E-scooters: Deaths and Serious Injuries

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman)—I am not sure whether it is hon. or right hon., but after 45 years it probably should be right hon. I think in the next few minutes we will all know what will happen to that 45 years, although perhaps I will create some headlines rather than the Prime Minister. If that is to be the case, however, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and thank him for his 45 years of service in the House and to the people of Huddersfield. This is an apt issue for him to go out on, given his work on similar issues for decades, as he outlined in his speech. He mentioned the serious car accident that he and his family were in, which led to his work. I thank him for his work on those issues.

The main point, and certainly the first point, that the hon. Gentleman made was that the sector is totally unregulated. That is the main point in the contributions made thus far. There are various numbers about, but I think we can probably come to a consensus on 750,000 to 1 million—perhaps just over 1 million—e-scooters in use in the UK. I thought he used a good device when he brought up the Toys “R” Us advert—obviously other retailers are available, and we can get these things from any number of them—to show how freely available e-scooters are, usually without any real warning about their potential illegality, any mention of training, and so on.

This is a real issue, and the Government have to take the blame, because ultimately they promised regulation. In fact, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) quoted a Transport Minister when she said that safety was “at the heart of” their plans to regulate e-scooters. Since then, clearly nothing has happened. Another good point—I do not know how widespread this is, but I have certainly heard about it—was about those who tamper with their e-scooters to go faster. Some of them can already go pretty fast—too fast, one could say.

The hon. Member for Bradford South rightly referred to the amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill to ensure that the perpetrators of dangerous riding resulting in deaths and so on would be punished fully. She also read through some of the stats used by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, but said that it is possible that those stats under-report casualties and deaths. That is something we have to bear in mind as we look at the issue.

At the end of the day, the Government have failed to regulate e-scooters for a couple of years now. I am the SNP transport spokesperson and sit on the Transport Committee, and we have looked at the issue. We have been promised regulation, and it has never happened. It looks like it will certainly not happen this side of an election—certainly if an election is being called as I speak. In the Queen’s Speech in 2022, the Government said that they would create a new category of low-speed, zero emission vehicle in the transport Bill. The trouble is that we never got a transport Bill, which would have allowed for the regulation of e-scooters.

In July of the following year, the Government said that they intended to introduce legislation on micromobility vehicles, which would encompass e-scooters, when parliamentary time allowed. Those of us who have been around Parliament in the last few months—not even just the last few weeks—have seen that it has been rather a zombie Parliament, with a huge amount of time available for the Government to bring forward legislation. With the time available to us, we might even have been able to bring forward rail reform, but nothing was brought forward.

Clearly the Government have now left it too late. We do not know whether e-scooter regulation will be an immediate priority for an incoming Government of whatever hue—however likely the polls seem to be one way—but it has to come as quickly as possible. The point remains: there are just over 1 million e-scooters in use, so we need that regulation and we need it now.

This is not just about reflecting the reality of the numbers; it is about trying to ensure that the use of e-scooters is safe for riders, pedestrians and other road users. DFT numbers show that more than half of e-scooter collision casualties involve illegally ridden e-scooters—those outwith the pilot areas. A French study found that the fatality rate in collisions involving e-scooters was 9.2%, compared with 10% for bicycles, which is quite high—an amendment was tabled on that as well. The rate for motorcycles was 5.2%. The fact that e-scooters have a fatality rate nearly double that of motorcycles is telling.

A study by Queen Margaret University found that e-scooter riders were 13% more likely than cyclists to require admission to a critical care unit following an accident, which would stand to reason given the previous statistic, and that almost twice the number of e-scooter riders admitted had severe head injuries—probably because the vast majority do not wear helmets. Almost all deaths involving an e-scooter are those of the riders. Of the 12 killed in collisions involving e-scooters in 2022, 11 were the riders. Of the seven killed last year, all seven were the riders. According to UK Government figures, in the year ending June last year, there were 1,269 collisions, compared with 1,462 the year prior.

In terms of the Scottish situation, legalising e-scooters is clearly not a priority at this point. We need regulation before we can legalise—that seems obvious—but legislation is not an immediate priority. When the initial trial scheme was announced, Transport Scotland said that it had been given no prior notice, and Scottish legislation enabling such a trial in Scotland had not been factored in, so there are currently no trials in Scotland and all e-scooter use in public space in Scotland is illegal. There were no recorded e-scooter deaths in Scotland in the three years to May 2023, and there were nine serious casualties. E-scooters on trains have also been banned by ScotRail and other train operators, following several battery fires in London.

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Fiona Hyslop, who gave evidence on rail to the Transport Committee this morning, has said that “there’s an inevitability” that electric scooters will be legalised in Scotland, but that public opinion is “quite polarised” and that there are “genuine safety issues”, as I think everyone who has spoken today well knows. She continued:

“Electric scooters are a challenge for everybody. I’ve seen the statistics on injuries for electric scooter users and that's problematic…When you’re looking at a shared space”—

as we are in Scotland, with the massively increased spending on active travel areas north of the border compared with down here—

“we want to encourage people to do more walking and cycling, and where that’s compromised by an electric scooter—that’s a danger. It’s not a current priority for us; and anything we did would be in consideration to the timing of what we do with more bus lanes and active travel lanes. They would all have to be managed at the same time to have sensible use of electric scooters.”

That was the Cabinet Secretary for Transport in Scotland.

The bottom line, and consensus in this room today, is that the Government—whether this one or the incoming one, following the election being called as we speak—have to get on with this and make it a priority. Clearly, it has been nowhere near high enough on the Government’s priority list up to this point, given that they missed two deadlines that they set themselves. We need that regulation, and we need it now.

Zero-emission Buses

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

There was me, about to say that I agreed with pretty much everything that my DUP colleagues said, and then the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made his final comment. I am sure he did so on purpose, as he always does.

I start by thanking the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for introducing this debate and for bringing up this issue again, as he often does. As the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) said, it is uncomfortable to agree with pretty much everything that all the DUP representatives have said in the debate thus far, apart from the last sentence of the hon. Member for Strangford. That is not always a comfortable position for an SNP Member, but I thought the hon. Member for North Antrim set his case out extremely well to remedy the unacceptable situation in this country. He spoke of the three major bus manufacturers. I have visited Alexander Dennis in Falkirk and Camelon a couple of times and spoken to it many times. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the 40,000 buses, only 3,000 of which are zero-emission, and the 4,000 British-built green and clean buses that were promised by a previous, previous, previous, previous, previous Prime Minister—however many previous it is. They said that they would be manufactured in the UK. The initial aim of that commitment has been lost.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned imports, and that gets to the crux of the issue. Some 46% of those buses were manufactured outside the UK. The vast majority come from China. That is the case in my constituency. I will come on to say how good a job the Scottish Government have done in getting on with ordering zero-emission buses, but we have the same issue with the import of Chinese buses in Scotland. Renfrewshire, in my constituency, with McGill’s, has the highest concentration of zero-emission buses anywhere in the country outside of London, a fact of which I am proud. The fact of which I am less proud is that the clear majority of those buses are Chinese-manufactured. I wish to see that change.

Ultimately, these are highly skilled, highly paid jobs. They are the type of jobs that this Government—in fact, all of us—want to see not just retained, but increasing in this country. At the moment, we are in danger of losing some of those jobs.

The hon. Member for North Antrim spoke of the retendering of the Blackpool bus order, which was changed from Yutong to a UK manufacturer due to social and environmental benefits. In my mind, though, we should not be leaving it up to the operators or the local authorities to put those conditions in place—I will come on to that later. It should be for the Government to do so.

The Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), made a far more balanced contribution to the debate. He spoke of the Falkirk growth deal, which I am well aware of, having visited ADL. He made a fair point on Alexander Dennis having previously partnered with BYD, which has been brought up. It used BYD chassis, but that is no longer the case; the new electric bus fleet is now manufactured entirely in-house.

The hon. Member for East Lothian spoke of the Brexit bonus that was plastered on the side of the bus; the irony is that we are not seeing the Brexit bonus in bus manufacturing in this country. He spoke of global warming, and how important it is that we decarbonise as quickly as possible. He made a very fair point that electric buses are not the solution—certainly at the moment—for many rural routes, particularly in Scotland: hydrogen may be a better alternative for those services. He also made the point that Scotland is almost uniquely placed in Europe to deliver the green hydrogen that would support such an endeavour—in fact, it is probably better placed to do so than anywhere else in Europe.

The hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) spoke of the £13 million for the scheme towards a new zero-emission bus fleet, as well as the challenges on infrastructure, with which I think we all agree. He also spoke of his disappointment at not being elected Mayor—I suggest the hon. Gentleman is somewhat of a masochist, addicted as he seems to be to standing for election.

Of course, the hon. Member for Westminster Hall, West—the hon. Member for Strangford—who is always here assiduously, spoke rightly about the potential issues around human rights and religious freedom relating to some of these orders. The irony in all this, with all the contributions we have had from DUP Members today— I am not ascribing any blame to the DUP for this, incidentally—is that Northern Ireland has, by some distance, the worst charging infrastructure for electric vehicles in this country. This is an issue that the hon. Gentleman has brought up previously in debates in this Chamber. I will forget his concluding sentence and instead circle back to the sentence before, when he said that a rising tide lifts all ships, or all boats—you may choose the version you wish. I think that is entirely true.

I raised this issue in Transport questions last week. In his answer, the Secretary of State challenged the Opposition’s confidence in UK bus manufacturing. Given the DFT and wider UK Government’s delivery on this, I thought that was quite a brave challenge. We do have confidence in the bus manufacturing sector, but it is very difficult for that sector to compete on a level playing field with the significantly lower wages and the subsidies available in China.

The hon. Member for North Antrim was talking about TfL when he said that we are penny wise and pound foolish in this country, but I think we can say that in a wider context and in many ways when it comes to bus tendering or procurement in this country. To save a few per cent, we are sending hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of orders outside this country. I want the Minister to make it make sense, because it makes no sense to me. We are doing economic harm and losing jobs overseas. It makes no sense whatsoever.

In addition to the questions already asked by the hon. Member for North Antrim, I would like the Minister to directly answer these three questions. Does he think that highly skilled engineering and manufacturing in this country can compete with China on labour costs? What work has been done in Government to identify how other European countries that follow the same trade criteria obligations as us manage to support their domestic manufacturing sectors a hell of a lot better than we do? Lastly, particularly when compared to the Scottish ultra low emission bus schemes—SULEBS 1 and 2—and now the zero-emission bus schemes—ScotZEBs 1 and 2—would he agree that his Government’s ZEBRA schemes have been an unmitigated failure?

To conclude, the Minister also said in his response that those being awarded ZEBRA grants can put

“social value in their tenders”,

but there is no reason why the scheme itself cannot embed that social value in the conditions for getting Government grants in the first place. Bluntly, local councils and combined authorities in England are financially under the cosh enough from this Government. They fear expensive legal challenges from companies with deeper pockets than their own, and the UK Government simply do not have that problem. France just a few years ago began beefing up its social and environmental procurement roles, and from 2026 public contracts must include conditions that specifically relate to broader social needs and employment protections. To be honest, they are in a far better place already without the beefing up of those particular obligations in 2026.

It is no use for the Minister to wring his hands and say that it is up to councils to decide; the UK Government are ultimately the ones handing over the cash. At the moment, that cash is allocated with no thought given—or allowed to be given—to any industrial strategy or economic policy that might benefit bus manufacturing on these isles. They have just thrown £143 million at ZEBRA round 2, and not a penny of that will be conditional on its being spent on buses made using labour that is covered by humane employment laws or with any kind of environmental accountability. UK manufacturers play by those rules; their competitors overseas, who will be able to grab a share of that windfall, cannot say the same. We all know that to be true.

There are world-class bus manufacturers in these isles—Alexander Dennis Ltd in Camelon is one of the leading ones—but if the Government carry on with their current course, they will push bus-making down the same road as our counterparts in the rail manufacturing industry—going from crisis to crisis, with the barely remaining operations here all owned overseas and supply chains completely devastated. The Government have it in their hands to stop the rot now and guarantee a future for a high-skill, high-value industry right here in these isles. They need to grasp that opportunity quickly, before it is too late.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I am told that the companies Yutong and BYD are not state-owned. That is the first key point. The second is that there is a degree to which we debate in this House the extent to which the state supports individual companies in their individual country. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Clearly, on one simple basis, a worker in China is not paid the rate or salary that a worker in this country is paid, with automatic-enrolment pensions and all the welfare support and other bits that come on top of that. That is clearly a difference in scale. But I want to try to address a couple of the key points.

[Gavin Newlands]

Will the Minister give way on the WTO?

[Guy Opperman]

No. I will try to address the point made by the hon. Member for South Antrim. As a Minister in a different Department, I brought forward ESG: environmental, social and governance regulations. Those apply across the City of London, all pension funds and, by and large, to how local authorities conduct their business. Those bodies must give due consideration to ESG in their purchasing. More particularly, under the Cabinet Office public procurement notice 02/23 they have to be mindful and cognisant of modern day slavery in the supply chain. Public sector suppliers must comply with all the applicable human rights and employment laws, as set out in the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

As was rightly set out, social value for the tender can be considered—and already is—by local authorities. There is a degree to which organisations seek for Government to say the local authority cannot do this, but it is for the individual local authority to look at the way it is commissioning. Matters of social value, ESG and the interpretation of modern day slavery and its impact are highly relevant when doing that. The fair point has been made by various Members that commissioning an environmentally friendly bus from somewhere 10,000 miles away seems an interesting call, given the consequences.

We must be aware that a lot of companies in this country also receive aid from the Government. I want to try to set that out. Members will be aware, I am sure, of the funding, research and development through the Advanced Propulsion Centre, which allows UK bus manufacturers to be supported by Government to seize opportunities for the future. Through the APC research and development competitions, the UK Government have awarded grants totalling £24.2 million for bus-related projects, with total costs of £52 million.

Those late-stage collaborative R&D competitions are an important part of the Government’s support for the UK automotive sector’s transition to zero-emission vehicles and provide backing for new market-leading technology to underpin battery and fuel cell electric buses. There is also £460 million in dedicated funding provided for the zero-emission buses this Parliament. The innovative technology is to be deployed, we suggest, at scale. More than 5,200 zero-emission buses have been funded across the UK since the Government committed to funding at least 4,000 this Parliament, and UK manufacturers are leading the way.

In March this year, we announced a further £142 million to support almost 1,000 more zero-emission buses. I look forward to UK manufacturers winning more orders. For example, I think Wrightbus has been named the fastest-growing and most successful business in Northern Ireland, having been struggling a few years ago, however one interprets the business as it was. On the back of Government funding for zero-emission buses, the company’s numbers have massively increased, from more than 1,000 to almost double that. Bus funding in this country has pretty much doubled in terms of Government subsidy and support over the past 14 years.

With respect, I suggest that the Government are fully supporting the bus sector, providing financial support, whether through Innovate UK or individual support in relation to hydrogen.

[Gavin Newlands]

The Minister talked about Government support. In fairness, it was before he was Minister, but he may remember a Transport Committee report that said that Scotland had ordered just over 10 zero-emission buses per 100,000 people, compared with 0.94 zero-emission buses outside of London. Does that highlight the success that the DFT has made of the roll-out?

[Guy Opperman]

There was pretty much nothing in the hon. Member’s speech with which I agreed, aside from his comments in relation to the hon. Member for Strangford. I, too, believe we are better together, in so many different ways. The long and the short of it is that I am proud to stand up and defend the UK bus industry. I am also proud to defend and support the degree to which this Government have supported the bus industry, and we have seen companies such as Wrightbus and others grow on the back of that.

Is everything perfect? No, of course not. Is there still work to be done? Yes, of course. Is there still work to be done to ensure that local authorities and commissioners fully understand their obligations under the Modern Slavery Act, the impact of social value and all the consequences of any commissioning purchase? Can the Government work harder with, for example, the Department for Business and Trade and the Cabinet Office to ensure those rules are then disseminated to the commissioners? I do accept that more can be done in that space.

However, as an example, £76 million in UK export finance loans and guarantees have been provided to UK bus manufacturers in the past few years, which is turbocharging exports. Wrightbus, as I understand it, is exporting to Hong Kong, right on the doorstep of China, and UK manufacturers are continuing to win orders around the world. Although we clearly want UK manufacturers to be commissioned in this country, it is most important, surely, that they can also take orders from around the world; my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South made that fair point. The argument is nuanced. We want our manufacturers to be able to compete worldwide, and I believe they can.

We are also providing certainty for manufacturers on the pathway to a fully zero-emission fleet. The final decision on diesel buses will be made shortly; part of the process is understanding exactly the capacity and capability of our UK bus manufacturing sector—if one sets a date that is too soon, clearly there are consequences, but if one sets a later date, there are also consequences. We are very much engaged with finding the sweet spot for a date, and we will be making a decision without a shadow of a doubt in the very near future. We believe that will provide a greater degree of certainty, allowing further focus on research and development lines, and also shifting production to producing more zero-emission buses at scale.

It is also clear that as a result of the Government’s action, air pollution has reduced significantly, both since 2010 and, more recently, since the introduction of zero-emission buses: since approximately 2016 or 2017, there has been a true ramping up—a massive reduction in CO₂.

I want to finish on a couple of the key points that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) rightly made a variety of points. We clearly are working with local authorities, like his good self’s. The £8.3 billion for road resurfacing, redirected because of the HS2 second-leg decision taken by the Prime Minister in October, has benefited all local authorities, not least Nottinghamshire. I saw that when I visited there about three weeks ago and met my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards). I actually visited the site and met some of the councillors and other individuals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield is clearly badgering me about a variety of roads and infrastructure projects. He is passionate about the A614, which, I assure him, is engraved at the very top of my to-do list. I will make sure that we get that project over the line, to the benefit of both his constituents and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Sir Mark Spencer), who has been robust in his recommendations.

I have dealt clearly with the point about competition on labour costs, which is a fact that we cannot disagree with or ignore.

It is hard to disagree with anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South said. I do want to restate the point, though, that this is a nuanced argument. We want our manufacturers to be able to export, as well as to supply in the local environment. That has consequences when it comes to being part of WTO agreements. But we also want to make sure that we, as Government, are supporting manufacturers as much as we possibly can. I have addressed the issues of modern-day slavery and will not necessarily take that any further.

I want to finish, to allow the hon. Member for North Antrim to wrap up the debate with sufficient time. I genuinely welcome this debate. It has been an opportunity for us to cite, laud and praise a growing business in the UK. In these tricky times, there is no doubt that bus manufacturing in the UK is growing substantially. The best evidence is Wrightbus, with its massive increase in numbers. I look forward to visiting and being ambushed by a lemon drizzle cake in the appropriate way, and I greatly welcome the opportunity to set out the degree of support that the Government have given it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Deary me, Mr Speaker. We have confidence in the bus manufacturers, and it is a pity that the Government do not—that is the problem. Unlike SULEBS and ScotZEB—the Scottish ultra-low emission bus scheme and the Scottish zero-emission bus challenge fund—the ZEBRA scheme has been a failure. No spin from the Dispatch Box can deny that, and our bus manufacturers are paying the price. We must learn from this, and we can start by encouraging those purchasing zero-emission buses to place greater emphasis on social value and wider environmental and economic impacts when evaluating tenders. The Government must take responsibility. Will the Secretary of State consider conducting a cross-Government review into prioritising domestic manufacturing within existing legal frameworks?

[Mr Harper]

People are able to put social value into their tenders. My understanding is that local authorities do that, but they are not allowed to have a specific commitment to buy from a certain provision. The hon. Gentleman has to decide whether he has confidence in our fantastic companies, as he set out. In a fair competition, some of the companies that have been mentioned—some of which I have visited—can win against competitors around the world. If he thinks that there is unfair competition and that companies are being subsidised, he should give the evidence to the Trade Remedies Authority, which has the legal structures and the tools to do the job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is two years since the reprehensible actions of P&O, and Peter Hebblethwaite’s calamitous appearance in Parliament comes four years after Willie Walsh and Álex Cruz, the then CEOs of the International Airlines Group and BA, shamefully threatened thousands of British Airways workers with fire and rehire, having refused Government covid assistance. On Tuesday I asked the Minister of State at the Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), in this Chamber to confirm whether the new fire and rehire code of practice would have prevented this threat from being made. He could not do so, so I ask this Minister the same question. And if not, why not and what is the point?

[Anthony Browne]

In addition to my earlier answer, I should point out that the P&O case is being investigated by the Insolvency Service, and I await the outcome of that investigation. The point of the code of practice is to ensure that fire and rehire is very much a last resort. If employers breach the code, their employees can get up to 25% greater compensation. The Government have made sure that is the case.

Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Commons Chamber

The Bill takes the first step towards the creation of a framework within which automated vehicles can operate. New clauses 1 and 2 would ensure that strong data protections are in place from its beginning. As I said on Second Reading, I am otherwise supportive of the Bill. It is an issue we need to consider for the future, and I am glad that the Government are introducing the Bill.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I rise in support of new clauses 1 and 3, which are based on measures that we tabled in Committee. I will also speak to amendments 6 and 7 that stand in my name and those of colleagues in Plaid Cymru, but I will not detain the House too long as it is clear that there is broad agreement on the wider principles of the Bill and the implications of the details in it, notwithstanding the amendments. As a member of the Transport Committee, it has been clear to me for some time that this framework legislation is required. By and large the Government have done a good job, with the sector largely content and no real opposition in this place to the vast majority of the Bill—[Interruption.] Okay, I will change that to “a decent job”; the Minister was too grateful.

That said, I must return to the issues around clause 50, which gives the Secretary of State power to legislate on devolved matters. That may not be the Bill’s intention, but the possibility remains a concern. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss the problems with clause 50. In the end, the meeting came after Committee stage had concluded. That was disappointing, but it was a reflection of the wild agreement and consent on all sides for the vast majority of the Bill, resulting in an extremely swift conclusion to the Committee. The Scottish Government and their Ministers and officials have been engaged with the UK Government and their Ministers and officials on at least two occasions to discuss the implications for devolution of clause 50, and the proper remit of both Governments. In Committee, the Minister was forthcoming about discussing matters further with the Scottish Government, and I thank him for that. I believe those discussions have taken place.

It would be helpful if the Minister gave a commitment on the record on the Floor of the House that the Scottish and Welsh Governments will be consulted fully before the relevant powers in clause 50 are used by the Secretary of State. That being the case, would it not make more sense for the Government to accept amendment 7, because that is all it seeks? The fact remains that it would be infinitely preferable to have a statutory basis for the changes that the UK Government propose to make, and one that respects and acknowledges the legal framework that exists under devolution.

In Committee, the Minister maintained the line that the legal advice he and his Government have received indicates that these matters are all reserved, but the Scottish Government are clear that their similar advice indicates that the matters are devolved. My amendment would simply reflect the legal position as understood by the Scottish Government and outlined by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport at the Scottish Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee last month. She said that

“things that relate to offences under devolved legislation and offences that would be part of devolved areas, these are the areas that the provision would allow the UK Government to legislate on or make provision for in the future...we think it’s a genuine issue of concern.”

In the same session, George Henry, national operations manager for road safety policy and education for Transport Scotland, said:

“I will just try to provide an explanation or an example. There will be devolved legislation that has been brought in either by roads authorities or even through the Scottish Parliament that clause 50 allows the Secretary of State to change. That is the reason why we are not supportive of that. This Parliament—”

that is the Scottish Parliament—

“could make a decision to implement a measure for good reasons—such as a low-emission zone in an area—that could potentially be changed through clause 50.”

Whether or not that is the intention, it gives the Secretary of State the power to do that.

I hope it is clear to the UK Government that this is not an issue of confected conflict—something we are often falsely accused of—and there is clearly a desire to make the Bill work. Equally, however, we need it to work for everyone, including the devolved Administrations. As I highlighted in Committee, if the Government’s objective is to ensure complete alignment between Scottish and English traffic laws, that ship sailed a long time ago. We have a different speed limit regime, different drink-driving laws, and a different approach to road traffic regulation in general. Wales, too, has indicated different priorities to England by, at least initially, rolling out a national 20 mph speed limit. Clearly there should be consistency across the island, where appropriate, about the basic framework under which automated vehicles will operate, and the devolved Administrations have worked with their UK counterparts to make that happen. However, that cannot be allowed to undermine the devolved position with regard to enforcement of the law where the Bill will affect devolved law.

The Minister has been forthcoming with me, including in Committee, about his commitment to constructive discussion with the devolved Administrations, and I welcome that again. However, with the greatest of respect for him, in around six months we are expecting a change of Government and he will likely no longer be there, and whatever pledges or commitments have been made cannot bind his successors. We need a commitment in legislation that it would take an Act in this place to amend or scrap.

Amendment 6 would ensure that where devolved competences, such as those referred to in clause 50, are at stake, the devolved Parliaments are guaranteed their role as the providers or otherwise of legislative consent for this Parliament to legislate on their behalf, as has been the accepted norm for devolved matters under the Sewel convention for nearly 25 years.

Amendment 7 would in essence codify the pledges made by the Minister in Committee about consulting the Scottish Government. That is good, and I wait to hear his response to the debate. However, I believe a better solution with respect to devolution is amendment 6, which would require a legislative consent motion to be passed by the Scottish Parliament, and indeed the Welsh Senedd, before a UK Minister could act, rather than just a consultation.

I do not think that is particularly controversial. If there are such disparate views from legal advisers about where the line of devolved powers lies, surely the UK Government, as a self-proclaimed champion of devolution, would be happy to codify exactly where that line lies, and guarantee the Scottish Government and Parliament, of whatever political hue, the right to determine their own laws and regulations around automated vehicles now and in the future. I will wait to see what representations the Minister makes in his remarks before deciding whether to push amendment 6 or 7 to the vote.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank the Clerks, the Chairs, the members of the Public Bill Committee and all those who submitted evidence to it. As the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) said, the engagement by the Minister has been excellent. I will be keeping a close eye on the Minister—and indeed his Secretary of State, who has come in at the last minute to steal his thunder on Third Reading!—to ensure that the commitments made specifically with regard to clause 50 are met. If they are not, they will be hearing from me. [Laughter.]

Future of Rail Manufacturing

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Gary. I congratulate my good friend and colleague from the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), on securing today’s debate. I could not disagree with a single word he said in his contribution. He spoke of the Hitachi Newton Aycliffe plant in his local area, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), who is also my colleague on the Transport Committee. The hon. Member for Easington made a spirited plea for jobs there, and mentioned ROSCOs, as did the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), which I will come on to.

We have heard contributions from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), as well as the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the hon. Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Ilford South. Only two of the contributors today are not current or very recent members of the august Select Committee on Transport, including the Minister himself.

We welcomed Great British Railways, at least in principle, because it was a step closer to reintegrating strategic decisions on track and trains. In many ways, it sought to replicate the arrangements that have been in place in Scotland in recent years, but which have been completely absent in England and Wales for 30 years since franchising. It has been six years since the Government commissioned a report that three years ago called for legislation to formally establish Great British Railways. Too much time has been wasted over these last years.

There are not many hon. Members present who would disagree that the Rail Minister is a fundamentally decent man who wants to see a better railway. I am sure he will form part of the shadow Cabinet in the not-too-distant future—what the Lord giveth, he taketh away—but he has inherited an utterly dysfunctional system. Not for the first time, that dysfunction is threatening tens of thousands of jobs in the rail industry, not just in primary manufacturers, but across the supply chain. I say that despite the welcome but last-minute intervention last week.

While I was researching for today’s debate, I came across a similar debate that took place in the Commons nearly 30 years ago. On that occasion, the debate was secured by the former Member for Cunninghame North, Brian Wilson. I need to wash my mouth out with soap, but this is one of the few occasions where I agree with the bulk of what he said. I can guarantee that this will not become a habit. On the last day before the Christmas recess in December 1994, Brian Wilson discussed the threat to the rail manufacturing industry that was posed by the Government’s policy and strategy, or rather the lack of them. He said:

“It is a rapidly unfolding, utterly unnecessary tragedy created solely by the Government’s policies towards the railways…Ministers could not have been more effective in creating a fatal hiatus for the train building industry if they had planned to do so.”—[Official Report, 20 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 1538.]

Again, I do not want to make a habit of agreeing with Mr Wilson—I do not think that he would welcome that—but he was on the money then. Warnings were given that the ABB rolling stock works at York were under threat, due to a lack of orders, and that prediction came to pass just two years later. In major part, that lack of orders was caused by the confusion and dislocation caused by privatisation and franchising, which in turn paralysed British Rail, as it was then.

The creation of ROSCOs did not help matters, because they were hived off by the Government to the private sector at criminally low prices. The Minister who responded to that 1994 debate told the main Chamber that the rail industry had to face up to

“the realities of the marketplace.”—[Official Report, 20 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 1545]

[Grahame Morris]

The hon. Member is making some excellent points. On ROSCOs, I remind hon. Members that in the current year, I believe that they are making in excess of £400 million in profit.

[Gavin Newlands]

I would not disagree with the hon. Member on that.

To continue on ROSCOs, nobody has ever satisfactorily explained why we continue to have a system whereby rolling stock companies, which are all owned by private equity and investment funds, are the primary owners of multiple units, locos, passenger carriages and freight wagons, rather than the taxpayer, who ultimately pays for them. ROSCOs are generating almost risk-free profits for their owners, which are almost exclusively overseas funds, because ultimately, private rail operators have the Department for Transport as an operator of last resort. They were gifted BR stock at a bargain price and have spent the last three decades coining it in every time a new fleet is needed for an operator. That is just one example of the billions leaking out of the system to private finance that could instead be invested in the public rail network or in a sustainable and properly managed rolling stock procurement programme.

To conclude, the current model has failed. It was failing 30 years ago, it has failed since then, and it will continue to fail for the next 30 years unless this issue is specifically addressed in any rail reform package that is brought forward by this Government or any future Government.

Draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2024

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 General Committees

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell.

It has taken far too long, but I welcome this move by the Government. If there are to be incentives for producing renewable fuels, they should apply to as broad a range of mechanisms and technologies for producing said fuels as possible. Expanding the eligibility to include recycled carbon fuels is a logical step, especially given how much the technology has advanced and is advancing all the time in that field.

Reducing the amount of waste going to landfill at the same time as reducing the carbon footprint of the energy used in the transport sector is, on the face of it, a no-brainer, particularly for hard-pressed local authorities in England that have seen their budget for waste management slashed over the last decade. The Lords debate on this SI last month saw several points raised about the inclusion of such feedstocks under the RTFO scheme, which would help with the development of sustainable aviation fuels.

I will not repeat the points that have already been made about SAF, but the consultation on a price support mechanism for SAF must start soon—in fact, it is a legal requirement on the Government under the Energy Act 2023, which states that it must open within six months of Royal Assent. To date, we have had no word on when that consultation will begin, unless it has been published today and I am none the wiser—I apologise if I am. I have submitted a named day question asking when they plan to meet their obligations, and if the Minister wants to reveal that in his response, I will happily withdraw the question at the Table Office.

We need SAF because aviation is not going away any time soon; I should say that I represent Glasgow airport and many of the 23,000 people whose livelihoods depend on it. We must do more to encourage modal shift on to rail and public transport, but no one is building a tunnel under the Atlantic any time soon—although perhaps the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip could add that to his bridge or tunnel over or under the North channel. We need to develop the fuels of the future, and the SNP very much support that, in line with the SAF mandate that the Government are going to bring forward.

In addition to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Wakefield and my point about a cost-based support mechanism, I did not hear the Minister talk about maritime. I would be keen to explore how maritime can gain from renewable transport fuel obligations, if not now, then in the near future. As a sector, it is almost as difficult to decarbonise as the aviation sector, so I am keen to hear about it.

On that basis, and unless the Minister says something extraordinarily poorly in response, the SNP will be voting for this statutory instrument.

Rail Manufacturing: Job Losses

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

My condolences to you and your family, Mr Speaker, on the loss of your father.

Clearly, the news coming out of Derby about the precarious nature of Alstom is grim, not just for the workers and the wider economy of Derby, but for everyone involved in the supply chain across the country, including 24,000 rail supply jobs in Scotland. The fact is that this was predicted; we have all known about it for months. These are skilled, well-paying jobs of the type that we are continually told the UK is in the market for.

Does the Minister accept that the stop-start procurement of new rolling stock is a direct result of the fragmented and disconnected railway system that has placed financialisaton and the Treasury’s miserly attitude to investment above rail’s key role in a decarbonised 21st-century society? Why are rolling stock leasing companies ruling the roost rather than straightforward procurement? How is it possible that the island that invented the modern railway—the 200th anniversary of the Stockton and Darlington railway is next year—could have next to zero train production capacity within a matter of months? We need a proper rail strategy and integration; when will that rail reform be put before the House?

[Huw Merriman]

Again, let us look at the facts. Since 2012, 8,000 new rolling stock vehicles have been manufactured—that is out of a total fleet of 15,600, so it is a relatively young fleet. Taking into account the fact that the fleet tends to last 35 to 40 years, and that it now has an average of 17 years’ service, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that there has been a substantial investment in rolling stock from the Government—the UK taxpayer—and from private train operators.

The hon. Gentleman asks when the legislation for rail reform will be brought forward. I am very keen for that to happen, and it is on its journey right now. The Transport Committee, of which he is a leading member, is providing the pre-legislative scrutiny. I very much hope that the Committee will finish its work in time for the summer recess, giving us two months to respond, and that there will be cross-party support in both Houses for what is I believe is sensible legislation that will allow us to deliver rail reform.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Further to the points made by the Labour Front Bencher, it is just over two years since nearly 800 P&O workers were summarily sacked and thrown off ferries. We will finally debate the Government’s utterly supine and ineffective fire-and-rehire code of practice next week, but it is just over two months since the Government claimed that they were making substantial progress on implementing the nine-point plan for seafarer protections. The Seafarers’ Wages Act still has not come into force, alongside a toothless and voluntary seafarers’ charter, which will not change how P&O operates, even if it signs up to it. We all know that in this House, so is it not time that the Government took meaningful action and got behind our seafarers?

[Anthony Browne]

The Seafarers’ Wages Act will come into force this summer. Unfortunately, it takes time to pass legislation, and we had to consult on it. No one wants it to come into force quicker than I. The claim that the seafarers’ charter will have no impact is completely untrue. The operators will have to abide by the terms of the charter, which will ensure that seafarers earn the minimum wage throughout their engagements, that they get overtime payments of at least 1.25 times the hourly rate, and that they have rosters that ensure that they are not fatigued and safety is not compromised. The Government will monitor the compliance of the operators with that charter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not mind having an Adjournment debate or statement on this subject if we need one—I am more than happy to allow one—but we cannot have it now; I have a bit to get through. But the Minister’s answer was excellent, I am sure. I call the SNP spokesman.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I start by thanking Alex Hynes for having done a fantastic job running Scotland’s Railway for seven years. He is departing to become the director general of rail at the Department for Transport, where he will help steer rail reform. And what a job he has! As we have heard, the National Audit Office said that rail reform was not on track. Not only are there £1.5 billion a year in lost savings, but the Department has failed to make planned savings of £4.1 billion from workforce reforms and the establishment of Great British Railways. Cuts of £4.1 billion to the transport budget were nevertheless announced by the Chancellor two weeks ago. Does the Minister agree that his Government are unable to make savings, but all too willing to make cuts?

[Huw Merriman]

No, I do not. I am delighted at the appointment of Alex Hynes, who will become a director general in the Department for Transport. He will put track and train together in the Department, and that departmental section will move out to Great British Railways once the legislation is put in place, so I do not agree at all. The appointment demonstrates that we are getting on with rail reform by appointing the right staff, and we have started on the legislative path.

Mr Speaker, I know I take too long at the Dispatch Box when I talk about the need to fix such contracts, but they are complicated. This session should not be about cheap soundbites; it does not work like that. It should be about getting into the detail. There are sticky contract provisions that the courts will not allow a Government or an operator to break unilaterally. I do wish this House would be a bit more intellectual in its approach to scrutiny.

Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Gavin Newlands]

Thank you, Sir George. You say “in the middle”—I had barely started my remarks. [Laughter.] Thankfully, despite the rude interruption of Question Time and lunch, I have been able to add to them, including some quotes from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport. I thank my Transport Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Easington, for his help with that.

I was talking about working across borders, which undoubtedly makes good sense on issues like this, but as it stands clause 50 is not working across borders. It will mean government by diktat and by statutory instrument, rather than the democratic procedures that have been in place for nearly a quarter of a century.

I mentioned earlier that the UK Government have moved the goalposts on this issue. The policy scoping notes clearly state:

“Any future proposals to amend existing primary legislation will be subject to consultation with representative organisations before being laid before both Houses of Parliament (and/or the Senedd Cymru and Scottish Parliament, insofar as the regulations amend any act of the Senedd Cymru or the Scottish Parliament respectively).”

But the UK Government’s delegated powers memorandum states:

“The affirmative procedure will ensure that Parliament (as well as the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru, where Scottish or Welsh legislation is amended) can closely scrutinise any regulations changing or clarifying how existing primary legislation applies to the user-in-charge.”

Obviously, there is no provision for scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament in the final Bill, but, as I said, the prior commitment means that it is not the SNP or rogue Scottish Government officials pushing the envelope and insisting on consultation and consent; rather, it is the UK Government reneging on their commitment to do so.

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport made it clear at the Scottish Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee just this morning, as I have alluded to a number of times, that there are

“things that relate to offences under devolved legislation and offences that would be part of devolved areas, these are the areas that the provision would allow the UK Government to legislate on or make provision for in the future… we think it’s a genuine issue of concern.”

I would welcome the Minister addressing those concerns and committing to meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Transport at Holyrood to ensure that the broad co-operation on the rest of the Bill is continued in the wording of clause 50. When he responds, perhaps he could list the Acts that relate to transport in Scotland that might be impacted.

Amendment 9 would ensure that the term “relevant enactment” cannot apply to

“an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament”,

“an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru”

or

“an instrument made under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru”.

In doing so, it removes the Secretary of State’s power to unilaterally amend Scottish primary legislation in respect of automated vehicles. Amendment 7 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of devolved Governments before exercising the clause 50 power in relation to devolved legislation. Amendment 8 would extend the clause 50 power to Ministers of the devolved Administrations.

I will not bore the Committee by reading them out, but our amendments seek to remove this Henry VIII power entirely as it relates to Scottish or Welsh legislation, to add a requirement to seek a legislative consent motion from Holyrood or the Senedd, or to extend the same powers to the appropriate Scottish and Welsh Ministers. If this Government truly were looking to work in co-operation, they surely should not have a problem agreeing to look at this issue, but thus far they have shown no real inclination or desire to compromise on this fundamental point. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments in my name—or one of them, at least —and respect devolution and the elected Governments of Scotland and Wales and our judgment in making laws that best suit our countries.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a real delight to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir George. I rise briefly to support what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said about the important role of the devolved Administrations. He referenced the role of the Scottish Law Commission—and indeed the Law Commissions from all the nations of the United Kingdom —and its important work in producing this framework for the introduction of automated vehicles. He is quite right that the principle of consent on devolved competencies applies in this legislation, and I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington read out the relevant reference in the explanatory notes. The Government would not normally legislate on matters of devolved competence without that consent, and for that reason I think that the three amendments tabled by hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North deserve support. We will vote with him if he chooses to go for a Division.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)]

Before I come to the amendments, I want to set out some of the background of clause 50 and why we think it is significant. This is all about the user in charge, which is a new legal concept that did not exist when existing traffic laws were drafted. Those laws come in a wide variety of formats and language, from traffic regulation orders to motorway regulations. The power in clause 50 can be used to clarify what is and is not the responsibility of the user in charge in particular enactments—what the user in charge, when a vehicle is in self-driving mode, is responsible for. That is vital to support clear public understanding of the division of responsibility and to make adjustments based on experiences from real-world deployments.

Clause 50 will also allow us to respond to technological changes; as self-driving technology improves, it may become appropriate to shift greater responsibility away from the user in charge. For example, in future, vehicles may be better placed to assess their own roadworthiness than the human in the driving seat. Crucially, the clause does not provide carte blanche for the Government to alter traffic legislation generally. It can only affect the scope of the responsibility of the user in charge, and it is limited to them.

That brings me to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. I want to say at the outset that I completely respect devolution and the role of the devolved Administrations, and there is nothing in this legislation that is meant to change that balance at all. As he knows, there have been quite a lot of talks at the official level. I have had an exchange of letters with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, I am very happy to meet and discuss a way forward—hopefully there will be one.

The Government consider the user-in-charge immunity to be a reserved matter. That is because the Bill gets it authority from the Road Traffic Act 1988, and that is expressly reserved under the Scotland Act 1998. Clause 50 will predominantly affect the application of reserved traffic offences. There is a limited range of devolved legislation in this area, and the immunity will have only minor incidental impact on that legislation—it is very incidental.

More generally, public understanding and confidence will be key to realising the benefits of self-driving vehicles. It is vital that we have clarity and consistency across Great Britain about how these vehicles can be used and what individual responsibilities there are. I am interested to know the position of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and the Scottish Government on that. We think that the first recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission, and of the Law Commission for England and Wales, was that as the public would not be able to understand different and partial immunities based on distinctions between devolved and reserved laws in different parts of the country, there should be the same rules for user-in-charge immunity when crossing the border from Scotland to England, so that drivers do not unintentionally break a law as they do so.

[Gavin Newlands]

The Minister is making a point that is central to the Government’s argument, but we have devolution. We already have different rules in Scotland, such as on blood alcohol levels in drink-driving. The clause could perhaps lead to different tiers of parking fines or bus lane infringements between automated and regular cars, because the Scottish Government saw fit to have a different level of fine for a regularly driven car, as opposed to a user in charge. That is a fairly minor example, but there are a number where there could be differences across the UK without co-operation. It already happens.

[Anthony Browne]

Absolutely, and that is why there is some devolved legislation in this area, but we think it is important that, when someone is using a self-driving car in user-in-charge mode, they do not unintentionally break the law by crossing from one side of the border to the other because there are different applications of the law just within the user-in-charge mode.

[Gavin Newlands]

To go back to my example of the different drink-driving rules, there could be somebody in a pub just south of the border whose route home takes him across the border into Scotland. He could be within the law with 70 mg of blood in his alcohol—no, the other way around; that is another board game entirely! He could be within the law with 70 mg of alcohol in his blood south of the border but, by driving over the border, he would be driving illegally in Scotland. That inconsistency already exists, so I do not understand why the Minister wants to fix the problem in this legislation and on this specific issue. Devolution is there for a reason.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; it is important to clarify this. That seems absolutely reasonable, but why can he and his Department not have these discussions with their counterparts in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive in advance? Why does the measure have to be imposed as a Henry VIII power and then subsequently consulted on? That is not consultation, is it? I do not know what to call it. It is an—

[Gavin Newlands]

An imposition.

[Grahame Morris]

An imposition—thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

Essentially, the Minister is asking the Scottish Government and the Welsh Senedd to trust the Government. Over the last few years, the trust between this Government and the Scottish Parliament has been eroded, with multiple challenges by the UK Government to devolved legislation. I have all the respect in the world for the Minister, but is it not unfortunate that, given we are talking about respect for devolution, we could not get a meeting on the clause 50 issue before we got to Committee stage? It was supposed to be set for Thursday, but here we are on Tuesday afternoon disposing of the clause anyway. It is unfortunate that we could not get that meeting, which does not bode well for respect for devolution.

[Anthony Browne]

I am sorry we have not managed to get that meeting in. We will get it in the diary.

[Anthony Browne]

It is definitely an undertaking. I will not bore the Committee with my diary details, but take it as read that we will get that in.

I am absolutely not asking the Committee to just trust me and the Government, or whoever is in my or the Secretary of State’s position in the future, but it is clear from the clause that the power is reserved purely to the user-in-charge immunity, which is part of this Bill and, as a result, we think is a reserved matter.

As I said—I am just repeating myself—I am very happy to meet the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to look for a way forward, but we do not support the amendments as they stand.

[Gavin Newlands]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I am not overly surprised by much he has said. I look forward to that meeting. I am grateful for Labour’s support on this issue. I will not press amendments 7 and 8 to a vote, but I will seek one on amendment 9.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

I will respond very quickly to a number of points. The difference between a self-driving car or automated vehicle and a vehicle that is not is specified right at the beginning of clause 1. This legislation is all about self-driving cars: it is not about all the other variants on driverless systems. As I stated, the independent inspection regime that we are setting up—we call it a capability—is just for where one self-driving, automated vehicle is involved, not for other forms. This is not the right place to legislate for a road safety inspection branch, whatever the arguments for and against that are. We say in the legislation that we call it a capability because the organisational structure is not set out in the legislation and needs to be decided in the future.

[Gavin Newlands]

Before the Minister sits down, will he give way?

[Anthony Browne]

I will.

[Gavin Newlands]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his dexterity in doing so. In terms of how the legislation will work, with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and other pan-UK inspection regimes, any offences are reported to the relevant police force. If inspectors found any evidence of issues that needed reporting, would it be reported to the Procurator Fiscal if it was in Scotland? How will that operate on the ground in terms of enforcement?

[Anthony Browne]

As I said at the beginning, the role of the inspectors is not to assign liability, blame or whatever else; it is to find out what actually happened in detail to ensure that it does not happen again. On the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I do not think that that has been decided, but I will write to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

I reiterate what I said earlier: accessibility is incredibly important. That is the whole point of this legislation and why it contains clause 87. We already have the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which we consult on these matters. We have agreed to set up an accessibility panel of groups for automated passenger services. We have already met some disability groups—Guide Dogs UK was consulted by the Law Commission during the development of the legislation—so groups representing disabled people have been and will continue to be heavily involved.

Our concern is to ensure that we do not create a system that is too rigid, with inappropriate requirements that do not actually work in the best interests of people with accessibility needs. As the hon. Member for Wakefield said, we do not know quite how the commercial offerings will evolve, which is why we need to ensure that we are flexible. That is why the Law Commission stated explicitly that our focus at this stage should be on gathering evidence and facilitating learning.

Clause 87 requires that the accessibility needs of older and disabled passengers must be considered before a permit is issued by the permitting authorities. It also requires that specific consideration be given to whether the service is likely to improve the understanding of how to meet the needs of older and disabled users. Permit holders are then required to publish reports on the steps taken to provide accessible services. All this information will feed back into permit conditions, allowing us to set the right accessibility requirements in the right context for the benefit of learning from real-world use cases.

[Gavin Newlands]

I do not know the answer to this, so it is not some attempt at a “gotcha” question. In addition to any regular service running in the UK that the regulations would seek to cover, there is the CAVForth bus over the Forth road bridge between Fife and Edinburgh. Does the Minister know whether the service and the information available on board would meet the criteria under subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause? I do not expect the Minister to know the full answer at this time, but I would be interested to know what level of information we are currently giving on that pilot service. If he does not have the answer, will he write to us?

[Anthony Browne]

I understand that there is actually a bus captain on CAVForth—a person who can deal directly with passengers and help them. That is part of the point I was making about being flexible, as we do not know how self-driving buses or taxis will operate. Self-driving taxis would not have a human being in them, so their disability requirements would clearly be different from those for taxis with people in them. We are on a learning curve about the best way to make all automated services accessible for people, which is why we have focused on gathering evidence and requiring accessibility to be included in permitting systems, but are not trying to set in stone, in primary legislation, exactly what those accessibility requirements should be. I do not know the specific requirements of CAVForth off the top of my head, but I can write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.

New clause 2 is unnecessary: pretty much all the provisions are in there and it is too rigid. We need to have a more flexible approach to ensure that the provision is optimal for disabled passengers and right for their needs in the different use cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

The legislation gives power to the Secretary of State to require the digitisation; the exact method of digitisation will be through a digital platform that the Department for Transport is currently building. I think we would all agree with the hon. Member that it should be as widely available as possible, to bring maximum benefits to all types of road users, not just self-driving cars. I believe the Government have spoken about that before. The amendments we just agreed extend the powers to Wales. I can write to the hon. Member about the situation in Scotland.

[Gavin Newlands]

You have pre-empted my effort to get to my feet, Sir George. Essentially, the power is devolved to local authorities in Scotland. I have no doubt that, unlike with clause 50, there will be co-operation across and between the Governments on this issue. Hopefully, driving across the border will be seamless when it comes to data—in fact, information will probably be better when the border is crossed. Perhaps the issue is not covered because a devolved function is involved, although that does not usually stop the Government from trying. I am sure it will all work out in the end.

[Anthony Browne]

I have nothing to add. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 93, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 94 to 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 100

Short title

Amendment made: 6, in clause 100, page 71, line 20, leave out subsection (2).—(Anthony Browne.)

This amendment removes the privilege amendment made in the Lords.

Clause 100, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Advisory Council

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must establish a council to advise on the implementation of this Act and on the introduction of automated vehicles.

(2) The Advisory Council must consist of members appearing to the Secretary of State to represent—

(a) the interests of road users, including drivers, pedestrians and cyclists;

(b) the cause of road safety;

(c) the study of road safety;

(d) the cause of accessibility, and the impact of the introduction of automated vehicles on disabled people;

(e) trade unions, including Scottish and Welsh trade union representatives;

(f) the interests of relevant employees including delivery providers, those involved or likely to be involved in the manufacture of automated vehicles, emergency service workers, and public transport workers;

(g) businesses involved, or likely to be involved in, the manufacture, operation and insurance of automated vehicles;

(h) the emergency services, including Scottish and Welsh emergency services;

(i) highway authorities, including Scottish and Welsh highway authorities; and

(j) any other issues, causes or organisations as the Secretary of State sees fit.

(3) The Advisory Council must include nominated representatives of the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.

(4) The Secretary of State must designate a relevant officer of the Department to send reports to the Advisory Council on the introduction of automated vehicles and any issues of public policy that arise.

(5) The Advisory Council must report regularly to—

(a) Parliament,

(b) the Scottish Parliament,

(c) Senedd Cymru

on the advice it has provided to the Secretary of State, and on any other related matters relevant to the roll out of automated vehicles and associated public policy.”—(Gavin Newlands.)

This new clause would require the Government to establish an advisory council, made up of specified representatives, on the implementation of this Act and on the introduction of automated vehicles.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Gavin Newlands]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 3—Establishment of an Advisory Council—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, establish a council to advise on the implementation of this Act, with a focus on learning lessons from any accidents involving automated vehicles.

(2) The Advisory Council must include representatives from—

(a) consumer groups;

(b) organisations representing drivers;

(c) road safety experts;

(d) relevant businesses such as automobile manufacturers, vehicle insurance providers and providers of delivery and public transport services;

(e) trade unions;

(f) the police and other emergency services;

(g) highway authorities;

(h) groups representing people with disabilities; and

(i) groups representing other road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.

(3) The Secretary of State must designate a relevant officer of the Department to send reports to the Advisory Council on the roll out of self driving vehicles and any issues of public policy that arise.

(4) The Advisory Council must report regularly to Parliament on the advice it has provided, and any related matters relevant to the roll out of self driving vehicles and associated public policy.”

[Gavin Newlands]

Thank goodness I am prepared, because never in my wildest dreams did I think that we would get on to new clauses today. I rise to speak to new clause 1. I should say that it is my daughter’s birthday today. She said, “Daddy, all I want for my birthday is for you to get the Government to accept your new clause in Committee.” How could they refuse? This is the Minister’s last chance to do that for me. To be honest, she is 14 and has not called me daddy for about a decade; she will kill me for saying that just now. But this is the last chance. I never understand it when Ministers agree wholeheartedly with an amendment then refuse to accept it. I mean no offence to the current Minister—I have sat on God knows how many Bill Committees over the years, and I do not understand why that happens in every Bill Committee I have ever sat on.

I return to new clause 1 before you call me to order, Sir George. I pay tribute to Lord Liddle for moving a version of the new clause in the House of Lords on Report. I equally support new clause 3, which is obviously very similar and which the Labour Front Bencher will speak to in a moment. The only real difference between the two new clauses is that there is no real reference to the devolved institutions in the Labour version, but there is in ours. However, I will certainly support new clause 3 if it goes to a vote.

Our new clause seeks to maintain a broad principle, enshrining an advisory council in statute while expanding the range of organisations to be included in the council to the devolved Administrations and ensuring that Scottish and Welsh trade unions and emergency services are part of it as well.

As has been mentioned a number of times, and as I said on Second Reading, the changes that could be unleashed by the large-scale deployment of automated vehicles are immense. Entire industries and sectors stand to be completely transformed, perhaps not in the short term but certainly in the medium and long term. Logistics and haulage, personal transport, public transport, personal delivery services—the list is almost endless. Automated vehicles may well be a massively positive force for good in society, improving safety and quality of life for us all.

However, there will be a potentially difficult transition period for many in our society, and we need to take a much more proactive approach to that. Those employed in those industries are undoubtedly best placed to analyse and comment on how new technologies will impact on their jobs and their sector. They need to be involved in the process from the start, because they are involved in the sectors now. Too often in the past, innovation and scientific progress have been shorthand for workers being dumped on the scrapheap by the million, with no collective working to shape the future of their industries. That cannot be allowed to happen with automated vehicles and the changes that they will bring to our society.

If we are serious about ensuring that the benefits of automation are spread across society, that means giving workers’ representatives a real voice in the future of the technology and how best and most appropriately to deploy it over the coming years. It also means ensuring that every stakeholder is round the table, not at the whim of whichever Minister occupies the hot seat. A right should be outlined in legislation, and new clause 3 and my new clause 1 would do that.

We do not want a situation where developing technology and its regulation are subject to capture by the industry’s vested interests alone. These technologies, if fully rolled out, could completely transform the society we live in today into something virtually unrecognisable, at least in the longer term. We need voices from across the spectrum challenging the Government and policy makers —and also the industry, on the real-world implications of its innovations, not just the wonder of the technology itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

There is always an opportunity. Andrew Lansley is a good friend of mine, and my predecessor as MP for South Cambridgeshire.

I agree with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North in the ambition as regards consultation. It is unbelievably important that we consult with all affected stakeholders. We talked earlier about the importance of bringing the public with us. Naturally, there are concerns and scepticism about this, and lots of people are wondering how this new, unknown and evolving technology will affect them, their safety and so on. It is therefore important that we consult as much as possible. That is why we have been consulting endlessly. The Law Commission, in three years’ work, consulted an incredibly wide group of people, including many of those from unions and disabled groups that have already been mentioned. I and the Secretary of State have also had quite a few roundtables and engagement with a wide group of people, including some disability groups and road user groups already.

I was just counting the number of different routes we have for engagement. I have a list and I am afraid I will go through it. First, the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles, which is the Government entity that is driving this agenda and the Bill, has an expert advisory panel with a wide range of experts that have been feeding into it. In the legislation, we have committed on the statement of safety principles to consult road users, road safety groups and industry. We have also agreed to have an advisory panel on accessibility as we develop the standards on accessibility for passenger services and taxi services.

We already have a statutory consultation body, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which will be involved with consultation on the matter, with a particular view to accessibility and disabled groups. In the legislation, we have the general monitoring duty, so once a year the Secretary of State will now have a legal requirement to publish a report on how the statement of safety principles has been rolled out, its impact and how it is all going. Also, just to make sure we are learning lessons, we are setting up the incident investigation capacity to learn the lessons from every incident.

I have counted at least six different ways in which we are engaging and learning lessons from this as we go forward. That is on top of all the informal consultation, and a lot of the statutory instruments that come out of this will involve consultations over the next two years. There will be many different public consultations and opportunities to put into this. Indeed, my fear is that there will be death by consultation, in that people will get fed up with the number of consultations that are part of this.

I completely understand the desire of the Opposition parties to set up, on top of that, another statutory advisory council, but given all the consultation that we have done, are doing and will do as we go through this, we do not think it adds much to the sum of knowledge that we have on the subject. Coming back to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, it is important that we share the ambition of engagement, but we think we have a lot already and the amendments do not add anything.

[Gavin Newlands]

Given that it is half-past 3 on the first day of the Committee, to take up some more time I will press new clause 1 to a vote. In all seriousness, we should press new clause 1 to a vote. Whether colleagues want to press new clause 3 is entirely up to them, but the issue will certainly come through on Report.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

Further to that point of order, Sir George. I thank you and Mr Vickers for chairing our sessions. I think this Committee is possibly unique in the history of Parliament in that the Chairs, between them, have possibly spoken for longer than Members in moving through the agenda—in a thoroughly appropriate way, I hasten to add. It is a pleasure to have my predecessor in the Chair for a Committee such as this; I took about half of my constituency from you in 2010, Sir George.

I add my thanks to the Clerks, the officials and the Law Commission for their work and for getting us to this stage. We have set the framework for an important future piece of legislation. Birthday wishes to the 14-year-old daughter of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, too. I thank all Members for their contributions today and on Second Reading, and I look forward to Report.

[Gavin Newlands]

Further to that point of order, Sir George. On behalf of my daughter and me, I thank all members of the Committee and the Minister. I look forward to engaging with him further on clause 50 as we move through this process—that is my hope, anyway. I thank all hon. Members; Mr Vickers and you, Sir George, for your chairship; the Clerks for their assistance in drafting amendments; Hansard, and the Doorkeepers. I also thank the hon. Member for Easington for allowing me to move a section of my speech on clause 50 beyond the 11.25 am barrier this morning. With that consensus and positivity, which is unusual in these quarters of the House, I will conclude.

[The Chair]

I conclude by thanking the Clerks, Hansard and everybody concerned. I thank members of the Committee, who, in my brief time in the Chair, have been good-humoured and orderly.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers, for our consideration of this Bill, which I think it is fair to say has broad, cross-party parliamentary support. It will be encouraging over the next however many hours we are in Committee to look at the potential to strengthen it.

There is huge potential for the economy in the safe transition to automated vehicles, but it is important that we recognise that this remains a largely undeveloped technology and we are trying to predict what will happen in the future. In our deliberations, it will be important that we try to set the strongest possible framework for what is likely to be needed. The detailed work of the Law Commission gives us a good start, and what we have been presented with from the Lords improves on that work.

Amendments 19 and 20 in my name relate to the critical area of safety: they seek to set in primary legislation the strongest possible safety standards. They would amend the standard of safety from “acceptably safe” to “high”, and amend the definition of “legally” to refer to “very low risk” rather than “acceptably low risk”. That is important because we are trying to anticipate what might happen and to minimise the risks and potential problems.

When similar amendments were debated in the Lords, the Government’s response was that such

“phrases…are open to…interpretation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 January 2024; Vol. 835, c. 63.]

It occurs to me to ask: if things are open to interpretation, who is going to decide? Invariably, that will mean going to the courts. We are trying to minimise the potential for that to happen.

The Government were quite happy to accept the amendment to the phrase “careful and competent driver” —we very much welcome that, which will reduce the number of things that are open to interpretation—so I wonder why they were not prepared in the Lords to accept amendments similar to these. Perhaps the Minister will answer that question in his response.

“Careful and competent” itself was only established in case law; it is not in statute. That is being left to the courts as well, and is open to further interpretation. We will return to that point with later amendments, because we are trying to minimise the risks of leaving things open to interpretation. This is a good example of where an advisory council, which was the subject of much debate in the Lords, could make recommendations to address the uncertainties that exist in legislating for the unknown, in the way that we are invariably having to do with primary legislation for technology that is yet to be developed.

I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on these points. The amendments attempt to reduce the risks of leaving things open to interpretation. We want the highest possible standards set out as early as possible to enable this technology to be developed as safely as possible.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thought it would be helpful for the Committee to start with some good news. The SNP and Scottish Government are generally supportive of the Bill and I will not seek to detain the Committee over the course of however many days we debate it with superfluous speeches, reading out explanatory notes and so on, until we get to clause 50, which I will get my teeth into—I am sure the Minister will be aware of that. However, I reserve the right to intervene in support of any of Labour’s amendments, which I am doing now, or indeed when I think the Minister is talking cobblers, which hopefully he will not be doing.

That is the good news. With that, I very much look forward to the Minister’s answer about what actually is acceptably safe.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I rise to ask a short question to the Minister and to support my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central.

I have the pleasure and privilege of serving on the Transport Committee, along with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. To reinforce the point that my hon. Friend made, there is broad, cross-party support for the concept, but the widely held assumption that self-driving vehicles will prove safer than human drivers is not a given.

Having looked at the whole issue in some detail, the Select Committee produced an excellent report, which I recommend to members of this Committee. It was published on 15 September last year, and one of its conclusions is:

“Optimistic predictions are often based on widespread self-driving vehicle usage that is decades away, or assertions about human error that ignore other risks”—

for example, changing weather conditions. It continued:

“Safety must remain the Government’s overriding priority as self-driving vehicles encounter real-world complexity. Given this, we question the Government’s proposed ambition that self-driving vehicles must be as safe as a competent and careful human driver.”

The Committee felt that that was

“too weak and too vague”

and called on the Government to

“set a clearer, more stretching threshold.”

I will come back to this in my contribution on clause stand part, but I just wanted to put that to the Minister and to reinforce the points made by the Opposition Front Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank my friend from the Transport Committee for giving way. On that point, was he as concerned as I was in the debate on the previous clause when the Minister said that we do not want to make the safety regulations over-onerous at the outset of the industry in case we allow it to take off elsewhere rather than the UK? That is a bit of a warning sign for me.

[Grahame Morris]

I am inclined to agree, and I think it is a bit of a red herring as well. Language is important. I know the Minister said that “acceptable” has a legal meaning according to the Law Commission, but the point I was trying to make in the previous debate is that this is all about public confidence and perception, and what is acceptable to you, Mr Vickers, may not be acceptable to someone else.

We have to ensure that standards are as high as possible. It is certainly not anyone’s intention on the Opposition side to put off investment or scare it away; the potential is enormous. What we are trying to do is ensure that the legislative framework is not so prescriptive that it has a negative effect, but that it sets a standard that can be emulated by the rest of the world. I know we will come back to standards, European comparators and so on, so I will press on.

Clause (2)(2)(a) establishes a safety ambition that self-driving vehicles should be expected to

“achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or higher than, that of careful and competent human drivers”.

We heard that in the debate on clause 1. In my view, that safety ambition lacks clarity, and I ask that we clarify the meaning of a careful and competent driver in the Bill. “Careful and competent” is difficult to adjudicate, and the comparison should be made with a driver who is supported by existing assisted systems, fitted as standard to new vehicles. The assessment of automated vehicle safety must take into consideration all road users and how they will interact when engaging with AVs, especially if they operate in ways that would be considered unconventional when compared with a human driver.

I do not know whether you have been following some of the international events, Mr Vickers, such as the AV trials in Australia. The computer programming and the autonomous control systems are programmed to anticipate various scenarios, including how a pedestrian or another road user, such as a cyclist, will react. What defeated the trial in Australia was the unpredictable nature of kangaroos crossing the highway, because they do not cross in a straight line, but zig-zag and bounce about, which caused all manner of problems with the response of the AVs. We have to anticipate scenarios such as that and set the standards and framework accordingly.

The safety ambition needs to take into consideration both incident frequency and incident severity when assessing safety performance. There needs to be a clearly defined capability and operational constraint for systems, to ensure that users understand their roles and responsibilities when using or owning an automated vehicle. That is especially important in evolving technologies where there are transitions between the automated driving systems and the user in charge—the hon. Member for Copeland mentioned driver assistance systems—but also as new technologies develop and users are increasingly removed from the driving task.

We must also consider disabled people. Autonomous vehicle systems must be developed with an understanding of pedestrians with sight loss and their needs, which may differ from those of sighted people. As I mentioned earlier, people with sight loss will move around the built environment differently and use building lines, kerbs and tactile pavements for navigation. The increasing number of non-standard road layouts could present challenges to automated vehicles in inaccessible environments such as shared spaces and roadway. Floating bus stops, for example, may cause all sorts of problems, being away from the pavement across a cycle lane.

The movement of pedestrians with sight loss may prove especially difficult for autonomous vehicles to predict. That is why I, like various groups representing people with disabilities, including the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the Royal National Institute of Blind People, believe that the consultation process on the safety principles must be strengthened. As this is a recent technology that could develop in different ways, it is sensible to review the principles in the medium term to determine their effectiveness. I think the Minister has indicated that he is going to do that.

Amendment 21 stipulates that the principles must set out the assessment of the safety impact of AVs on different types of road users in different types of locations where the vehicle is travelling, which would be a reasoned improvement to the Bill. I am disappointed that Lords amendment 28, which was tabled by the noble Lord Liddle and would have created an advisory council, was defeated by the Government. It is disappointing that the Government did not accept that amendment as the Government proposals in amendment 5 really do not go far enough, even though they do ensure some level of consultation. I will leave it at that.

--- Later in debate ---

Power to change or clarify existing traffic legislation

[Gavin Newlands]

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 50, page 33, line 18, after “that – ” insert—

“(za) is not an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(zb) is not an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(zc) is not an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru;

(zd) is not an instrument made under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru;”

This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could not amend legislation of the devolved administrations for the purposes of changing or clarifying traffic legislation in respect of automated vehicles.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 7, in clause 50, page 33, line 22, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State must obtain and lay before Parliament the written consent of the Scottish Government to make regulations under this section which amend—

(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,

(b) any instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.

(5) The Secretary of State must obtain and lay before Parliament the written consent of the Welsh Government to make regulations under this section which amend—

(a) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru,

(b) any instrument made under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of devolved governments before exercising the Clause 50 power in relation to devolved legislation.

Amendment 8, in clause 50, page 33, line 22, at end insert—

“(4) The Scottish Government may, by regulations, make provision for the purpose of changing or clarifying whether, how or in what circumstances an Act of the Scottish Parliament or any instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament applies to the user-in-charge of a vehicle.

(5) The Welsh Government may, by regulations, make provision for the purpose of changing or clarifying whether, how or in what circumstances an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru or any instrument made under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru applies to the user-in-charge of a vehicle.”

This amendment would extend the Clause 50 power to ministers of the devolved administrations.

Clause stand part.

[Gavin Newlands]

It is safe to say, Mr Vickers, that I was not expecting us to get to clause 50—[Laughter.] Luckily, I have a speech that I prepared earlier. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport in the Scottish Government and the operations manager of Transport Scotland are giving evidence on this very issue in the Scottish Parliament this morning. If I can pad this out until 11.25 am, I will be able to bring some quotes to the Committee before we leave our deliberations on the amendments and clause 50.

I rise to speak to amendments 9, 7 and 8 in my name and those of my colleagues in Plaid Cymru. As I mentioned on Second Reading and briefly at the start of the sitting —it is very unusual for me or anyone else from the SNP to stand up during the deliberations on any Bill to say this—the devolved Administrations have for the most part worked happily with the UK Government on getting this Bill right for everyone across these isles, in line with the co-operative working between the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission of England and Wales over the past couple of years. So it is disappointing, to say the least, that the UK Government appear to have ditched that view when drafting clause 50.

The devolved powers that are properly the preserve of the Scottish Parliament are quite clear, yet this clause would unilaterally overturn that settled state and instead place the Scottish Parliament and Government under the auspices of the Secretary of State for Transport and his or her colleagues. Since devolution and the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, it has been agreed among all parties that consent is required from Holyrood when the UK Government seek to legislate in devolved areas.

[Grahame Morris]

This is an interesting point. There are a number of Bills whose provisions apply only to England or to England and Wales, and I have always thought there was an anomaly in terms of territorial extent and application. If someone is driving an autonomous vehicle, it seems slightly bizarre to have a different regulatory regime if they go over the border into Scotland or Wales. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and on page 12 of the explanatory notes I have highlighted in green the part that says:

“There is a convention that Westminster will not normally legislate with regard to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Ireland Assembly without the consent of the legislature concerned.”

I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that there has not been that consultation.

[Gavin Newlands]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Of course, if there is any diversion between the regulations, the Scottish regulations will be better than any brought forward by DFT. I joke, but the Scottish Government—and presumably the Welsh Senedd—have been in discussions about this for a long time. In fact, the issues the Scottish Government have with clause 50 were recognised by the UK Government themselves. I say that not just because of the facts the hon. Gentleman pointed out in the explanatory notes, but because the Government themselves have said that clause 50 will require legislative consent. This is not the Scottish Government being uppity; the UK Government themselves have said that legislative consent would be required, but they have now ditched that approach and seek to implement clause 50 without seeking any legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament.

What has happened says so much about the Government’s approach to devolution in recent years and completely overturns that principle of devolution. Either we have devolution or we do not—it is not for the Government to pick and choose which parts of legislation devolution is applied to. Devolution should apply in those areas that are not listed in the Scotland Act 1998. It is simple as that, yet the Government seem to want to change the rules and move the goalposts at will to stymie devolution at almost every turn. They snatch power from a democratically elected Parliament and Government and give it to a Minister of the UK Government, who it is fair to say currently have zero mandate in Scotland. That may change come a future election, but at this point this Government have no real mandate in Scotland, and yet they seek to override the will of the elected Parliament of Scotland.

The amendments in my name and those of Plaid Cymru colleagues would remedy that democratic deficit by placing a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to obtain consent from the Scottish Parliament and/or the Senedd before legislating in areas that are not properly theirs to legislate in. The Scottish Government have made it clear throughout the consultation and drafting process that working across borders on issues such as this—as alluded to by the hon. Member for Easington, who serves with me on the Transport Committee—is undoubtedly good sense, benefiting the automated vehicle sector and ultimately all consumers across these isles.

[Grahame Morris]

The hon. Gentleman’s contribution is completely valid. I am slightly perplexed by this issue, so I will be interested in what the Minister has to say about the Government’s consultations with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly, for that matter. For the system to work, we need to bear in mind the key point about digitalising traffic regulation orders. What will happen? People will drive from England into Scotland and vice versa, but the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to require traffic regulation orders to be provided by traffic regulation authorities—