Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Grahame Morris

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson]

I am going to look up the word “ban” a bit later and see whether “euphemism” appears next to it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing that up. As I said in my opening remarks, the Government rightly accepted the phrase “careful and competent” in the Bill in the Lords. It is about putting a clear statement of intent in the regulations on the importance of safety in a so-far undeveloped technology. The comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington on the current concerns about where technology has reached were well made. What we want to do is remove the fear, risk and elements of concern.

On the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire, absolutely, we want to make the most of this technology for economic purposes. The figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders demonstrate that there will be something like 300,000 jobs between now and 2040, and £66 billion added to GDP. We very much want to make the most of those opportunities.

I suggest that having strong safety principles and the safest industry in the world is one of the ways in which we achieve exactly that goal. Having credibility, and the reputation for developing technology that is usable anywhere and is very safe, will be part of delivering the economic benefits. The expression, “careful and competent”, is not defined in statute; it is subject only to case law. The phrases “very low risk” and “a high standard of safety” are not defined. I completely accept those points. What is important is that we set out the intention in this legislation for the courts, which may well have to adjudicate at some point. That is why these amendments were important. I have listened to what the Minister said, and at this stage I do not feel that there is merit in pushing the amendments to a vote. However, I hope that he and other Members will take on board the fact that we are trying to set out our intention with as strong an opposition as possible in this framework legislation—yes, for secondary legislation, whenever that comes, but also for the courts, if they have to adjudicate. I will happily not press the two amendments in this group.

[Grahame Morris]

Forgive me, Mr Vickers—are we having the clause stand part debate now? May I contribute to that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

We now come to the statement of safety principles. We have tabled three amendments in this group to strengthen the support that we anticipate will be beneficial when secondary legislation is introduced, and to give confidence not just to the courts, but to consumers and investors so that they can make the most of the economic opportunity. This is a similar point to the one we made in the debate on clause 1.

The Government described similar amendments tabled in the Lords as “ambiguous”—they said that the amendments to clause 1 were open to interpretation. I simply make the point that they were content to accept the change to “careful and competent” despite the fact that that is not set out in statute, so why strengthen safety in that way but not in this one?

These amendments have the backing of Cycling UK, which my hon. Friend the Member for Easington mentioned, and for similar reasons. Cycling UK says that we need

“a step-change in road safety”,

not just a marginal improvement. It continues:

“a slight improvement in overall road safety could actually mask a worsening in safety for pedestrians, cycle users and other non-motorised road users, providing this is offset…by an improvement in safety for motor vehicle occupants. We do not believe this is acceptable.”

I agree that there has to be an improvement for all road users. A similar point applies to all four amendments in this group.

We need the definition to avoid reliance on the ambiguity to which the Government themselves refer. We are trying to strengthen the definition with these amendments. Amendment 18, which requires the publication of a definition of “careful and competent human drivers” to address exactly that concern about the lack of precedent and the reliance on case law, has the support not just of the groups that I have mentioned but of the Road Safety Foundation and the SMMT, the industry body.

“Careful and competent” was first used in the Road Traffic Act 1988, but it was not defined. Currently, it can be judged only against case law, so at this stage we want to tighten up these areas, not because we want to make things more difficult, but because we are trying to anticipate as far as possible what is to come, and we want to create the strongest possible framework as we finalise the primary legislation. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these matters, and I commend the four amendments that I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield.

[Grahame Morris]

I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central. As the Minister alluded to in a previous debate, clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to lay a statement of safety principles before Parliament, having consulted the relevant autonomous vehicle manufacturers, road users and safety groups first.

I recognise that the principles will be developed following the passage of the Bill, as the Minister said, but it is apparent that clear direction is needed for those principles in the primary legislation. It is also important that the safety principles are subject to frequent review—I think the Minister said that will happen—and consultation as the technology and roll-out of AVs is expanded over the coming years. The statement of safety principles must be clear, rigorous and informed by the needs of all road users and pedestrians, especially disabled people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I welcome the support for and analysis of the amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Easington. I wondered whether we were missing something about kangaroos in Easington.

[Grahame Morris]

They have wallabies in Derbyshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I am glad he has now clarified that. He is right that we have to anticipate perhaps not kangaroos but—

[Grahame Morris]

People who are inebriated, for example.

[Bill Esterson]

He is giving me other examples from a sedentary position. He is right to raise the concern.

The Minister said that the points are accepted by the Government, which I welcome, but if they are accepted, why are they not in the Bill? However, he has said that in Committee, so that will have to be sufficient for now.

I will come back to what he said about the definition of “careful and competent”. Given that we have case law and that the definition was first used in 1988 in the Road Traffic Act, as he says, I would think it possible to have a definition now against which future secondary legislation and decision making in the event of road traffic incidents could be judged. I do not understand why he has not made that clearer. As a result, I will not press amendments 21, 11 or 22 to a vote, but will test the opinion of the Committee on amendment 18. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) The statement must include the Government’s intended definition of ‘careful and competent human drivers’.”—(Bill Esterson.)

This amendment would require the Government to publish a definition of “careful and competent human drivers” as part of the statement of safety principles.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

With this series of amendments we are keen to probe the consultation on the development of the statement of safety principles. It is a very important part of the legislation and I am pleased that the Government accepted the principle of publishing the statement of safety principles at the outset. However, the technology will continue to evolve, so it seems clear that the statement of safety principles should be subject to review and public consultation at a decent interval. Our amendments are designed to ensure that there is a sensible, five-year timeframe for each of the reviews by Parliament and that the work is carried on in the public domain. The Government have said that that will happen informally, but we believe it important to have it confirmed in the legislation so that there is a guarantee.

The Government say they anticipate consulting a wider group than those they have previously mentioned. They said publicly in the House of Lords that that group will include members of the public, academia, trade unions and other representative bodies. We would like commitments on all those points, to which we will return with some of our other amendments. The Minister in the Lords said that

“it remains the case that this is a particularly uncertain policy area with a rapidly developing industry”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 January 2024; Vol. 835, c. 81.]

Does that not highlight the need for ongoing consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and an ongoing review of the statement of safety principles? Putting that on the face of the Bill is the way to guarantee that it happens.

[Grahame Morris]

I rise to speak in support of the amendment. May I ask questions of the Minister, and back up the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, my colleague on the Opposition Front Bench? We are talking about safety principles. In an earlier debate he mentioned the advisory committee. I know we are not debating them yet, but I have been looking at some of the new clauses. It has been suggested that on the advisory council there are: representatives from consumer groups; organisations representing drivers; road safety experts; relevant businesses, such as automobile manufacturers; vehicle insurance providers, because that is a key issue; providers of delivery and public transport services; the trade unions, because it is possible that many individuals will be displaced or that there are issues around deployment; the police and other emergency services; highway authorities, because there is the issue of the digitalisation of the data for autonomous vehicles; groups representing people with disabilities; and groups representing other road users, such as cyclists and pedestrians.

If the safety principles are to operate, it is important that we get this right. The Minister has said that it is a moveable feast, and that the Government will set the ambition but the standards would be amended—presumably improved—as time goes on. I do not want to sound like a broken record, but when the Transport Committee was looking at that aspect of the proposals we received evidence from a number of witnesses, including the motor manufacturers.

David Wong from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders had concerns, when looking at safety principles, about the definition of “competent and careful”. Many organisations are not confident that that is precise enough. David Wong stressed that his organisation agreed with the terms and the ambition. Professor Siddartha Khastgir from the University of Warwick said it would be difficult to translate the

“abstract concept into something that can be implemented by engineering”.

A number of the witnesses that the Committee heard thought that the Government’s ambition was too lax, and that a more stretching target should be set. That is quite interesting. We were talking about perception, and Ed Houghton from DG Cities told the Committee that when researching public attitudes to self-driving vehicles, he asked participants, “How much safer does it need to be for you to want to use autonomous vehicles over the long term?” People said that it needed to be twice as safe, or 10 times as safe, for them to use it. That is the level of expectation that consumers have, and we should recognise it. It has to be the best that it can be before they will be able to trust it and buy into it.

Safety has to be at the heart of the Bill if the public are to trust the technology and enable the UK to become a world leader in AV technology.

Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Grahame Morris

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson]

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Easington wishes to intervene.

[Grahame Morris]

I was wondering about scenarios that the Minister could seek some clarification on in his roundtable meeting next week. It is my understanding that if an uninsured driver driving a conventional vehicle was in a collision with another conventional vehicle, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau would be tasked by the Government to make the payout in respect of the uninsured driver. What would happen if an uninsured driver—I am directing this question to my hon. Friend, of course—was in a collision with an automated vehicle? Is that something the Minister might be able to answer?

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that because the Motor Insurers’ Bureau raised exactly that concern with me. I would love the Minister to answer it.

Care Bill [Lords]

Debate between Bill Esterson and Grahame Morris

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

I echo the sentiments of other hon. Members about the lack of time we have been allocated. I appreciate that it is not your fault, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we have so much to get through and the shortage of time means that although I would like to speak in support of a raft of amendments and new clauses, I will limit my remarks to a discussion of new clause 9.

I am supportive of the Care Bill—changes that make care simpler and fairer are to be welcomed—but there are real concerns about the sustainability of the changes this Bill seeks to make. I do not doubt the integrity and good will of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), but with all the good will in the world the proposals in the Bill can be implemented successfully only if they are properly funded.

Other hon. Members have raised concerns about the funding implications, and the original Dilnot report, one of the foundation stones of the Bill, made it clear that insufficient funding would hamper the effectiveness of any attempts to implement reforms, including the ones in this Bill, and that long-term social care funding will work only if the current crisis in social care is addressed first. So we must not forget that the success of the Bill will be jeopardised by laying reforms over a system that is underfunded. I do not have time to go into the figures, save to say that adult social care budgets alone have been reduced by £2.7 billion over the past three years—that amounts to 20% of average council budgets.

The impact of such cuts is compounded by rising demand resulting from demographic changes. It has been estimated that to meet the demographic pressures the nation needs to spend another £400 million a year. So local government has real concern that the implementation costs and ongoing running costs of the reforms being implemented through this excellent Bill have not been fully costed and will not be funded, other than as new burdens.

It is unacceptable—and it will damage public confidence and trust—to pretend that new standards will be able to be met if the resources are not in place to deliver them. That is why it is so important that an additional reporting mechanism is in place, such as new clause 9 would establish, to provide assurance that the social care system and reforms in the Bill are adequately funded. If the Government really intend the Bill to be their flagship piece of legislation on social care, we need to know that the numbers add up. Despite councils’ best efforts to protect front-line services, the reality of cuts on this scale has meant that adult social care has not been immune to their impact.

A number of hon. Members have indicated the scale of the impact in their own areas, but the eligibility criteria level for social care has risen dramatically across a range of authorities. It is unclear how the new eligibility threshold will work in practice, both in terms of the effectiveness of care that older and disabled people will receive and the impact that the threshold will have on local government finances. But it is a concern that an eligibility threshold set at “substantial” will, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) has said, fail to create a preventive care system—that is what we all want, along with well-being.

A failure to create a preventive care system could result in a false economy in the long term—my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) mentioned the figures from the Deloitte study. By not delivering the £1.2 billion of investment needed to lower the national eligibility threshold, central Government could be missing out on savings as great as £700 million. The well-being principle of the Bill will fail to become a reality as many old and disabled people will be ineligible to have their needs met, so it is important that the effectiveness and sustainability of the eligibility threshold is reviewed and changed when appropriate.

We have a unique opportunity to improve care, which is why I am in favour of establishing the joint care and support reform programme board set out in our new clause 9, which provides for a report on performance and implementation. A failure to do so could render the well-intentioned reforms in the Care Bill meaningless.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Social services are under huge funding pressure, which has a knock-on effect on the NHS. New clause 9 highlights the crucial issue of funding and will contribute to addressing it. Just 10 days ago, I experienced at first hand those pressures on the NHS. I would have added my name to this new clause, but I was unable to be here because I spent three days in Southport and Formby district general hospital. I saw the pressures in the accident and emergency department resulting from beds not being available for the transfer of patients to the wards; the pressures arising from chronic staff shortages; the difficulty in helping patients to return home because of a lack of support in the community; and general practitioners sending older people to A and E with complex needs as there was a lack of other choice or care available. In large part, the cuts in social services funding meant that I saw all those things. Meanwhile, staff in the NHS are working incredibly hard, often doing double shifts to look after patients, for which I am extremely grateful, as are many others. I take this opportunity to thank them and everybody in the ambulance service for what they did for me and have done for many other people.

The evidence I collected during those three days shows just why we need to be confident that funding is in place. Unless the funding is adequate, both in social care and in the NHS, the challenges faced day by day, hour by hour in our NHS will grow worse. We need greater integration, provided through the all-party approach advocated by Sir John Oldham in the report by his Independent Commission on Whole Person Care. As the report says, practice needs to move on so that we can see more care provided at home, with professionals working closer together in the interests of the individual. The whole-person care approach would reduce the number of hospital admissions; it would keep more people at home for longer, reducing hospital admissions and avoiding the huge pressures that I witnessed. In the context of the Bill, we need to be confident that the funding is sufficient to deliver the new responsibilities, which is why we tabled new clause 9. I hope that Members will support it this evening.

New clause 19 calls for health bodies to promote the health and well-being of carers. As the independent commissions report states:

“Most care is delivered by people themselves and their families.”

That makes the health of carers vital. My dad cares for my mum, and his health is a major concern. Carers up and down the country face declining health as they care for loved ones. Caring for the people who care is also a vital aspect of care provision, and paid staff in the health and social care sectors are also carers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) talked about priority treatment going to volunteer carers—family members, friends and other volunteers. We should also consider that approach for everyone who works in the NHS or in social care. If we read the new clause in its widest sense, we should consider paid carers too, be they in the NHS or in social care.

Some 1.3 million people work in the NHS, and 1.5 million in social care. We should promote the health of NHS and social care staff as well as that of unpaid carers who do a fantastic job up and down the country. I hope that new clauses 9 and 19 receive the support of the House.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Bill Esterson and Grahame Morris

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is precisely our fear, and I hope to develop that argument in a moment.

The national health service was established in 1948, against the background of the devastation following a world war. Men and women with a vision for a better, fairer society set in law the guiding principles and values of our NHS. Let us not forget that, during the post-war period, this country faced a bigger deficit as a proportion of our national wealth than we are facing today.

[Bill Esterson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am afraid not, as I have very little time.

Those people knew that the value of money would be worthless if it did nothing for ordinary people. Nye Bevan stated:

“No longer will wealth be an advantage, nor poverty a disadvantage. Healthcare will be provided free of charge, based upon clinical need and not on ability to pay”.

In contrast, this Government seem to see any money spent by public sector providers as somehow wasteful unless it is trickled through their friends in the private sector who can turn a profit. I am concerned that their whole philosophy is antagonistic towards the public sector. I was outside the Lib Dem conference on Saturday, lobbying the delegates. I hope that Lib Dem MPs will support the motion tonight.