National Networks National Policy Statement
Bill Esterson Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I had anticipated a slightly longer opening speech from the Minister. Nevertheless, here we are today to debate a new national networks national policy statement, a decade after the previous statement was published in 2014. The right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) originally promised that the Government would review the NNNPS in July 2021, but here we are, nearly three years on from that promise and a decade on from the last published statement. Perhaps the Minister could explain why it took so long to get to this point.
The UK committed to reach net zero by 2050 when we signed the Paris agreement in 2015. It is not good enough that it took nine years for net zero to finally be integrated into the NNNPS. Since 2015, we have moved backwards on net zero. Just look at the Prime Minister’s delaying of the end of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans. This rowing back on net zero is not just a disaster for the planet; it will worsen the cost of living crisis for drivers, with an estimated cost to consumers of an eye-watering £13 billion in higher fuel costs as a direct result of the Prime Minister’s decision.
Then there is the mess he made of HS2. The irony and symbolism of where he made the announcement is lost on no one: a disused railway station at the end of the proposed line. Everyone recognises the impact of the decision on net zero. Even the writers of “The Thick of It” would have dismissed such a plotline as far too implausible.
Freight trains have 76% fewer emissions than the equivalent road transport capacity, but because of the Prime Minister’s chaotic decision making, half a million more lorry journeys will add to the clogging up of our roads every year by carrying freight that could have been delivered by rail. I wonder whether the Minister will respond to that point about rail freight.
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman has raised a legitimate point about HS2. Clearly the Prime Minister’s decision on 6 October was to redistribute that funding to a variety of projects, particularly in the north, but what is the Labour party policy? Is its manifesto proposal to continue with HS2 and the second leg or not?
Bill Esterson
It is a shame that the Minister did not stand up to announce that the Government had found some miraculous way of returning to the consensus. We know that the Conservatives have taken a wrecking ball to the HS2 project, and that they blew the budget, which is why they cancelled it, so we are not going to be able to revive it. After the rushing through of the fire sale of the land, the downgrading of ambition on major stations such as Euston and the reallocation of funding originally meant for HS2, which I think he referred to in his speech, there is no way we would be able to revive it.
Is it any wonder that the Transport Committee has warned us that there is still a lot of catching up to do when it comes to our climate change commitments and to ensuring that we deliver major infrastructure projects on time and to budget? The Transport Committee’s members made their concerns crystal clear when they said that
“the Government should have been proactive and reviewed the NPS upon the introduction of Net Zero targets, and should do when any changes are made to net zero target policies”.
Yet the latest national networks national policy statement still leaves gaps, notably in its admission that
“residual carbon emissions as an impact of NSIP”—
nationally significant infrastructure project—
“schemes are acceptable”.
There is a further lack of clarity over what “residual carbon emissions” means in practice, and the policy statement does not offer a process to distinguish between acceptable residual emissions and emissions that would mean carbon targets would not be met. The Transport Planning Society has even warned that the contradiction between the NNNPS and the transport decarbonisation plans is “potentially incredibly dangerous”.
We all know that our planning system is broken, with too many projects bogged down in development limbo for years on end as they wait for a decision, but the Transport Committee has warned that the gaps in this policy statement that I have just identified could lead to even more costly and time-consuming legal challenges to major projects on climate grounds. This would slow down our snail’s-pace planning system even further, and it is the taxpayer that would pay the price for the delays.
The flaws in the statement do not stop there. The Government have failed to take into account local authority-level targets and carbon budgets, to ensure that the local level impact of major development projects is taken into account. Meanwhile, Midlands Connect warns that sub-national transport bodies have also been snubbed. Many of these bodies have already developed strategic transport plans at regional level to support economic growth and reduce carbon emissions. They should not be ignored.
The National Infrastructure Planning Association has highlighted a lack of clarity in a number of areas, such as the frequency with which policy is reviewed, and the need for further detail to be published. The organisation warned that “weak links” ultimately result in
“delays to decisions on DCO applications”.
It warns that those delays to development consent orders could
“slow down the delivery of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects”.
So will the Minister tell us whether the Government are going to take the action that is needed so that Britain does not fall even further behind in the development of vital national infrastructure?
On the subject of existing delays to planning, the planning process has already become cumbersome and slow under this Government, with the time taken to grant development consent orders increasing by 65% since 2012, to more than four years. In response to the Transport Committee’s report, which flagged the planning system as a key source of delay in delivering infrastructure projects, the Government themselves even admitted that they recognised
“the need for modernisation and reform to the planning system”.
I have covered the shambolic approach to HS2, but a whole range of other major infrastructure projects that the Minister’s Department is supposedly committed to delivering have seen soaring costs and repeated delays. Years of failure to deliver rail infrastructure upgrades such as the midland main line have robbed communities of the benefits of better transport services.
The Minister mentioned his so-called Network North proposal, but I remind him that 85% of its projects are reannouncements. Much of the investment is not even in the north. In fact, some of it includes filling potholes in London—I do not think it is just north London, either.
Although the headline figure masks the fact that the money is spread over 11 years, as we established at Transport questions on Thursday, the average annual funding is equivalent to only a third of last year’s increase in the backlog of local road repairs. The consequences of these failures are not theoretical but all too real. Communities are being denied the huge economic opportunities that transport infrastructure projects can deliver, and they are currently stuck relying on creaking Victorian infrastructure.
The reality is that this Government’s track record on delivering nationally significant infrastructure projects is woeful. Today’s debate should be an opportunity to review and to learn from what has gone wrong after 14 years of delays, failures to deliver, constant policy changes and contradictions. Unlike this Government, Labour is committed to meeting our climate obligations and to getting Britain building again.
We recognise the need to address the bottlenecks on our rail network to cut congestion and emissions, which is why we have committed to a credible and transformative programme of transport infrastructure investment to link our towns and cities, particularly across the north and midlands. We also recognise the need to deliver for drivers by cutting congestion, improving the state of public transport and removing the barriers that are blocking the electric vehicle charging infrastructure roll-out.
Labour will do what this Government have failed to do by reforming the broken planning system to ensure that upgrades and progress on our transport infrastructure are actually delivered. Labour’s plan for government will accelerate infrastructure delivery, extend the reforms in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and ensure that the action plan for the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime covers the Transport and Works Act 1992, the Highways Act 1980 and the hybrid Bill process. We will encourage active travel, support public transport and give local authorities the power to better integrate their local transport networks.
We have launched an independent review of transport infrastructure. Driven by industry experts, the review will explore how transport infrastructure can be delivered on time and on budget, learning lessons from the mess that this Government have made of major projects such as HS2. We will update all national policy statements within six months of taking office to ensure they help, not hinder, the construction of important transport infrastructure projects.
Labour is serious about learning the lessons from the staggering failure of the last 14 years. We accept that this national policy statement improves on what came before in some areas, which is why we will not oppose it today, but the Minister really should set out why he believes that the policy statement’s lack of clarity on crucial points, particularly on climate change commitments, will not worsen the delays that are already slowing our planning system to a crawl.
If the Minister cannot or will not provide those answers today, Labour will look again at the provisions when we embark on our own review of the national policy statements. As we seek to ensure that we both respect our climate change commitments and deliver on our mission to get Britain building again, Labour does not accept the managed decline of our vital infrastructure. We will not accept barriers and blockages to the upgrades we need for smoother, greener transport and to enable everyone to benefit from the enhanced economic opportunities that will follow from better transport connections.
Britain is the country that gave the world the railways. We can and should be leading the world on delivering better, greener transport infrastructure. In government, Labour will make that a reality.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
RNLI Bicentenary
Bill Esterson 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
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris, and a happy Easter to everybody. I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing this debate, and thank all Members who have spoken about the brilliant work the RNLI and its volunteers do around our coasts. I make a special reference to the stepmother of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) for her volunteering.
I associate myself strongly with the comments from the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) about the importance of rescuing everybody at sea, in particular people on small boats in the English channel. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) reminded us of just how dangerous it was 200 years ago and less, and how many gave their lives to rescue others. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) talked about the importance of water safety on inland waterways. Those are important additions to the debate.
The RNLI mission statement says it all. The RNLI is committed to and focused on the purpose for which it was created 200 years ago: to save lives at sea. Founded in 1824 as the Royal National Institution for the Preservation of Lives and Property from Shipwreck, it was 30 years later, in 1854, that it was officially named the Royal National Lifeboat Institution—the RNLI, as we all know it today.
We all think of it as the fourth emergency service, after the police, fire and ambulance services, so it is remarkable that 97% of its frontline staff are volunteers and that it is funded by charitable donations. As a charity independent of Government, its volunteer lifesavers give their time for free, but they need training, well-maintained equipment, lifeboats and shore facilities, and part of the donations received fund those things. Almost 6,000 volunteer lifeboat crew members are stationed around the UK and Ireland, and they are ready, when the call is received, to spring into action to save the lives of those in danger at sea.
Since its launch, the RNLI has saved the lives of 4,356 people across the north-west and 146,000 people across the UK and Ireland. It works tirelessly in my constituency: in 2022 alone it saved five lives, responded to nearly 200 incidents and aided 1,000 people across the boroughs of Sefton and Wirral. I am proud to say that Crosby beach, which is in my constituency, is the only British beach that is patrolled by the RNLI all year round.
Bill Esterson
It is great.
In Southport cemetery, just outside my constituency, there is a monument to the 27 lives lost in the Mexico disaster, which happened almost 140 years ago. The rescue remains the worst loss of crew in a single incident in the history of the RNLI, and was viewed as a national disaster across Victorian Britain. The Mexico, a huge wooden ship, left Liverpool on 5 December 1866, bound for Ecuador. She was caught in a violent gale, and amid heavy seas she ran aground on the perilous sandbanks of the Ribble estuary. The rescue effort saw the biggest loss of crew in a single incident in the history of the RNLI, leaving 16 widows and 50 children without their fathers in Southport and St Anne’s. It was a stark reminder then of the real risks such brave people undertook, and it is a reminder today of the dangers every time they are called into action.
The RNLI’s work is not just about reacting when things go wrong; it plays a huge part in keeping our communities safe and reducing the need for search and rescue. That is done in a variety of ways, including street stalls and classroom visits to educate and advise on the dangers of water. In 2021, the RNLI’s water safety teams reached more than 27 million people with essential messaging, which undoubtedly saves more lives and keeps families together. Those services are vital. There are 238 lifeboat stations up and down the land and an active fleet of 431 lifeboats, ranging from large, all-weather lifeboats to smaller inshore vessels. We cannot overstate the impact and importance of the RNLI’s work.
The RNLI will go to the aid of anyone in trouble at sea, as the lifesaving charity has for 200 years. It does so without judgment or preference. In south-east England, it is currently engaged in a significant level of work in the channel, as a result of the large number of people crossing one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes in small, overcrowded, unsafe boats. All too often, those crossings end with disastrous, fatal consequences. The RNLI launched to rescue 290 times in the English channel in 2022. That was 3% of all RNLI lifeboat launches that year.
The stories of desperate people crossing the English channel to reach the UK often dominate news and social media. Of course, we cannot know the experiences, backgrounds and personal stories of every person trying to arrive in this way, but it is clear that many of them intend to, and do, claim asylum here. Labour will crack down on criminal smuggler gangs by introducing stronger powers for the UK’s National Crime Agency to restrict the movement of those suspected of involvement in people smuggling. We will set up a new cross-border police unit with officers based in the UK and across Europe to tackle gangs, because if we want to reduce the number of people in need of rescue in the channel, it must make sense to cut the supply of boats by the criminal gangs. Our plans will reduce the numbers of people making the desperately dangerous crossing of the channel in small boats.
RNLI crews are asked by His Majesty’s coastguard to assist anyone who is in trouble on or in the water in the UK. They will go to the aid of anyone in danger when asked to do so, as they have been doing for 200 years, without asking who they are or where they come from. They respond in extremely demanding search-and-rescue environments with continued dedication and commitment. In any rescue, their priority is to ensure that casualties are treated with skill, care, dignity and respect and are brought to safety as quickly as possible. RNLI crews then pass over responsibility for those rescued to the most appropriate agency. That might be the ambulance service, the police or Border Force.
It was fantastic to see lifeboats on the River Mersey near my own constituency to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the RNLI. We should be incredibly proud of the crews, who continue to respond selflessly to their pagers day or night simply to help others. I pay tribute to them all here today, and also to everyone who plays a part in fundraising—rattling buckets or making donations—for this vital, life-saving charity.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bill Esterson Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State wants to improve connectivity between our great northern cities, he might want to start by repairing the roads. The backlog of local road repairs has gone up by 16% this year alone to £16.3 billion. The Network North announcement is spread over 11 years, and its average annual contribution accounts for only a third of the £2.3 billion annual increase in the backlog. That is not all going to roads anyway, and it will go nowhere near addressing the damage done since 2016, when the Government slashed the road repair budget in half. When will the Secretary of State apologise to road users for the damage that his Government have caused and admit that they have failed to repair the potholes?
Mr Harper
What the hon. Gentleman says is interesting. We made a commitment to take the money from the cancellation of the second phase of High Speed 2 to make £8.3 billion available for local road maintenance—[Interruption.] Yes, it is over 11 years, but we made the first tranche of money available this financial year, and again next financial year. We will set out the allocations in due course. That money is available only because we made the decision to cancel the second phase of HS2. Labour cannot give a straight answer on that question, and it has not committed to spending that £8.3 billion at all. Drivers know that they will only get that investment with a Conservative Government.
Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Bill Esterson 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)
Gavin Newlands
Thank you, Sir George. You say “in the middle”—I had barely started my remarks. [Laughter.] Thankfully, despite the rude interruption of Question Time and lunch, I have been able to add to them, including some quotes from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport. I thank my Transport Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Easington, for his help with that.
I was talking about working across borders, which undoubtedly makes good sense on issues like this, but as it stands clause 50 is not working across borders. It will mean government by diktat and by statutory instrument, rather than the democratic procedures that have been in place for nearly a quarter of a century.
I mentioned earlier that the UK Government have moved the goalposts on this issue. The policy scoping notes clearly state:
“Any future proposals to amend existing primary legislation will be subject to consultation with representative organisations before being laid before both Houses of Parliament (and/or the Senedd Cymru and Scottish Parliament, insofar as the regulations amend any act of the Senedd Cymru or the Scottish Parliament respectively).”
But the UK Government’s delegated powers memorandum states:
“The affirmative procedure will ensure that Parliament (as well as the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru, where Scottish or Welsh legislation is amended) can closely scrutinise any regulations changing or clarifying how existing primary legislation applies to the user-in-charge.”
Obviously, there is no provision for scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament in the final Bill, but, as I said, the prior commitment means that it is not the SNP or rogue Scottish Government officials pushing the envelope and insisting on consultation and consent; rather, it is the UK Government reneging on their commitment to do so.
The Cabinet Secretary for Transport made it clear at the Scottish Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee just this morning, as I have alluded to a number of times, that there are
“things that relate to offences under devolved legislation and offences that would be part of devolved areas, these are the areas that the provision would allow the UK Government to legislate on or make provision for in the future… we think it’s a genuine issue of concern.”
I would welcome the Minister addressing those concerns and committing to meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Transport at Holyrood to ensure that the broad co-operation on the rest of the Bill is continued in the wording of clause 50. When he responds, perhaps he could list the Acts that relate to transport in Scotland that might be impacted.
Amendment 9 would ensure that the term “relevant enactment” cannot apply to
“an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament”,
“an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru”
or
“an instrument made under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru”.
In doing so, it removes the Secretary of State’s power to unilaterally amend Scottish primary legislation in respect of automated vehicles. Amendment 7 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of devolved Governments before exercising the clause 50 power in relation to devolved legislation. Amendment 8 would extend the clause 50 power to Ministers of the devolved Administrations.
I will not bore the Committee by reading them out, but our amendments seek to remove this Henry VIII power entirely as it relates to Scottish or Welsh legislation, to add a requirement to seek a legislative consent motion from Holyrood or the Senedd, or to extend the same powers to the appropriate Scottish and Welsh Ministers. If this Government truly were looking to work in co-operation, they surely should not have a problem agreeing to look at this issue, but thus far they have shown no real inclination or desire to compromise on this fundamental point. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments in my name—or one of them, at least —and respect devolution and the elected Governments of Scotland and Wales and our judgment in making laws that best suit our countries.
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.
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.
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.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on an intervention. Bill Esterson is speaking.
Grahame Morris
I was wondering about scenarios that the Minister could seek some clarification on in his roundtable meeting next week. It is my understanding that if an uninsured driver driving a conventional vehicle was in a collision with another conventional vehicle, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau would be tasked by the Government to make the payout in respect of the uninsured driver. What would happen if an uninsured driver—I am directing this question to my hon. Friend, of course—was in a collision with an automated vehicle? Is that something the Minister might be able to answer?
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.
Gavin Newlands
Further to that point of order, Sir George. On behalf of my daughter and me, I thank all members of the Committee and the Minister. I look forward to engaging with him further on clause 50 as we move through this process—that is my hope, anyway. I thank all hon. Members; Mr Vickers and you, Sir George, for your chairship; the Clerks for their assistance in drafting amendments; Hansard, and the Doorkeepers. I also thank the hon. Member for Easington for allowing me to move a section of my speech on clause 50 beyond the 11.25 am barrier this morning. With that consensus and positivity, which is unusual in these quarters of the House, I will conclude.
Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Bill Esterson 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)
The Chair
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Please note that the decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated, but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill are taken when we come to the relevant clause.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance.
Clause 1
Basic concepts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, leave out “an acceptably safe standard” and insert—
“a high standard of safety”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 20, in clause 1, page 2, line 7, leave out “an acceptably” and insert “a very”.
This amendment is intended to probe the meaning of “acceptably” with regards to the risk of automated vehicles committing traffic infractions.
Clause stand part.
Bill Esterson
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers, for our consideration of this Bill, which I think it is fair to say has broad, cross-party parliamentary support. It will be encouraging over the next however many hours we are in Committee to look at the potential to strengthen it.
There is huge potential for the economy in the safe transition to automated vehicles, but it is important that we recognise that this remains a largely undeveloped technology and we are trying to predict what will happen in the future. In our deliberations, it will be important that we try to set the strongest possible framework for what is likely to be needed. The detailed work of the Law Commission gives us a good start, and what we have been presented with from the Lords improves on that work.
Amendments 19 and 20 in my name relate to the critical area of safety: they seek to set in primary legislation the strongest possible safety standards. They would amend the standard of safety from “acceptably safe” to “high”, and amend the definition of “legally” to refer to “very low risk” rather than “acceptably low risk”. That is important because we are trying to anticipate what might happen and to minimise the risks and potential problems.
When similar amendments were debated in the Lords, the Government’s response was that such
“phrases…are open to…interpretation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 January 2024; Vol. 835, c. 63.]
It occurs to me to ask: if things are open to interpretation, who is going to decide? Invariably, that will mean going to the courts. We are trying to minimise the potential for that to happen.
The Government were quite happy to accept the amendment to the phrase “careful and competent driver” —we very much welcome that, which will reduce the number of things that are open to interpretation—so I wonder why they were not prepared in the Lords to accept amendments similar to these. Perhaps the Minister will answer that question in his response.
“Careful and competent” itself was only established in case law; it is not in statute. That is being left to the courts as well, and is open to further interpretation. We will return to that point with later amendments, because we are trying to minimise the risks of leaving things open to interpretation. This is a good example of where an advisory council, which was the subject of much debate in the Lords, could make recommendations to address the uncertainties that exist in legislating for the unknown, in the way that we are invariably having to do with primary legislation for technology that is yet to be developed.
I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on these points. The amendments attempt to reduce the risks of leaving things open to interpretation. We want the highest possible standards set out as early as possible to enable this technology to be developed as safely as possible.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thought it would be helpful for the Committee to start with some good news. The SNP and Scottish Government are generally supportive of the Bill and I will not seek to detain the Committee over the course of however many days we debate it with superfluous speeches, reading out explanatory notes and so on, until we get to clause 50, which I will get my teeth into—I am sure the Minister will be aware of that. However, I reserve the right to intervene in support of any of Labour’s amendments, which I am doing now, or indeed when I think the Minister is talking cobblers, which hopefully he will not be doing.
That is the good news. With that, I very much look forward to the Minister’s answer about what actually is acceptably safe.
Bill Esterson
We have had an unexpectedly wide debate on the first group of amendments. I welcome the contributions by hon. Members. I am sure that all our debates will be similarly robust.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for explaining what we are trying to do. Red herrings were being put forward: no one is trying to ban automated vehicles by saying that we should have the highest possible safety standards. I hope that Government Members might reconsider the way in which they framed their interventions.
Bill Esterson
I hope that the hon. Member for Aberconwy will agree with me that we want the highest possible safety standards.
Robin Millar
I am happy to clarify my remarks. The reference to banning stuff is actually a euphemism for an over-regulatory approach.
Bill Esterson
I am going to look up the word “ban” a bit later and see whether “euphemism” appears next to it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing that up. As I said in my opening remarks, the Government rightly accepted the phrase “careful and competent” in the Bill in the Lords. It is about putting a clear statement of intent in the regulations on the importance of safety in a so-far undeveloped technology. The comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington on the current concerns about where technology has reached were well made. What we want to do is remove the fear, risk and elements of concern.
On the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire, absolutely, we want to make the most of this technology for economic purposes. The figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders demonstrate that there will be something like 300,000 jobs between now and 2040, and £66 billion added to GDP. We very much want to make the most of those opportunities.
I suggest that having strong safety principles and the safest industry in the world is one of the ways in which we achieve exactly that goal. Having credibility, and the reputation for developing technology that is usable anywhere and is very safe, will be part of delivering the economic benefits. The expression, “careful and competent”, is not defined in statute; it is subject only to case law. The phrases “very low risk” and “a high standard of safety” are not defined. I completely accept those points. What is important is that we set out the intention in this legislation for the courts, which may well have to adjudicate at some point. That is why these amendments were important. I have listened to what the Minister said, and at this stage I do not feel that there is merit in pushing the amendments to a vote. However, I hope that he and other Members will take on board the fact that we are trying to set out our intention with as strong an opposition as possible in this framework legislation—yes, for secondary legislation, whenever that comes, but also for the courts, if they have to adjudicate. I will happily not press the two amendments in this group.
Grahame Morris
Forgive me, Mr Vickers—are we having the clause stand part debate now? May I contribute to that?
Bill Esterson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Statement of safety principles
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert
“and, if so, the locations, types of location or circumstances in which those criteria are met.
(1A) The principles must set out how the Secretary of State will assess the potential safety impacts on different types of road user when assessing the locations, types of location or circumstances in which a vehicle is capable of travelling autonomously and safely, having particular regard to the safety of those road users who might be most at risk.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, after “safety” insert
“and the safety of pedestrians”.
Amendment 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out “better” and insert
“significantly better for all road users”.
Amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) The statement must include the Government’s intended definition of “careful and competent human drivers”.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a definition of “careful and competent human drivers” as part of the statement of safety principles.
Bill Esterson
We now come to the statement of safety principles. We have tabled three amendments in this group to strengthen the support that we anticipate will be beneficial when secondary legislation is introduced, and to give confidence not just to the courts, but to consumers and investors so that they can make the most of the economic opportunity. This is a similar point to the one we made in the debate on clause 1.
The Government described similar amendments tabled in the Lords as “ambiguous”—they said that the amendments to clause 1 were open to interpretation. I simply make the point that they were content to accept the change to “careful and competent” despite the fact that that is not set out in statute, so why strengthen safety in that way but not in this one?
These amendments have the backing of Cycling UK, which my hon. Friend the Member for Easington mentioned, and for similar reasons. Cycling UK says that we need
“a step-change in road safety”,
not just a marginal improvement. It continues:
“a slight improvement in overall road safety could actually mask a worsening in safety for pedestrians, cycle users and other non-motorised road users, providing this is offset…by an improvement in safety for motor vehicle occupants. We do not believe this is acceptable.”
I agree that there has to be an improvement for all road users. A similar point applies to all four amendments in this group.
We need the definition to avoid reliance on the ambiguity to which the Government themselves refer. We are trying to strengthen the definition with these amendments. Amendment 18, which requires the publication of a definition of “careful and competent human drivers” to address exactly that concern about the lack of precedent and the reliance on case law, has the support not just of the groups that I have mentioned but of the Road Safety Foundation and the SMMT, the industry body.
“Careful and competent” was first used in the Road Traffic Act 1988, but it was not defined. Currently, it can be judged only against case law, so at this stage we want to tighten up these areas, not because we want to make things more difficult, but because we are trying to anticipate as far as possible what is to come, and we want to create the strongest possible framework as we finalise the primary legislation. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these matters, and I commend the four amendments that I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield.
Grahame Morris
I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central. As the Minister alluded to in a previous debate, clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to lay a statement of safety principles before Parliament, having consulted the relevant autonomous vehicle manufacturers, road users and safety groups first.
I recognise that the principles will be developed following the passage of the Bill, as the Minister said, but it is apparent that clear direction is needed for those principles in the primary legislation. It is also important that the safety principles are subject to frequent review—I think the Minister said that will happen—and consultation as the technology and roll-out of AVs is expanded over the coming years. The statement of safety principles must be clear, rigorous and informed by the needs of all road users and pedestrians, especially disabled people.
Bill Esterson
I welcome the support for and analysis of the amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Easington. I wondered whether we were missing something about kangaroos in Easington.
Bill Esterson
I am glad he has now clarified that. He is right that we have to anticipate perhaps not kangaroos but—
Bill Esterson
He is giving me other examples from a sedentary position. He is right to raise the concern.
The Minister said that the points are accepted by the Government, which I welcome, but if they are accepted, why are they not in the Bill? However, he has said that in Committee, so that will have to be sufficient for now.
I will come back to what he said about the definition of “careful and competent”. Given that we have case law and that the definition was first used in 1988 in the Road Traffic Act, as he says, I would think it possible to have a definition now against which future secondary legislation and decision making in the event of road traffic incidents could be judged. I do not understand why he has not made that clearer. As a result, I will not press amendments 21, 11 or 22 to a vote, but will test the opinion of the Committee on amendment 18. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) The statement must include the Government’s intended definition of ‘careful and competent human drivers’.”—(Bill Esterson.)
This amendment would require the Government to publish a definition of “careful and competent human drivers” as part of the statement of safety principles.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, after “must” insert “—
(a) hold a public consultation on a draft statement;
(b) ”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 13, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out from “consult” to end of line 22 and insert
“representatives of road user groups and other groups whose safety or other interests may be affected by the application of the principles.”
This amendment is designed to probe the consultation provisions.
Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert—
“(9A) The statement must be reviewed and subject to the same consultation as outlined in subsection (3)—
(a) after being in force for five years;
(b) every five years thereafter.”
Clause stand part.
Bill Esterson
With this series of amendments we are keen to probe the consultation on the development of the statement of safety principles. It is a very important part of the legislation and I am pleased that the Government accepted the principle of publishing the statement of safety principles at the outset. However, the technology will continue to evolve, so it seems clear that the statement of safety principles should be subject to review and public consultation at a decent interval. Our amendments are designed to ensure that there is a sensible, five-year timeframe for each of the reviews by Parliament and that the work is carried on in the public domain. The Government have said that that will happen informally, but we believe it important to have it confirmed in the legislation so that there is a guarantee.
The Government say they anticipate consulting a wider group than those they have previously mentioned. They said publicly in the House of Lords that that group will include members of the public, academia, trade unions and other representative bodies. We would like commitments on all those points, to which we will return with some of our other amendments. The Minister in the Lords said that
“it remains the case that this is a particularly uncertain policy area with a rapidly developing industry”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 January 2024; Vol. 835, c. 81.]
Does that not highlight the need for ongoing consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and an ongoing review of the statement of safety principles? Putting that on the face of the Bill is the way to guarantee that it happens.
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
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
Simon Lightwood
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 3, page 3, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) An automated vehicle may be authorised for use in non-road public locations under subsection (1) as long as the Secretary of State is satisfied that the authorisation will not impact the accessibility of the locations to existing users, including pedestrians.”
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to authorise vehicles such as for use in public places other than roads (such as automated mobility scooters and delivery robots on pavements, for example) as long as the impact on accessibility has been considered.
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.
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
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 10, page 7, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) The register referred to in subsection (1) must be made available online.”
This amendment would mean that the register of automated vehicle registrations is available online.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 11 stand part.
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
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.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 39 stand part.
Government amendment 1.
Clause 40 stand part.
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]
Bill Esterson 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)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I thank all Members who have taken part in this debate.
Self-driving vehicles offer an enormous opportunity to this country, with the potential to create a market worth £42 billion by 2035, to create 38,000 new jobs and to improve road safety and connectivity in the long term for all road users. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) said, Labour welcomes and supports the broad principles of the Bill. I pay tribute to the detailed work carried out over four years by the Law Commission to give us confidence about the framework before us.
The UK was leading the charge on self-driving technology in 2018, but since then, China, the US, France and Germany have overtaken us. The Opposition want to encourage innovation in this sector to bring economic and job opportunities to the UK, and to return the UK to its leading role in the development of this technology. Labour’s industrial strategy will do that, as part of our approach to improving the UK’s prospects.
Automated vehicles could remove transport-related obstacles for those living in remote rural communities, those living with a disability and older people by reaching those who are denied access to public transport.
Crucially, automated vehicles have the potential to improve road safety for all. Eighty-eight per cent of road collisions are a result of human error. Research by Axa suggests that 3,900 deaths and 60,000 serious road traffic collisions could be prevented between last year, when it carried out the research, and 2040 through the deployment of automated vehicles. It forecast an 85% reduction in road incidents through the introduction of AV technology, which would in turn benefit the NHS to the tune of £2.3 billion a year in reduced medical and ambulance costs. However, this all requires a proper transition and roll-out from the Government.
I mentioned the importance of safety improvements, and I am pleased that the Government have accepted the need for higher standards in the Bill. My Labour colleagues Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Liddle deserve particular credit for their work in this crucial area. The Government amendment that referred to “careful and competent” drivers sends a very clear indication to industry, and it rightly puts the highest standard of safety in the Bill. I am also glad that the Government agree that secondary legislation should be considered under the affirmative procedure. The regulations that follow from the Bill should be subject to proper scrutiny over the years as the technology is developed.
A number of concerns that were raised in the Lords remain to be addressed in Committee. The impact on the transport workforce will be crucial in any transition to automation, which is why trade unions have a key part to play. Working with industry and the unions is a key part of a successful industrial strategy, and the unions have much to offer in advising on how to find alternative employment for their members and in ensuring that the economic benefits of new technologies are available to workers, as well as to investors and consumers.
As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley, said, we have already seen what happens when this Government do not engage with union representatives. We must learn the lessons from deindustrialisation to avoid repeating its mistakes, which have contributed to growing inequality across our country.
We also want to see people with disabilities, pedestrians, cyclists, businesses, emergency services and highway authorities included in the development of this technology. My hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and for Eltham (Clive Efford) both highlighted the importance of setting up an advisory committee, and I hope they will join me in Committee to revisit this important aspect that should be added to what has already been amended in the Lords.
This brings me to accessibility. This Bill’s framework provides a unique opportunity to support people with disabilities from the outset by, for example, including consultation with disabled road users on the statement of safety principles. In 2019, the Government published their “Future of mobility: urban strategy” which highlighted that one of the potential benefits of supporting self-driving vehicles is making travel more accessible to disabled and older people. The Government know that the Bill should specifically include people with disabilities and older people. It was therefore disappointing that they did not accept Labour’s amendments in the Lords.
I said earlier that the introduction of automated vehicles brings an opportunity to improve safety for all road users, not least pedestrians and cyclists. The Transport Committee’s September 2023 report on self-driving vehicles argues that the introduction of self-driving vehicles
“should not impose new responsibilities on other road users and pedestrians”.
Will the Minister confirm whether he accepts that principle?
Speaking of areas of uncertainty in the Bill, there are other examples of a lack of clarity, which is something that the insurance industry will require. I know that much of this will be addressed in secondary legislation. Access to data is essential to ensuring that the insurance model does not break down on issues such as responsibility for software updates, on liability during transition from automated to “user in charge” and on the Motor Insurers Bureau dealing with cases of uninsured vehicles. Additionally, clarity is required for those injured by an automated vehicle, as they currently have to prove that automated features were engaged in order to claim compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham made a reasonable point about who will be responsible in the event of an incident and how this can be covered in legislation.
The Transport Committee highlighted the insurance industry’s concerns in its recent report on self-driving vehicles. Uncertainty, and the possibility of endless legal disputes if access to data is not available, risks increasing insurance costs for consumers and deterring growth in the market for automated vehicles, so I look forward to delving further into these questions with the Minister in Committee.
The Bill rightly addresses concerns about false marketing of automated vehicles that have not been authorised. The Government must work with industry to ensure there is a clear communication strategy during the transition to automated vehicles. We have seen what happens when communication is negative, through the approach in the media to the transition to electric vehicles. Whether deliberate or otherwise, the messaging from some, not just in the media, but in government, including the Prime Minister, has delayed the time at which many people will benefit from cheaper private cars, at a cost of £13 billion to drivers. I hope that Ministers will not repeat the same damaging approach in their messaging on the switch to automated vehicles.
Labour welcomes this Bill as it moves through the House. The benefits of automated vehicles are there for all to see, for our economy, through the creation of new jobs and, crucially, through improved road safety and connectivity. There is a good degree of consensus on the implementation of the legislation. If Labour is given the opportunity to serve after the election, with us in the driving seat, we will power ahead and ensure that Britain really can lead on this exciting new technology.
Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords]
Bill Esterson ExcerptsWednesday 28th February 2024
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pedicabs (London) Act 2024 View all Pedicabs (London) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 35-I Marshalled list for Report - (26 Jan 2024)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
This has been an interesting debate—some contributions have been interesting in a good way, some perhaps less so—and there has been broad agreement, with one exception, that this Bill is a thoroughly good thing. I am pleased to see powers finally being granted to Transport for London to tackle the challenges and difficulties of unregulated pedicabs, which we have heard described by a number of Members, from across London in particular.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for her work on this issue over many years and I am grateful to her for quoting the views of the London Pedicab Operators Association and its call for regulation, showing that the industry itself is keen to see action on behalf of operators who want to do the right thing. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on finally getting his dearest wish granted and seeing this regulation come to fruition. Perhaps I am overstating that, but he has played a part, including through promoting a private Member’s Bill.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) was extolling the virtues of Westminster bridge, I did wonder whether she was going to start quoting William Wordsworth:
“Earth has not anything to show more fair”.
That is, of course, a line that everybody is aware of, but perhaps pedicabs spoil the view very slightly. She made good points about the threats to tourists and the importance of safety for passengers and, indeed, for drivers, which is included in the legislation. She, along with a number of other Members, mentioned the noise nuisance as well.
My parliamentary twin, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse)—he and I share the same date of birth—finished the debate with what I would loosely describe as an occasional dose of over-disclosure about his own past, but he made a very good case for the legislation as well. We had some disagreement from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who seemed to think that this was a sitting Friday and that he should take his characteristic approach of talking out a private Member’s Bill, which is why, as the Minister pointed out, we are here and the Government have had to finally bring the Bill forward.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who made a good point about our trying to understand where this legislation could go. As I understand it, TfL published a framework for licensing pedicabs back in 2022. It might be helpful if the Minister were to circulate that framework to Members when we get to Committee.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his intervention. The wider point is that the hon. Member for Christchurch was raising things that really belong in Committee, but he will have his chance to raise the matter that the right hon. Member mentioned, as it will be a Committee of the whole House. It is good news that we will close the legal loophole that exempts pedicabs from being defined as taxis under current law, leaving pedicabs as the only form of unregulated public transport in London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood) set out why Labour views the Bill as so important. He addressed the cases of overcharging. We have had TfL’s own evidence of collisions that involve pedicabs resulting in personal injury. There were 24 driver incidents between 2018 and the end of August 2023, including road obstruction, driver conduct, and six sexual offences. Those cases, alongside the overcharging and the noise nuisance, demonstrate why it is so important that action is taken to regulate pedicabs.
We have an important opportunity here to improve the safety of passengers, and of all road users in central London, and to help the tourist economy. The Bill strikes the right balance between the enjoyment that pedicabs can offer and the protection of the public. Today’s debate prompts the question of when the Government plan to bring forward their long-promised transport Bill, which needs to be wide-reaching and to extend beyond London, and include regulations on other neglected issues such as e-scooters and e-bikes. For today, though, this legislation on pedicabs is long overdue and I look forward to it progressing through the House.
Young Drivers: Government Support
Bill Esterson 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
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Latham. On Thursday, it will be 40 years since I passed my driving test at the age of 17—this debate has been something of a trip down memory lane for a number of us. Passing my driving test certainly opened up a wealth of opportunities for me, as it has for so many other people.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) gave an excellent analysis of the many challenges faced by young drivers. She highlighted how being able to drive makes all the difference for young people in work and for those who are not easily connected by public transport. My constituency has a number of similarities with hers, with rural areas and a lack of public transport in places. We have the highest level of car usage in the country, in part because of those gaps in public transport.
Young drivers now have to wait 18 weeks for a driving test date. Those delays have very real consequences for young people who need to drive for work or to study. The Government promised action to reduce the wait, but they have failed to deliver. In October, the Transport Secretary told the House that the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency had a plan to get within a target of nine weeks in the next few months, so perhaps the Minister can tell us why there are still long delays.
Alongside that backlog, young drivers face particular challenges with the cost of driving. That is especially true of the cost of insurance, which has increased by 98% for 17-year-olds, while average insurance prices have increased by 58% over the last year. The price increases in the UK have far outstripped those in the EU, where prices increased around 10% between the beginning of 2021 and the end of 2023; over the same period, the price almost doubled in the UK. Analysis from EY suggests that insurance premiums are expected to rise a further 10% in 2024.
Labour is committed to addressing these increases in insurance premiums if we are fortunate enough to form the Government in the coming months. We will consult industry and consumer groups on ways to crack down on unfair practices by insurers, such as lack of transparency over auto-renewals, the rise of hidden fees and the poor value of insurance products. We will also task the Competition and Markets Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority with investigating the high costs of insurance. When the CMA carried out a similar review in 2015, it found evidence of hidden fees. It is time for a further review. I hope the Minister will agree with me to that extent. By taking steps to tackle unfair practices and hidden fees, Labour’s plan could save young drivers hundreds of pounds per year by allowing them to choose the insurance policy that is right for them.
Turning to the link between claims and premiums for young drivers, Transport Minister Lord Davies told the House of Lords last month:
“Young male car drivers aged 17 to 24 are four times as likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with all car drivers aged 25 or over.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 2024; Vol. 835, c. 221.]
The ABI tells us that claims are highest among young drivers, pointing out that in 2019 they made up 7% of all licence holders but were involved in 16% of fatal and serious crashes. These stark numbers explain why insurance premiums are higher for younger drivers and why improving safety is key to reducing insurance costs for young drivers. The ABI has previously recommended—[Interruption.]
Mrs Pauline Latham (in the Chair)
Order. The sitting is resumed and the debate may now continue until 5.50 pm.
Bill Esterson
Thank you, Mrs Latham, for calling me again. I think that I had just said that the stark numbers explain why insurance premiums are higher for younger drivers—
Mrs Pauline Latham (in the Chair)
Order. Minister, we have started the debate. Thank you.
Bill Esterson
This could be the third time that I say this bit. The stark numbers explain why insurance premiums are higher for younger drivers and why improving safety is key to reducing insurance costs for young drivers.
As the hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned, the ABI has previously recommended the introduction of a graduated driver’s licence and I am sure that Members would be grateful if the Minister provided an update on whether his Department is still considering such a policy. If not, what alternative measures are he and his colleagues taking to ensure the safety of young drivers?
Will the Minister also provide a timeline for the Government’s plan to publish the findings of their Driver2020 study, which aimed to test the effectiveness of a telematics approach using a mobile phone application rather than having to fit a black box? Again, I am sure that young drivers and the insurance industry would benefit from clarity on this point. The Minister will need no reminding that the last strategic framework for road safety was published in 2011 and that, although road fatalities fell by 50% when Labour was last in office, since then they have fallen by only 8%.
As a number of Members have mentioned, road safety is a particularly important issue for young drivers, who are more likely to be injured or killed on our roads. Road safety should be a top priority for Government, so it has been disappointing to see a lack of progress on this issue. Will the Minister tell us whether he plans to publish the long-promised update to the strategic framework for road safety?
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) mentioned the speed awareness course. In a previous Westminster Hall debate, the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), told us that the Department of Transport’s own figures suggested that attendance of a speed awareness course reduces the likelihood of a driver being involved in a serious road traffic incident. Are the Minister and his colleagues considering the benefits of speed awareness courses? Are they considering making them part of the driving test to help to boost safety, not least among young drivers?
Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann for securing the debate and for her excellent presentation. Supporting the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to reduce its backlog will help young people to get on to the roads, while cheaper insurance and promoting safer driving will help those who have passed. I agree that we should be supporting younger drivers and doing more to ensure their safety on our roads. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s analysis of the potential solutions that have been raised today.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bill Esterson Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
I think that question had the disadvantage of being written before the hon. Lady had listened to my answer. I said very clearly that I supported 20 mph zones in areas where they make sense. Outside a school, for instance, they make perfect sense. What does not make sense is imposing blanket policies that bear no relation to the circumstances, which, as I have said, is what Labour has done in Wales. It has implemented blanket policies that are very unpopular, do not carry public support, and damage the acceptance of 20 mph zones in places where they do make sense—
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, refers to conspiracies. My constituency is next door to Wales, and I can tell the House that that is not a conspiracy; the 20 mph zones are incredibly unpopular in Wales. This is a blanket policy that makes no sense and is not supported by the public.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State seems to have forgotten the extensive cuts to the road repair budget that his Government have presided over. Let us consider the example of Northamptonshire, where the Government have cut £16 million from highways maintenance since 2020 alone. That is leaving 330,000 potholes unfilled. He knows that the Network North announcement will give Northamptonshire back only £2.5 million of that £16 million over the next two years. As for Wellingborough, the last time Peter Bone mentioned road repairs was in 2015. After 14 years of neglect by the Conservative Government and their former Conservative MP, is not the best advice for people in Wellingborough who want action on potholes to vote for Labour’s Gen Kitchen next Thursday?
Mr Harper
It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to hear that I do not agree with him at all. Before the Network North announcement, the Government were already investing over £5.5 billion of capital funding in highways maintenance between 2021 and 2024-25, and in the Budget last year, the Chancellor found an extra £200 million for eligible highways authorities. The £8.3 billion is on top of that, so I would urge voters in Wellingborough to vote for our fantastic candidate, Helen Harrison, who will make a fantastic Member of Parliament to serve on the Government side of the House.
Victims of Road Traffic Offences: Criminal Justice System
Bill Esterson Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks 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
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Ms Nokes, to have you here in the Chair today.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing the debate as well as everyone who has taken part in it. The strength of feeling from everyone who has spoken has come across extremely well, including in the personal stories and those told on behalf of constituents who have been victims of road accidents. I completely agree that referring to “road accidents” is exactly right, considering what happens on our roads. There has been a sense that driving offences are not viewed as as serious as they are in reality; that has come across loud and clear. I also congratulate the APPG on its work, as well as Roadpeace and the other charities mentioned today.
I want to mention some personal stories of my own. A friend of mine decided to return to cycling recently. On his first outing on his bike, he hit a pothole and was badly injured, and he has not been able to go back to work. I mention that incident because one of the issues that has not come up today is the need for decently repaired roads. Before I move on to what others have said, let me briefly say that road safety, in its widest sense of ensuring that we can all travel safely on our roads, means investing in proper repairs. I am glad that we are going to see some more money for repairs after the cuts—indeed, the halving of the budget.
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
May I gently remind the shadow Minister that the title of the debate is “Victims of Road Traffic Offences: Criminal Justice System”?
Bill Esterson
Indeed, and I will say why road repairs are relevant. In October 2023, the AA had the highest level of call-outs in any October ever, and accidents are sometimes caused by or related to poor road conditions. We still need justice, whatever the cause of an accident is.
I hope that we will see a proper level of investment in our road repairs, including—I say this gently to the Minister —the specification of a higher quality of sustainable repair. The technology exists, although it is not always applied. That is all I have to say on the matter of road repairs, but I wanted to refer to it because I think it is relevant to the debate.
The other personal story I have is about a motorcyclist, who is the friend of a friend. A driver pulled in front of him and he crashed, and is now in a coma. The prognosis is that he will never recover, because he is paralysed. I was reminded of his story while I listened to some of the others. I have no idea whether there will be a prosecution in that case. I will make no further reference to it, to where it happened or to who was involved, but it is a reminder that accidents cause life-changing injuries and even deaths.
In her excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) mentioned the very high level of deaths on our roads—1,500 fatal injuries, as well as 130,000 casualties in Britain. We all have a duty to reduce that level of accidents, and I have mentioned repairs.
Selaine Saxby
Just to clarify, given that every person in the Chamber today has asked for these events not to be referred to as “accidents”—we are talking about “crashes” or “collisions”—is it the Opposition’s policy to persist in calling them “accidents”?
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, but she heard me say at the start of my remarks that it was entirely appropriate that we spoke about “collisions”—
Selaine Saxby
If the hon. Member refers back to Hansard, I think he will see that that is not what he actually said at the start of his remarks.
Bill Esterson
Well, I was referring to what the hon. Lady said in her speech, but I think we are talking at cross purposes. I completely accept that it is correct to talk about “collisions”, and all I would say in response to her intervention is that this shows just how easy it is to slip back into calling them “accidents”. I accept her point, and I am happy to correct the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington told us how many deaths and how many casualties there are from collisions, and we all have a duty to reduce the number and to prevent them from happening. What we have so often heard today is that that is not happening. The way that drivers are allowed to continue is a real problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) spoke in a previous debate about a driver who had been banned something like nine times, and went on to be involved in a collision in which somebody died. This is about the short nature of such bans, and that point has been well made. I welcome the Government increasing the length of bans, and we supported the amendment to do that in legislation that went through a few years ago. The question is: what more can be done? I very much welcome the recommendations made by the all-party group, and I am very keen to hear what the Minister has to say in response to them.
I will say a few things about what Labour wants to see. We have published our approach to government, with our mission to raise confidence in the police and the criminal justice system to their highest levels. We want to see 13,000 extra police on our streets, and to address the cuts in the police and in support staff. I know that the Minister will say that police numbers, having declined first, have increased again, but there has not been a return to the previous numbers of support staff.
As Her Majesty’s—now His Majesty’s—inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services said in 2020:
“The number of dedicated roads policing officers has declined”.
It also said that they have been moved to addressing
“responsibilities for supporting general policing”.
That has to change if we are to support victims, investigate the incidents—collisions—that happen on our roads and deliver justice in a timely fashion. We heard about how long it is taking to bring one case to court; I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) who made that point about a constituent. The challenge for us is to support victims and to ensure that justice is seen to be delivered, and that it is not delayed. There were 83,581 cases in a nine-year period where drivers were not disqualified due to mitigating circumstances. I think we should address the recommendation in the all-party group’s excellent report on mitigating circumstances.
I will quickly reiterate those questions for the Minister, because I am keen to learn whether he accepts the recommendations. Whoever is in government has a duty to seriously consider the requests.
Bill Esterson
Indeed. We have 20 minutes left, but I do not intend to use many more of them.
Does the Minister support the all-party group’s 10 recommendations? Does he want escalating penalties? Does he agree that we should require retesting for those wanting to drive again following disqualification? What is his view on increasing the maximum sentence for dangerous driving to four years? What is his view on issuing guidance to police officers and increasing their use of bail powers so they can remove the right to drive from people arrested for dangerous driving? Does he agree that we should revisit sentencing guidelines so that exceptional hardship should be granted only in truly exceptional circumstances? What is his view on removing tolerances in speed enforcement, creating consistent guidelines for forces to investigate serious collisions, implementing a standardised system for third parties to report actual or suspected road offences, creating a UK commissioner for road danger reduction, and implementing guidelines so that victims of crashes are considered victims of crime unless there is clear evidence to the contrary?
The debate is about justice for victims. I am very keen to hear whether the Minister agrees that we really need to consider victims of road traffic collisions as victims, and that they should be covered by the victims code and other aspects of criminal law. Far too often, drivers who commit serious offences are not regarded by society as guilty of a serious crime. Everybody in this debate is calling for that to change, and I am very interested to hear whether the Minister agrees.
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
I am sure the Minister will want to leave a couple of minutes for the hon. Member for North Devon at the end.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
Thank you very much indeed for your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this very important debate. Sometimes Parliament is knocked or decried for its lack of impact, but nobody could have listened to the debate and not realised that what is being raised is of real importance to individual Members of Parliament, on a cross-party basis, and the families who have been so affected.
Road safety matters to all of us. As we are all aware, the solutions are complex, but that does not mean that we should not try to grasp them or engage with them, or that we do not take debates of this nature very seriously indeed.
We are on a journey. I am a veteran of a 20-year legal career, having prosecuted many of these types of cases and defended some, and there was no victim impact statement when I started out. It just did not exist; the victim was never consulted in any way whatever. I have been a cyclist for the past 40 years, and there were no such thing as cycle lanes in days gone by. The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) is entirely right that things are getting better, albeit we have a way to go.
Having just been with the fantastic people who work at Active Travel England, which is based in the constituency of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and having cycled around the Roman and medieval streets of York with all their complexities, I fully understand that putting cycle infrastructure in such a town is very difficult. Active travel did not exist before, and it clearly has a way to go before it is as good as all Members would like it to be. We are all on this journey, and solutions will not be ticked by this Government or the next one straightaway, but there is an acknowledgement that we are all, on a cross-party basis, trying to improve the situation, and that is something we should get behind.
Before I get into the nuts and bolts of the debate, I put on record that colleagues are entirely right to state the impact that this issue has had on individual families, including that of Harry Webb, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones); the Saltern family, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann); the Winterburn family, represented by the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton); and the Chapman family, represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). There is also the tragic case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild); the case specifically raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones)—I will come to new clause 49 of the Criminal Justice Bill in a second—as well as the case of Sharlotte, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis); and the Gayle family case, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson). Those families all have tragic and terrible stories to tell, and it is right that their representatives make the case for a better system. I take all the points on board. There is much being worked on by various Departments, which I will try to address in the limited time I have.
I represent the Department for Transport and have supported the all-party group; in fact, many years ago, I sat in this room while our colleague Lord Austin led a debate on these issues in this Chamber. This is clearly a cross-departmental matter, and we need to stress that the solution is cross-departmental. I give apologies from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), and the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who are debating the Criminal Justice Bill as we speak and addressing, for example, new clause 49, tabled by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, on the use of private roads and the impact of particular cases that arise. That is something to be discussed in the House, in the Public Bill Committee.
I should also point out that I bear scars myself. On 23 June 2019, I was the victim of a pretty serious road traffic accident. I broke my ankle and ruptured my knee ligaments when I was knocked off my bicycle by a car on a London street, also not in a designated lane. I still bear the scars, and my running days are definitely over as a result.
We want to foster an environment of safety. Great work is being done to pursue that. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon that the word “accident” should no longer be used; indeed, the Department for Transport no longer uses it. The appropriate terms are “crashes” or “collisions”, and we encourage others to use them. My hon. Friend will understand that “accident” is the correct word in certain pieces of legislation, but the prevailing approach of various Departments is a difference and a change in words. I hope it is of benefit that my brief includes not just roads but road safety and active travel, as we try to bring those things together. I have certainly been fighting to address them.
In the time allowed, I will try to address the particular points raised. I will start with the issue of escalating penalties. Section 65 of the Sentencing Act 2020 provides a statutory aggravating factor, stating that:
“The court must treat as an aggravating factor each relevant previous conviction that it considers can be reasonably be so treated”.
Judges must therefore consider the appropriate level of any sentence uplift justified by that factor as part of considering the full circumstances of the case. I will come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk, but the point is fairly made that these are relatively young pieces of legislation. The changes that the Government brought in to make sentencing take account of aggravating factors are still being worked through the criminal justice system.
Although I cannot speak specifically for the Lord Chancellor and the MOJ, it is unquestionable that, as cases take place, one can review guidance, take a second look at each situation, and see to what extent and how sufficiently the aggravating factors are being taken into account. That is not something that one can do straight away, but one can step back, take a proper review and look at that in a bit more detail. I will come to the increases in sentencing in a second, but first let me turn to the issue of compulsory retesting. I take the point that has been raised. Clearly, it is a cross-departmental issue, but there is, none the less, a mandatory retesting requirement on causing death by dangerous driving, dangerous driving and causing serious injury by dangerous driving. I accept, however, that the last update in the guidance was 2015, so it is something that the Department for Transport is considering. That is an ongoing process and, as Members will see when I come on to mention particular cases, there are many factors at play, ranging from insurance to consequential impacts on sentencing.
Let me turn now to increasing the maximum sentence for dangerous driving. As was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk, the sentence has been increased: the maximum penalty for dangerous driving while under the influence of drink or drugs went from 14 years to life. I accept that that was of little comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North and his constituents, but, at the very least, the Government have listened and taken action. I take on board the criticisms of the sentences. It is a dangerous thing for Ministers to start criticising individual judges for the way in which they reach their decisions, so I will not get into that without being fully party to all the circumstances. None the less, as I think the Ministry of Justice will do, there is a legitimate case for reviewing the sentences and the totality that followed those particular cases and establishing proper guidance. That is what is done with other offences. That is what will be done in this case and I hope the affected families will feel assured to know that that process is in hand.
In respect of the exceptional hardship point, having prosecuted and defended a similar case, I know that it is up to the individual defendant to raise exceptional hardship; the presumption is not that one can bring that forward. The Sentencing Council’s explanatory guidance makes it absolutely clear that it is for the offender to prove that these circumstances exist and that they are, and must be, exceptional. If it is genuinely the case that the argument has been made that the exceptionality is not being implemented in the appropriate way, that is something for us to review. I take the assertions on board, but it is ultimately up to the sentencing court to genuinely take that into account. I stress very strongly that it cannot be that it is an inconvenience; it cannot be anything other than truly exceptional hardship. The loss of one’s driving licence does not constitute exceptional hardship in any way.
Let me turn now to the extraordinarily vexed issue of speeding. Any Welsh MP will know of the issues relating to the 20 mph situation and the complexities that that has brought, but at the same time, as I said in this Chamber barely a month ago, there is, in my respectful view, a consensus that 20 mph zones outside school are utterly accepted. There is no question of any of us going back on that—in fact there is massive encouragement. Frankly, those schools that do not have 20 mph zones need to take a long hard look at that, which might involve local councils and parish councils as well. Exceptional circumstances may apply in relation to the location, but, as a broad presumptive, this House is utterly committed to that in those circumstances. The blanket application of that, in my respectful opinion, is much more difficult to achieve, but, at the same time, just because a policy may be difficult to achieve does not mean that we cannot attempt to address it. The point is fairly made in the report and it needs to be made again here: the impact evaluation of the national speed awareness course, which was published in 2018, found that participation in that course was more effective at preventing speed reoffending than fines and penalty points. That is proper evidential data that we should take on board. I think that there is a widespread and strongly held view across the House that greater use of such courses is the way ahead and a much better approach than the simple approach that has been put forward.
I will briefly touch on new clause 49, proposed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones). I met him yesterday, having met him previously when he raised his constituent’s case at PMQs.
Guy Opperman
No, I will not. Sorry, I have only three minutes, and I have loads of points to address.
New clause 49 is a cross-departmental matter. Clearly, it will be debated, but complexities are involved in doing what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney proposes for private land. Those range from military vehicles and the extent, to issues with insurance and the like, but I very much take on board the point that the hon. Member raised.
I entirely accept that police forces have differing approaches when it comes to the thorough investigation of serious collisions. Effort is being made by the chief constables to change that, and I would urge the Home Office to drive that forward. Without a shadow of a doubt, some police forces are better than others in relation to the issue of recognising crash victims as crime victims. It is clear that the victims code permits and, frankly, encourages victims of road traffic offences to seek the support that they require. The Ministry of Justice, which provides police and crime commissioners with annual grant funding to commission local, practical and therapeutic support for victims of all types, should apply that to individual crime victims who have suffered crashes or collisions.
I respectfully suggest that the Department for Transport is very keen on the expansion and understanding of the highway code. It has spent millions of pounds on that, whether through its Think! campaign, social media campaigns, factual awareness campaigns or other particular ongoing campaigns on radio, digital, video-on-demand and social media. We genuinely wish to push those campaigns.
I totally accept that this is a work in progress, and on a cross-departmental basis. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon and this House that we will meet the three key Departments to try to drive forward an integrated Government policy on all these matters. It is not for one Department to fix this; it should be done on a cross-departmental basis. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and all my colleagues for bringing this matter forward.