addressed as we get into the detail of the statement of safety principles.
On amendments 12 and 13 about consultation, we have already committed to consulting with road users, road safety groups, and businesses in the industry. The statement of safety principles will be subject to public consultation. We fully expect that the wide-ranging views of the public, businesses, academia and other representative bodies will be able to feed into that consultation.
Grahame Morris
Can the Minister give some clarification on the composition of the advisory committee, or is that still a matter that the Government are considering?
Anthony Browne
We have committed within the legislation to consult with road users, road safety groups and businesses in the industry—and others will be able to feed in. We did not want to be more specific about exactly which groups, because they change over time; they merge, they close down, and new ones open up. We did not want to bind our hands and say that it must be exactly those groups, but they are broad, representative groups.
We are in full agreement that we have to take the public with us. It would be wrong for the Government to proceed in a way that did not bring road safety groups with us. The ambition here is to make roads safer. It is in the Bill that AV should be safer than the average human driver and will improve road safety. That is the whole point of the legislation.
Robin Millar
The Minister makes a good point about the importance of talking to members of the public, but of course one of the main drivers—if the Committee will forgive the pun—for change and the introduction of autonomous vehicles is industry, and the use of vehicles in very specific spaces, such as quarries, farms and such. A lot of effort is going into developing the intelligence and the decision-making capability of machines in that space. Has the Minister also consulted with the bodies that might represent drivers affected by such vehicles, such as trade unions?
Anthony Browne
I am very happy to discuss this with trade unions; I have not done so yet. I agree that it is important for all those affected to input into the process. That is primarily road users, as they are the ones most directly affected.
Grahame Morris
Could the Minister give a little more clarification on the composition of the advisory committee? Will highways authorities be represented? I know the Minister said that over time more organisations would be involved, but given that the digitalisation of the information will be key and there are issues about that, it would seem sensible to have them represented on the committee.
Anthony Browne
I am happy to give a commitment that I will consult with highways authorities, but we are not going to move beyond road user groups, road safety groups and businesses in the industry as the statutory consultees, with the full expectation that the full range of groups that are interested in this issue will be able to have input. As I have said, the statement of safety principles will be subject to public consultation.
The hon. Gentleman mentions highways authorities. The Department for Transport talks at every level almost every single day with highways authorities about almost every single issue. They are well versed in all this. This will be subject to public consultation, so I am not sure what amendments 12 and 13 would add.
On amendment 14, I have said that I would be amazed if a future Government did not review this, because the technology is changing. It is highly unlikely that we will get this right first time and that it will never be changed, but I do not think it is right to bind the hands of a future Government on the timing of the review, and the need to conduct one every five years. We might find that there are lots of problems earlier on and want to review things beforehand, or that everything is going amazingly well in five or 10 years—if we complete the review every five years—and everyone is very happy with it, and then we would be doing a formal review of something that everyone was happy with. It is far better not to bind the hands of future Governments.
There is also a requirement within the legislation for a duty of monitoring by the Secretary of State on the application of the statement of safety principles. That will be published every year.
Robin Millar
Yesterday, I and several other hon. Members had the opportunity to go in autonomous vehicles around parts of Westminster. The point was made that the system the cars use is a learning system, in contrast to some systems that have been used in other countries, which are rules-based. The point of having a review at a fixed point in time is not to see whether the rules that are written today still work in five years, because we are talking about systems that have the ability to learn well in advance of any review.
Anthony Browne
I agree totally with my hon. Friend. As somebody who is very interested in artificial intelligence and who has also gone round in the Wayve car, but around Kings Cross, I was very impressed at the way that the vehicle is learning as it goes along. I asked whether it recognised speed bumps, and it learned that itself; drivers slow down for speed bumps and the AI learned that was something it needed to do.
This is clearly going to change a lot. I have been around Government long enough—not very long, but long enough—to know that it is not good governance to bind the hand of future Governments with precise requirements to do this at this time and that at that time. When the time comes, it could be completely inappropriate. It is far better to trust whoever the future Government are that if there is a need for a review, they will conduct a review. It is unimaginable that they would not.
A monitoring duty is imposed on the Secretary of State to follow how closely the statement of safety principles is working and whether any issues arise. I really do not think we need to set out a five-year review clause that may not be appropriate.
Bill Esterson
Holding a review is not binding the hands of any future Government. Setting a timeframe on it is definitely not binding their hands; it is actually just putting in a sensible provision for the future. My understanding of the way that the legislature operates is that one cannot bind the hands of a future Government anyway.
Anthony Browne
The Government would then have to pass primary legislation in order to not do a review. If we end up in a situation where everyone is happy with the statement of safety principles—I think this will be a very long way away, I have to say—we would have officials coming to the Minister at the time, whoever that was, saying, “We have to do a review of the statement of safety principles, even though everyone’s completely happy with it, because it is in primary legislation and we’re not allowed to break the law.” Yes, absolutely, we could pass a new piece of primary legislation at some point in the future saying, “We don’t need to do a review,” but why create that work? Why bind a future Government?
Bill Esterson
Well, I think that a review that says, “Everything is going very well, Minister,” is not something to be worried about, but there we are.
Anthony Browne
Reviews do take a lot of work. They are done properly; they are not done on the back of an envelope. A whole process has to be set up. It requires a lot of work from civil servants and a lot of input from wider stakeholders. It is unimaginable that there will not be various reviews in future, because the technology will be moving on, as we have discussed, but doing a review of something where there is wide acceptance that there is no need for a review—as has happened in other areas of my responsibility—creates a lot of work for no end benefit. It is not good legislating to set down in primary legislation that a future Government must do that.
Bill Esterson
Well, it is an interesting view. I think “every five years” is far from onerous.
Turning to some of the other points made in the debate, we have deliberately left a wide definition in amendment 13, where we use,
“representatives of road user groups and other groups whose safety or other interests may be affected by the application of the principles.”
That is not setting in stone exactly which organisations should be part of the consultation; it is important that we all recognise that. As time goes on, the nature— the exact identity—of those groups will change, and our amendment very much reflects the realities. I was concerned that the Minister had not discussed the legislation with the trade unions, which I think he said. I hope that he rectifies that very quickly. The TUC, I am sure, will be very happy to talk to him, and Unite the union is another one.
Anthony Browne
In this role I have talked to unions about many different things, although not about this legislation yet. However, the Law Commission, in its three-year review of the legislation, did consult directly with the unions, and they have had input into all of this legislation that we have taken forward.
Bill Esterson
Okay. I hope that the Minister will rectify that apparent omission promptly. As I say, amendment 14 is not binding the hands of Government at all. Holding a review is an important part of the future process, and I hope that the Government will reflect on that. The Minister said that the Government intend to hold reviews; I just do not understand why he is not prepared to put that into the legislation. However, on this occasion I will accept the Minister’s word on that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Power to authorise
Anthony Browne
I am grateful for the contributions of Opposition Members. As the hon. Member for Wakefield said, a couple of amendments are about delivery bots. I declare an interest: Starship operates in my constituency, in the town of Cambourne. It is incredibly popular, and I love seeing the robots tootling about the pavements; they are the subject of much local interest and fascination.
Anthony Browne
I do not know whether they have names. The hon. Gentleman has stumped me there, but it is a good idea.
As the hon. Member for Wakefield recognised in his comments, the legislation already covers pavements—the definition of roads or highways covers pavements, driveways and so on, including other accessible public areas. That could be used for the regulation of pavement bots, if desired.
I agree that there is a grey area, but the issue opens up many other issues outside the scope of the Bill: how we regulate the use of pavements, or what sort of vehicles we want or do not want on them. At the moment, mobility scooters or vehicles are allowed on the pavement, with a maximum speed of, I think, 4 mph. Such vehicles involve a whole range of issues to do with what pedestrians might expect or not on pavements, which should be subject to carefully thought-through legislation.
The issue with the delivery bots is that they are not regulated as road vehicles—they do not have licence plates and are not subject to any of the requirements made of road vehicles—so there is a risk that they would be caught by legislation that most people would think inappropriate. That raises so many issues, but they are outside the scope of the Bill. We will have to address them in some other way. I agree that there is a grey area, but this is not the way to deal with it.
Bill Esterson
The Minister points out that the bots are unregulated. What are the Government’s plans, if any, to regulate to address the anomaly? It is pretty implicit in what he says that there is a need for regulation. When and where will it happen? If not here, where?
Anthony Browne
I will write to the shadow Minister.
On amendment 17, the hon. Member for Wakefield mentioned the requirement for sellers of self-driving vehicles to demonstrate features to prospective buyers. The legislation includes requirements to communicate with end users. There is a requirement on ASDEs—I do not think that we have mentioned authorised self-driving entities yet. ASDEs are authorised to sell the technology for self-driving cars, and they will be required to communicate with end users.
There are multiple troubles with requiring someone selling a vehicle to demonstrate to the person buying it. One issue is that the person buying a vehicle will often not be the person using it, and what matters is the demonstration to the user. Imagine someone buying a vehicle on behalf of a car club, for example, or a private sale: someone selling their car might not be qualified to give demonstrations of the technology to someone else. It is far more appropriate for the ASDE, whose technology it is, to do that. As I said, the Bill already requires ASDEs to communicate with end users about how the technology works. That covers this issue. Amendment 17 would have too many unintended consequences.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being generous. If the ASDE in North America, say, is doing the sale and the updates remotely, will the legislation still be binding and apply to it and its liabilities? I am thinking of the insurance risk.
Anthony Browne
It absolutely would. To be authorised, the ASDE is required to be competent and financially sound. Clearly, the legislation needs to be binding on the ASDE wherever it is, or we could not regulate or authorise it.
New clause 4 is about transition demands, as we call them, although I do not think the hon. Member for Wakefield used that term in the new clause. It is important to get the right timing for transition demands. The Bill already requires a robust approach to ensuring that the user in charge—the transition demand relates to the user-in-charge feature; it goes back to them taking control from the self-driving feature—can respond safely to a transition demand and that they are aware of their responsibilities. As the hon. Member mentioned, we are already doing research on this fast-moving area, but ultimately what transition demand is appropriate depends on the use case: it might be different for someone driving on the motorway compared with someone doing some urban driving or operating a taxi or delivery vehicle.
How the transition demand works should be set out in the authorisation of the ASDE. Again, we are getting more and more data on the matter, and research is being done. It needs to be flexible because it depends on the individual case, so I do not think there is a need to set out in law that there should be research on it. Essentially, the new clause is unnecessary.
Simon Lightwood
Clearly, the only way we can have absolute clarity on the robot issue is to put it in the Bill and reference the inclusion of delivery vehicles specifically. There is potentially a mistake in terms of getting in the way of future investment and economic gains because of the grey area that continues to exist. We have had no clarity from the Government on when they may look at the issue further.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for his comments regarding the insurance industry. Again, the amendments were there to give that transparency and clarity to that industry and to disabled groups. I will not be pushing any of the amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 4 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Register of authorisations
Bill Esterson
Amendment 23 requires that a register of automated vehicle registrations is available online. The Government have to maintain a public register, but there is no commitment to its being online. The reason for the amendment comes from the insurance industry. As AXA puts it, the insurance industry requires clarity on the information that will be published to ensure that it is fit for purpose for insurance underwriting purposes. That matters because delays in accessing data could lead to long and expensive cases and an increase in insurance premiums.
I am sure that we are only too aware of how much motor insurance premiums have gone up in this country in the past few years; anything we could do to minimise the risk of that happening with new technology must be a good idea. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s response to the request, which comes directly from the insurance industry, to try to avoid such delays by having a register that gives them access to information as quickly as possible.
Anthony Browne
I confirm that we will not put the register just on bits of paper and lock them in a cupboard somewhere. It is a reasonable request that the register should be online. I confirm that, in line with the usual expectations around official Government documents, we will manage the register online, so the amendment is unnecessary.
Bill Esterson
I am pleased to hear that the register will be online. It is a shame; the Minister so nearly got there at the end by saying that he accepted the amendment—and then he did not. We will have to take his word for it, but it is a bit odd for him to say that it will be available online but that he is not prepared to put that in writing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Anthony Browne
We are making such fantastic progress; I thought I ought to speak on some of the clauses, for the record.
Clause 24 is about the duty of candour requirement on regulated bodies, such as the ASDEs and the no-user-in-charge operators, to provide accurate information to Government. The issue is particularly important because it has been raised with me in many different environments and has been a concern in other jurisdictions. If we are to get the technology right, it is essential that we learn from the process. However, that can happen only if the companies in the industry are completely open with the Government and investigators with the information they have. If they see anything going wrong, they should be completely frank and open about it. That has not always happened in other countries and it has caused problems.
The duty of candour is not new—there are similar things in the pharmaceutical industry—but it is incredibly important that the companies developing the new technology know the expectations on them to be completely open and frank with the public. That is the only way we will have improvements and advance the technology.
Grahame Morris
This is an important part of the Bill. Is the Minister in a position to share with us the discussions with the insurance industry? It is a key issue that, if a vehicle is autonomous and is being driven in autonomous mode, the liability presumably rests not with the passenger or the driver but with the provider—the manufacturer and the software provider. The Transport Committee met a number of industry representatives, who flagged to us the difficulty of quantifying the risk, as well as the need for candour in identifying whether the issue is systems failure or driver error because the driver intervened with the system. Is the Minister in a position to enlighten us?
Anthony Browne
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point; indeed, I have met representatives of the insurance industry about it. There are two points about the Bill that are relevant. One is that it creates the powers to set up independent investigators. Whenever there is an incident or a collision, they will investigate what the cause was and what the lessons to be learned from it are. That is a really important process in terms of improving the technology and ensuring that things that go wrong do not happen again.
The hon. Gentleman made a valid point on insurance. If there is an accident, the insurance industry first needs to know if the vehicle was in self-driving mode and who is liable. Is it the ASDE or the driver? Secondly, it needs to know what actually went wrong. There are therefore provisions in the Bill to require the regulated entities—the ASDE or the no-user-in-charge operator—to provide data to third parties such as insurance companies. Obviously, we protect the data privacy of individuals, and nothing in this legislation changes the data protection rules. However, the point is absolutely valid: we need to ensure that the data is available to investigators and insurance companies.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 25 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Warrants for entry, search and seizure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Anthony Browne
I will make a brief point about the clauses, because they will be a source of concern for many people. It is therefore good to put on the record that the clauses give the investigators and authorities powers not just to do thorough investigations of data, as we just talked about, but to enter and search premises to take away materials and so on. We must ensure that we have full powers to really understand what has gone wrong, if and when something goes wrong, so these clauses ensure that the investigators have all the powers they could possibly need to do that.
Grahame Morris
The vital point was made on Second Reading that there should be proper investigations —I am sure the insurance industry would be vociferous about this—where the owner or operator of a vehicle has carried out modifications or not maintained the vehicle adequately—it may be tyre wear or brake pad removal. Even though it is an autonomous vehicle and is not being driven by a human driver, the human owner has responsibility for maintaining it in a roadworthy condition. Presumably, if that was the cause of the accident, the investigators would be able to determine that and apportion blame and liability.
Anthony Browne
Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a lot of very valid points based on his time on the Transport Committee. Cars that have the no-user-in-charge feature must have a licensed operator, and the form and details of the licence will depend on exactly how the vehicle operates and its use case. For a fleet of taxis of the type that Waymo has in America, the NUICO—the no-user-in-charge operator—will be responsible for the maintenance of the vehicles, including the tyre wear and the brake pads, and for ensuring they have not been tampered with.
If it is an individual driver with their own car—this is a long, long way down the line, and I do not think anyone expects this to happen in the next few years—it might be reasonable to expect them to be responsible for the tyre wear and the maintenance. If they make any modifications that nullify the action of the self-driving feature, they would have liability for that. We would not expect the no-user-in-charge operator to be responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of the car, but they would be responsible if something goes wrong when the vehicle is in no-user-in-charge mode.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 29 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 38
General monitoring duty
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 38, page 25, line 35, at end insert—
“(3A) A report published under subsection (3) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This amendment would require reports containing the Secretary of State’s conclusions on the monitoring and assessment of automated vehicle performance to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
Bill Esterson
This amendment requires that the reports containing the Secretary of State’s conclusions on the monitoring and assessment of automated vehicle performance be laid before both Houses. It addresses the points about insurance and operator responsibility that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington made in relation to an earlier clause. We need a guarantee that those running automated vehicles are continuing to keep the vehicles in the state that they were in and are maintaining and updating them appropriately.
We are pleased to say that, in the Lords, the Government changed the statement of safety principles from being subject to the affirmative procedure to being subject to the negative one to improve accountability to Parliament, and we ask that something similar be done to increase parliamentary scrutiny of the monitoring and assessment of automated vehicle performance.
Anthony Browne
The Secretary of State commits in the clause to monitor, and to publish annually their assessment of, the application of the statement of safety principles. Everyone who is interested in it will have access to it, including parliamentarians, so, again, the amendment is unnecessary.
Bill Esterson
I accept the Minister’s assurance that, although he is not going to follow the affirmative principle, he is going to make the assessment available to us. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Anthony Browne ExcerptsTuesday 19th March 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Automated Vehicles Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Automated Vehicles Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 March 2024 - (19 Mar 2024)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a real delight to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir George. I rise briefly to support what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said about the important role of the devolved Administrations. He referenced the role of the Scottish Law Commission—and indeed the Law Commissions from all the nations of the United Kingdom —and its important work in producing this framework for the introduction of automated vehicles. He is quite right that the principle of consent on devolved competencies applies in this legislation, and I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington read out the relevant reference in the explanatory notes. The Government would not normally legislate on matters of devolved competence without that consent, and for that reason I think that the three amendments tabled by hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North deserve support. We will vote with him if he chooses to go for a Division.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
Before I come to the amendments, I want to set out some of the background of clause 50 and why we think it is significant. This is all about the user in charge, which is a new legal concept that did not exist when existing traffic laws were drafted. Those laws come in a wide variety of formats and language, from traffic regulation orders to motorway regulations. The power in clause 50 can be used to clarify what is and is not the responsibility of the user in charge in particular enactments—what the user in charge, when a vehicle is in self-driving mode, is responsible for. That is vital to support clear public understanding of the division of responsibility and to make adjustments based on experiences from real-world deployments.
Clause 50 will also allow us to respond to technological changes; as self-driving technology improves, it may become appropriate to shift greater responsibility away from the user in charge. For example, in future, vehicles may be better placed to assess their own roadworthiness than the human in the driving seat. Crucially, the clause does not provide carte blanche for the Government to alter traffic legislation generally. It can only affect the scope of the responsibility of the user in charge, and it is limited to them.
That brings me to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. I want to say at the outset that I completely respect devolution and the role of the devolved Administrations, and there is nothing in this legislation that is meant to change that balance at all. As he knows, there have been quite a lot of talks at the official level. I have had an exchange of letters with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, I am very happy to meet and discuss a way forward—hopefully there will be one.
The Government consider the user-in-charge immunity to be a reserved matter. That is because the Bill gets it authority from the Road Traffic Act 1988, and that is expressly reserved under the Scotland Act 1998. Clause 50 will predominantly affect the application of reserved traffic offences. There is a limited range of devolved legislation in this area, and the immunity will have only minor incidental impact on that legislation—it is very incidental.
More generally, public understanding and confidence will be key to realising the benefits of self-driving vehicles. It is vital that we have clarity and consistency across Great Britain about how these vehicles can be used and what individual responsibilities there are. I am interested to know the position of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and the Scottish Government on that. We think that the first recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission, and of the Law Commission for England and Wales, was that as the public would not be able to understand different and partial immunities based on distinctions between devolved and reserved laws in different parts of the country, there should be the same rules for user-in-charge immunity when crossing the border from Scotland to England, so that drivers do not unintentionally break a law as they do so.
Gavin Newlands
The Minister is making a point that is central to the Government’s argument, but we have devolution. We already have different rules in Scotland, such as on blood alcohol levels in drink-driving. The clause could perhaps lead to different tiers of parking fines or bus lane infringements between automated and regular cars, because the Scottish Government saw fit to have a different level of fine for a regularly driven car, as opposed to a user in charge. That is a fairly minor example, but there are a number where there could be differences across the UK without co-operation. It already happens.
Anthony Browne
Absolutely, and that is why there is some devolved legislation in this area, but we think it is important that, when someone is using a self-driving car in user-in-charge mode, they do not unintentionally break the law by crossing from one side of the border to the other because there are different applications of the law just within the user-in-charge mode.
Gavin Newlands
To go back to my example of the different drink-driving rules, there could be somebody in a pub just south of the border whose route home takes him across the border into Scotland. He could be within the law with 70 mg of blood in his alcohol—no, the other way around; that is another board game entirely! He could be within the law with 70 mg of alcohol in his blood south of the border but, by driving over the border, he would be driving illegally in Scotland. That inconsistency already exists, so I do not understand why the Minister wants to fix the problem in this legislation and on this specific issue. Devolution is there for a reason.
Anthony Browne
As I said, this was discussed at considerable length by the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission of England and Wales. They thought that understanding of user-in-charge mode and immunity would be very difficult to get across to the public if the rules varied as they drove around Great Britain. The Government agree that it is good to have consistency on these rules. The interaction on devolved matters is incidental and very limited. It is only about immunity for the user-in-charge mode; it does not apply to anything else, such as the volume of alcohol in someone’s blood as they drive across the border. We think it would create confusion and that would be detrimental to all.
Ultimately, we absolutely respect devolution. We do not support the amendments, because we think they would cause confusion and detriment, but I am very happy to meet both the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North—I said that on Second Reading; unfortunately, we did not manage to arrange a meeting before Committee stage—and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport so that we can work out a way forward.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I wonder if the Minister can clarify something, because it is not just on the Opposition side of the Committee that there are concerns about the use of delegated powers by the Secretary of State. Indeed, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee produced a report that identified clause 50 as an example of a Henry VIII power, so is it unreasonable to seek an assurance from the Minister? I served on the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill Committee with Mr Vickers, who chaired this morning’s sitting, and we regularly sought assurances or undertakings. There is a difference. A statutory undertaking would probably be in the Bill about a particular action, but the Minister gave an assurance to my colleague the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North earlier that there would be the necessary consultations with the devolved Administrations. In what circumstances would these powers be used in the event that there was no agreement about a particular measure in relation to the user in charge?
Anthony Browne
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, the reason for these powers is that there are thousands of different traffic offences, and they are all designed for cars with a human driver who is responsible. In moving to user-in-charge mode, we are making sure that the user in charge has immunity of some form, because it is the software that is in control of the car, not them. If we did not do it this way, we would have to change thousands of pieces of legislation. That simply would not be possible, and it would not be possible to go ahead with user-in-charge-mode immunity.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; it is important to clarify this. That seems absolutely reasonable, but why can he and his Department not have these discussions with their counterparts in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive in advance? Why does the measure have to be imposed as a Henry VIII power and then subsequently consulted on? That is not consultation, is it? I do not know what to call it. It is an—
Anthony Browne
As I said at the beginning, we think the question of the user-in-charge immunity—and this is all it is about—is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998. That is our position and our legal advice— I have been through this with lawyers a few times. We respect devolution and do not want to create any changes to the balance there. The hon. Member for Easington asked why we had not talked to the Scottish Government, but we have. Officials have had lots of talks, I have had exchanges of letters, and I have already given a commitment that I am very happy to meet the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to go through this in more detail.
Gavin Newlands
Essentially, the Minister is asking the Scottish Government and the Welsh Senedd to trust the Government. Over the last few years, the trust between this Government and the Scottish Parliament has been eroded, with multiple challenges by the UK Government to devolved legislation. I have all the respect in the world for the Minister, but is it not unfortunate that, given we are talking about respect for devolution, we could not get a meeting on the clause 50 issue before we got to Committee stage? It was supposed to be set for Thursday, but here we are on Tuesday afternoon disposing of the clause anyway. It is unfortunate that we could not get that meeting, which does not bode well for respect for devolution.
Anthony Browne
I am sorry we have not managed to get that meeting in. We will get it in the diary.
Anthony Browne
It is definitely an undertaking. I will not bore the Committee with my diary details, but take it as read that we will get that in.
I am absolutely not asking the Committee to just trust me and the Government, or whoever is in my or the Secretary of State’s position in the future, but it is clear from the clause that the power is reserved purely to the user-in-charge immunity, which is part of this Bill and, as a result, we think is a reserved matter.
As I said—I am just repeating myself—I am very happy to meet the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to look for a way forward, but we do not support the amendments as they stand.
Gavin Newlands
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I am not overly surprised by much he has said. I look forward to that meeting. I am grateful for Labour’s support on this issue. I will not press amendments 7 and 8 to a vote, but I will seek one on amendment 9.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. Amendment 15, which I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, seeks to make a specific obligation on inspectors to ensure that they assess the accessibility of automated vehicles when investigating incidents. Part 3, chapter 2 sets out the role of inspectors to identify, improve the understanding of and reduce the risks of harm arising from the use of authorised automated vehicles. Currently, clause 62 states that the incident can be
“not of a kind specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”,
suggesting that inspectors have discretion to investigate a wide range of incidents. The amendment would ensure consistency of inspectors in assessing the accessibility of a vehicle.
Gaining information on the accessibility of AVs is intrinsic to improving the understanding of and reducing the risks of harm involving AVs for disabled users and other disabled road users. We believe AVs present a fantastic opportunity for disabled people, so we must ensure that it is fully realised and grasped. Disabled people currently take 38% fewer journeys than non-disabled people.
Anthony Browne
I will mention the role of the investigators before commenting on the amendment. Clause 60 introduces the concept of investigation of incidents by statutory inspectors, which will allow for the creation of independent capability to investigate incidents involving authorised automated vehicles. The clause requires the Secretary of State to appoint at least one person to be an inspector of automated vehicle incidents. Clause 61 then states that the role of those inspectors is
“identifying, improving understanding of, and reducing the risks of harm arising from the use of”
self-driving vehicles in Great Britain.
Like the existing UK transport investigation branches for air and maritime, the inspectors will conduct safety investigations into incidents involving at least one authorised self-driving vehicle. It will not be their role to apportion blame or liability; instead, they will draw on all the available evidence to publish reports and recommendations that ultimately improve the safety of self-driving vehicles, in line with recommendation 32 of the Law Commission’s report. I stress that their role is analogous to those in other sectors such as air and maritime.
That brings me to amendment 15. I should say at the outset that we are very committed to ensuring maximum accessibility for different user groups—that is part of the reason for introducing this legislation to start with. Many of the points that need to be made are in clause 82, to which the Opposition have tabled an amendment. I will address those questions in more detail when we come on to that clause.
I recognise the importance of accessibility, but I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, or that this is the right place to ensure greater accessibility. While inspectors will identify the causes of incidents, which could include issues around the accessibility of the vehicle, it is not their purpose to replace vehicle safety inspections or to ensure that vehicle safety is in line with accessibility requirements. Safety investigation is a long-standing practice, both in the UK and internationally, and under no circumstances would we wish to break precedent by adding to an inspector’s role in such a way.
Grahame Morris
I seek clarification on a couple of issues in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. I am not sure whether the Minister gave us this assurance in his remarks, so can he confirm whether the inspectorate will in due course become part of the road safety investigation branch that the Government committed to setting up in June 2022, when the Law Commission first looked into this, to prevent future incidents and make our roads safer?
Clearly, this is an evolving technology; this morning, the hon. Member for Copeland mentioned advanced driver assistance systems such as adaptive cruise control, lane-changing features and parking assist, which assist the driver but do not enable the vehicle to drive itself. Those features are in effect earlier versions of this evolving technology, which we believe will lead to autonomous self-driving vehicles. While those ADAS features are not automated, it is essential, in any investigation following an accident, that potential pitfalls—I can think of a number, particularly in parking—are identified at an early stage, in case it is a software or system failure that could be corrected. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether the inspectorate will look at accidents involving advanced driver assistance systems, as well as self-driving vehicles, at this stage?
The Chair
Before I bring in the mover of the amendment, does the Minister wish to respond?
Anthony Browne
I will respond very quickly to a number of points. The difference between a self-driving car or automated vehicle and a vehicle that is not is specified right at the beginning of clause 1. This legislation is all about self-driving cars: it is not about all the other variants on driverless systems. As I stated, the independent inspection regime that we are setting up—we call it a capability—is just for where one self-driving, automated vehicle is involved, not for other forms. This is not the right place to legislate for a road safety inspection branch, whatever the arguments for and against that are. We say in the legislation that we call it a capability because the organisational structure is not set out in the legislation and needs to be decided in the future.
Gavin Newlands
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his dexterity in doing so. In terms of how the legislation will work, with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and other pan-UK inspection regimes, any offences are reported to the relevant police force. If inspectors found any evidence of issues that needed reporting, would it be reported to the Procurator Fiscal if it was in Scotland? How will that operate on the ground in terms of enforcement?
Anthony Browne
As I said at the beginning, the role of the inspectors is not to assign liability, blame or whatever else; it is to find out what actually happened in detail to ensure that it does not happen again. On the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I do not think that that has been decided, but I will write to him.
Simon Lightwood
It is important that disability is considered at every possible opportunity. This technology has the capacity to increase the number of journeys for disabled individuals, but getting it wrong could force that to go in the opposite direction. However, I will not press my amendment to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 61 to 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 67 to 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 82
Power to grant permits
Grahame Morris
I want to reinforce those points to the Minister. He is a reasonable person and I am sure he gets this, given that we have raised the issues of access and the rights of people with disabilities on several occasions now.
I remind the Minister—I am sure he remembers—that the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association ran a successful campaign to contact many MPs about the value of talking buses. I did an exercise in which I wore a blindfold. It is incredible—I thought I knew the route, but I struggled without that aid. There are other examples. We should not overlook the need to ensure that people with sight loss are catered for in the provisions on this new and exciting technology.
Anthony Browne
Before I address the amendment, I will set out a bit of background. The existing law on taxi, private hire and public service vehicle licensing is predicated on having a professional driver in the vehicle, which makes the application of the current licensing laws to automated passenger services complex and uncertain. Recognising this uncertainty, the Law Commissions recommended the creation of an alternative, bespoke permitting system for passenger services.
Holders of valid automated passenger service permits will, then, not be subject to existing taxi, private hire and public service vehicle law when operating within the terms of their permit. Permits will be issued by the appropriate national authorities: the Secretary of State in England and relevant Ministers in devolved Administrations. The Bill therefore provides broad flexibility over the terms of passenger permits to ensure that we can respond appropriately.
That brings me to the hon. Member for Wakefield’s amendment. The permit system already allows us to mandate that such information be provided to users in accessible formats. That power is already there and we have already committed—I know the hon. Gentleman will come to this in a moment—to having an advisory council of accessibility and disabled groups for public service vehicles and taxis. Crucially, as permit conditions can be specific to the service in question, the existing system operates in a way that is more flexible than the approach proposed in the amendment. For example, the provision for bus-like services could be very different from that for taxi-like services. We want to retain that flexibility.
The amendment is not necessary because the power is already there. We already have a consultation on an advisory board for disabled and accessibility groups. Part of the reason for the legislation is that it improves accessibility for a whole range of different user groups, and we are committed to doing that.
Grahame Morris
I rise to speak to clause 85 and new clause 2. My understanding of the explanatory notes in respect of clause 85 is that automated passenger services that resemble a taxi would have to obtain a relevant local taxi licence. I hope that that is correct.
Grahame Morris
I agree with that; I do not have a problem with it. However, one of the issues raised this morning, which the Minister indicated was outside the scope of the Bill but in hand, related to licensing schemes for non-road vehicles such as delivery robots. I believe they operate in the Minister’s local area, and they certainly operate in Milton Keynes. They are very popular, but we are talking about people with disabilities. As the robots are more widely deployed, there is a risk of them causing obstruction or injury if the Government do not address the issue. I know that is outside the scope of the Bill, but I want to flag it, because it is one of the issues that disability groups including the Royal National Institute of Blind People have raised with us.
There are several different scenarios in relation to new clause 2 in which autonomous vehicles can be used—from operating similarly to a taxi, which is what clause 85 is about, to operating a shared service such as a bus. In both cases, information concerning delays or diversions, when the passengers may wish to continue journeys or stop at alternative destinations, must be presented in an accessible format. On that, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, who made precisely the same points.
Normally there are a number of assessments with the explanatory notes. Has there been a disability impact assessment of the Bill’s implications? Have I missed that? Is this another occasion on which the Minister might indulge the Committee with an undertaking or an assurance that the issues relating to providing information to passengers, particularly those with disabilities and sight impairment, have not been forgotten by Government? Does he agree that people with disabilities should not be disadvantaged or excluded from this exciting new technology?
Anthony Browne
I reiterate what I said earlier: accessibility is incredibly important. That is the whole point of this legislation and why it contains clause 87. We already have the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which we consult on these matters. We have agreed to set up an accessibility panel of groups for automated passenger services. We have already met some disability groups—Guide Dogs UK was consulted by the Law Commission during the development of the legislation—so groups representing disabled people have been and will continue to be heavily involved.
Our concern is to ensure that we do not create a system that is too rigid, with inappropriate requirements that do not actually work in the best interests of people with accessibility needs. As the hon. Member for Wakefield said, we do not know quite how the commercial offerings will evolve, which is why we need to ensure that we are flexible. That is why the Law Commission stated explicitly that our focus at this stage should be on gathering evidence and facilitating learning.
Clause 87 requires that the accessibility needs of older and disabled passengers must be considered before a permit is issued by the permitting authorities. It also requires that specific consideration be given to whether the service is likely to improve the understanding of how to meet the needs of older and disabled users. Permit holders are then required to publish reports on the steps taken to provide accessible services. All this information will feed back into permit conditions, allowing us to set the right accessibility requirements in the right context for the benefit of learning from real-world use cases.
Gavin Newlands
I do not know the answer to this, so it is not some attempt at a “gotcha” question. In addition to any regular service running in the UK that the regulations would seek to cover, there is the CAVForth bus over the Forth road bridge between Fife and Edinburgh. Does the Minister know whether the service and the information available on board would meet the criteria under subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause? I do not expect the Minister to know the full answer at this time, but I would be interested to know what level of information we are currently giving on that pilot service. If he does not have the answer, will he write to us?
Anthony Browne
I understand that there is actually a bus captain on CAVForth—a person who can deal directly with passengers and help them. That is part of the point I was making about being flexible, as we do not know how self-driving buses or taxis will operate. Self-driving taxis would not have a human being in them, so their disability requirements would clearly be different from those for taxis with people in them. We are on a learning curve about the best way to make all automated services accessible for people, which is why we have focused on gathering evidence and requiring accessibility to be included in permitting systems, but are not trying to set in stone, in primary legislation, exactly what those accessibility requirements should be. I do not know the specific requirements of CAVForth off the top of my head, but I can write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
New clause 2 is unnecessary: pretty much all the provisions are in there and it is too rigid. We need to have a more flexible approach to ensure that the provision is optimal for disabled passengers and right for their needs in the different use cases.
Simon Lightwood
It is a great shame that the Government have, on three occasions now, failed to grasp the opportunities presented by our amendments to fully realise the potential of AV vehicles and to mitigate the risks presented to disabled people. At the appropriate time, we will wish to push new clause 2 to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 85 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 86 to 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 93
Provision of information about traffic regulation measures
Anthony Browne
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 93, page 67, line 17, at end insert
“for an area in England”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.
Anthony Browne
One of the Bill’s provisions is about the digitisation of traffic regulation orders. I will not speak to that power, other than to say that the Bill gives the power to the Secretary of State to do that in England. Consultation with Ministers in the Welsh Government has confirmed that they would like similar powers. These minor amendments grant Welsh Ministers those powers. The amendments are entirely uncontroversial.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendments made: 3, in clause 93, page 67, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make provision requiring a traffic regulation authority to provide prescribed information about a relevant traffic regulation measure for an area in Wales.”.
This amendment extends the power in clause 93 to the Welsh Ministers in relation to traffic regulation measures in Wales.
Amendment 4, in clause 93, page 67, line 20, leave out
“for an area in England”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.
Amendment 5, in clause 93, page 67, line 34, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “person making them”.—(Anthony Browne.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Grahame Morris
My understanding is that the clause empowers the Secretary of State to require traffic regulation authorities to digitise traffic regulation orders and notices. The Minister explained this morning why that was so important, and it is set out in the supporting documentation. It is obviously vital for automated vehicles to be able to follow traffic rules, but this measure will have much wider benefits—for sat navs, for example, and for the ability of highway authorities to manage the signage and markings essential for communicating the regulations, such as temporary lane closures, road markings and changes to existing regulations.
Could the Minister explain one aspect? We discussed it just after lunch. The provision will not extend to Scotland and Wales, so how will it work when automated vehicles drive across the border? Can he guarantee that drivers will be informed, by some method, of the most up-to-date traffic regulations, so that they do not inadvertently break the law?
Anthony Browne
The legislation gives power to the Secretary of State to require the digitisation; the exact method of digitisation will be through a digital platform that the Department for Transport is currently building. I think we would all agree with the hon. Member that it should be as widely available as possible, to bring maximum benefits to all types of road users, not just self-driving cars. I believe the Government have spoken about that before. The amendments we just agreed extend the powers to Wales. I can write to the hon. Member about the situation in Scotland.
Gavin Newlands
You have pre-empted my effort to get to my feet, Sir George. Essentially, the power is devolved to local authorities in Scotland. I have no doubt that, unlike with clause 50, there will be co-operation across and between the Governments on this issue. Hopefully, driving across the border will be seamless when it comes to data—in fact, information will probably be better when the border is crossed. Perhaps the issue is not covered because a devolved function is involved, although that does not usually stop the Government from trying. I am sure it will all work out in the end.
Anthony Browne
I have nothing to add. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 93, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 94 to 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 100
Short title
Amendment made: 6, in clause 100, page 71, line 20, leave out subsection (2).—(Anthony Browne.)
This amendment removes the privilege amendment made in the Lords.
Clause 100, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Advisory Council
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must establish a council to advise on the implementation of this Act and on the introduction of automated vehicles.
(2) The Advisory Council must consist of members appearing to the Secretary of State to represent—
(a) the interests of road users, including drivers, pedestrians and cyclists;
(b) the cause of road safety;
(c) the study of road safety;
(d) the cause of accessibility, and the impact of the introduction of automated vehicles on disabled people;
(e) trade unions, including Scottish and Welsh trade union representatives;
(f) the interests of relevant employees including delivery providers, those involved or likely to be involved in the manufacture of automated vehicles, emergency service workers, and public transport workers;
(g) businesses involved, or likely to be involved in, the manufacture, operation and insurance of automated vehicles;
(h) the emergency services, including Scottish and Welsh emergency services;
(i) highway authorities, including Scottish and Welsh highway authorities; and
(j) any other issues, causes or organisations as the Secretary of State sees fit.
(3) The Advisory Council must include nominated representatives of the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.
(4) The Secretary of State must designate a relevant officer of the Department to send reports to the Advisory Council on the introduction of automated vehicles and any issues of public policy that arise.
(5) The Advisory Council must report regularly to—
(a) Parliament,
(b) the Scottish Parliament,
(c) Senedd Cymru
on the advice it has provided to the Secretary of State, and on any other related matters relevant to the roll out of automated vehicles and associated public policy.”—(Gavin Newlands.)
This new clause would require the Government to establish an advisory council, made up of specified representatives, on the implementation of this Act and on the introduction of automated vehicles.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Bill Esterson
I agree with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North—or maybe it was his daughter who I was agreeing with; I was not entirely clear. I wish her a happy 14th birthday.
New clause 3, which I am speaking to, calls for the establishment of an advisory council. A Division on a very similar amendment in the Lords was narrowly lost. I accept the point made by the hon. Member about the benefits of the additional reference to the devolved Administrations in his new clause.
New clause 3 is largely about why this legislation matters so much and why it is so important that through it we are as successful as possible in predicting the impact of the new technology’s evolution. In doing that, it is essential that the benefits are enjoyed by all in society, not just by a few; the hon. Member made that point in passing. When I say all, I mean workers, those with disabilities and older people. We must minimise the risk of liability in the event of incidents that necessitate insurance claims, and we must ensure that safety is delivered as widely as possible. That is why an advisory council would be such a valuable addition to the legislation.
We saw for generations what happened with deindustrialisation in this country. That came at different times across the country, but very many people were affected and continue to be affected—their areas, their communities and their life chances were badly impacted. Prizes to be won through this legislation include avoiding the damage done by deindustrialisation while ensuring that all groups impacted by this exciting new technology benefit from it and that we gain the maximum and widest-possible economic benefits from it. Having an advisory council that has the breadth of experience to give the Government support on all those areas is highly desirable.
In the Lords, the Government said that such a council was not necessary. The Minister has reiterated today that consultation will be important to him, and I do not doubt that, but there are advantages to formalising the set-up of an advisory council so that particular interests do not come to the fore. We want innovation and enterprise; we want to attract the investment that ensures, as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimates, the creation of 342,000 jobs—I think I quoted a slightly lower figure earlier—12,250 of which will be in automotive manufacturing. We need to ensure that those jobs are delivered, that we have an upskilled workforce and that new jobs are created, not lost, through this change in industry, to replace the jobs that will go.
We need to ensure that disability groups are embedded from the start. This is an issue across the wider Transport brief. We said on Second Reading that it was regrettable that we had not seen a transport Bill to address some of these wider points. With this new clause, we have an opportunity to address some of the challenges in what is an exciting and potentially significant development over the coming years.
The stakeholders all make the point that wider statutory engagement is desirable. The TUC states that job transition is its primary concern, and that embedding the principle of creating good new jobs is really important at this stage, before we know exactly how the technology will develop. Having that principle in the Bill is very important.
Much of the detail will come out in secondary legislation, so ensuring that the trade unions have a seat at the table and a voice from the start is really important. The point about disability and accessibility is made by Guide Dogs. The point about transport more widely is made by Transport for All.
I hope that the Minister will give this point the attention it deserves in his response. He and his colleagues have noted how the technology is developing and will continue to change. I put it to him that there is no reason to limit the consultation with the trade unions or the other groups that are set out in our new clause 3, and indeed in SNP new clause 1. The Minister says he is keen to engage with the trade unions and is looking forward to an early meeting. A very good way of showing his intent would be to agree to new clause 3 this afternoon.
Nine sub-groups are listed in subsection (2) of new clause 3—consumer groups; organisations representing drivers; road safety experts; relevant businesses; vehicle insurance providers and providers of delivery and public transport services; trade unions; the police and other emergency services; highway authorities; groups representing people with disabilities; and groups representing other road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. Which of those nine sub-groups would the Minister want to leave out of consultation? If he agrees that all of them should be included, why not put it in the Bill? Why not set up an advisory council as part of primary legislation?
Anthony Browne
I am really glad that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North was joking about his daughter’s birthday, because I would hate to be a source of big disappointment on her birthday. I know how important 14th birthdays are. He made an interesting point. How come, in all the Bill Committees that he has been to, people agree about what they want but disagree on the actual amendments? We want as much accessibility as possible for self-driving cars as well—we share that ambition—and we want as much safety as well, but we have our own ways that we have worked out are the best ways to get that. That is what we stick to. We make amendments when we think there is something that is genuinely better.
As a newish Member to this House, I make another observation. I have only been here while my party has been in government. It has struck me how many Opposition amendments basically tell the Government what to do. I understand that that comes from a frustration that they are not in government. That can change at elections—hopefully it will not, but that does happen. If you want to tell the Government what to do, you need to win an election.
Grahame Morris
I am trying to be helpful and would just remind the Minister that this is not a unique problem. In 2012, the then Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, paused the Government’s Health and Social Care Bill and rejected all the Labour and Opposition amendments in the Public Bill Committee, on which I served, and then brought back 1,000 amendments to his own Bill, many of which were Opposition amendments recycled. I am not suggesting that we should pause this Bill, but there is always the opportunity on Report to incorporate some of the suggestions that have been made.
Anthony Browne
There is always an opportunity. Andrew Lansley is a good friend of mine, and my predecessor as MP for South Cambridgeshire.
I agree with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North in the ambition as regards consultation. It is unbelievably important that we consult with all affected stakeholders. We talked earlier about the importance of bringing the public with us. Naturally, there are concerns and scepticism about this, and lots of people are wondering how this new, unknown and evolving technology will affect them, their safety and so on. It is therefore important that we consult as much as possible. That is why we have been consulting endlessly. The Law Commission, in three years’ work, consulted an incredibly wide group of people, including many of those from unions and disabled groups that have already been mentioned. I and the Secretary of State have also had quite a few roundtables and engagement with a wide group of people, including some disability groups and road user groups already.
I was just counting the number of different routes we have for engagement. I have a list and I am afraid I will go through it. First, the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles, which is the Government entity that is driving this agenda and the Bill, has an expert advisory panel with a wide range of experts that have been feeding into it. In the legislation, we have committed on the statement of safety principles to consult road users, road safety groups and industry. We have also agreed to have an advisory panel on accessibility as we develop the standards on accessibility for passenger services and taxi services.
We already have a statutory consultation body, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which will be involved with consultation on the matter, with a particular view to accessibility and disabled groups. In the legislation, we have the general monitoring duty, so once a year the Secretary of State will now have a legal requirement to publish a report on how the statement of safety principles has been rolled out, its impact and how it is all going. Also, just to make sure we are learning lessons, we are setting up the incident investigation capacity to learn the lessons from every incident.
I have counted at least six different ways in which we are engaging and learning lessons from this as we go forward. That is on top of all the informal consultation, and a lot of the statutory instruments that come out of this will involve consultations over the next two years. There will be many different public consultations and opportunities to put into this. Indeed, my fear is that there will be death by consultation, in that people will get fed up with the number of consultations that are part of this.
I completely understand the desire of the Opposition parties to set up, on top of that, another statutory advisory council, but given all the consultation that we have done, are doing and will do as we go through this, we do not think it adds much to the sum of knowledge that we have on the subject. Coming back to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, it is important that we share the ambition of engagement, but we think we have a lot already and the amendments do not add anything.
Gavin Newlands
Given that it is half-past 3 on the first day of the Committee, to take up some more time I will press new clause 1 to a vote. In all seriousness, we should press new clause 1 to a vote. Whether colleagues want to press new clause 3 is entirely up to them, but the issue will certainly come through on Report.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Bill Esterson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In the previous debate, the Minister was saying that the Opposition should just accept that they are not here to make legislation.
Bill Esterson
I paraphrase—that was a potential interpretation of it. I would love him to clarify that this is not what he said.
Anthony Browne
To clarify, in case there was any misunderstanding of what I was saying, it is clearly the role of the Opposition to try to influence and make legislation, just as it is the Government’s. My observation was merely that a lot of Opposition amendments, and this stretches across all different debates, are basically instructions to Government of what they think Government should do, as opposed to legislation for people to control behaviours outside of Government. That is born out of frustration by the fact that they are not in government, and it is completely understandable, but there is another solution to that.
Bill Esterson
Funny he should mention that! Call the date and we will be ready, if he can persuade the Prime Minister—2 May is still available. I was quite grateful for the answer because it showed a desire to have an early general election.
Bill Esterson
Anyway, I will turn to new clause 5. In the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, there was a commitment on liability to the protection of victims and their ability to make a claim, if they are the victim of an incident with a self-driving vehicle. New clause 5 addresses the problem in the Act that, before they know whether they can prove liability, the question arises of whether they will have to prove it. If there is an incident in which somebody is hurt or killed, the question arises of whether it will automatically be accepted that an automated vehicle is designated as having been in self-driving mode. That is a potential problem if insurers insist that such proof be presented.
That point was made in 2017 by the then Transport Minister, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), on Second Reading of the 2018 Act. He referred to the potential for claims, where there is a lack of clarity on whether a vehicle was in self-driving mode, to be
“time-consuming and expensive, undermining the quick and easy access to compensation that is a cornerstone of our insurance system. Not tackling this problem risks jeopardising consumer protection and undermining the automotive industry’s competitiveness.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2017; Vol. 630, c. 73.]
I think the right hon. Gentleman made a very good point, and we share his concern that I have just reiterated, which has yet to be addressed. I would be very grateful if the Minister could respond on how potential victims will be able to make claims in a timely fashion, and overcome the risk that they will have to prove that the vehicle was in self-driving mode.
The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has raised a number of circumstances where that problem could arise, and I am sure that it has raised them with the Minister as well. I would be grateful if he could address the issue of a pedestrian, who would normally be insured, being unaware of their legal situation, perhaps because they are too young or too badly injured. In section 2 of the 2018 Act, people injured by an AV when it is driving are allowed to make a claim against the driver’s insurance, but to benefit from that provision, injured people will need to know and prove that an automated feature was engaged when the incident occurred. That is the nub of the problem that the APIL has identified: it could be very difficult or downright impossible for someone to do that. That could lead to additional investigations, requiring complex legal claims and delaying the paying out of compensation, which undermines the whole point of section 2 of the 2018 Act.
Lord Liddle pointed out in the Lords that the Department does not appear to have made its mind up about how long it takes a driver to take back control in a UIC vehicle. There is also the whole issue around transition, which my hon. Friend the Member for Easington touched on in relation to one of the earlier amendments. I would be grateful if the Minister would address that issue and set out exactly how he sees the Government ensuring that there is certainty for potential victims, given the uncertainty that his predecessor, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, identified seven years ago and that the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has drawn to our attention.
Anthony Browne
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments, because it is obviously important to make sure that there is clear liability in this area, and it is set out in the Bill.
I will just come back to the point about the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, which has been mentioned and which is the source of some of the questioning. There is a distinction between causation and fault, and in the UK people tend to claim insurance on the basis of fault, like somebody has done something wrong, and not on the basis of causation, or what actually happened.
The reason for the 2018 Act is that it was thought, quite rightly, that if somebody is in an accident with an automated vehicle, it is very difficult for them to prove whether the software and all the stuff that goes on was at fault, or that something was going wrong. Therefore, the 2018 Act created a strict liability when a vehicle is in self-driving mode. When a vehicle is not in self-driving mode and there is a human driving it, there is exactly the same liability as we have at the moment. There is no intention in any of the legislation to change that. Regarding the point that the shadow Minister makes, which was a valid one, we clearly do not want individual victims to have to try to work out whether a vehicle was in self-driving mode or not. They will claim in the normal way against the insurer of the vehicle.
If the vehicle was in self-driving mode and that was at fault, the insurer of the vehicle can claim the insurance from the authorised self-driving entity. That will be a settlement between the insurance companies; it will not affect the victim’s ability to claim. The system is designed in such a way as to make sure that the victim gets any payment due to them as quickly as possible.
That is also why we have the sharing of information, which we discussed earlier, because it is really important for the various insurance companies to know whether, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was in self-driving mode or not, in order to ascertain whether the liability should be with the ASDE or with the driver. If they do not know what mode the vehicle was in, they cannot do that.
If this new clause were added to the Bill, we would have the unusual situation whereby a car with a self-driving function that might never be used is subject to strict liability insurance claims and a car that does not have a self-driving function is subject to the normal liabilities that we have at the moment. We would have the bizarre situation that a pedestrian could be better off if they were in an accident with a car with a self-driving function that is never used than if they were in an accident with a conventionally driven car. It would be very difficult to explain that sort of discrepancy and give any rational justification for it. Again, this is one of those things where we agree with the ambition, but we think that it is already covered.
Bill Esterson
Two questions follow from what the Minister says. First, how does somebody prove that a vehicle was in self-driving mode where it has the option to switch between self-driving and user in charge? Secondly, what is its definition during transition? I accept that those are difficult questions, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s answers. There is a related point about data access. What are his proposals to ensure that data is available from the operator and from the vehicle, notwithstanding the fact that they are not collecting personal information and that this process is purely about data that is relevant to an incident?
Anthony Browne
The point I was trying to make is that the victim—the pedestrian, or whoever it is—does not have to prove whether the vehicle was in self-driving mode or not. It will be for the insurer of the car and the insurer of the ASDE to work that out. If the car was in self-driving mode, then the ASDE would be liable, and it would claim against its insurance. If the car was not in self-driving mode, it would be the normal driver’s insurance, because there is still the legal requirement for the car to be insured like it is at the moment. The victim would not need to show what mode it was in.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the vehicle does not have to be in self-driving mode, and that a potential victim does not have to prove whether it was. I am concerned about why we have people related to the insurance industry advising that this is yet to be cleared up. A similar point came up in the House of Lords. This remains a bit of a concern.
Anthony Browne
This is a complex and technical issue. As part of my extended engagement, I mentioned earlier that I have a roundtable coming up with the insurance industry about AVs and electric vehicles. I will happily write to the shadow Minister afterwards to clarify these points in black and white, and whether there are any issues resulting from that.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that because the Motor Insurers’ Bureau raised exactly that concern with me. I would love the Minister to answer it.
Anthony Browne
I am very happy to answer. This issue has indeed been raised with me and the Department, and I can confirm that the Department is in negotiations with the Motor Insurers’ Bureau about exactly this point. We have a difference of opinion with the Motor Insurers’ Bureau because it thinks this requires an amendment, and that is why it has been lobbying about this legislation. We think there are ways that we can cover this point without primary legislation, so it does not actually need an amendment. It is one of those examples, as raised by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, where we agree on the outcome—we agree that we need to close this loophole—but we think we can do it in a different way, without primary legislation.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful for those answers. I suggest that this might be something we can debate a little further on Report. The Minister will perhaps be in a slightly different position then, with some of the information he has had from the industry, as will I. That might be a good place to take this next. As he rightly says, we are setting the framework with this legislation. There are elements of it that are very difficult to pin down now, and we have to do the best we can. Report stage is a further opportunity.
With those thoughts, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Anthony Browne
On a point of order, Sir George. I thank everyone involved in the preparations for the Committee—the Clerks; the officials, who have been working incredibly hard; and you, Sir George—and I thank all the members of the Committee for spending their time here going through the Bill. It is delightful to have something on which there is consensus across the House on the broad direction of travel, if not on every single item.
Bill Esterson
Further to that point of order, Sir George. I thank you and Mr Vickers for chairing our sessions. I think this Committee is possibly unique in the history of Parliament in that the Chairs, between them, have possibly spoken for longer than Members in moving through the agenda—in a thoroughly appropriate way, I hasten to add. It is a pleasure to have my predecessor in the Chair for a Committee such as this; I took about half of my constituency from you in 2010, Sir George.
I add my thanks to the Clerks, the officials and the Law Commission for their work and for getting us to this stage. We have set the framework for an important future piece of legislation. Birthday wishes to the 14-year-old daughter of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, too. I thank all Members for their contributions today and on Second Reading, and I look forward to Report.
Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]
Anthony Browne ExcerptsTuesday 5th March 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Automated Vehicles Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Automated Vehicles Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-R-I(a) Manuscript amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (6 Feb 2024)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
I thank everyone who has contributed to this incredibly enjoyable debate. It is always enjoyable when there is a remarkable degree of consensus across the House. I note that Labour, the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats all support this legislation. There was a large degree of consensus on the various issues, with almost everyone who spoke agreeing that this legislation could and should lead to safer roads. We all want to reduce the number of accidents, injuries and deaths on the road.
Various Members from different parts of the country talked about the autonomous vehicle work going on in their constituencies: the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) talked about CAVForth in Scotland; the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), talked about the work in Milton Keynes; and the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) talked about the benefits in Warwick. Various Members also mentioned Wayve in north London, and I know that companies in my constituency are working on this. Getting this industry right really is an example of levelling up. There was also a large degree of consensus that we need to make sure that this technology works for the benefit of vulnerable users. One of the major reasons for it is that it offers huge opportunities for people who are blind, frail and so on and cannot drive.
Lots of useful questions and points were raised. I spent a huge amount of time nodding in violent agreement with what Members from the various Opposition parties were saying, such was the consensus. Many of the points have been covered in the Bill, which I will go through in detail. Various Members mentioned the need for proper accident investigation. We completely agree on that, because it is vital that whenever a self-driving vehicle is involved in an accident, we need to know why the accident happened and whether, for example, it was a result of the software or the algorithm going wrong. We need to learn from any accidents. This is an evolution; we are not going to get the perfect result and this is going to evolve over the coming years and decades. The importance of accident investigation is why we provide in the Bill for an incident investigation function similar to those in other sectors, such as aviation, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). The Secretary of State will have the power to appoint independent accident investigators, who will find out the root cause and make sure that we all learn the lessons.
Matt Western
I just want to understand this better, because I might have missed something. Is that technology, in essence, like a black box that would be fitted within a vehicle, which those investigators could then access?
Anthony Browne
Absolutely, the accident investigators will have the power to get access to the software and technology so that we understand what went wrong. That is a crucial part of this; we need to understand technically what the cause of any accident is. That is very different from a police investigation into an accident, where they are trying to attribute blame to X, Y or Z but do not need to understand the root cause.
Let me turn to some of the most detailed comments. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), said that the Opposition support this legislation. She talked about the importance of jobs and getting that aspect right. Most speakers talked about the benefits for jobs, with the self-driving sector creating as many as 38,000 new jobs by 2035. A range of new jobs will arise out of this, not just in the companies making self-driving technology, but with conductors on automated services, for example. She worried about the job losses that were coming, as did various other Opposition Members, but they are getting ahead of themselves; those sort of impacts will be a very long way down the line and this is an evolution in the coming years and decades. It is definitely worth thinking about the issue. The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, asked what will happen to jobs in 50 years’ time, but it is not the purpose of this Bill to deal with the situation in 50 years’ time.
Accessibility is clearly a major issue and we completely agree on it. The Government want to ensure that all parts of society, including people with disabilities, can reap the benefits of self-driving technology. That is why we have anchored our approach in the recommendations put forward by the Law Commissions in their inquiry. Their central conclusion was that our focus should be on gathering evidence and gaining experience, and making sure that this works for disabled people and vulnerable users. The Bill requires that the authority granting a passenger permit must consider how the service will lead to improvement in understanding accessibility. Service providers will then be required to publish regular reports on how they are meeting the needs of disabled and vulnerable users. We are also following the Law Commissions’ recommendation in establishing an accessibility advisory panel to inform the development of national accessibility standards. The Department for Transport already has a statutory disabled users advisory panel.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South, the Chair of the Select Committee, raised a large number of points. He made comments about “careful and competent driver” being too weak as a definition. It is an ambition rather than a detail, and that takes us to the whole point about the statement of safety principles. The ambition of making sure that a driver is safe, careful and competent is in the Bill, but the detail of exactly what that means will come through in the statement of safety principles, on which we will consult widely.
The Secretary of State and I had a meeting with a wide range of user groups last week—road user groups, road safety groups and people from the Royal National Institute of Blind People were at the roundtable. We committed to working with them as we go forward on putting together that statement of safety principles. We have also committed in the Bill to consulting a range of different groups, including road user groups, and that could include trade unions. We would very much like to hear from them if they have contributions to make on the different aspects of safety that we will be sorting out. As this is an evolving technology, a lot of what is in the Bill is high level and quite a lot of statutory instruments will fall from it; it is necessary to be flexible. Consulting on developing those SIs will take until 2026, so there is a long time to get a lot of the details right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South also said that he wanted to make sure that drivers have the right level of skills and do not forget how to drive. People being deskilled is a long way off, but he asks the right question and the Government will keep under review whether we need to do anything on that. He also made the point about making sure that MOT tests are kept up to date. We have consulted on the future of those tests, and we will be monitoring that and making sure that they are kept up to date. Most Members, including my hon. Friend, raised the valid point about data and the insurance industry. Thatcham Research, which does the driving safety work for the insurance industry, was at the roundtable that we had last week, and we committed to working with them in the future. They need to know exactly what data they can get access to at the time of an accident. The powers for that are in the Bill. It will be critical to understand whether the vehicle was in self-driving mode at the time—the “no user in charge” mode—or whether a human was driving, as well as the cause of the accident. That point has been well made, but those issues are already addressed in the Bill.
Various hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South, talked about the need to take the public with us; I agree. It is good to debate the subject here and good that there is a political consensus. We will be doing lots of consultation on the subject going forward and will invite everyone’s input. The Government recently launched PAVE, Partners for Automated Vehicle Education. I launched the initiative at the RAC Club a couple of weeks ago and it is supported by the Government. It aims to educate the public about self-driving cars and promote debate about that transport revolution.
The spokesperson for the SNP, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, made many very good points. I am not usually in such agreement with the SNP on Government policy. We absolutely need to take the public with us. He asked whether it would be compulsory to have an autonomous vehicle, as he wants to carry on driving. I can confirm to the House that the Government have no plans to ban driving—not now, not ever. He will be entitled to carry on driving if he wishes. Self-driving cars are entirely voluntary.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members raised points about international incidents, including problems with state-level rules in the US and problems that Cruise had in San Francisco. I agree that we need to learn lessons from all the international incidents and that we need strong, clear rules. The whole point of the legislation is to clearly define the legal and regulatory structure, so that we avoid the bad stuff and so that we can learn, improve the system and bring in changes as we need them.
Gavin Newlands
As I alluded to, the Scottish Government have been more than willing to work with the UK Government on the Bill. In fact, they are in complete agreement on many aspects of the Bill, but does the Minister accept that clause 50 is an overstep by the Government yet again? They are overruling legislation defined in the Scottish Parliament, given that Scotland has a separate legal framework.
Anthony Browne
I reassure the hon. Member that we have been in contact with Scottish Government officials about the Bill over many months, including on this issue, and there has been an exchange of letters. The power in clause 50 is limited to making regulations changing or clarifying whether, how or in what circumstances a relevant enactment applies to the user in charge of a vehicle, a concept that the UK Government consider to be reserved. The power can amend devolved enactments only to this limited extent. It cannot be used to amend enactments more broadly or for any other purpose. I am happy to meet the hon. Member if he wants to discuss that further.
On international rules, many hon. Members mentioned the Horizon scandal and whether big tech companies can be trusted. They mentioned the fine Apple has just received from the EU. Those are valid concerns. It is imperative that we go on the journey of developing the technology together, so that there is trust between the Government, the regulators, the public and the companies themselves. That is why we have introduced a duty of candour, legally requiring senior management of the companies to be up front with the Government about any technical problems or changes that could impact safety. We take this so seriously that it is subject to criminal sanctions, including prison sentences of up to 14 years if senior management are completely deceptive about what is happening. The work has to be carried out on the basis of openness. This is not a new idea—we have the same legislation in other industries, such as the pharmaceutical industry, where we need a similar duty of candour about the safety of drugs. We take the issue very seriously.
The Opposition spokespeople and the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington talked about the need for an advisory council. We have committed to consulting on the statement of safety principles, and most of the issues we have discussed are included in that statement. The legislation also includes a duty of monitoring. The Secretary of State will have a legal duty to monitor the development of self-driving autonomous vehicles, including safety issues, and to write a report that every year.
Most of the other issues have been covered already. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] Hon. Members are very keen to conclude the debate. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who is no longer in his place, said that the legislation should cover delivery robots. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath that this legislation does not provide the time or the place for that. There are many different issues concerning delivery robots that do not fit within the scope of this Bill.
Finally, the hon. Member for Eltham, who was not originally going to speak but decided to give a speech, said we should ensure that all road users benefit from the legislation. There is no algorithm that decides to run over cyclists or children. The whole point of these vehicles is to make roads safer. That will come out through the consultation on the statement of safety principles, but we are already committed to fairness between all road users being at the centre of those principles. Safety has to be for all road users, not just the people within the vehicle.
The debate has been positive and constructive, with a lot of well made points. I look forward to going through the Bill in Committee where we can discuss issues in more detail. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]: Programme
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 18 April 2024.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Anthony Browne.)
Question agreed to.
Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]: Money
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State.—(Anthony Browne.)
Question agreed to.
Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]: Ways and Means
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the charging of fees under the Act; and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Anthony Browne.)
Question agreed to.
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on
(1) the Motion in the name of Secretary Kemi Badenoch relating to the Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill: Instruction not later than 45 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, and
(2) the Motion in the name of Secretary James Cleverly relating to British Citizenship (Northern Ireland) Bill: Instruction not later than 45 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion;
such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings on those Motions may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to those motions or to the motion in the name of Nigel Huddleston relating to High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill: Money.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill
Anthony Browne ExcerptsFriday 23rd February 2024
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill 2023-24 View all Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
This is probably the most enjoyable debate I have ever taken part in. Particularly after Wednesday night’s activities, it is nice to have a debate of a cross-party nature in terms of its support and enthusiasm.
Anthony Browne
He has gone and spoilt it all, Mr Deputy Speaker.
A few months ago I went to see the show “The Moon Walkers”, with narration by Tom Hanks, about the 12 men —and they are all men—who have walked on the moon. It is a remarkable exhibition, and I highly recommend it to everyone, particularly you, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you are interested in space. It is about an age of adventure, an extraordinary era 50 years ago when people were walking on another celestial body. We thought it was the dawn of a whole new era and that mankind, and womankind, would carry on and explore the rest of the universe, but that did not happen, and no one has been back to the moon since. Yesterday, however, the United States returned there, for the first time for 50 years, as the shadow Minister said, although it was not a person but the Odysseus robot that landed near the moon’s south pole.
The real significance of this event, however, is not the 50-year gap but the fact that Intuitive Machines, a Houston-based company, sent that robot to the moon. The space age has entered a completely new era, which is not about states and Governments of big countries trying to prove how powerful and effective they are for the purpose of national pride, but about real commercial opportunity. Many of my hon. Friends have mentioned all the commercial opportunities that are out there. People are doing this not for reasons of national pride, but because it is so useful to humankind, and so important for communications, sensing, geographical information and all the other elements that have been mentioned.
This is now a properly based commercial opportunity for the UK, and that is why I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord) for bringing this short but impactful and timely Bill to the House. I also greatly enjoyed the contributions from all the other Members who have spoken. I am pleased to confirm that the Bill has the Government’s full support. Let me briefly explain why.
As my hon. Friend and others have said, the UK has a thriving space sector. In fact, I learned this morning that Cornwall has 150 space companies. We have a far more thriving space sector than most people realise. Did you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the satellite capital of Europe is Glasgow, and that more small satellites are built there than anywhere outside California?
The UK is now the second most attractive destination for commercial space investment after the United States. We get more space investment in the UK than any other country in the world apart from the United States. Given your interest in space, Mr Deputy Speaker, did you realise that no rocket has ever been launched into orbit from European soil? We have a European Space Agency, which has launched rockets into space, but it does so largely from French Guyana in South America. Rockets have been launched into space from Kazakhstan, but never from European soil. We now have a spaceport in the Shetlands preparing to do just that—SaxaVord, which many hon. Members have mentioned. We might end up with one from Cornwall as well, but Shetlands might be the first. That will be a truly historic moment.
Let me clarify that rockets are launched into space from Europe, but they are suborbital. From Norway and Sweden, they go around the earth once or maybe twice, and then come back down to Earth. Never has a rocket been launched into sustained orbit from European soil. The UK plans to be the first European nation to do that, which marks a huge opportunity. We set up the regulatory and licensing regimes to license the spaceports because, not just in the UK but in other European countries, companies are making satellites and rockets that they want to launch into space. It will be far easier and cheaper for them to do it from European soil than having to transport the rockets to America, French Guyana or Kazakhstan.
Cherilyn Mackrory
On more of a technical point, if the Minister does not mind, I know that we have done an awful lot in a very short space of time to get our regulatory system up to scratch. How do we compare with the other European nations, or Europe as a whole?
Anthony Browne
This has been a Brexit opportunity, dare I say. Leaving the EU enabled us to set up a whole new regulatory regime in great detail. Other European countries have regimes for space activity, but none with the same detail or launch opportunities as the UK. In the UK we are blessed with our geography, for various reasons. To launch a rocket in space, it needs to be launched from somewhere where there are not a lot of people, and with a trajectory so that if the rocket has a splashdown, it will not land on any other people. Cornwall is obviously very interesting, as is the north of Shetland. If a rocket is launched into orbit from there, it goes north and through the Bering strait. The first land it would hit would be New Zealand, but hopefully it will be up in orbit by that time. Not many other European countries have such geographical opportunities. It would be very difficult for Switzerland or Germany to do that. We are blessed with our geography.
Another difference—and why there is an opportunity for the UK—is that if we go back a couple of decades, the main focus was on big rockets launching satellites into geostationary orbit, which is 47,000 miles out, where they stay above the same point of land as the Earth rotates. A very big rocket is needed to get a satellite up there and into place. It is far easier to do that if the rocket is launched close to and in the direction of the equator. The European Space Agency’s launch site is in French Guyana because it is close to the equator. We now do not send geostationary satellites that far out into space—all the interest is in low Earth-orbit satellites. All the satellites launched by SpaceX for its internet service are low-orbit satellites. It is easier to do that over the north pole.
The changing technical nature of the use of space and satellites represents a huge opportunity for the UK. The satellites themselves are getting a lot smaller. Going back 20 or 30 years, the satellites were the size of buses, whereas now they can be the size of fridges or microwaves. They require much smaller rockets to launch them into space. I hope you enjoyed all that explanation, Mr Deputy Speaker.
As we have heard from various hon. Members and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), the UK space industry supports an industrial base of over 1,500 space companies and provides highly skilled, high-quality jobs across the UK, with over 77% of employees holding at least a primary degree. We heard about jobs in Cornwall and Manchester; this is true levelling up. I also mentioned space jobs in Glasgow and at SaxaVord in the Shetlands. In 2018, Orbex, another Scottish company, opened a new facility in Forres, incorporating design and manufacturing facilities for its Prime launch vehicle. The Prime project has created more than 140 highly skilled jobs in the local area so far, with many more anticipated as the company continues to grow.
Highlands and Islands Enterprise anticipates that the Sutherland spaceport will support around 613 full-time equivalent posts throughout the wider Highlands and Islands, including an estimated 44 full-time equivalent posts on the site. SaxaVord anticipates that by the end of this year, its spaceport site could support 605 jobs in Scotland, including 140 locally and 210 across the wider Shetland region. As we heard, Spaceport Cornwall anticipates that its project will deliver 150 direct jobs and 240 indirect jobs by 2030.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I am a little bit anxious that the Minister will forget Airbus, which is in Newport West. I am sure that he was going to mention it. As the shadow Minister said, it is really important for cyber-security and tech jobs in south Wales. It is a vital part of our network, and I wanted to remind him about it.
Anthony Browne
The challenge is that there are so many businesses and companies involved in aerospace in the UK, and in the space industry generally, that I cannot list them all. The shadow Minister mentioned Airbus. Clearly, Airbus and British Aerospace are the two really big aerospace companies, but the industry is not just about those two giants. There are many thousands of small and medium-sized companies, and there is a whole supply chain, creating jobs, value and economic opportunities for the UK, which the legislation is designed to help enable.
Building on the success of the UK space sector, the Government have set out bold spaceflight ambitions—the text I was given by officials is definitely bold. In our national space strategy, the UK is boldly going where no country has gone before. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] The puns are not stopping. That includes making the UK the leading provider of commercial small satellite launch in Europe by 2030. As I say, the small satellites present the opportunities, not the big ones. To achieve our ambition, the Government have invested over £57 million so far through the Launch UK programme to grow new UK markets for small satellite launch and suborbital spaceflight.
Before I come to the regulatory aspects of the Bill, let me say that many hon. Friends have talked about the commercial opportunities. I will not talk only about that, but the choice to land the Odysseus robot on the moon yesterday was interesting. Why go to the moon? I am trying to paint a bigger picture, rather than concentrating on the immediate commercial opportunities, because lots of people see opportunities for further space development. Elon Musk, who has a few achievements under his belt, has said that he wants to die on Mars. I do not know how realistic that is, but he has launched a Tesla, or one of his cars, into orbit. There are plans to send humans back to the moon next year, and plans to send humans to Mars.
Humans have looked to the skies since time immemorial and dreamed about what is up there. Human instinct is to go and explore, which is why we went around the earth. In Polynesian culture, people went from one island to another. They set forth in their boats without necessarily realising what they would find when they arrived. The human instinct is to explore the universe. We do not know what we will find there, or what the opportunities will be, although I do not think we will find the Clangers or the Soup Dragon on some other planet.
Cherilyn Mackrory
I never thought I would intervene on the word “Clangers”, but there we are. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for critical minerals. Obviously, critical minerals are another huge industry in Cornwall. As we know, globally, we still do not have enough supply for the future—certainly not from friendly nations that we can trust. Does my hon. Friend agree that in future generations, space could be another source of critical minerals that we need for our supply chains?
Anthony Browne
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which was very well made. The Odysseus robot went to the south pole of the moon because that is where the supply of water is. Water is obviously not a critical mineral, but it is a source material for energy and oxygen. We can get hydrogen out of it, but the reason why commercial companies and, indeed, Governments are interested in the moon and Mars is exactly that: critical minerals. We have a limited supply of those minerals on Earth, but we may be able to find them in other places.
Mark Garnier
While we are waiting to get to infinity and beyond, it is important to highlight other very innovative British companies that are looking at doing extraordinary things in the area of critical minerals. They are seeking to take the lunar regolith—moondust, which is a metal oxide—and use robots to create 3D printing powder, which could be used to print a moon base through additive printing. The by-product of the powder is oxygen. Keep in mind that it costs $1 million per kilogram to get a payload to the surface of the moon, and that we need not just breathing oxygen, but energy and oxidants for propulsion. It is extraordinary what British companies are doing to make it possible to not only get to the moon and occupy it, but use it as a launchpad to get to further places—such as Mars, speaking of Elon Musk’s ambition. The Americans need us; I think we should remember that.
Anthony Browne
My hon. Friend has expounded a very important point: we are critical to the space industry, and to space exploration more generally.
Coming back to the issue of regulation—coming down to Earth from our big visions, the Clangers and so on—the Government have been funding the industry. We put in place the Space Industry Act 2018, which my hon. Friend the Member for Woking talked about, and appointed the Civil Aviation Authority as a spaceflight regulator—that is why I am answering this debate, as a Transport Minister, rather than someone from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Getting into space and orbit is a DFT responsibility. The civil aviation regulator—which has licensed SaxaVord, for example—enables the licensing of spaceflight activities from the UK, such as operating a satellite in orbit, and enabling a launch to orbit from UK spaceports for the first time.
The Government recognise that the issues of liability and insurance are of the utmost concern to the space sector, and they are obviously the entire point of the Bill. The industry made clear in its responses to the consultation on the then draft space industry regulations in 2020, and in response to the Government call for evidence to inform orbital liability and insurance policy in October 2021, that holding unlimited liability will have an adverse effect on the UK space flight industry. People sometimes object to private Members’ Bills because they are not based on consultation, but this issue has been endlessly consulted on and negotiated with industry, and the industry is calling for this Bill.
The industry has advised that it is impossible, not just difficult, to obtain insurance for an unlimited amount. Members might ask, “Why is that, if the chance of something happening is infinitesimally small?” The reason is that it is impossible for the actuaries to quantify it; with infinity over infinity, one could come up with any value. Also, insurers are required by regulation to show that they have the capital to meet any claim on them. Clearly, insurers cannot have unlimited capital, so it is regulatorily and legally impossible for insurance companies to insure to an unlimited amount. It is very difficult for the industry to say to investors, “Please give me money to fund the launch of a rocket, even though I may not be able to insure it.” We need liability limitations so that launch companies and other space operators can get insurance, and so can get the investment that they need.
If a spaceflight company cannot get unlimited insurance, it obviously cannot get full insurance. As a number of hon. Members have said, if the Government did not limit a spaceflight operator’s liability, spaceflight companies and investors would instead look to more favourable regulatory regimes in other countries, where Governments share the risks involved by limiting an operator’s liability and offering a state guarantee. The United States already does this, as does France with French Guiana.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking has explained, there are powers in the Space Industry Act that we can and do use to limit a spaceflight operator’s liability when carrying out spaceflight activities from the UK. Government policy is that the regulator should use those powers and specify limits on operator liability in the licence, so that no operator faces unlimited liability. However, the law sets out that the Government “may” do that, rather than “must”.
The Government fully support the Bill for two key reasons. It is consistent with our policy that all spaceflight operator licences should have a limit on liability. It will not, therefore, impose any additional liability or risk on UK taxpayers. My hon. Friend made that point. The Government also recognise the value that the industry places on legislative certainty on this matter. As I pointed out, if investors are to make an investment in a space company, they need to know that the company will be able to get insurance. The report by the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform—the TIGRR report, for short—published in May 2021, expressed concerns from the space sector over the use of the word “may” in section 12(2) of the Space Industry Act. The Bill would replace that “may” with “must”.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) explained his great interest in space, and mentioned financial services, which I want to come on to. The point was well made that before the UK was a spacefaring nation, we were a seafaring nation. London was the biggest port in the world for more than 200 years, which led to a whole maritime industry with insurance around it, including Lloyd’s of London, and lawyers. We have a huge maritime industry in London as a result of having a maritime fleet, and we now have the same opportunity with space. We can have space investors—I have met some of them—as well as space lawyers, space insurance companies, regulatory experts and so on. It is a huge opportunity. The Government and the regulators need to ensure that the industry has the right incentives.
Chris Clarkson
The Minister mentions ports. Obviously, quite a few of our maritime assets are considered critical national infrastructure. Have any discussions been had on whether our space assets will also fall into that category? That applies particularly if we are to launch a 3D printer so that we can build on the moon, which is apparently the only place where the Liberal Democrats will not try to block house building.
Anthony Browne
My hon. Friend asks an interesting question. I will raise it with officials and come back to him with an answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) gave the most fantastic and enthusiastic speech about the space opportunities for Cornwall. I bet most people in Britain do not realise quite how important space is for Cornwall. There are 150 different companies; I had no idea that Cornwall had its own space lawyers, so that is a great insight. We also heard about the use of satellites for the maritime sector and various other issues to do with Cornwall. I want to make sure that my hon. Friend knows that as the Government Minister responsible, I fully agree that the Cornish launch, which was before my time as a Minister, was absolutely a success from a regulatory and investor point of view. I agree that the whole regime worked.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest made the point that we in this country tend to overemphasise the negative, and we always look at the bad things that happen. I think I am right in saying that the first three launches from SpaceX did not get into space, but were actually seen as successes because they contributed to the whole launch operation. Lots of things were learned from those launches, and the same is true of the Cornish launch.
Cherilyn Mackrory
I do not think I said earlier that the Cornish launch did actually make it to space; it was during the secondary bit that the fuel problem happened and it went wrong. However, we did launch successfully from British soil, and did make it to space.
Anthony Browne
I would not want to malign the Cornish space launch in that way, so I fully accept my hon. Friend’s point. It is great to hear that Cornish children are so inspired by space now. As we have heard, there are huge commercial and job opportunities, and I am sure there will be many great careers that will come from children having an interest in space.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) for his general huge enthusiasm and countless puns, which have livened up this day. We could all do with a bit of levity. I thank the shadow Minister for his great speech and for some of his puns, as well as his call for me to resign—[Laughter.] I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for the Bill.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking for his Bill, which would amend section 12(2) of the Space Industry Act and meet a key request from the sector, as well as address a recommendation made by the taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform. Indeed, by turning that one word “may” into “must”, the Bill will enable Britain’s space industry to reach the final frontier and beyond.
Young Drivers: Government Support
Anthony Browne Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mrs Latham. I want to thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for bringing this important debate to the House. Hon. Members may have noticed that I am not the roads Minister, but I am here because the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), has to appear in the Adjournment debate. I was only asked to do this a couple of hours ago, so I am a last-minute stand-in for an area that is not in my brief. I ask hon. Members to forgive me if I do not answer every question here, but I will make sure that the questions are answered afterwards.
The debate focuses on an important issue. The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and I must be the same age, as I too passed my driving test aged 17, 40 years ago. I was very keen to drive as quickly as possible, for all the freedom it gave me growing up in Cambridgeshire. I have two teenage children who I am currently encouraging to learn to drive, so I am aware of all the things that various hon. Members mentioned as regards the difficulties of young people driving.
Obviously, as a parent, I am incredibly concerned about safety and very aware of the costs of insurance. I and the Government are big supporters of helping young people to be able to drive and to do so in as safe a way as possible. It really should not need saying that every single death on the road is an absolute tragedy, and even more so for somebody who is at the start of their life. We need to do everything we can to prevent that.
The Government will continuously strive to improve road safety, but overall we have a good record in the UK. I used to do quite a lot of work on road safety in the 1980s; there were around 5,000 or 6,000 deaths a year back then. Now, it is around 1,500 deaths a year. Each one is a tragedy, but that is a dramatic fall. We now have the third safest roads in Europe, with only Norway and Sweden having safer roads, but clearly we still need to do more because every death is a tragedy.
As various colleagues have mentioned, young drivers are a particular risk. Young drivers between the ages of 17 and 24 account for 6% of driving licence holders but were involved in 28% of fatal and serious collisions in 2022. However, like the headline figures, the number of car fatalities involving 17 to 24-year-olds on Britain’s roads is also falling. We have seen a drop in the number of 17 to 24-year-olds killed—from 448 in 1990, to 158 in 2010, to 101 in 2022. That is a 77% total decrease since 1990: a very significant drop.
I will try to address all the issues raised here as far as I can, but many are not for my Department, but for others. Indeed, many are also devolved issues and not for the UK Government but rather for the devolved Administrations. I will, however, endeavour to cover all the points raised.
Pretty much everyone who spoke raised the issue of car insurance. I pay car insurance and have noticed the dramatic increase. I was really quite shocked and, indeed, annoyed by it, so I am well aware of the dramatic rises. Various hon. Members have rehearsed the different arguments for it, but it is really quite shocking. As the Minister responsible for the decarbonisation of transport, I speak a lot to car companies, particularly about electric vehicles. The insurance there is also very high, so I have summoned a roundtable of insurers to talk about that in the coming weeks.
I have also heard from car manufacturers about insurance. Some hon. Members mentioned that insurance is £3,000, but we can multiply that by 10 for some cars, and I know that that is affecting car sales. In other words, the insurance is so high that people are not buying cars. The issue, therefore, not only affects young drivers, where it is clearly significant, but is across the piece.
Insurance operates in a free market that is not run by the Government. We have a strong regulatory regime in place and it needs to work to ensure markets work fairly and in the interests of consumers. The Government do not prescribe the terms, conditions or prices that insurance companies set when offering motor insurance—it is not a state-controlled market—and we do not intervene in the decisions of insurance companies when determining whether to provide cover. Indeed, direct Government interventions in a market of that nature could damage competition overall. It is therefore for insurance companies to decide the level of risk in issuing any policy to a given applicant.
As hon. Members know, insurers use a range of criteria to assess the potential risk a driver poses, including their age, the type of vehicle being insured, the postal area where they live, and their driving experience and record. They set their own premiums, and it is a commercial decision for them based on their underwriting experience. The Government do not intervene or seek to control that market, and nor should they. That said, my officials regularly engage with representatives of the motor insurance industry on a number of matters, including the rise in premiums—we have addressed that with the insurance industry.
The Financial Conduct Authority is the independent regulator responsible for regulating and supervising the financial services industry, including insurers. I have spent a lot of my career working with the Financial Conduct Authority, and I can say that it has a wide range of strong powers to intervene in markets that are not working well, and it has a statutory duty to ensure that markets work well in the interests of consumers. It has a broad range of supervision, enforcement and competition powers, including the power to undertake market studies where it thinks markets are not working well and to see whether they can work better.
If there are particular interventions that should be made, the FCA can refer markets to the Competition and Markets Authority, and that is the proper way of doing things. It is not my role as a Government Minister to try to instruct an independent regulator on how to appear, but I am sure that it is listening, and I know many people in various aspects of the industry are writing to the FCA to urge it to look at the insurance market. It is an independent regulator, and it is not my job as a Minister to tell it how to use its powers to meet those objectives.
The FCA has recently taken several measures to improve the fair value of insurance products for consumers, including reforms across the motor and home insurance markets. As hon. Members have said, on 1 January 2022 the FCA introduced new rules that require firms to offer a renewal price that is no greater than the equivalent new business price that the firm would offer a new customer. That is to stop the loyalty penalty, where loyal customers end up paying more than new customers, which was deeply frustrating and has now been banned. The FCA estimates that those new rules will improve competition and save consumers £3.7 billion over 10 years. Under FCA rules, firms are required to ensure that their products offer fair value—that is, the price the consumer pays for a product or service must be reasonable compared to the overall benefits they can expect to receive. The FCA has been clear that it will monitor firms to ensure that they provide products that are fair value and that, when necessary, it will take action.
It is important to highlight, as some hon. Members have, that young drivers are generally less experienced and, sadly, more likely to be involved in collisions. They subsequently carry a higher risk with insurers when they seek motor insurance and, as a result, often pay higher premiums. To counter that, some insurers have introduced the use of telematics or in-car black boxes to allow better risk-based pricing of insurance, especially for new drivers. As hon. Members have said, many new drivers are safe drivers but are being punished with higher premiums because of those new drivers who are not quite so safe. If an individual has a real-time data feed, it allows the insurer to assess their driving behaviour, and that has not been possible in the past. The use of this new technology can help reduce insurance premiums if drivers show good driving behaviour with a black box installed in their cars.
Sir Bill Wiggin
That is a lovely idea that the insurance industry has put out there. However, if it is for someone’s children, it makes absolutely no difference because until the insurers have gathered the data on the driver, they do not reduce the premium. It is an after-the-horse-has-bolted solution and does not really fit the problem.
Anthony Browne
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Clearly, it takes time for the insurer to gather the data and to give the benefit, but this can be useful in reducing premiums for certain young drivers.
Different insurers obviously take different views of their relevant factors in determining the price for insurance, and the motor insurance market is very competitive. As we all know, if we look online we will get many hundreds of different quotes. The message from the Government is that consumers should shop around to find the best products. Certainly, when I have renewed insurance and shopped around, I have found dramatically different quotes. It is quite surprising for a competitive market to see how different the quotes are—it is really worth doing. The British Insurance Brokers’ Association runs a not-for-profit “find a broker” service if someone wants a broker rather than going directly online. It specialises in finding cover for those who have difficulties obtaining the cover they need at a reasonable cost.
Several hon. Members mentioned broader support for young drivers. As I said at the beginning, the Government are supportive of young drivers. For new and novice drivers, the Department’s broad aim is to improve road safety through new technology and research, and, particularly for young drivers, through developing better learning opportunities and targeted educational messaging, while reinforcing vital behaviour change road safety messages through our THINK! campaign.
The THINK! campaign aims to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads in England and Wales by changing attitudes and behaviours among those at most risk. It has an annual media spend of over £3 million, with recent campaigns on drink-driving, speeding and mobile-phone use. The primary audience for the campaigns is male drivers aged 17 to 24, who are at a higher risk and are four times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than drivers over the age of 25.
Several Members—including the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who is no longer in her place, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sefton Central—mentioned driving test waiting times. Indeed, the hon. Member for Upper Bann also mentioned that. I should say that Northern Ireland driving testing is a devolved issue, so that is up to the Northern Ireland Government—and now that there is one in Northern Ireland, I suggest that the hon. Lady raises that matter with the Northern Irish Government.
For England, Wales and Scotland, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency priority has been to reduce car practical-test waiting times while upholding road safety standards. The DVSA has deployed all eligible managers and administrative staff back on to the frontline for driving tests until the end of March. That will create around 150,000 new test slots. The measures put in place to reduce waiting times for customers, together with the ongoing recruitment of driving examiners, are creating, on average, more than 48,000 extra car test slots each month. As of 12 February 2024, there were 523,353 car practical driving tests booked—that is a very precise number—and 128,360 available within the 24-week booking window.
Several Members, including the hon. Member for Upper Bann, mentioned graduated driving licences. Indeed, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) sang their praises as well. Again, I should say that driving licensing is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, as has been recognised, so, again, Members with particular issues or concerns about that in Northern Ireland should speak to the Northern Ireland Government.
In Great Britain, the Department for Transport keeps driving licensing requirements under review, but there are not any plans, at the moment, to introduce any further restrictions on younger drivers. We acknowledge that, in terms of population and the number of miles driven, 17 to 24-year-olds remain one of the highest fatality risk groups, especially males.
We do have a form of restricting novice drivers though the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995. On acquiring their first full licence, a new driver is on probation for two years. During that time, they are subject to a limit of six penalty points received for any driving offences, which includes any that they received during their learning stage. If six or more points are received, a driver’s licence is revoked and they must apply again for a provisional licence, re-entering the learning stage and going back to square one.
In the road safety statement 2019, action 8 was to
“Commission research to explore the potential of a Graduated Learner Scheme”.
That research was delayed due to the pandemic, but we look forward to receiving the findings of that in due course. Action 9 was to
“Commission research to explore the social and economic consequences of introducing Graduated Driving Licence”,
which is different from the graduated learner schemes. That research was not taken forward, but we are aware of the TRL report for the RAC Foundation and the Rees Jeffreys Road Fund, “Supporting New Drivers in Great Britain”, which was published in October 2022. In that report, eight areas of concern were considered, including potential impacts on access to employment and education, and on those in rural areas.
My Department has commissioned the £2 million Driver2020 research project to examine interventions designed to help learner and newly qualified drivers improve their skills and safety. The project includes looking at the effectiveness of telematics, the use of a logbook, extra hazard perception, classroom-based education, and mentoring agreements. We look forward to receiving the findings from that project, which will feed into considerations of further measures that we could take to improve road safety for young drivers.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann for securing this debate on such an important matter. I hope that hon. Members are all reassured that Government are committed to supporting all road users and to improving the safety of our roads. That includes young drivers, who, as I mentioned, are involved in far too many crashes.
Transport
Anthony Browne Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Anthony Browne
On noise, it is important to strike a balance between the negative impacts of aviation on local communities who live close to the airport and the economic benefits of flights around the UK. We will shortly publish the results of a consultation on night flights, and the hon. Member should wait for it.
[Official Report, 8 February 2024, Vol. 745, c. 361.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne):
An error has been identified in the response to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) in Transport questions. My response should have been:
Anthony Browne
On noise, it is important to strike a balance between the negative impacts of aviation on local communities who live close to the airport and the economic benefits of flights around the UK. We will shortly launch a consultation on night flights at designated airports, and the hon. Member should wait for it.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the ministerial team seen the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety’s recent report on the growing number of accidents involving e-scooters, and if not, will they look at it? Not only are e-scooters an increasing danger to all our constituents, there is a lack of police follow-up when accidents happen.
Anthony Browne
The use of private e-scooters on public land—on roads and pavements—is illegal in the UK, and it is up to the police to enforce that law. We have 23 different legal trials of rental e-scooters around the country.
[Official Report, 8 February 2024, Vol. 745, c. 362.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne):
An error has been identified in the response to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) in Transport questions. My response should have been:
Anthony Browne
The use of private e-scooters on public land—on roads and pavements—is illegal in the UK, and it is up to the police to enforce that law. We have 19 different legal trials of rental e-scooters around the country.