Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[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—

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

He is peddling conspiracy theories again.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Very quickly.

[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.

[Bill Esterson]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State told the Transport Committee that electric cars are cheaper to run than their petrol and diesel counterparts. He also knows that sales of new electric cars fell by 17% last month.

The Minister has just mentioned the ZEV mandate, and I remind him that it was passed only because Labour MPs voted for it. He also knows that it addresses manufacturers, not consumers—supply, not demand. How do the Government plan to reassure drivers that buying electric means cheaper motoring? How will he undo the damage that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says was done to consumer confidence by his Prime Minister’s comments on the end of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars?

[Anthony Browne]

My key focus in my decarbonisation of transport role is to ensure a smooth and successful roll-out of electric vehicles. The hon. Member quoted one month’s figures, but overall sales of electric vehicles are up 41% this year compared with last year. Indeed, a greater share of electric vehicles is being sold in the UK than in any of the five major countries in the EU—more than in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland. It really is a record to be proud of. He is right that this is about supply and demand. We have stipulated in the ZEV mandate that 80% of sales should be zero/electric by 2030, but we also need to ensure that there are enough charge points for them. We have spent nearly £2 billion supporting electric vehicles, and we have a whole range of different schemes to deliver that.

Road Humps and 20 mph Speed Limits

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

This has been a very interesting debate, not least because we have heard a variety of opinions about the different approaches in different parts of the United Kingdom. Those demonstrate the vital importance of local decision making to reflect the different needs in different parts of the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), as he confessed, is a constituent of mine. He has speed bumps outside his house, in one of the villages in my constituency, but he made a point about his constituency, which is urban. Over the years—this also happens in the more urbanised parts of my constituency—people have used urban and suburban roads as rat runs and, in some cases, racetracks. For many people in residential areas where such things happen, it is entirely appropriate that road safety measures are introduced, and I am sure that nobody here today would disagree with that statement. He also made the point about there being 1,700 deaths a year and that thousands more people are seriously injured.

[Robin Millar]

I spoke at length about the situation in Wales. The hon. Gentleman talks about statistics and the impact of these measures. Does he agree with what the Labour Government in Wales have done with their blanket imposition of the presumption of a 20 mph limit?

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman will know that compared with the Welsh Government’s approach, our approach in England as the Opposition—I will come to this in more detail—is to allow, enable and support local decision making and subsidiarity. Actually, that is also true in Wales, where local authorities can reinstate 30 mph zones, and my understanding is that that is happening. So the situation is not quite as simple as it has sometimes been portrayed in the media, as he well knows. However, it is for Parliament to set the framework that my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle discussed, and it is not for Parliament to tell local authorities what to do.

I thought that the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) made a very important case for local decision making, with her description of the rural roads and the A32 in her constituency. In contrast, I think the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) managed to mention every single village in his constituency during his speech. I cannot imagine why he might have done that, but I am sure that there is a very good reason. Nevertheless, he powerfully made the point about the difference in the likely outcome if somebody is hit by a vehicle travelling at 20 mph as opposed to one travelling at 30 mph. The likelihood of someone dying is five times greater if they are hit at 30 mph than if they are hit at 20 mph. He touched on the point that drivers are also pedestrians, and sometimes cyclists and bus passengers, too. This is not a straightforward situation.

Our approach as a Labour Opposition and, hopefully, as an incoming Government is that it is for local communities to decide where 20 mph zones are implemented. I agree that local authorities and the people in their areas are best placed to know what works and what does not. It should not be the job of officials or Ministers in Whitehall to meddle.

It is disappointing that the Government seem determined to undermine democratically elected representatives and their communities. That is the reading of what they set out in October 2023 in their proposals, which included phrases such as taking steps “to stop councils”. The removal of local authorities’ access to DVLA data, vital for enforcement through the use of cameras, is among measures that undermine and intervene in an unhealthy and divisive way.

The irony of what the Government set out in their proposals, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said in his opening speech, is that it was a Conservative Government in the late 1980s and early 1990s who first gave local authorities the power to implement road safety measures, because they knew that people wanted to protect schools and some residential streets.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I do not wish to hold him up for any length of time. We have heard this quite a lot so far, and people have talked glibly about road humps not being or being a problem, but there is a massive difference in what we mean by road humps. The scale is enormous. In some areas, they literally just remind drivers of the speed limit and there is a slight movement in the car. In other areas that I referred to, such as outside residential homes, there are significantly high humps and they are implemented without any regard for what actually works or does not work. When traffic hits them, it causes all sorts of problems. That is the point that I am making: yes, local authorities have to decide, but they need to do so based on what works and what does not work. Right now, they can do almost anything they wish, and residents have no say in that.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He called for a review, and I gently say to him that I hope he is also calling for a review of the state of road repairs. The bumps in the road from the excess number of potholes are also creating the kind of problems that he mentioned earlier. There is also an argument for a change in the design of buses, and the introduction of buses that can cope with whatever modern roads have, including physical road safety measures.

The role of the Westminster Government should be to support sensible decisions to boost active travel, reduce congestion and improve communities. That is the Labour view of where we should go on this issue. In Government, we would leave decisions on over 20 mph zones with locally elected leaders.

What do people think about the road safety measures that are in place? Let us look at a report that the Government published, which shows strong support for the 20 mph limits that have been introduced. A Government study found that 75% of residents and 67% of non-resident drivers found the speed limits that have been introduced appropriate. Even certain Ministers seem to recognise that these decisions are best made locally. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), said recently:

“Where there is local opposition to 20 mph low emission zones, then the Government has a duty to look and see what we can do to support those local communities…but to begin with, absolutely, it’s the local authorities to determine where a 20 mph zone should be placed.”

The Minister without Portfolio, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), was Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for roads and local transport until a few weeks ago. He said in November last year:

“The Department has no remit to intervene in matters of local democratic decision making. Decisions on what traffic management measures to provide, including low traffic neighbourhoods such as the one that my hon. Friend talked about in Latchford—specifically in Westy—are entirely a matter for local authorities such as Warrington to make.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 492-493.]

That would have the support of the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), judging by the answer that that Minister gave at the time.

What of the Prime Minister? Even he admitted that councils will still be able to implement 20 mph limits, as long as they have consent from local residents. This really is a non-debate, as 20 mph zones have already been introduced, with local support, by local councils. The Government admit that the people who are best placed to make decisions on these traffic restrictions are local authorities, so let us take a look at some local authorities.

One council that has taken the Prime Minister at his word is Cornwall, which is controlled by the Conservative party. Cornwall Council is investing £3.8 million on a county-wide roll-out of 20 mph speed limits in built-up areas; it says that that will make roads safer for everyone. Where else is that enforced? In Conservative-controlled Kensington and Chelsea and in Conservative-controlled Scottish Borders. It is really no wonder that those Conservative councils have introduced 20 mph zones, given the guidance from the Department for Transport, which states that traffic authorities should

“consider the introduction of more 20 mph limits and zones, over time, in urban areas and built-up village streets that are primarily residential.”

Let us call out these announcements from the Government for what they are: meaningless political posturing without any substance to back them up.

Instead of being distracted by divisive posturing from the Government, we should look at the real issues that drivers face up and down the country. The cost of car ownership soared by 34% between 2018 and 2022. Car insurance costs have gone up by 58% in a year. Our roads have been left in a sorry state, with a one-time cost to the pothole backlog climbing to an eye-watering £14 billion. The charging infrastructure roll-out for electric vehicles is still years off track. Ordinary families will be left to pay thousands of pounds in hire costs due to the Prime Minister’s delay to the new petrol and diesel car phase-out, which, in turn, will result in fewer cheap-to-run electric vehicles reaching the second-hand market in the coming years. Meanwhile, data from Tusker shows that servicing an EV is 65% cheaper than servicing a diesel car and 37% cheaper than servicing a petrol car. And long-term plans to create more road space and reduce congestion by moving freight from road to rail have been cut by this Government, with the scrapping of the northern leg of High Speed 2.

The next Labour Government will support drivers, regardless of what type of vehicle they drive, by acting on their real priorities, such as cost of living pressures that they face each and every day. On 10 October, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) announced Labour’s plan to support drivers, which will save drivers hundreds of pounds by cracking down on unfair car insurance costs; reduce traffic on our roads by providing better public transport options; remove planning barriers to ensure that upgrades to our transport infrastructure are actually delivered; accelerate the charge point roll-out to give drivers confidence, no matter what type of vehicle they drive—

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Can the hon. Gentleman wind up?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)]

How is this relevant to the debate?

[Bill Esterson]

I am very glad that the Minister asked me that, because I am about to make exactly that point. Combined, those changes would save drivers hundreds of pounds a year in lower insurance costs and cut journey times by reducing traffic on our roads. What a contrast that is with what the Conservative party offered at its conference, where, instead of taking steps to support drivers through the cost of living crisis, the Prime Minister was reduced to parroting bizarre conspiracy theories about so-called 15-minute cities. It is increasingly clear that he has nothing left in the tank. With the Conservative party becoming more and more detached from reality, it is clear that only Labour can be trusted to focus on the real concerns of drivers.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. I have to bring the hon. Gentleman back to the debate, which is on road humps and 20 mph speed limits. I hope to bring in the Minister in a minute.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful for that, Mr Robertson. This is my final paragraph.

Labour’s credible plan means taking action on car insurance costs, removing barriers to transport infrastructure improvements being delivered, reducing the traffic that is clogging up our roads—which is what this debate is all about—and boosting the charge point roll-out. That is a plan for drivers, and it is a plan of action that will change driving for the better.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the debate and all colleagues on a constructive, positive and engaging cross-party debate. Politics aside, that was sadly missed in a speech in which 95% was written by a very enthusiastic staffer and about 5% was on the subject matter of the debate.

[Bill Esterson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a second, but I want to start with a few key points.

Clearly, road safety is a priority for us all. It is a priority for Government, Opposition, all political parties and all local authorities. Clearly, all road deaths are tragedies for all affected, and injuries can cause suffering, economic loss and life-changing misfortune. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was entirely right to mention the individual circumstances of his local constituents, whether that was Mr and Mrs Thorne, Mr Gilbert, Mrs Gauld, Mr Mckinley or Mr Thackeray. Their upsets and concerns are legitimately raised and rightly brought forward, as are those of the constituents of other Members.

I should declare that 23 years ago, a young, much thinner barrister was asked to do a rather important case in the Court of Appeal: the case of Marina Vine v. London Borough of Waltham Forest. I was the retained counsel—that thinner barrister—on behalf of the Automobile Association. I was lucky enough to change the law in respect of wheel clamping and the actions of individuals, particularly in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, which was the test case of the time that subsequently changed the law in this country. This debate therefore brought back great memories of individual people facing problems from local councils that had not necessarily undertaken the right degree of consultation, because in that case, the lovely Mrs Marina Vine, who had had to stop because she was recovering from a cancer operation, was unfairly clamped.

I was also a criminal prosecutor who prosecuted many death by dangerous driving cases, and I fully understand the consequences of all aspects of road safety in difficult circumstances. Like other constituency Members, I have residents who would be very upset if I did not mention their concerns about speeding in Heddon-on-the-Wall, Henshaw and other places. My first campaign as a candidate, let alone as the Member of Parliament, was to bring in a 20 mph zone outside Queen Elizabeth High School, whose students I welcomed from Hexham today.

I think we all agree that 20 mph zones, particularly in the right place, at the right time and with the right consultation, are a good thing. The obvious example, which we can all get behind, is near schools. I do not think a single Member or council struggles to bring in such changes, which are surely a fantastically good thing, but the key issue is having the right restrictions in the right place and at the right time.

Let me set out the national picture and the local picture in a little detail, before coming to the individual points raised. Clearly, central Government’s role is to set the enabling legislative framework, set national policy objectives, provide good practice guidance—I will come to that point in a second—and then provide funding. Central Government have no remit to intervene in the day-to-day running of local roads. Local traffic authorities are responsible for managing roads and traffic in their areas. They have a high degree of autonomy in how they do so, with powers granted to them through enabling legislation, but legislation also places a duty on them to manage roads safely and efficiently for the benefit of all their communities, whether that means local residents, drivers, or people cycling and walking.

I think it is accepted that traffic calming measures, including road humps, can play an important role in improving road safety. They must meet the requirements in the Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999, which set out minimum and maximum dimensions. There are also requirements for signing and lighting. There are statutory requirements for local authorities to consult on proposals for new road humps. It is for local authorities to ensure that any measures they install comply with legislation and that due process is followed.

There is no specific requirement for a minimum distance to be maintained between road humps and private dwellings. However, during the development of the road hump designs, the Transport Research Laboratory carried out some research into road humps and vibration. That looked at the vibration generated by traffic travelling over humps and led to advice on predicted minimum distances between road humps and dwellings in order to avoid the possibility of vibration exposure. This is reflected in the guidance in “Local Transport Note 1/07”.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green made a very fair and compelling point. I am certainly going to ask the Department for Transport—working with the Transport Research Laboratory—to do a fresh review and further research, given that it is patently obvious that the evidence basis on this is decades old and the world has moved on considerably. That does not predetermine anything in any particular way, but at the same time, what is surely self-evident from this debate is that we need a more updated attempt to understand the situation. I entirely accept my right hon. Friend’s point that—without being too trite about it—there are road humps and there are road humps, and local communities are affected in different ways.

If ever we needed an example of where local consent is key, then, with great respect, the example in Wales is fantastic. That started as a positive attempt to influence certain things, but it cannot be a good situation when approximately one in three or one in four of the population are rising up to oppose a particular change. That would imply to anyone—and to all of us who have held elected office at a local level—that the pitch has not been rolled and consent has not been established.

The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd)—he knows, to his regret, that he is a friend of mine—has great experience, and not only as a local councillor with regard to highways. If we do not have local consent for the changes we are bringing in, whether that is through the entirety of Wales or in a local community or street, we will always struggle with acceptance and democratic accountability. The issue will become a political football, which is not what we want. Surely we want to avoid that.

I endorse the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) that there must be proper consultation and subsequent enforcement if an individual or council is going to introduce these changes. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) used his amazing abilities to bring Northern Ireland matters into this debate. I can tell the House that I have visited Newtownards not once, but twice, and have experienced the speed bumps he referred to in his speech. Notwithstanding the fact that I have no influence or ability whatever to change them, his point is fairly made and stands on the record. As always, it is a joy to have him in these debates.

Much of what the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) said did not have to do with this debate. He raised the issue of road repairs; £8.3 billion has been given to local authorities for that. That is a record sum, over and above the previous sum for road repairs and potholes, and I sincerely hope local authorities will be held to account for its use. The hon. Member mentioned many different MPs, and I sincerely hope he gave notice to them. He certainly did not give notice to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), my Parliamentary Private Secretary, who has asked me to point out that the low-traffic neighbourhood in the Westy area of Latchford has since been removed by Labour-run Warrington Borough Council. It was not supported locally, nor was it supported by my hon. Friend, because it increased congestion and emissions. Again, my hon. Friend was not given notice.

The situation in respect of—

[Bill Esterson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

No, I will not. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

No, the Minister is continuing.

[Bill Esterson]

On a point of order, Mr Robertson. I seek your guidance. I have been accused of something by the Minister and not been given a chance to respond. How might I go about setting the record straight?

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

That is not a point of order.

Draft Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Good morning, and thank you very much, Mrs Murray.

Labour supports the introduction of the ZEV mandate. The Minister said much that I can completely agree with. Decarbonising cars and vans is an absolute priority in delivering net zero, as he reiterated throughout his remarks. He set out extremely well the opportunities for the industry in this country. However, there are significant challenges, sadly, of the Government’s own making. I understand that there are problems in the Conservative party with this subject.

I will look at how the ZEV mandate, which we support, can be best rolled out and how the incentives can be used to deliver the agenda that the Minister set out. The confirmation that 80% of new cars and 70% of new vans will be zero emission by 2030 moves the UK towards net zero in cars and vans—that is true. However, the question we should address is how to balance the supply of vehicles, which the mandate sets to manufacturers, with demand from consumers. That is why what the Prime Minister said in September, and the way his party conference speech was trailed in advance again and again, caused so many problems. The change in date from 2030 to 2035 has created a problem for consumer confidence. We therefore support the end of new sales of petrol and diesel cars in 2030, not 2035. In Government, if we are given the responsibility in the coming year, we will revert to 2030 to emphasise the importance of taking the earliest possible steps to decarbonise.

The Prime Minister announced the change in date. After 2030, the remaining 20% in the mandate includes petrol, diesel and hybrids whereas it previously covered only hybrids. However, the problem is that consumers heard, “Don’t worry; you don’t have to switch”. That leaves manufacturers that have already made sizeable investments—the Minister set out the commitment of the industry very well—in zero-emission vehicles with the serious concern that drivers will not buy their electric vehicles because the Prime Minister told them not to worry.

On Monday, Baroness Young spoke to the Lords about the greater environmental awareness of young people and their pester power with parents. In the environment Select Committee, she said that she had asked some whether they were using that pester power to persuade their parents to adopt electric vehicles. What she heard back she described as a bit “shattering”. They had replied:

“There is no point in us trying to influence our parents on this because the Government have just said to them, by slipping the date, ‘Don’t worry, there is no rush. You don’t need to do it now—you can take all the time you like’”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2023; Vol. 834, c. 994.]

In a nutshell, that is our problem: we have this gap between supply and demand.

It took the Government some time to come up with an excuse for why the Prime Minister had delayed the date. That was made by the Transport Secretary, and I do not disagree with the analysis that hybrids are higher-emitting vehicles than had previously been publicly announced—although that had been obvious for some years before that, because of the way people tend to drive them—but it was after the fact. It took the Government some time to consider that the Prime Minister’s announcement had had a chilling effect on consumer and industry confidence.

Let us look at some of what industry said. Emma Pinchbeck, the chief executive officer of Energy UK, said of the net zero roll-backs:

“I just came out of a meeting where a chunk of the British economy was assured by ministers that net zero was a top priority and that policy stability was crucial for investors. Now this.”

The Climate Change Committee stated:

“The cancellation of some Net Zero measures is likely to increase both energy bills and motoring costs for households…any undermining of their roll-out will ultimately increase costs”—

that is electric vehicle roll-out. Meanwhile, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has estimated that drivers could face £6 billion in extra costs up to 2035.

The lifetime costs of EVs are already cheaper than those of petrol and diesel cars. By 2030, the up-front costs of EVs were forecast to be at parity with petrol or diesel cars. By delaying, the concern is that the Government are not lowering but raising costs for families.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm what I think I heard him say, which was that if Labour secured a victory at the next general election, it would revert to 2030? Is that correct?

[Bill Esterson]

That is exactly what we will do. We have been saying it since the Prime Minister announced the delay, so it should come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman—

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

It is about consistency.

[Bill Esterson]

The Opposition believe in consistency and certainty; sadly, that has not been the case with the Government on this issue. We recognise the importance of certainty to manufacturers and consumers. That is why we will stick to the 2030 end-point for new sales of petrol and diesel.

Used-car sales account for more than 80% of sales, so petrol and diesel will be around for many years to come, but if we are to support our automotive industry—which has made those sizeable investments that the Minister rightly recognised—and to reduce emissions as fast as possible, as the climate science says we must, we have to encourage consumers to make the switch and we must make it attractive for them to do so.

In 2020, the then Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), announced the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars after 2030. He said that it would put the UK at the forefront of the zero-emission vehicle revolution with vehicles built right here in the UK. I agreed with him then, and I still agree with him now. I am concerned that there are Members on the Conservative Benches who do not agree with him.

The current Transport Secretary suggested that there was little environmental impact difference between the 2030 announcement then and the 2035 announcement now. The trouble is that consumers have been put off, as the Office for Budget Responsibility analysis suggested. The OBR said that just 38% of new vehicles sold in the UK in 2027 would be electric, down from the 67% it predicted as recently as March. That is the chilling effect of the Prime Minister’s announcement. The OBR said that the Government deferral of the ZEV mandate to 2035—it is a deferral not of the mandate, but of the sale of new petrol and diesel—is the reason that car buyers are dissuaded from going electric. Whether the detail of the OBR figures is exactly right or not, its point is well made: there has been a decline in consumer demand.

There is no need to take the word of the OBR—that independent body set up by Government—for it, but we can take industry’s word for it. Mike Hawes of the SMMT said that consumers require from Government

“a clear, consistent message, attractive incentives and charging infrastructure that gives confidence rather than anxiety. Confusion and uncertainty will only hold them back.”

I was with him last night at the SMMT annual dinner and he said that consumers need incentives now, not in 11 years’ time. He said that consumers have been told not to rush. The SMMT president—again, last night—described the chaos of moving goalposts in legislation.

Lisa Brankin, the Ford UK chair at the time of the Prime Minister’s announcement, said:

“Three years ago the government announced the UK’s transition to electric new car and van sales from 2030. The auto industry is investing to meet that challenge… Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency. A relaxation of 2030 would undermine all three. We need the policy focus trained on bolstering the EV market in the short term and supporting consumers while headwinds are strong: infrastructure remains immature, tariffs loom and cost-of-living is high.”

Stellantis’s press release at the time stated:

“Stellantis is committed to achieve 100% zero-emission new car and van sales in the UK and Europe by 2030. Our range will progressively move towards 100% electric, ahead of”

current “legislation.” It went on:

“Clarity is required from governments on important legislation, especially environmental issues that impact society as a whole.”

ChargeUK stated:

“For many years the UK has been a leader in the transition to the green economy of the future. Government policies have attracted investment to the UK and created well paid, high quality jobs. Members of ChargeUK have committed over £6 billion to roll out EV infrastructure in all parts of the UK at an unprecedented rate, turning on a new public charging point every 20 minutes, creating good, sustainable jobs, supporting the switch to EVs and thereby reducing emissions and improving air quality for all. This has been made possible by a clear commitment from the UK government to decarbonise our economy, with the 2030 phase out date for new petrol and diesel vehicles, 2030 acting as an essential catalyst. In his first speech as Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak said ‘I will place economic stability and confidence at the heart of this government’s agenda’.”

We will not cheer yet. ChargeUK went on:

“Today’s extremely worrying news is not consistent with economic stability or confidence. It will compromise the entire industry, and place jobs and consumer and investor confidence at risk. More importantly, government will penalise individual drivers who are doing the right thing. More and more people are making the transition to electric vehicles, as they have been encouraged to do. They are entitled to expect government to keep its promises and continue to support the roll out of charging infrastructure across the UK. ChargeUK calls on the Prime Minister to confirm that the UK government remains committed to the 2030 phase out date for new petrol and diesel vehicles and to a strong ZEV mandate.”

A Labour Government will make that commitment if the Conservative Government will not.

The Climate Change Committee Chair said at the time:

“The Government not only has a legal obligation to meet its Net Zero 2050 target. It also has a commitment to hit the interim emission reduction targets it has put into law. The Climate Change Committee has an obligation to assess progress towards those targets. In June, we said in our Progress Report that we were less confident in the Government's ability to deliver its 2030 and 2050 commitments than we were a year previously. We need to go away and do the calculations, but today’s announcement is likely to take the UK further away from being able to meet its legal commitments. This, coupled with the recent unsuccessful offshore wind auction, gives us concern. More action is needed, and we await the Government’s new plan for meeting their targets and look forward to receiving their response to our Progress Report, expected at the end of October.”

There we have it from industry and the scientists.

Will the Minister address the concerns raised about what ChargeUK called the potential compromising of the entire industry and the placing of jobs and consumer and investor confidence at risk? How will Ministers ensure that consumers do not delay buying battery electric vehicles as a result of the change in date from 2030 to 2035? Furthermore, when will they publish the regulations for what happens between 2030 and 2035?

The regulations refer to charge point infrastructure. The Government are 10 years behind their stated 2030 date for the roll-out of 30,000 charge points—that is from the latest figures that the Government published. What changes will the Government make to increase the rate of roll-out? That is a key element of securing consumer confidence to buy the electric vehicles being produced as a result of the zero-emission vehicle mandate.

The news from Nissan and Jaguar Land Rover about the investments in gigafactories is very welcome. However, we are still well short of the Faraday Institution calculation of 200 GWh battery capacity required. Again, having this capacity is part of building consumer and manufacturer confidence, which is related to the ZEV mandate. Labour is committed to part-funding the additional capacity. Will the Government match our commitment? The rapid charging fund was announced in March 2020. Will the Government match our commitment to release the fund to secure charging coverage across the country, to deliver consumer confidence?

My questions are all designed to probe how to address the gap between consumer demand and ZEV-mandated manufacturer supply. Drivers need to know that electricity prices will fall. Labour will cut energy bills by making the UK self-sufficient in renewable electricity generation. Will this Government match our ambition? Will they make the case wholeheartedly in public—not just on Government websites hidden away that nobody ever sees—that electric vehicles are an attractive option now, by emphasising that an electric vehicle is much cheaper over its whole life than petrol or diesel?

The Government have announced a change of date, which affects the ability of industry to deliver the mandate we are debating today. Today’s decision does not address the delay to 2035. My final question is this. Labour support today’s statutory instrument, but we will revert to the 2030 target in Government, because we want to give the strongest encouragement to consumers and the strongest support to industry. Will the Government allow a vote in this Session of Parliament on the delay to 2035, so that the mandate we agree this morning has the best chance of being implemented effectively?

[Anthony Browne]

I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. I will address all his points, but most were about the change in date from 2030 to 2035 for banning the sale of pure petrol and diesel internal combustion engine cars. I noticed that almost everything the hon. Gentleman quoted from industry was said on the day of the announcement or the day after, before they realised that actually the Government were not changing the zero-emission—

[Bill Esterson]

I think it is important to correct that point. I quoted what the chief executive and president of the SMMT said last night, which is entirely consistent with what they said at the time. I do not think anything has changed since.

[Anthony Browne]

I said “almost” everything the hon. Gentleman quoted. The quotes he cited from ChargeUK, for example, and much else, were about this announcement today. There was concern before the industry realised that actually the Government were not changing the zero-emission vehicle mandate, which we are implementing today. This is what gives certainty to industry. Indeed, I was with the chair of ChargeUK yesterday, and lots of charge point operators, who welcomed this legislation. They have £6 billion of investment that they are rolling out for charge points, precisely because of this.

If the hon. Gentleman fully welcomes the order, and wants to know the reason for delaying from 2030 to 2035 the ban on the sale of pure diesel and petrol vehicles, it is because at the time that the 2030 announcement was made, the evidence suggested that hybrid cars performed far more efficiently than pure internal combustion engine cars, whereas the more recent data shows that there is relatively little difference in performance. It cannot, therefore, be justified to ban the sale of one type of car while allowing the hybrid cars. From a consumer point of view, we should let them choose which type of car until 2035.

On a broader point, the hon. Gentleman touched on the carbon budgets. We have had three carbon budgets so far, and we have exceeded every single one of them by about 14%. We are way ahead of schedule and where we said we would be at this point in time. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if we look at our carbon dioxide reductions historically since the benchmark year of 1990, not only are we the leader of all the major European countries, we are the leader of the G7. Our greenhouse gas emission reductions are the greatest of any country in the G20. We are genuinely world leading on this. Looking at our future targets, the UK’s nationally determined contribution is 68%, and the EU’s is 55%. We are going to cut far faster than other countries. That is what gives us the leeway to be flexible on things in quite a minor way to give consumers more choice as we get to net zero. The impact of the announcement in terms of carbon dioxide emissions is about 1% of the total impact of these regulations.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the OBR report and questioned whether it thought we were going to meet the mandate. We are not allowed to show things, but I have the OBR graph here. It has underestimated our electric vehicle roll-out at every single stage. We have surpassed all its forecasts. Its latest forecast shows that it thinks we will meet the mandate and meet 100% zero-emission vehicles by 2035 and 80% by 2030. That is not surprising, because, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, that is what the industry itself is planning anyway. Sixty-seven per cent. of our car market is already committed to being 100% zero emissions by 2030—I think I am right in saying that that includes Ford, Stellantis and Nissan. All major car manufacturers are committed to 100% zero-emission vehicles by 2035. That is the trajectory the industry is on. This instrument gives them the certainty for it, but that is what is happening.

The hon. Gentleman asked when we will publish the details of the amounts on the targets for 2030 to 2035. The Government have mentioned indicative amounts, but we have not legislated for that yet. We will review all this in 2027 and there will be a second review in 2029. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the charge point roll-out. We have now surpassed 50,000 public charge points in the UK, of which one fifth—about 10,000—are rapid charging units. I want to see that go faster, but as I said, when I met the charge point operators yesterday, they were incredibly excited about rolling out incredibly fast. There is a wall of private sector capital—£6 billion. The number of charge points has increased by 45% over the last year compared with the previous year, which is an incredibly rapid roll-out.

Last night, instead of going to the all-party parliamentary beer group, I looked at electric vehicle statistics across Europe, because we are sometimes criticised for how the market has developed in the UK. If we look at the six major countries in Europe, Poland and Italy are at about 4%—we would not expect them to do that much. Spain is a bit higher at 4.7%. France, which we always look at as a great country for doing this sort of thing, is at 15.5%. Germany, the great automotive superpower of Europe, which has great engineers and everything else, have 15.8% electric vehicles. In the UK, 16.1% of our market is electric vehicles. Our electric vehicle market share is the greatest of any major country in Europe. That is a record to be absolutely proud of. This instrument will accelerate that far further.

The hon. Gentleman asked for a vote on the delay to 2035—he will not get that. I cannot commit to that, and we will not do it. I set out the reasons for that. I think I have answered all the points, so I will make my closing remarks.

The order is the most ambitious piece of legislation of its kind in any country anywhere in the world. Indeed, it is the biggest single act this Government are making to reach net zero. It is overwhelmingly supported by industry, which has helped to develop it. It establishes a clear pathway for the decarbonisation of our new car and van fleet. It will encourage vehicle manufacturers to invest in zero-emission vehicle manufacturing in the UK, encourage charge point operators to invest in our infrastructure network, and support jobs and working people as we move to a cleaner economy. I hope the Committee has found the debate informative and short, and that Members will join me, alongside colleagues in Senedd Cymru and in the Scottish Parliament, which have already approved this legislation, in supporting this instrument.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Pothole repairs halved since 2016; insurance premiums up; fuel prices up; electric charge point roll-out 10 years behind schedule; £950 million EV charge point fund still not open three years after being announced; 10% trade tariffs threatening consumers and manufacturers—which of those is not an example of where this Government have failed drivers over the last 13 years?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman had a number of things that he purported to suggest were facts. Let me just pick one of them: the roll-out of EV charging. That is absolutely on track according to the independent assessment from the National Infrastructure Commission. The number of public charge points is up 43%. As the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) set out, we have published and laid before the House the legislation to implement our zero-emission vehicle mandate, which gives the industry the confidence to invest in and roll out those charge points, to drive the roll-out of electric vehicles. We are absolutely on track to do that, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome it.

Draft Public Charge Point Regulations 2023

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I agree with much of what the Minister said. His points about the need to raise confidence among drivers and to address our net zero targets and obligations are set out well in section 7 of the explanatory notes. I welcome the fact that the price will be displayed on charge points and that the use of contactless will be obligatory. There is much to commend about the step forward taken by the draft regulations. However, a series of questions emerge from the regulations regarding how we improve on what has been set out.

On current trends—the Minister in the Lords confirmed this—there will be a 10-year delay in achieving the Government’s target of 300,000 set for 2030. At the moment, there are 30 cars per charge point and, on current trends, that will be 64 by 2030. Delaying the end of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars to 2035 will also mean that it will take longer before drivers have the cheaper option of using an electric car. At present, we have 14 northern cities with fewer charge points, combined, than the city of Westminster.

As things stand, there is a lot of progress to be made. I accept that these regulations will contribute to that, but do they go far enough? As the Minister alluded to in his figures, 81% of current chargers will not be covered by the regulations, certainly in the immediate period, and not all new chargers will either, although there is a rationale for that, which I am sure the Minister will pick up in response to my questions. However, does he share my concern that many charge points still will not necessarily have a contactless option or, importantly, show the price?

The Office for Product Safety and Standards will be responsible for enforcing the regulations, but what assurances can the Minister give that the OPSS will have sufficient capacity to enforce these regulations, to give that confidence and peace of mind to drivers? Incidentally, that peace of mind and confidence is important in creating the market demand and confidence for manufacturers and investors in domestic automotive production.

I also want to ask about payment cards for the various different networks that have emerged and the multiplicity of apps. I have now lost count of the number of apps on my phone for different charge points around the country. Does the Minister have any plans or thoughts around the ability to combine the different charge point owners and networks so that they can all be accessed through single payment cards or charge cards, and whether they can be brought together into single apps? It can be confusing at the moment and, as he quite rightly said, raising consumer confidence is key to people buying and using electric vehicles. That is very much linked to what he has set out in these regulations.

I would also ask the Minister about grid capacity and decision making in planning because improvement is needed in the speed in which grid connections, and often planning decisions, are made. He mentioned ChargeUK; I know that it is keenly concerned about this, and I am sure that it has raised that with him as it has with me. What plans does the Minister have to improve the speed at which new charge points can be connected to the grid? We have the absurd situation in which one can drive around the country and see new facilities that are unused for months on end because they cannot be connected to the grid.

Therefore, what is the Minister’s intention to improve grid connections and to speed up planning decisions? I am sure that he will agree that the lack of planning officers in local authorities up and down the country really does not help. Perhaps he could use his connections with colleagues in other Departments to address that particular problem. Labour has plans to back motorists, to set targets for charge points around the country, ensuring greater certainty for the network providers, and to support an increase in installations. We also have plans to improve decision making by speeding up the planning process.

Finally, three and a half years ago, the Government announced the £950 million rapid charging fund. When will that start to be allocated, and when will it be available to use in those areas of the country where it is harder for the networks to install charge points? It is a great frustration that that money is so far unused. In government, Labour intends to use that fund to ensure that we increase take-up and installation and thereby encourage the greater availability of charge points to support drivers up and down the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I want to tease this point out. In the Lords, Baroness Vere said that 3,870 charge points were installed between April and July, and figures of 1,000 a month were also quoted in that debate. At that rate, only half of that 300,000 figure will be achieved by 2030. What does the Minister think will change between now and then, in respect of the draft regulations or more widely, to achieve that 300,000 figure?

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Member. Of course, I think any sensible observer expects that the combined effect of the new regulations, technology and a massive amount of new investment will drive the rate of installation upwards. I cannot do any better than refer the hon. Member to the comments of the independent National Infrastructure Commission, which has said that it expects the Government to meet the target if installations continue to grow at the current rate of 30% a year, as they have in recent years.

In relation to the zero-emission vehicle mandate, the hon. Member suggested that it would somehow take longer to charge because of the removal of the ban from 2030. It is possible that there will be a very slight effect in that way, but it is also important to note that the substance of the mandate and its particular regulations for the provision of electric vehicles on the road have not changed. We would therefore expect that to drive the installation of electric vehicle chargers.

The hon. Member highlights that a relatively large percentage of current charge points are not covered in the regs. Of course, a decision has had to be made as to what is the cost-effective rate at which to require retrofitting. Having done a lot of consultation with the industry, and precisely based on a desire to incentivise the maximum speed of installation, which the hon. Member emphasised, the Government have decided to strike the balance so that 7 kW chargers and below are exempt from having to provide for contactless payments. Again, that is a trade-off that has to be made to achieve the faster rates of investment and installation that the hon. Member seeks.

The hon. Member is right to raise the question of enforcement, which is obviously important. Regulations are nothing without enforcement. The OPSS will enforce the regulations, as he says, and it has the capacity to apply financial penalties where necessary. It is actually a very good choice of enforcement agency, because it has a strong reputation and already enforces the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulations 2017 and the Electric Vehicles (Smart Charge Points) Regulations 2021, which contain provisions on charge point data and payments. It is therefore already familiar with enforcing data and payment requirements on electric vehicle charge points, and so is well placed.

[Bill Esterson]

My question was actually about the capacity of the office. Hopefully there will be hundreds of thousands of charge points in the near future. How will they achieve enforcement with current staffing levels? Are there plans to improve staffing levels? Has the Minister analysed whether current staffing levels are adequate to cover that enforcement?

[Jesse Norman]

On capacity, I was going to point out that far from being new to this area, the OPSS is already up to speed and enforcing it under other regulations. It has hit the ground running. However, it is recognised that this will be an improvement. The Government have therefore set up a technical working group so that Government agencies, industry members and technical experts can work together on this. The delay in the overall enforcement of the rules, as set out in the statutory instrument, allows an approach to enforcement that we think is suitable to the scale of the investment requirement and the enforcement challenge. Ministers will continue to monitor this with the OPSS to ensure that the capacity remains adequate to the target.

The hon. Member asked about confidence. He is absolutely right about the importance of confidence, and that is why the zero-emission vehicle mandate is such an important measure. It is not just a huge measure for decarbonisation; it is aimed at stimulating investment in the private infrastructure charge point industry, and that is what it is doing. He pointed to the multiplicity of apps, and he is right about that. There is always a point in the development of any market where it goes from being a series of attempted land grabs and moves for a particular position to one where there is interoperability and a level playing field. That is what these open data requirements are designed to do. I would expect there to be consolidation, as there has already been in the industry, as consumers increasingly focus on using the open data and the most effective apps for their needs.

The hon. Member mentioned grid capacity, which is an important issue. As I am sure that the industry will report, I have been vigorous in talking to colleagues and the district network operators about the importance of an adequate supply of charge to parts of the country that need it. Lots of work is under way in this area, and he is right to point out the need for cross-departmental co-ordination.

I share his frustration at the slow rate of progress on rapid charging points; I would prefer it to be much faster. There have been competition issues and complexities, because in rapid charging areas—many of them motorway service areas—there are significant complexities of ownership and control between the charge point operator, the motorway service area, the landlord and access. Those must be negotiated in each case. I am pleased to say that there are increasing levels of rapid charge in motorway service areas. It is useful and helpful that Tesla has opened up all its new charge points to all other manufacturers, so that the widest possible provision will be available there and elsewhere.

Question put and agreed to.

UK Automotive Industry

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Over the last few months, I have—high vis and hard hat at the ready—been blown away by the possibilities in our automotive industry, but I have also felt the force of the headwinds facing the sector, including EU rules of origin, high electricity prices in manufacturing, the slow roll-out of EV charge points, the shortage of gigafactory capacity, delays to the zero-emission vehicle mandate, and, of course, the continuing fallout from the way in which the Conservatives crashed the economy this time last year.

The fact is that it is only through a partnership with Government that our vehicle manufacturers can achieve lasting success in a world where new technologies offer opportunity, and competition from new participants such as China is more of a challenge than ever. That is what other countries are doing—other countries that are ahead of us in the low-carbon transport transition race.

I mentioned my recent visits. I saw the pride of the Stellantis workers at Ellesmere Port, where they produce electric vans for Peugeot, Citroën and Fiat, as well as for Vauxhall, and where they want to expand production to be able to export, as they told my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and me just a few weeks ago. I saw the ingenuity on display at the Jaguar Land Rover research and development facility at Gaydon, and JLR’s “Reimagine” project and commitment to all electric across a number of its brands. Then there is ULEMCo in my constituency—please look it up—which has pioneered the use of hydrogen as a drop-in fuel to existing internal combustion engines to cut emissions while full hydrogen options for combustion and fuel cells are being developed.

Those, and many more, are examples of the amazing potential in this country. However, they are all examples in which uncertainty must be addressed to ensure that our automotive industry can thrive. The honest truth is that we are in danger of squandering the advantages that we have in vehicle manufacturing. UK motor vehicle production levels have fallen by 37% since the Conservatives came to office in 2010—one of the largest falls in vehicle production of any country. Eight in every 10 cars produced in the UK are exported, yet exports of cars manufactured in the UK fell by 14% in 2022. The Faraday Institute estimates that the UK will need 200 GWh of gigafactory supply by 2040. Other countries are on track, but we are off the pace. The news of a gigafactory from JLR is, of course, very welcome, but it does not address the demand from the rest of the industry.

We still have the cautionary tale of the failure at Britishvolt as a reminder of the precarious nature of gigafactory development. The problem of the lack of gigafactory capacity is repeated with EV charge points: the Government target of 300,000 charge points is set to be missed by at least a decade. Meanwhile, parking bays for vans are often inaccessible at charge points. The UK has no equivalent to the plans in Germany for dedicated commercial vehicle charging every 60 km to 100 km. Speaking of commercial vehicles, where are the plans for hydrogen refuelling for larger vehicles that will use hydrogen combustion or fuel-cell technology?

Reliance on imports of batteries is directly linked to the question of local content and how UK-produced vehicles will be able to compete in export markets. From next year, a 10% tariff will apply to cars and 22% to vans when rules of origin are exceeded. That will, during a cost of living crisis, also push up prices for consumers who buy imported vehicles. Stellantis wants to expand the electric van production that it showed my hon. Friend and me. It wants to employ more workers and export its new pride and joy to the EU, but to do so, it needs to qualify for local content rules, which will not be ready in time for the looming cliff-edge in a few months’ time. Stellantis, Ford and JLR have all called for a delay in the implementation of new rules of origin to give them time to comply.

The Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who will wind up, said that he could not comment on negotiations. Indeed, the Minister for Industry and Economic Security, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), who introduced the debate, said the same thing. But industry is not asking Ministers for a running commentary; it is asking them to say that their objective is to support the request and ensure that it can continue to compete in its biggest export market.

Then, there is the ZEV mandate. The Government said that they would introduce the mandate by January next year. Decisions are taken many years in advance by investors, so regulatory certainty is critical to inform decision making. Motorists need to know whether they should buy another petrol or diesel car, or go hybrid or full electric. Is 2030 still the date for the end of the new petrol and diesel car production, as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) quite rightly mentioned in his speech? I would like to hear about that from the Minister. Companies are having to second guess the Government, as are consumers.

The lack of a plan for ZEV, for rules of origin, for charge points and for commercial vehicles is an example of the indecision that characterises this Government. It does not have to be this way. Our long-term approach, working as partners with businesses and unions through our industrial strategy, will give investors and consumers the certainty that they want. That is how our competitors operate, and it is how this country needs to work, too. Our clean energy plans and our green prosperity plan will deliver the cheap, clean energy that will help to lower the cost of motoring and unlock the capacity for electric vehicle charging. Our support for hydrogen is also essential for the transition to low carbon for road vehicles that need an alternative to electricity. Labour’s new gigafactories will allow the UK’s automotive industry to source components locally, avoiding tariffs for exports to the EU by addressing the challenge of rules of origin. And we will work with the EU on a plan that avoids the cliff edge of the Prime Minister’s damaging export tariffs, which, with just 100 days to go, are looming large. We will also address the skills gap and the decline in apprenticeship starts—a decline of 170,000 a year since 2017—in part by moving to a growth and skills levy.

Labour’s plan will deliver precisely because we have drawn it up in partnership with the sector.

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Esterson]

I will not, because Madam Deputy Speaker has, quite correctly, been very strict in the time she has allocated.

Labour’s plan will lead to the creation of 80,000 jobs in our industrial heartlands. Our plan will power 2 million electric vehicles and add £30 billion to the UK’s economy. We will accelerate the roll-out of charging points and give motorists the confidence to make the switch. We will have binding targets for electric vehicle chargers that will, like carbon budgets, be binding on the Government. We will ensure that local areas have the support and investment that they need.

Labour’s plans for energy generation are inextricably linked to the transition to low-carbon road transport. Our plan to make the UK a clean-energy superpower by 2030, with net-zero carbon electricity, will deliver capacity and lower energy costs for UK manufacturing. Those costs, including electricity costs, which are 62% higher in the UK than in Germany, are a barrier to our competitiveness. The motor industry and motorists are being let down by this Government. They are being let down on the ZEV mandate; on rules of origin and local content; on the slow progress of gigafactories and EV charge points; and on energy prices. Above all, they have been let down because of the damage done by 13 years of Conservative mismanagement of the economy, which culminated in last year’s disastrous mini-Budget. All of that has led to the further let-down of high interest rates, which are higher than in competitor countries.

The industry wants the roadblocks and the let-downs to be removed. I will leave the last word to Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, who just this morning wrote about the uncertainty around the ZEV mandate, charge points and gigafactory capacity. He said:

“A comprehensive package of measures would encourage households across the UK to go electric now, boosting an industry slowly recovering from the pandemic and delivering benefits for the Exchequer, society and the global environment.”

I could not agree more. With Labour’s industrial strategy, Labour’s green prosperity plan and Labour’s partnership with industry, our automotive sector will be turbocharged to deliver success.

Rail Services

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The particular set of circumstances the hon. Gentleman talks about requires Network Rail to work closely with Transport for London, as it is doing, to look at those circumstances. I know there have been issues with the timetable on his particular line and I remember a conversation he had with my hon. Friend the Rail Minister at the last set of oral questions, where my hon. Friend was able to supply the House with some positive news. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will take that away and look at it to see whether there is more we need to do in the short term to improve performance for his constituents.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents are unfortunate enough to have to rely on Avanti. They thought the Secretary of State’s predecessor should not have extended the contract last time, let alone this time. I want to look at some of his claims about improved performance, because they do not stand up to scrutiny over any extended period of time. Everybody knows what is going on here, because they have experienced the service for themselves. The average number of cancellations between September 2022 and March 2023 was just as high as over the previous six months, and Avanti had the highest proportion of trains more than 15 minutes late on record. The travelling public know it, we know it, and I suspect he knows it too: Avanti should be stripped of its franchise.

[Mr Harper]

I think we should judge Avanti’s performance fairly. The hon. Gentleman is mashing periods together. Before December, I was quite clear that Avanti absolutely had to deliver an improved timetable—that did not start until December. Of course, as I said in response to previous questions, the first month or so of that was disrupted enormously by industrial action either in the train operating company or in Network Rail, or in both. Since Avanti brought it its new timetable, it has delivered 40% more services. Yes, it has not delivered sustained reductions in cancellations, but it has delivered reductions more recently.

There is no point in looking at the performance last summer and autumn, which I have accepted was terrible. There was a problem to fix, which is why Avanti needed to bring in its new timetable. Since it has done that, it has delivered improvements. Are they good enough? No, which is why I have extended it for a further six months only. Avanti is very clear that it has to deliver sustained performance improvement, and I judged that that was the best way to deliver improved performance for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and those of other hon. Members.

Avanti West Coast Contract Renewal

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. As part of taking a longer-term decision, we would want to see how the improvement was sustainable—for example, as I have touched on already, by moving away from a reliance on rest-day working for train drivers as the core of delivering the service. We want to look—in the same way, by the way, that the OLR would have to look if it took over operations—at ensuring that any improvement is sustainable and provides a long-term basis of confidence for the service and particularly the communities that rely on it.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not understand that the public believe the Government, by extending the Avanti franchise, are taking them for fools? Does he not realise that the only way out of this for him and his ministerial colleagues, and the only way to end the public’s anger towards their Government, is to remove the Avanti franchise and do it now?

[Kevin Foster]

I have to say, that was not the universal reaction to the decision we took, when we were clear that this was a six-month probationary period. We look forward to seeing the implementation of the December timetable changes and the improvement plan, and to closely monitoring the progress being made towards it, including, for example, the training of new drivers to fulfil it. As I have said a number of times, simply repainting the engine and giving the franchise a different name will not solve many of these issues.