Transport

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I will not detain the House too long—[Interruption.] Hooray! I just want to make a couple of points. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), indicated, we both served on the Transport Committee in the last Parliament, and the Committee did quite a detailed inquiry on the sustainability of fuels in all sectors. We made several recommendations, and I do not believe that there is a cigarette paper—perhaps that is a non-PC term—between the two sides of the House on the issue, but I want to ask a couple of questions.

This subject is really complicated and is plagued with acronyms—HEFA, SAF, ATF, eSAF, HPBM, Jet Zero. I will not be tempted into aviation puns, but there are some important stats. As the Minister stated, estimates suggest that the sustainable aviation fuel industry could create up to 60,000 jobs by 2050—the shadow Minister said that there would perhaps be 10,000 new jobs, but that is in a longer timeframe. The shadow Minister also said that the SAF industry could contribute as much as £1 billion to the UK economy, but by 2050, it could contribute as much as £10 billion, so it is clearly a very important sector.

I am concerned about ensuring that sustainable aviation fuels under this mandate be required to meet the strictest sustainability standards. We must ensure that they are green fuels, and that there is a staged progression towards jet zero—we have heard what that is: 2% from 2025, 10% by 2030 and 22% by 2040—and we really must ensure that the greener fuels are responsibly sourced from the most sustainable locations, preferably in the United Kingdom. We had a debate last week about the launch of GB Energy and the importance of not exporting the jobs created through our efforts on decarbonisation. Will GB Energy play a role in some of these new technologies? We may well develop a hydrogen fuel cell that can produce green hydrogen much more cheaply, but in the meantime, to plug the gap, we must ensure that efforts are made to onshore as many of the jobs and benefits of this exciting opportunity as possible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Bus Franchising

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

The ability of local areas and local transport authorities to take back control of their bus services is crucial for rural areas, because they know their communities best. Those decisions should not be made from places in Westminster or Whitehall. Again, local transport authorities understand the specific needs of their local communities, be they rural or urban, and are best placed to make those decisions and design the network around those needs.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement and draw to the Minister’s attention the Transport Committee report, “Bus services in England outside London”, which was produced under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who is now Under-Secretary of State for Transport. There are some excellent recommendations in there. In regions such as Greater Manchester, the process of introducing bus franchising has been quite lengthy. Granting combined authorities the ability to directly award contracts would significantly shorten that timeline, allowing areas such as the north-east to bring about faster improvements. Will the Minister confirm that the better buses Bill will include provisions for direct award powers?

[Simon Lightwood]

I can confirm that my officials are investigating the means to do just that, and I will update the House accordingly as progress continues.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

No, I will make some progress.

For the reasons I have described, we have also tabled amendments to put some conditions on franchises moving into the public sector. Under the Secretary of State’s plan, the running of trains on our network will increasingly be tasked to a little-known Government company called DFT OLR Holdings Ltd, or DOHL, the current operator of last resort. It seems to me a huge risk to expect DOHL to successfully take over and run every franchise in the country. DOHL has had, shall we say, mixed results with the franchises it has taken over, and expecting it to run a further 10 on top of the four it is currently operating strikes me as a lot to ask. I recognise that the Bill makes reference to that risk by providing for franchise extensions where it would not be practical to bring the service in-house, but under the current plans, that would be decided by the Secretary of State. It is not that I do not trust the right hon. Lady, but she has shown herself to have a great deal of confidence in public operators, in the absence of any substantial grounds for that confidence.

I have been told that there is no plan to increase headcount, budget or resources of any kind for DOHL as it takes on that increase in workload from four to 14 franchises. I welcome the Government making an effort to achieve efficiencies at the centre, but I struggle to believe that more than tripling the number of franchises brought in-house will not involve some increase in resources. We therefore think it would be prudent for the Office of Rail and Road to form an independent judgment on whether DOHL has the capacity and expertise to take on each new franchise as it comes up, and to run it, at a minimum, as well as it is already being run. That could be done well in advance of most contracts ending, so it would not really be a hindrance to the Secretary of State’s plan, but it would provide a great deal of reassurance to passengers, and all of us as their representatives, about the capacity of the Government to successfully take over the functions of so many train operating companies.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

On impact assessments and how we can have confidence that DOHL will improve performance, we can look at past performance. I remind the shadow Minister that the operator of last resort currently runs 14 franchises. Since the east coast main line, which serves my region, was taken over by LNER, revenues have grown substantially. Since TransPennine Express was brought back into public sector operations in May 2023, we have seen cancellations decrease from an average of around 20% to 5%. In the last quarter, TransPennine, which is run by the operator of last resort, DOHL, was the most improved operator in terms of cancellation scores compared with the same period last year.

[Helen Whately]

I accept some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. That is why I said that the record of DOHL had been mixed. Sometimes there has been improvement in performance, but that is not the case for all the franchises it runs. That is my reason for not being confident that it is the right organisation to take on such a large increase in its workload, particularly without any further increase in its resources, including some operators that are performing better than the train companies that he mentioned.

We want every contract that is awarded to place a duty on DOHL to look at how to modernise our network and to ensure that passengers are at the forefront of all decision making—passengers not just in urban areas and around London but, crucially, in rural areas and places that have traditionally been under-served by the rail network. Time and again, the Secretary of State has said that her No. 1 priority is passengers—that she will protect their interests above all else, and that it is for them that she is seeking this change. This is a chance to put her money where her mouth is and create a legal duty that promotes the needs of passengers in all future agreements with public sector operators. That will build in a layer of accountability on things that we all agree are important.

On amendment 8, public bodies marking their own homework is not something that Opposition Members believe leads to good results. I know from my time in government that independent scrutiny makes life harder for Ministers, but it also improves accountability, and with that outcomes. That is why we seek to introduce proper financial reporting and oversight for public sector operators. Under the franchise system, whatever its shortcomings, train operators are incentivised to increase passenger numbers and control costs. That has been an undeniable success of privatisation. Passenger numbers have doubled and costs have been controlled, increasing at a far slower rate than revenue.

In future, passengers and taxpayers will have to foot the bill for any loss of control on costs, any inefficiencies or any failures to innovate. That is a serious implication, and something we should do our best to protect people from. Creating, or recreating, some incentives is a good place to start. We will need to know how well the public train companies are performing—what they are doing to increase passenger numbers and drive growth in rail services, how reliable their services are, how well they are keeping costs under control, and how satisfied passengers are with the service they provide.

Our proposals will allow us to identify both good and bad performance, hold the managers of those companies to account and reward them accordingly, such as by linking managerial pay to performance. Those companies will no longer have shareholders to answer to, or the financial incentives that go with a senior role in the private sector. The Government have told us that part of their rationale for these changes is to better align the incentives of train operators with the interests of passengers, but the Bill currently provides no mechanism for that. We are not seeking to frustrate a change that this Government were elected to deliver; we simply wish to bring proper transparency and accountability to the process. That includes reporting on the costs involved in bringing operating companies into public ownership.

Government Members will no doubt point to the money that will be saved by removing management fees, but this equation is not one-sided. While the Secretary of State might be saving £150 million each year on fees, industry experts have predicted that the Bill could cost passengers and taxpayers up to £1 billion a year in lost productivity and growth—and that is before accounting for the Government’s taking on all the long-term liabilities of the companies. Pension obligations, rolling stock and long-term leases will all be transferred on to the Government balance sheet, and we have had alarmingly little information on what that figure will be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I will not speak for a great deal of time, as this issue is largely devolved in Scotland. However, I welcome the Bill, and the Scottish Government have been keen to support it through a legislative consent motion. That supports the work that has already been done in Scotland. We have put the railway into public ownership as a last resort, but the Bill will provide stability going forward for the Government and the operator and enable them to do much better on medium and long-term planning, with certainty on what the future holds.

My amendment 6 brings into the debate the role of rolling stock leasing companies, or ROSCOs. Many Members on the Government Benches will agree that the ROSCOs are taking a huge profit out of the public sector. Rolling stock contracts in the past couple of years took more than £3 billion each year, and the amount of profit being taken from that is in the billions over the lifetime of the contracts. That money could be reinvested in the railways. I appreciate that it is not for this Bill, but I would like the Government to come forward with proposals on ROSCOs in the next Bill that will come forward later in the Session.

That is all I want to say at the moment. I do not intend to press my amendment to a Division, but I would like some assurance from those on the Government Front Bench that serious consideration will be given to how we deal with ROSCOs and the amount of profit being taken.

[Grahame Morris]

I start by declaring an interest. I am proud of the fact that I am a trade unionist and have strong links to the transport unions, particularly Unite, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, and ASLEF. Indeed, as I pointed out on Second Reading, when I was a young fellow many years ago, my first job was on the railways, when they were part of British Rail. In those days, I was a member of the National Union of Railwaymen. More recently, I served on the Transport Committee for almost six years, and I am delighted that many of the arguments and issues that I and many other stakeholders raised in numerous sessions have finally found their way into a Government Bill and on to the Floor of the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

The privatisation of the railways was a privatisation too far, even for she whose portrait should be removed. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is utterly ridiculous that the only nation state on the planet not able to run the railway in this country is this one?

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely. If ever there was a charge of political dogma to be made, it must be about the fact that, under the terms of the privatisation, the British taxpayer and the British Government are not allowed to own a stake in our own railway. For too long, private companies have provided a substandard service while making substantial profits. Over the last seven years, the remaining private train operating companies—I apologise for misleading the Committee, but I misspoke earlier when I said that there were 14 of them; there are 14 franchises in total, four of which are operated by the state through the operator of last resort—have paid out an average of £130 million annually to their shareholders. Those companies are often owned by foreign Governments —in Germany, Italy, France and across Europe and the world. Meanwhile, passengers’ day-to-day experiences have been of overcrowded carriages, delays, service failure and, worst of all, some of the highest fares in Europe.

It is worth thinking about the costs, and the profits that some private train operators have been able to generate for shareholders. Figures released just this week show that Govia Thameslink Railway paid out a staggering £82.4 million in dividends, with £62.3 million of that being for the 2023-24 financial year. That represents a 268% increase from the previous year. In return for those princely profits, Govia consistently failed to meet two thirds of its customer service quality targets, as reported in the Financial Times. The situation was encouraged to persist under the last Conservative Government. I welcome the fact that Labour is making this a priority from day one, as that is fundamental to fixing the foundations and delivering the economic growth promised by the Prime Minister.

I support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) about the rolling stock companies—the so-called ROSCOs. Many commentators see a problem with the newly formed Great British Railways having to continue to lease rolling stock from ROSCOs, as that would allow those companies to profit from taxpayers’ money. My view is that ROSCOs are an unnecessary link in the chain. I frequently raised the issue with experts and industry leaders on the Transport Committee, and I believe that we would benefit from meeting our rolling stock needs by placing orders directly with UK-based manufacturers such as Alstom and Hitachi, rather than enriching the ROSCOs.

Despite being in post for a relatively short time, the Secretary of State has made a strong start with the Bill. However, I urge her to consider the points raised by me and Members on both sides of the Committee about how we continue to procure rolling stock as we move forward. On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), said that purchasing existing rolling stock would not be a responsible use of taxpayers money. I understand that, but will the Minister, in responding, clarify whether in the future, under GBR, there will be an option to purchase new rolling stock directly, instead of having to continue to lease through the ROSCOs?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North said, the UK needs to upgrade to 4,000 units of rolling stock over the coming decades, with Network Rail estimating costs in the tens of billions of pounds, so this is an ideal opportunity to explore a new financing model for rolling stock. I am not naive—I understand the financial situation that we have inherited from the last Government—but I ask the Government to explore not-for-profit financiers if rolling stock cannot be nationalised under GBR. May I point out respectfully that Eurofima, a supranational not-for-profit financier, has stated that, for every £1 billion of financing on UK railways, it could save the taxpayer £350 million over 30 years due to its lower financing costs? That is compared to using the existing ROSCOs. Will the Secretary of State update us on the possibility of using not-for-profit financiers for rolling stock in preference to the ROSCOs?

I will take up the point made by the shadow Secretary of State about the pay review bodies. May I point out that they are not universally welcomed? I have been looking at responses to pay review bodies in the health service, and the last Government had a less than wonderful record when it comes to implementing the recommendations of pay review bodies, not least those relating to junior doctors. The Royal College of Nursing has said of pay review bodies that there is “nothing independent about them.” The chairs and members of pay review bodies are hand-picked by the Prime Minister and Government Ministers, and the terms of reference are decided by the Government. There is some scepticism about how independent they truly are, and about whether, when they make recommendations, the Government are obliged to implement them in full.

I ask the Minister if it is possible to provide a timetable for the next steps. When will future Bills be introduced to the House, and when is Great British Railways expected to be fully established? I acknowledge and express my appreciation for the engagement of the Front-Bench team. I stress that I support the Bill because I believe that it represents a critical step in fixing the long-standing issues in our rail system. The current privatised framework is giving a fragmented railway, and has failed to deliver value for money, an efficient service or customer satisfaction. I am pleased that we are moving towards a model that prioritises the needs of passengers over the profits of shareholders. Rethinking our approach to rail management and financing is a crucial first step towards fixing the foundations and putting Great British Railways at the service of the travelling public.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

The Greens are not agnostic on privatisation. We very much support the principle of the Bill and look forward to its progress. I want to make a short speech on amendments 2 to 5, which I tabled. They are very simple and common sense; their goal is to leave open the opportunity for elected devolved bodies to set up companies that they own, in order to bid to run railway services under the overall guidance and wing of Great British Railways. The Bill, which restricts the definition of a public sector company to those owned by Ministers, either here or in Wales or Scotland, does not allow for that. That seems to clash with the direction of travel towards more public sector devolution, with which my party and I agree.

It would improve and future-proof the Bill if we amended proposed new section 30C of the Railways Act 1993 so that Ministers could in future choose a company set up or owned by combined authorities, or by groups of unitary, county, district or borough councils who decided to co-operate, ahead of further devolution, on improving their railways. Any decisions on the award of franchises, on the suitability of a body to run and own local railways, and on where investment should go would remain fully with Ministers. I tabled the amendments in a constructive spirit, and I hope that they will start a constructive conversation that will continue here and in the other place as the Bill progresses.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Grahame Morris Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Congratulations on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I declare an interest, as I have a long association of mutual support and respect with the transport unions, particularly Unite, the RMT and ASLEF, and with all the trade unions more generally.

I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to her new post, and I congratulate her most sincerely on prioritising the public ownership of our railways from the Government’s first day in office. This is a really important Bill, which gives me and many others on the left of the party hope and faith that this Labour Government, in which we have placed our faith, will deliver for us.

I had meant to wear my British Rail tie, because when I started work 45 years ago, or thereabouts—my goodness—I worked for British Rail in York and Scarborough. The tie is my treasured possession, but it is more elusive than a Conservative Back Bencher in a public ownership debate. I just could not find it.

I have spent quite a number of years on the Transport Committee, which scrutinised the last Government’s draft Rail Reform Bill. I welcome the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, but it is clear to me that the franchising model has failed for three decades. It is now time to put passengers before private profits. By establishing Great British Railways, this Bill is the first step in taking back control.

A number of Members have raised points with which I agree, and I will mention them. I also take this opportunity to mention a local issue in my Easington constituency. The train stations in Horden and Seaham should provide easy access to Middlesbrough, Sunderland and Newcastle for employment, education and leisure. However, my constituents often experience unreliable and, at times, dangerously overcrowded services, with the chronic overcrowding meaning that passengers are often left on the platform or travelling in distressingly overcrowded carriages.

This could easily be solved by running four carriages instead of two, especially during peak periods when there is predictable demand, including on match days when my team, Sunderland, are at home at the Stadium of Light or when Newcastle United are at home at St James’ Park. Northern Rail invariably runs only two-carriage services at peak times, which seems incredible. I hope Northern Rail will address this issue.

I believe that running rail under one public entity will save taxpayers money and allow revenue to be reinvested in improving capacity and service frequency, both in my constituency and across the country. The British public have lined the pockets of private shareholders for 30 years. Over the past seven years, private train operating companies have paid, on average, £130 million to shareholders in dividends while taking public subsidies. Under the terms of the Bill, these profits will be reinvested in our railways.

We have seen how LNER, on the east coast main line, has paid more than £40 million to the Department for Transport since it has been in public ownership under the operator of last resort, but this Bill will go still further. There will be no more hefty management fees and performance bonuses to train operating companies, with more money paid back into Great British Railways.

I understand the safeguards for open-access operators, where they add value and capacity. In east Durham, Grand Central has applied to the Office of Rail and Road for four daily calls at Seaham station in my constituency, which would provide a direct connection to London, alleviating pressure on the overcrowded routes from Seaham to Sunderland. Open-access operators can benefit the network, so I hope the ORR approves these new services at the earliest opportunity.

I congratulate the Minister on building consensus with those on the frontline who run our railways, and I note the vocal support for the Bill from the RMT and ASLEF. I have long campaigned with the RMT and ASLEF for public ownership as the first step towards creating an integrated railway that prioritises passengers and our economic wellbeing over and above shareholder dividends.

The Secretary of State is on the right track—excuse the pun—and, while she is on a roll, I urge her to go a little further by reforming how we procure rolling stock, which Members on both sides of the House have mentioned. At present, the rolling stock companies lease trains to the operating companies at exorbitant prices. In fact, £409 million was paid in profits to shareholders last year, a 41.6% increase on the previous year. When Opposition Members ask where the money is coming from and how we will wring economies out of the system, there is £409 million that we could get out of the system relatively painlessly.

One of the original ROSCOs, Eversholt, is owned by CK Hutchison Holdings Ltd, a Hong Kong company set up by the billionaire Li Ka-shing, who also has shares in Northumbrian Water, which provides water and sewerage services in my region—another company that is failing the public by making millions from taxpayers. During the pandemic, the public purse subsidised train operating companies at unprecedented levels while the ROSCOs’ profits continued to soar. Yet with all operators set to be under public ownership by 2027, surely now is the time to reconsider how we procure trains for Great British Railways. Labour has a mandate for change. We can end the abuse of the British taxpayer inflating profits for privatised monopoly industries that should be publicly owned, including water, rail and energy. At least for rail we have begun the process of change.

To meet decarbonisation goals, the UK needs to upgrade up to 4,000 rolling stock units, which will cost tens of billions of pounds, so we will need a new financing model to meet those demands. With adequate planning, that could also mean ample orders to sustain our British-based train manufacturing industry and avoid the gaps in the order books we have recently seen at Alstom and Hitachi. I praise the Secretary of State and her ministerial team for the effort and energy they have expended in trying to seek a solution.

With Great British Railways, I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that ROSCOs do not continue to exploit the taxpayer and that we take back control of our rolling stock. The Great British public deserve better value for money. Public control of our train operating companies is the first step in delivering a better service. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as we set out the finer details for Great British Railways. This is a transformative Bill for our railways—one of the most transformative Bills I have seen in my lifetime—and my right hon. Friend has my full support in delivering the modern and efficient rail service our country needs and deserves.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)]

I call Adam Jogee to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

The challenge that Labour now has to face is whether they choose taxpayers or fare payers to meet the burden of the cost of the railways. In fact, in recent years we kept rail fare rises below inflation, and we have yet to hear a similar commitment from the Government.

The impact assessment on the policy is very clear about what the Government have committed to achieve: absolutely nothing. It says it in black and white, on page 3:

“specific quantified targets for each objective have not been set”.

So clearly that leaves us on the Conservative Benches to hold them to account. I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister can address in his closing remarks.

First, what will be the exact timetable for renationalisation? We might assume that the Government are rushing to do this so that they can begin with Greater Anglia and West Midlands Trains in September, but all they have said is that they want all the contracts nationalised by October 2027. The Minister will understand the uncertainty that will create for the sector, so can he confirm a more detailed plan to the House for making use of the powers they are asking for?

Secondly, what will be the approach on nationalising terms and conditions? The Minister will know there are a variety of working practices across the railway network, many of them clearly not in the best interests of passengers and taxpayers—for example, the varied approach on mandatory Sunday working, where clearly passengers would be better served by that becoming standard; or annual leave, where again passengers would experience less delays and cancellations if drivers were required to give a reasonable amount of notice. Will the Government introduce a standard contract that prioritises the terms and conditions across the industry that will benefit passengers and taxpayers, or will they be letting the unions dictate a standardised contract that puts the unions first and passengers last?

Thirdly, what plans does the Minister have to secure increased passenger numbers, by how much and by when? We have seen a huge increase in passenger growth since the introduction of the train operating companies. What will take the place of contract incentives to secure that growth in future?

Fourthly, on modernisation, people up and down the country have seen the explosion of technology into our workplaces, but all across the network modernisation is blocked and frustrated with demands of more money from the unions for the introduction of technology. What plans do the Government have, as they directly take over running the railways, to ensure that technological innovation can be implemented across the network without undue barriers or union demands getting in the way?

Fifthly, when it comes to funding, how will they be reallocating the theoretical money saved? They argue they will save £150 million from management fees. Reinvesting that across track and train would mean, in total, a 0.5% to 0.75% increase in the overall annual budget. They need to tell us what exactly it is they will be doing with that money that is apparently going to radically improve our railways.

Sixthly, what are the balance sheet implications? The franchising model allowed the purchase of new trains and other investments to be made with no impact on public debt. Will Labour be adding those costs to public debt in future as yet another excuse for their inevitable tax rises?

Finally, what are the Bill’s implications, direct or indirect, for open-access operators? Whatever the Government may say, I am afraid that the implication of their words and actions is that they do not want the private sector running train services, so are they going to turn their sights on those operators next? If they truly believe in what they are doing—if it is not just designed to appease the left wing of their party—they will have to justify their own inconsistency.

It seems pretty clear that this, the Government’s political priority, is the wrong approach at the wrong time. They should be focusing on getting their union backers to stop frustrating reform of our railways. They should be focusing on taking forward our plans for Great British Railways. They should, at the very least, be transparent with the public about the implications of this rushed plan for fares, punctuality and reliability. There is consensus in the House that a new way of working was needed, and we had begun the process of bringing that forward, but Labour Members are more concerned with re-fighting the political battles of the 1970s and 1980s. Whatever they may say, these are the same old ideas, this is the same old ideology, and this is the same old Labour party.

[Grahame Morris]

The hon. Gentleman is presenting an interesting proposal. He has talked of “evidence”. If we look back over the past few years, we see that 70% of train operating companies running train franchises in this country were Government-owned—owned not by the UK Government, but by the Governments of Germany, the Netherlands and Italy. Was this not dogma to prevent an evidence-based build-up around the east coast main line franchise, providing profit and an income stream?

[Dr Mullan]

Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that we also saw an increase of more than 89% in passenger numbers on our railways, and a record level of investment. If taxpayers in other countries want to invest in our railway services, I welcome that. As the shadow Secretary of State said in her opening remarks, we have proved our lack of adherence to ideology by running, when necessary, a number of private sector operators. The point that the Labour Government have to answer is this: if they are so concerned about Avanti and other private sector operators, they have the necessary powers and could do that tomorrow. If they are so convinced of their ability to sort all this out simply through nationalisation—if they are so convinced that Avanti’s performance is one that requires them to step in—let them do it tomorrow. They are not in opposition any more, so they can take steps to do things that they criticise us for not doing.

However, I am afraid that this is the same old Labour: more government good, private sector bad; unions first, passengers last. We on this side of the House have seen it and heard it all before, and we will make sure that everyone knows what Labour has spent its time focusing on and what it has put first when legislating here, politics and ideology, instead of focusing on what will actually make a difference to passengers.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill (Instruction) (No. 3)

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will respect your wishes. I had not intended to speak in the debate, so I apologise for being late. I serve on the House of Commons Transport Committee, along with colleagues who spoke earlier from the Government Benches. I also served on the HS2 hybrid Bill Committee that dealt with the section from Crewe to Manchester Piccadilly.

[Sir William Cash]

Is the hon. Gentleman actually involved with a Bill that is currently in existence, or is he suggesting that something should be done in respect of a Bill that is not the same as the Bill that was introduced in the first place?

[Grahame Morris]

My goodness, that is a complicated intervention—I am not sure that I am suitably qualified to answer it. I just thought that I might share some of my thoughts having served on the Bill Committee, without any particular axe to grind.

I served on the Bill Committee because I was asked to do so as a servant of the House, in order to consider the merits or otherwise of the various petitions. I do not know whether Members are familiar with the process. I am not suggesting for a moment that it is perfect, and I know that there are arguments for revising the hybrid Bill procedure, which is quite lengthy, but some right hon. and hon. Members have suggested—perhaps through a lack of understanding of the process—that it is a mechanism for steamrolling through opposition, and I can absolutely assure them that that does not happen. In fact, if anything, petitioners—who may be individuals, businesses, environmental groups, local authorities or groups representing commercial interests, such as the National Farmers’ Union—are given ample opportunity to make representations to the Committee through petitions, and then to speak to those petitions and articulate their arguments for mitigation, compensation and route variation.

[Jack Brereton]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Grahame Morris]

I will, but I am conscious of time.

[Jack Brereton]

The hon. Member will know from Transport Committee visits that some of the commitments made in the hybrid Bill Committee have not been honoured. Does he share my concerns about that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

As well as having served on the hybrid Bill Committee, I serve on the Transport Committee, and part of that Committee’s duties is to scrutinise HS2 and hold the Rail Minister, who is responsible for the delivery of HS2, to account. Certainly, concerns were expressed to the Transport Committee that statutory undertakings and assurances were not honoured—at least not in the form in which they were presented to the Committee.

[Jim McMahon]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Grahame Morris]

I will give way one more time, very briefly.

[Jim McMahon]

This was only separated out because, as in this debate, some tried to make out that residents were opposed to the project overall. However, my hon. Friend must have seen in the hybrid Bill Committee process that quite a lot of the opposition was about the operational performance of HS2 Ltd and the considerations for local people in construction traffic, delays and the rest of it, which probably could have been done much better.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that perfectly reasonable point. Indeed, it is certainly true of requests for variations to traffic in locations of construction sites and so forth. However, I only have a couple of minutes, so I do not want to be tempted on to the wrong track, as it were, and will just share a couple of thoughts.

I am a bit of a buff. I might be an anti-node, but I am familiar with the locations on the route.

This afternoon, those of us on the Transport Committee have been involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the rail reform Bill, and have been listening to representations from representatives of the Welsh Government and the sub-national transport bodies. They were commenting on the new structure and the new draft Bill, and there is general recognition—not just from Transport for the North in my region; we had witnesses from Midlands Connect and Transport East, as well as the Welsh Government—that there is a major transport infrastructure issue. For many decades, we have concentrated on north-south connectivity—principally on connectivity with the capital city. We have done that for sound economic reasons, but the case for east-west connections is supported vociferously by the metro Mayors of Manchester, Liverpool and West Yorkshire, and there are sound economic and connectivity arguments for addressing the need for those connections.

This mechanism is far from perfect. As a separate matter, the House should look at whether the pre-legislative scrutiny process can be truncated in some way to speed it up, but we must give petitioners—Members of Parliament, individuals and businesses—the opportunity to raise their concerns. Imperfect though the mechanism may be, and imperfect though I may be in advocating for it, it does have its merits when it comes to scrutinising major infrastructure schemes such as this one, so I will support today’s motion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the Minister, I think the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) opened his remarks by saying that he might have been late for the debate. I can assure him that I have been told he was certainly in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate. Otherwise, I would not have let him speak. I call the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I promised my right hon. Friend from this Dispatch Box that the project would be delivered, and I continue to give him that assurance. I am sorry that there have been those delays. This week, I spoke to the team at some length about the station. My right hon. Friend knows that I will visit him at the station, and I will have some more concrete news for him then.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

How reliable are the key performance indicators that the train operators are quoting, which the Rail Minister mentioned earlier? The Disability News Service reports that train companies are sending unreliable statistics from freelance mystery shoppers who pretend to be disabled and give overly positive feedback about the experience of disabled passengers. Does he share my concern about that, and what can he do about it?

[Huw Merriman]

Data from mystery shoppers, as the hon. Gentleman calls them, cannot be used unless those individuals have the disabilities that they claim to, but there are wider mystery shopping experiences that are undertaken. I will happily write to him—in fact, I will meet him, seeing as he is such a great man—and take him through the steps that are taken into account. I also thank him very much for doing what he always does, which is raising that matter with me last night, so that we could discuss it in advance.

Future of Rail Manufacturing

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of rail manufacturing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I must declare an interest as a member of Unite the Union and chair of the Unite parliamentary group. I am also a member of the RMT and ASLEF parliamentary groups and I am on the Transport Committee.

For several years, industry organisations such as the Railway Industry Association, trade unions and manufacturers have urged timely action to prevent significant job losses in rail manufacturing here in the UK. The industry employs over 30,000 people in the United Kingdom and contributes at least £1.8 billion annually in gross value added. It is currently facing a very dangerous—indeed, critical—situation. The Minister, a former Chair of the Transport Committee, is very familiar with the situation. I have engaged with him on a number of occasions recently and in the Select Committee, so I am fully aware that he understands the nature of the problem.

In December last year, I raised an urgent question following evidence given to the Transport Committee by Nick Crossfield, the managing director of Alstom—Alstom is based in Derby. He impressed on the Committee the need for urgent action from the Government to expedite the bidding process for new British-manufactured trains. Four months later, it is clear that the Government have been too slow to prevent potential job losses at the Derby train manufacturer.

Similarly, I met workers at the Hitachi train manufacturing facility in Newton Aycliffe, next door to my constituency, who are also members of Unite the Union. They warned that we could see redundancies as early as June this year if the Government continue to drag their heels on extending the contract to build further trains for the west coast main line.

British railways are rooted in the north-east of England. The Stockton and Darlington railway was inaugurated in 1825 and was the world’s first passenger railway. It also linked the coalmines near Shildon in County Durham to the River Tees at Stockton, facilitating coal exports from Teesport. The Stockton and Darlington railway’s success, alongside growing demand for transport, spurred the development of a national railway network. The railways transformed Britain, enabling all social classes to travel further, and the network was developed to move coal from thriving collieries in County Durham to global markets. However, County Durham continues to struggle with the legacy of the loss of its coal industry, with limited skilled employment due to insufficient investment in levelling-up efforts, alongside a lack of a coherent industrial strategy under successive Conservative Governments.

In 2015, Hitachi opened a plant in County Durham, bringing skilled jobs to the region and reviving the north-east’s rail manufacturing tradition after 90 years. The 750 skilled jobs at Hitachi, and about 1,500 jobs in the supply chain, are fundamental to the success of the local economy.

Today, the excellent Sheffield Hallam University has released its “State of the Coalfields 2024” report, which shows evidence of a lack of jobs and businesses in the former coalfields despite recent growth. Job density in former coalfields is only 57 employee jobs per 100 working-age residents; that compares with a national average of 73 jobs per 100 residents, and an average in major regional cities of 88 jobs per 100 residents. There is a disparity, and a long way to go.

The report from Sheffield Hallam illustrates, as clear as day, the ongoing struggle for prosperity in former coalfield communities.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend agree that the issue is not just the number of jobs that Hitachi has brought to the region but the improvement in the skill base? Hitachi is training apprentices and increasing the skill base locally through investments in higher education and other things. That helps not only Hitachi but the regional economy.

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the broader benefits to the economy. Indeed, the loss of rail manufacturing in County Durham or Derbyshire would devastate their respective regional economies and threaten British rail manufacturing.

Alstom, Hitachi, Siemens and CAF—Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles—remain the only train manufacturers in the UK. A similar situation arose with the steel industry. To a reasonable person, it would seem illogical for the Government to permit the UK to lose its capacity to build trains, especially as our existing network is in need of modernisation.

The Minister and I have fenced about the age of the rolling stock and trains, but the UK still operates trains built before privatisation, with the average age of trains on the Chiltern line estimated to be 30 years; that was in March last year, from the Office of Rail and Road report. Additionally, nearly half all operators use trains over 22 years old. The Railway Industry Association has urged the Government to upgrade or replace approximately 2,600 vehicles by 2030, and to renew around 1,650 diesel trains that will be 35 years old after 2030.

The industry-wide consensus is that our rolling stock is outdated and inefficient. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: why are the Government not protecting British rail manufacturing, especially given the rising demand for new trains to enhance the passenger experience and to meet our net zero targets? In relation to our environmental targets, all 2,898 diesel and 912 bi-mode trains in the UK emit carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides, with nitrous oxide—N₂O—having various health impacts and being up to 280 times more potent than CO₂ in warming the planet over a 20-year period. That is according to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report to the United Nations.

To achieve net zero by 2050, a solution must be found to replace diesel trains, which are currently used by 14 operators—especially since only 38% of the network is currently electrified. My constituents, who travel on unreliable, second-hand ScotRail Sprinter trains—no offence to my friend from Scotland, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands)—built in the 1980s, find it inconceivable that the rolling stock companies’ profits are sky high while our UK-based rail manufacturers are crying out for orders. Taxpayers are forced to travel on substandard trains purchased with Government funds, while subsidies remain at twice pre-pandemic levels. The system is inefficient and does not serve the taxpayer or the travelling public.

There are needless links in the chain. The Government should streamline the system by directly purchasing trains and bypassing the ROSCOs or rolling stock companies. Indeed, RMT president Alex Gordon and general secretary Mick Lynch have been vociferous, voicing concerns about leasing costs, which have risen by over 30% over the past five years while rail industry staff costs have remained static.

A decade ago, leasing rolling stock accounted for about 13% of train operating companies’ costs; today, it accounts for 25% or a quarter. Does the Minister think that is fair or are the Government protecting profits when other areas of the network, including the staffing elements, are facing dramatic cuts?

Clearly, there is something wrong with how we procure rolling stock in Britain. Despite needing modern, carbon-neutral and sustainable trains, the Government have ignored warnings from both Alstom and Hitachi. The Rail Industry Association warned the Government that recent administrations have been a “canary in the coalmine” before the potential decimation of train manufacturing in the United Kingdom. Unite the Union warns that the industry’s performance relies heavily on Alstom Transport and Hitachi Rail, which hold 55.3% of market share.

The industry’s fate is dependent on key players like Hitachi and Alstom. However, recent forecasts indicate a bleak outlook, with revenues projected to decline at a rate of 8.1% annually over the next five years. Hitachi and Alstom face challenges, as their order books require clearing past orders before they can commence construction and setting up production lines for the HS2 trains, which are currently 18 to 24 months behind schedule.

Government intervention must go beyond rhetoric to provide tangible support to the industry. We are not asking for a bail-out—just a commitment to honouring existing contracts, and to establish a sensible industrial strategy for the industry. Beyond extending existing contracts, a focused industrial strategy is imperative. Research conducted by Make UK reveals that 99% of manufacturers support the need for an industrial strategy. Six in 10 cite the lack of an industrial strategy as a factor affecting growth in the manufacturing industry. Some 87% believe a strategy would provide their businesses with a better long-term vision on which to decide investment in future employment plans. To prevent another Alstom or Hitachi scenario, we must reassure the industry that the Government are prioritising its interests. I am hopeful that the Minister is going to give us some positive news, but the consequences of inaction are dire. Jobs and livelihoods are at risk, and it is time now for some decisive action.

The industry requires a steady stream of orders to sustain manufacturing and maintenance bases, alongside a proactive approach to replacing retiring engineers. We must abandon costly leasing, opting for direct purchases through Government procurement to bolster UK train manufacturing, which must be central to a long-term rail and industrial strategy, driving economic growth, innovation, and meeting our future transport needs.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

Thank you, Sir Gary, for the exemplary way in which you have chaired the debate. I thank the Minister for his thoughtful and considered responses. We are all aware that he knows the solutions to the problem and we seek to push him to make the decisions that are required in the interests of retaining those jobs, directly and in the supply chain, as quickly as possible.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), as well as my colleagues and comrades from the Transport Committee, the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell). I particularly thank the respective Front Benchers for their responses.

Without action, we will be modernising or replacing our trains with imported units using taxpayers’ money to support thousands of jobs and apprenticeships overseas rather than in the UK. We implore the Minister to act, and to preserve the excellent jobs that we have in our existing manufacturing centres.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of rail manufacturing.

Rail Manufacturing: Job Losses

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I thank my hon. Friend; he is a champion of the railway, and it was an absolute delight to visit him at Huddersfield station and talk about some of those projects. Of course, his point is completely relevant to the matter before us. The trans-Pennine route upgrade, for which there will be more Government investment than there was for the entirety of Crossrail, allows us to put an order in for TransPennine Express trains, so there will be more trains manufactured as well as better stations, longer platforms and more resilience. [Interruption.] I thank that team, which is doing a brilliant job, which The Sunday Times has highlighted. Rather than chuntering, it would be nice if the Opposition thanked those who deliver railway projects to time and on budget.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

My condolences on your loss, Mr Speaker. I thank you on behalf of the workforce for granting this urgent question, because the situation is becoming critical.

My union, Unite, tells me that there are over 900 people employed on temporary contracts at Hitachi in Newton Aycliffe and at Alstom in Derby whose jobs are already at risk. This is before any formal redundancies occur; Unite believes that that could happen as soon as June. I am well aware that the Minister knows that the industry needs a steady stream of orders to sustain train manufacturing here in the UK and preserve those vital jobs in areas such as County Durham, where we do not have an abundance of skilled employment, so in all honesty I earnestly ask the Minister to use his good offices to persuade the Secretary of State to intervene urgently and ensure a bright future for this vital UK train manufacturing industry.

[Huw Merriman]

I certainly take that point from my good friend. The hon. Member has worked tirelessly for the rail workforce, and I know that he means everything he says with passion and conviction. I have talked about the situation being a complex one from a legal perspective, and I would take him back to the contract award for HS2, which went to Alstom and Hitachi. That was challenged in court by Siemens; the Department succeeded on every single point, but that just shows how careful we have to be from a legal perspective during the tendering process, because it will end up in litigation. The worst thing would be to hand out contracts in a manner that is not legally fair and then find that they are being unpicked, which brings fresh uncertainty. Instead, we are looking at the entire order book to see where we can bring matters forward in the pipeline—matters that Alstom may be working on already. Where it is the fair and right thing to do, we are looking to see whether we can bring those contract orders forward in the pipeline.

Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

[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.

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

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sefton Central, for his comments at the beginning. I agree that there has been a large amount of cross-party support for the Bill, as was shown on Second Reading, and I appreciate the work done in the House of Lords to strengthen it. When we come to the clauses on which there is agreement, I will try to move as rapidly as possible so that we can spend more time on the clauses to which amendments are proposed.

The shadow Minister set out that the Bill is quite unusual because we are legislating for an industry that does not exist. Things are moving rapidly, but fully self-driving cars may be decades away, as the hon. Member for Easington said. However, we need to prepare for that now and try to think of all the different future scenarios.

Before coming to the amendments, I want to put something on the record about clause 1, because it is fundamental in setting out the concepts underpinning the Bill. It defines what it means for a vehicle to travel autonomously—in other words, without human-controlled monitoring with a view to safety-critical interventions. It establishes that that can be achieved through a vehicle having one or more self-driving features, and that those features can be specific to locations and circumstances. For example, it may have a motorway chauffeur feature that can drive the vehicle only on dual carriageways, or an urban delivery feature that operates in a specific geographic area.

More significantly, the clause introduces the self-driving test—the principle that there is a threshold of safe and legal operation above which the vehicle can be considered legally self-driving. That will be set out in more detail in the statement of safety principles introduced by clause 2, which we will come to shortly. We all share the ambition that automated vehicles should be as safe as possible; that is why in the Lords we inserted the statement that they should be as safe as a “careful and competent” human driver.

Before I deal with the amendments, I want to refer to the points that the hon. Member for Easington made. As I am sure he knows, I have read the Select Committee’s report, which is very good and insightful. Eighty-eight per cent of collisions—we are not meant to say “accidents” —involve some form of human error, whether people are speeding, not paying attention, distracted by the kids in the back, looking at their phone, angry or drunk. Self-driving vehicles do not do that. A careful and competent driver will have a far lower rate of accidents than an average human driver.

[Grahame Morris]

I am familiar with the statistics, and the Minister is absolutely correct, but I think we have to stretch our minds and think of scenarios that a competent human driver can reasonably anticipate. An example would be anticipating the movements of a blind or partially sighted person. We know that a blind person, because it is part of their training, tends to stick to the kerbs and corners. I am not convinced as yet that autonomous vehicles have the algorithms or knowledge to differentiate, so we have to set the bar—the standard—as high as possible.

[Anthony Browne]

I thank the hon. Member for that comment. I think he is right to say that autonomous vehicles at the moment probably cannot distinguish between blind or partially sighted pedestrians and ones who are not, but what we are setting out in the Bill is the statement of safety principles in the abstract, with the ambition that automated vehicles are as safe as a careful and competent driver. What that means will be set out as a result of detailed consultation with—as we now set out in the Bill—road users, road safety groups and the industry. Concerns about whether a self-driving vehicle can interpret whether a pedestrian is blind or not would come in at that level of detail, rather than in the ambition that we have here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

Absolutely. Clearly, this is an industry that is developing globally, and we want to be part of that. I think that we all recognise that there are huge economic opportunities here, as well as opportunities for improving road safety. There is a risk that, if we set the standard far too high right at the beginning, the industry will not be able to develop and we will lose out to countries that are more flexible in their approach.

[Grahame Morris]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anthony Browne]

I will, although I am conscious that I need to make headway at some point.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful. That is quite an important point about regulation and not banning things, but can we just be cognisant of what has happened recently where we have taken a more laissez-faire attitude, such as in relation to pedicabs or the electric cycles that are littering the pavements?

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Hear, hear.

[Grahame Morris]

Nobody wants to ban them completely, but if we had taken a harder line at the outset on the framework in which they operate, many of those problems could have been avoided. That is all that we on the Opposition Benches are saying.

[Anthony Browne]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments, and I appreciate the support that there is in the Committee for the regulation of pedicabs. The problem with pedicabs was that there was no regulation; it was a free-for-all, basically. That is indeed why we are legislating here to create a regulatory framework. It is really quite detailed legislation that builds on at least three years’ work by the Law Commission of England and Wales and by the Scottish Law Commission. I absolutely agree that we need regulation, but it is a question of getting the balance exactly right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

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

[Grahame Morris]

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

[The Chair]

Yes, you can speak now.

[Grahame Morris]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I had the great pleasure of your company on the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill Committee.

There are a couple of key issues in the Bill, and safety is one of them. Of course, the other major element is insurance liability. I think it is reasonable to discuss that and consider the implications. I do not want to regurgitate the explanatory notes, but clause 1 would establish a self-driving test and make provision for the Government to classify a vehicle with features that meet the test as an autonomous vehicle. The clause states that a vehicle would satisfy the self-driving test if it has at least one feature that would

“allow it to travel autonomously”.

The Minister described some of those features: motorway driving and parking features, and others.

Importantly, to travel autonomously, a vehicle would be required to do so “safely”—

“to an acceptably safe standard”—

and “legally”—

“with an acceptably low risk of committing a traffic infraction.”

The Minister referred to the Law Commissions for England and for Scotland, explained how the definition was arrived at, and cited the 75 recommendations and so on. However, the Opposition and many organisations believe that we must hold autonomous vehicles to the highest level of safety standards because it is important to gain the confidence of the public so that they can feel comfortable interacting with them.

I thank the Transport Committee Clerks and organisers who arranged for a number of Committee members to have a ride in an autonomous vehicle with Wayve yesterday. I have been fortunate to do that on a couple of occasions with the Transport Committee, and there are obvious signs of improvement. However, it is a confidence issue—for safety reasons, there was a driver there who could intervene, and we only did a little circuit from Whitehall over Westminster bridge past St Thomas’s and Lambeth Palace, and back past Parliament Square. Even though there was no intervention from the safety driver, there is the issue of how someone would feel if there was no driver present. It is psychological— one must have the confidence to do that.

I was in an autonomous bus quite recently with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. It is a confidence issue. One cannot underestimate the public’s willingness to engage with this technology if that confidence is not there. Part of the argument we are making with amendments 19 and 20 is to try to ensure that we have the highest possible level of public confidence and trust.

As I mentioned earlier, the Transport Committee’s findings were published in its report on self-driving vehicles on 15 September. The Committee expressed concern about the assumption that self-driving vehicles will automatically be safer than human drivers. We said that that is not a given. Rigorous safety measures must be an overriding priority for self-driving vehicles as they are faced with the complexities and unpredictable nature of real-world driving.

I draw the Minister’s attention to the definitions of “safety” and “legally” in clause 1(7)(a) and (b), which I have just mentioned. They define “safety” as only

“to an acceptably safe standard”,

while “legally” means

“with an acceptably low risk of committing a traffic infraction.”

The Opposition and many organisations do not believe that those provide adequate protections for drivers, passengers and pedestrians, and they are unlikely to achieve the improvement in road safety that the introduction of AV technology could deliver. I support amendments 19 and 20, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central and Labour spokespeople, which propose to

“leave out ‘an acceptably safe standard’ and insert ‘a high standard of safety’”,

as well as

“leave out ‘an acceptably’ and insert ‘a very’”,

when referring to the low level of a traffic infraction. I would like to add that that is a position supported by Cycling UK, as stated in the written evidence submitted to the Committee.

While we accept that self-driving vehicles could potentially reduce casualties—we learned yesterday and in previous examples that the traffic management systems do not allow those vehicles to speed, so there would be less speeding than with human drivers—there are others factors to consider. During the Transport Committee inquiry which led to the “Self-driving vehicles” report, Becky Guy from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents told us that, while many collisions involve human error, there were often other contributory factors. That was a view shared by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which said that accidents attributable to humans are often caused by poor road and vehicle design and difficult driving conditions, such as rapidly changing weather conditions. Therefore, we cannot rely on the omittance of human error to improve the safety of our roads. We must hold AVs to a high standard of safety with a very low risk of committing a traffic infraction by supporting amendments 19 and 20. Without those amendments, there is a risk that the safety standards for AVs will not be strong enough.

[Anthony Browne]

As I set out in my response to the hon. Member for Sefton Central, when he was making the case for the amendments, there is not a sufficient appreciation of the word, “acceptable”. I know that in English it can sound a bit vague, but it means what is acceptable for the public and Parliament as expressed through the statement of safety principles. I completely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Easington that we need to bring the public with us and it is about confidence—absolutely.

[Anthony Browne]

I agree that technologies are evolving all over the place in lots of different modes of transport, and we are at the beginning of a revolution. I think that self-driving cars are probably a different order of magnitude.

[Grahame Morris]

That is driver assistance.

[Anthony Browne]

Yes, as the hon. Member for Easington said, that is slightly different, but the technologies are related. Self-driving cars are of a different order of consideration because there is literally no human there and the cars may travel at speed, so we absolutely have to ensure that they are as safe as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

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

“a step-change in road safety”,

not just a marginal improvement. It continues:

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

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

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

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

[Grahame Morris]

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

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

[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.

[Anthony Browne]

I thank the hon. Members for Sefton Central and for Easington for their contributions.

Clause 2 does indeed relate to the statement of safety principles. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Easington was suggesting that we include in primary legislation a requirement for kangaroo-detection technologies in cars. I have not been to Easington recently, so I do not know how many kangaroos they have there. I jest; the hon. Gentleman made a lot of very sensible points, although they are not for this stage of the process but for the statement of safety principles. The level of detail he was talking about will come at that stage. As I have said before, and as is in the legislation, we will consult with road user groups and road safety groups. We have already done so, and we committed to them to carry on that process.

I want to make it clear that we think the amendments are unnecessary because they are, in effect, already in the legislation. We share the ambition completely: autonomous vehicles should obviously be safer for all road users, and particularly for vulnerable road users, including partially sighted pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians and so on. However, that is actually already clear in the legislation. As with the highway code, references to road safety already legally apply to all road users, including the groups that I mentioned. The Government have already committed in the policy scoping notes that the statement of safety principles should be fair and equal and apply to all road users so that some are not advantaged at the expense of others. We have already committed to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

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

[Grahame Morris]

They have wallabies in Derbyshire.

[Bill Esterson]

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

[Grahame Morris]

People who are inebriated, for example.

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

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

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

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

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

[Grahame Morris]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anthony Browne]

Clause 2 relates to the statement of safety principles, which we have previously discussed. I will not go over that again, other than to reiterate that a lot of the issues that are being discussed now and in the various roundtables that we have had with road safety groups and so on are valid issues, but they are issues that need to be addressed as we get into the detail of the statement of safety principles.

On amendments 12 and 13 about consultation, we have already committed to consulting with road users, road safety groups, and businesses in the industry. The statement of safety principles will be subject to public consultation. We fully expect that the wide-ranging views of the public, businesses, academia and other representative bodies will be able to feed into that consultation.

[Grahame Morris]

Can the Minister give some clarification on the composition of the advisory committee, or is that still a matter that the Government are considering?

[Anthony Browne]

We have committed within the legislation to consult with road users, road safety groups and businesses in the industry—and others will be able to feed in. We did not want to be more specific about exactly which groups, because they change over time; they merge, they close down, and new ones open up. We did not want to bind our hands and say that it must be exactly those groups, but they are broad, representative groups.

We are in full agreement that we have to take the public with us. It would be wrong for the Government to proceed in a way that did not bring road safety groups with us. The ambition here is to make roads safer. It is in the Bill that AV should be safer than the average human driver and will improve road safety. That is the whole point of the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

Could the Minister give a little more clarification on the composition of the advisory committee? Will highways authorities be represented? I know the Minister said that over time more organisations would be involved, but given that the digitalisation of the information will be key and there are issues about that, it would seem sensible to have them represented on the committee.

[Anthony Browne]

I am happy to give a commitment that I will consult with highways authorities, but we are not going to move beyond road user groups, road safety groups and businesses in the industry as the statutory consultees, with the full expectation that the full range of groups that are interested in this issue will be able to have input. As I have said, the statement of safety principles will be subject to public consultation.

The hon. Gentleman mentions highways authorities. The Department for Transport talks at every level almost every single day with highways authorities about almost every single issue. They are well versed in all this. This will be subject to public consultation, so I am not sure what amendments 12 and 13 would add.

On amendment 14, I have said that I would be amazed if a future Government did not review this, because the technology is changing. It is highly unlikely that we will get this right first time and that it will never be changed, but I do not think it is right to bind the hands of a future Government on the timing of the review, and the need to conduct one every five years. We might find that there are lots of problems earlier on and want to review things beforehand, or that everything is going amazingly well in five or 10 years—if we complete the review every five years—and everyone is very happy with it, and then we would be doing a formal review of something that everyone was happy with. It is far better not to bind the hands of future Governments.

There is also a requirement within the legislation for a duty of monitoring by the Secretary of State on the application of the statement of safety principles. That will be published every year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. Amendment 25 seeks clarity on whether the authorisation of pavement robot vehicles can be within the scope of the Bill, and ensures that the safety of other road users is not negatively affected.

The amendment questions whether the Bill includes regulation for delivery robots. It is an opportunity for colleagues to consider whether we have thought about how the framework might be different from that for the automated vehicle framework and how it would be the same. This could well be a key missed opportunity in the Bill, and investment could be taken elsewhere if we lose out on economic gains because of the grey areas and lack of clarity. Pavement use is a grey area because the robots contain motors and a pavement is legally defined as part of the road. This question is within the Bill’s scope, yet clearly the regulation of vehicles that primarily use the pavement must be different from the regulation for those that use roads.

Pavement robots need clear regulation—for example, to ensure that they do not negatively affect disabled people, or that they are regulated only on pavements that are wide enough. Asda and Wayve have an ongoing trial of delivery services, and Starship already serves communities in Milton Keynes, Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire and West Yorkshire—in fact, I have visited a site in the Wakefield constituency. The DFT plans to conduct research on pavement use, but if primary legislation is needed to enact what comes from the findings the issue may remain unresolved for years, meaning that the UK will continue to fall behind other nations and lose critical investment opportunities.

As I have seen in my Wakefield constituency, there is a lot of potential in the principle of delivery robots. They deal with the final mile from where the lorry drops off its load to when the parcel gets to the individual dwelling. I find them particularly good for people in my constituency who are socially isolated. Using electric robots for that last mile rather than diesel vans, as often happens currently, has the potential to make a big contribution to our net zero commitments.

Starship has called for the regulation of the sector, because the lack of regulation has the potential to impact on investment decisions. In fact, Leeds City Council and Cambridge City Council did a survey that showed between 75% and 93% approval of the service provided by Starship Technologies. Between the Lords Minister and the Commons Minister there seem to be some crossed wires as to whether robot delivery vehicles are within the Bill’s scope, so some clarity on that would be good.

Amendments 17 and 16 and new clause 4 aim to improve transparency on the impact of AVs, to ensure that the public are properly informed and to increase Parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 17 would mean that the sellers of automated vehicles might be required to demonstrate how each of the automated features were engaged and disengaged. That is critical in terms of transparency. Amendment 16 would require authorised self-driving entities to publish an equality impact assessment to assess the impact on other road users—including, crucially, disabled people.

New clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to commission a study on the transition period in respect of users in charge, to be laid before Parliament. The insurance company AXA has said that there is still debate over how long it would take for a user in charge not only to take back control but to understand their surroundings, fully re-engage with the driving task and react safely to an obstacle that the self-driving vehicle was incapable of dealing with.

Overall, the amendments and new clause 4 would provide greater transparency and reassurance to consumers, which I am sure Members will agree is crucial, and nowhere more so than in respect of the safety of AVs for all road users. In chapter 5.7 of its report, the Law Commission states that equality impact assessments must be published, but there is no reference to such assessments anywhere in the Bill. There is, then, a need for clarity on transition demands. The policy scoping notes, and the Minister on the Floor of the House, committed to equity of impacts, so why is that not on the face of the Bill, given that the Minister knows how important it is? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Grahame Morris]

I want to make a few points in support of my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. As he rightly said, clause 3 would enable the Government to authorise a vehicle as an automated vehicle if it met the self-driving test and if other authorisation requirements were met. That is both a safety and an insurance issue, so it is fundamental to what the Bill is intended to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

I will write to the shadow Minister.

On amendment 17, the hon. Member for Wakefield mentioned the requirement for sellers of self-driving vehicles to demonstrate features to prospective buyers. The legislation includes requirements to communicate with end users. There is a requirement on ASDEs—I do not think that we have mentioned authorised self-driving entities yet. ASDEs are authorised to sell the technology for self-driving cars, and they will be required to communicate with end users.

There are multiple troubles with requiring someone selling a vehicle to demonstrate to the person buying it. One issue is that the person buying a vehicle will often not be the person using it, and what matters is the demonstration to the user. Imagine someone buying a vehicle on behalf of a car club, for example, or a private sale: someone selling their car might not be qualified to give demonstrations of the technology to someone else. It is far more appropriate for the ASDE, whose technology it is, to do that. As I said, the Bill already requires ASDEs to communicate with end users about how the technology works. That covers this issue. Amendment 17 would have too many unintended consequences.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being generous. If the ASDE in North America, say, is doing the sale and the updates remotely, will the legislation still be binding and apply to it and its liabilities? I am thinking of the insurance risk.

[Anthony Browne]

It absolutely would. To be authorised, the ASDE is required to be competent and financially sound. Clearly, the legislation needs to be binding on the ASDE wherever it is, or we could not regulate or authorise it.

New clause 4 is about transition demands, as we call them, although I do not think the hon. Member for Wakefield used that term in the new clause. It is important to get the right timing for transition demands. The Bill already requires a robust approach to ensuring that the user in charge—the transition demand relates to the user-in-charge feature; it goes back to them taking control from the self-driving feature—can respond safely to a transition demand and that they are aware of their responsibilities. As the hon. Member mentioned, we are already doing research on this fast-moving area, but ultimately what transition demand is appropriate depends on the use case: it might be different for someone driving on the motorway compared with someone doing some urban driving or operating a taxi or delivery vehicle.

How the transition demand works should be set out in the authorisation of the ASDE. Again, we are getting more and more data on the matter, and research is being done. It needs to be flexible because it depends on the individual case, so I do not think there is a need to set out in law that there should be research on it. Essentially, the new clause is unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

We are making such fantastic progress; I thought I ought to speak on some of the clauses, for the record.

Clause 24 is about the duty of candour requirement on regulated bodies, such as the ASDEs and the no-user-in-charge operators, to provide accurate information to Government. The issue is particularly important because it has been raised with me in many different environments and has been a concern in other jurisdictions. If we are to get the technology right, it is essential that we learn from the process. However, that can happen only if the companies in the industry are completely open with the Government and investigators with the information they have. If they see anything going wrong, they should be completely frank and open about it. That has not always happened in other countries and it has caused problems.

The duty of candour is not new—there are similar things in the pharmaceutical industry—but it is incredibly important that the companies developing the new technology know the expectations on them to be completely open and frank with the public. That is the only way we will have improvements and advance the technology.

[Grahame Morris]

This is an important part of the Bill. Is the Minister in a position to share with us the discussions with the insurance industry? It is a key issue that, if a vehicle is autonomous and is being driven in autonomous mode, the liability presumably rests not with the passenger or the driver but with the provider—the manufacturer and the software provider. The Transport Committee met a number of industry representatives, who flagged to us the difficulty of quantifying the risk, as well as the need for candour in identifying whether the issue is systems failure or driver error because the driver intervened with the system. Is the Minister in a position to enlighten us?

[Anthony Browne]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point; indeed, I have met representatives of the insurance industry about it. There are two points about the Bill that are relevant. One is that it creates the powers to set up independent investigators. Whenever there is an incident or a collision, they will investigate what the cause was and what the lessons to be learned from it are. That is a really important process in terms of improving the technology and ensuring that things that go wrong do not happen again.

The hon. Gentleman made a valid point on insurance. If there is an accident, the insurance industry first needs to know if the vehicle was in self-driving mode and who is liable. Is it the ASDE or the driver? Secondly, it needs to know what actually went wrong. There are therefore provisions in the Bill to require the regulated entities—the ASDE or the no-user-in-charge operator—to provide data to third parties such as insurance companies. Obviously, we protect the data privacy of individuals, and nothing in this legislation changes the data protection rules. However, the point is absolutely valid: we need to ensure that the data is available to investigators and insurance companies.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 25 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Warrants for entry, search and seizure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Anthony Browne]

I will make a brief point about the clauses, because they will be a source of concern for many people. It is therefore good to put on the record that the clauses give the investigators and authorities powers not just to do thorough investigations of data, as we just talked about, but to enter and search premises to take away materials and so on. We must ensure that we have full powers to really understand what has gone wrong, if and when something goes wrong, so these clauses ensure that the investigators have all the powers they could possibly need to do that.

[Grahame Morris]

The vital point was made on Second Reading that there should be proper investigations —I am sure the insurance industry would be vociferous about this—where the owner or operator of a vehicle has carried out modifications or not maintained the vehicle adequately—it may be tyre wear or brake pad removal. Even though it is an autonomous vehicle and is not being driven by a human driver, the human owner has responsibility for maintaining it in a roadworthy condition. Presumably, if that was the cause of the accident, the investigators would be able to determine that and apportion blame and liability.

[Anthony Browne]

Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a lot of very valid points based on his time on the Transport Committee. Cars that have the no-user-in-charge feature must have a licensed operator, and the form and details of the licence will depend on exactly how the vehicle operates and its use case. For a fleet of taxis of the type that Waymo has in America, the NUICO—the no-user-in-charge operator—will be responsible for the maintenance of the vehicles, including the tyre wear and the brake pads, and for ensuring they have not been tampered with.

If it is an individual driver with their own car—this is a long, long way down the line, and I do not think anyone expects this to happen in the next few years—it might be reasonable to expect them to be responsible for the tyre wear and the maintenance. If they make any modifications that nullify the action of the self-driving feature, they would have liability for that. We would not expect the no-user-in-charge operator to be responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of the car, but they would be responsible if something goes wrong when the vehicle is in no-user-in-charge mode.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 38

General monitoring duty

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Anthony Browne]

As I said, this was discussed at considerable length by the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission of England and Wales. They thought that understanding of user-in-charge mode and immunity would be very difficult to get across to the public if the rules varied as they drove around Great Britain. The Government agree that it is good to have consistency on these rules. The interaction on devolved matters is incidental and very limited. It is only about immunity for the user-in-charge mode; it does not apply to anything else, such as the volume of alcohol in someone’s blood as they drive across the border. We think it would create confusion and that would be detrimental to all.

Ultimately, we absolutely respect devolution. We do not support the amendments, because we think they would cause confusion and detriment, but I am very happy to meet both the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North—I said that on Second Reading; unfortunately, we did not manage to arrange a meeting before Committee stage—and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport so that we can work out a way forward.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I wonder if the Minister can clarify something, because it is not just on the Opposition side of the Committee that there are concerns about the use of delegated powers by the Secretary of State. Indeed, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee produced a report that identified clause 50 as an example of a Henry VIII power, so is it unreasonable to seek an assurance from the Minister? I served on the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill Committee with Mr Vickers, who chaired this morning’s sitting, and we regularly sought assurances or undertakings. There is a difference. A statutory undertaking would probably be in the Bill about a particular action, but the Minister gave an assurance to my colleague the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North earlier that there would be the necessary consultations with the devolved Administrations. In what circumstances would these powers be used in the event that there was no agreement about a particular measure in relation to the user in charge?

[Anthony Browne]

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, the reason for these powers is that there are thousands of different traffic offences, and they are all designed for cars with a human driver who is responsible. In moving to user-in-charge mode, we are making sure that the user in charge has immunity of some form, because it is the software that is in control of the car, not them. If we did not do it this way, we would have to change thousands of pieces of legislation. That simply would not be possible, and it would not be possible to go ahead with user-in-charge-mode immunity.

[Grahame Morris]

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

[Gavin Newlands]

An imposition.

[Grahame Morris]

An imposition—thank you.

[Anthony Browne]

As I said at the beginning, we think the question of the user-in-charge immunity—and this is all it is about—is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998. That is our position and our legal advice— I have been through this with lawyers a few times. We respect devolution and do not want to create any changes to the balance there. The hon. Member for Easington asked why we had not talked to the Scottish Government, but we have. Officials have had lots of talks, I have had exchanges of letters, and I have already given a commitment that I am very happy to meet the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to go through this in more detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

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

[Grahame Morris]

Is that an assurance or an undertaking?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

I will mention the role of the investigators before commenting on the amendment. Clause 60 introduces the concept of investigation of incidents by statutory inspectors, which will allow for the creation of independent capability to investigate incidents involving authorised automated vehicles. The clause requires the Secretary of State to appoint at least one person to be an inspector of automated vehicle incidents. Clause 61 then states that the role of those inspectors is

“identifying, improving understanding of, and reducing the risks of harm arising from the use of”

self-driving vehicles in Great Britain.

Like the existing UK transport investigation branches for air and maritime, the inspectors will conduct safety investigations into incidents involving at least one authorised self-driving vehicle. It will not be their role to apportion blame or liability; instead, they will draw on all the available evidence to publish reports and recommendations that ultimately improve the safety of self-driving vehicles, in line with recommendation 32 of the Law Commission’s report. I stress that their role is analogous to those in other sectors such as air and maritime.

That brings me to amendment 15. I should say at the outset that we are very committed to ensuring maximum accessibility for different user groups—that is part of the reason for introducing this legislation to start with. Many of the points that need to be made are in clause 82, to which the Opposition have tabled an amendment. I will address those questions in more detail when we come on to that clause.

I recognise the importance of accessibility, but I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, or that this is the right place to ensure greater accessibility. While inspectors will identify the causes of incidents, which could include issues around the accessibility of the vehicle, it is not their purpose to replace vehicle safety inspections or to ensure that vehicle safety is in line with accessibility requirements. Safety investigation is a long-standing practice, both in the UK and internationally, and under no circumstances would we wish to break precedent by adding to an inspector’s role in such a way.

[Grahame Morris]

I seek clarification on a couple of issues in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. I am not sure whether the Minister gave us this assurance in his remarks, so can he confirm whether the inspectorate will in due course become part of the road safety investigation branch that the Government committed to setting up in June 2022, when the Law Commission first looked into this, to prevent future incidents and make our roads safer?

Clearly, this is an evolving technology; this morning, the hon. Member for Copeland mentioned advanced driver assistance systems such as adaptive cruise control, lane-changing features and parking assist, which assist the driver but do not enable the vehicle to drive itself. Those features are in effect earlier versions of this evolving technology, which we believe will lead to autonomous self-driving vehicles. While those ADAS features are not automated, it is essential, in any investigation following an accident, that potential pitfalls—I can think of a number, particularly in parking—are identified at an early stage, in case it is a software or system failure that could be corrected. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether the inspectorate will look at accidents involving advanced driver assistance systems, as well as self-driving vehicles, at this stage?

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

I want to reinforce those points to the Minister. He is a reasonable person and I am sure he gets this, given that we have raised the issues of access and the rights of people with disabilities on several occasions now.

I remind the Minister—I am sure he remembers—that the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association ran a successful campaign to contact many MPs about the value of talking buses. I did an exercise in which I wore a blindfold. It is incredible—I thought I knew the route, but I struggled without that aid. There are other examples. We should not overlook the need to ensure that people with sight loss are catered for in the provisions on this new and exciting technology.

[Anthony Browne]

Before I address the amendment, I will set out a bit of background. The existing law on taxi, private hire and public service vehicle licensing is predicated on having a professional driver in the vehicle, which makes the application of the current licensing laws to automated passenger services complex and uncertain. Recognising this uncertainty, the Law Commissions recommended the creation of an alternative, bespoke permitting system for passenger services.

Holders of valid automated passenger service permits will, then, not be subject to existing taxi, private hire and public service vehicle law when operating within the terms of their permit. Permits will be issued by the appropriate national authorities: the Secretary of State in England and relevant Ministers in devolved Administrations. The Bill therefore provides broad flexibility over the terms of passenger permits to ensure that we can respond appropriately.

That brings me to the hon. Member for Wakefield’s amendment. The permit system already allows us to mandate that such information be provided to users in accessible formats. That power is already there and we have already committed—I know the hon. Gentleman will come to this in a moment—to having an advisory council of accessibility and disabled groups for public service vehicles and taxis. Crucially, as permit conditions can be specific to the service in question, the existing system operates in a way that is more flexible than the approach proposed in the amendment. For example, the provision for bus-like services could be very different from that for taxi-like services. We want to retain that flexibility.

The amendment is not necessary because the power is already there. We already have a consultation on an advisory board for disabled and accessibility groups. Part of the reason for the legislation is that it improves accessibility for a whole range of different user groups, and we are committed to doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

New clause 2, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, sets out that the accessible format of AVs being used as public transport will be set out in regulations. That would bring AVs in line with section 17 of the Bus Services Act 2017. It is similar to amendment 10 but has a wider scope. The requirement to consult with Welsh and Scottish Ministers would increase the transparency of the regulations to allow for proper scrutiny.

As I mentioned in the previous debate, we do not know what this technology is going to be used for or exactly how it is going to develop. We need to ensure that it will be accessible to disabled people no matter what the use case. Again, as I mentioned when speaking to amendment 10, disabled people are mentioned only in clause 87. That makes the Bill nowhere near clear or detailed enough.

For people with sight loss who use passenger services, both identifying and reaching a vehicle at the start of a journey and leaving it and making their way to a destination at the end of a journey can be difficult, even with a human driver to assist. It is important to reiterate that, as with amendment 10, there needs to be a clear and consistent standard for AVs when they are used as public transport, to make their location clear to passengers with sight loss when they make a pick-up—for example, with an audible signal. They should also be equipped to provide clear directions to get a passenger from a vehicle to their destination. During the journey there may be instances when a passenger needs to give further input to the automated driving system or remote operator. For instance, if a vehicle is delayed or diverted, a passenger may be asked whether they wish to continue their journey or stop at an alternative destination. The information must be presented in an accessible format that does not require the visual cues of a map or sight of the situation outside a vehicle to respond to.

As I mentioned when speaking to amendment 10, the UK currently has a 38% accessibility transport gap, which means that disabled people as defined under the Equality Act 2010 take 38% fewer trips than those without disabilities. That is linked to the point about disability groups being embedded in the process and consulted from the start, not only in respect of the statement of safety principles but throughout the Bill’s implementation and the establishment of an advisory council.

[Grahame Morris]

I rise to speak to clause 85 and new clause 2. My understanding of the explanatory notes in respect of clause 85 is that automated passenger services that resemble a taxi would have to obtain a relevant local taxi licence. I hope that that is correct.

[Anthony Browne]

indicated assent.

[Grahame Morris]

I agree with that; I do not have a problem with it. However, one of the issues raised this morning, which the Minister indicated was outside the scope of the Bill but in hand, related to licensing schemes for non-road vehicles such as delivery robots. I believe they operate in the Minister’s local area, and they certainly operate in Milton Keynes. They are very popular, but we are talking about people with disabilities. As the robots are more widely deployed, there is a risk of them causing obstruction or injury if the Government do not address the issue. I know that is outside the scope of the Bill, but I want to flag it, because it is one of the issues that disability groups including the Royal National Institute of Blind People have raised with us.

There are several different scenarios in relation to new clause 2 in which autonomous vehicles can be used—from operating similarly to a taxi, which is what clause 85 is about, to operating a shared service such as a bus. In both cases, information concerning delays or diversions, when the passengers may wish to continue journeys or stop at alternative destinations, must be presented in an accessible format. On that, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, who made precisely the same points.

Normally there are a number of assessments with the explanatory notes. Has there been a disability impact assessment of the Bill’s implications? Have I missed that? Is this another occasion on which the Minister might indulge the Committee with an undertaking or an assurance that the issues relating to providing information to passengers, particularly those with disabilities and sight impairment, have not been forgotten by Government? Does he agree that people with disabilities should not be disadvantaged or excluded from this exciting new technology?

[Anthony Browne]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

One of the Bill’s provisions is about the digitisation of traffic regulation orders. I will not speak to that power, other than to say that the Bill gives the power to the Secretary of State to do that in England. Consultation with Ministers in the Welsh Government has confirmed that they would like similar powers. These minor amendments grant Welsh Ministers those powers. The amendments are entirely uncontroversial.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Amendments made: 3, in clause 93, page 67, line 17, at end insert—

“(1A) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make provision requiring a traffic regulation authority to provide prescribed information about a relevant traffic regulation measure for an area in Wales.”.

This amendment extends the power in clause 93 to the Welsh Ministers in relation to traffic regulation measures in Wales.

Amendment 4, in clause 93, page 67, line 20, leave out

“for an area in England”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.

Amendment 5, in clause 93, page 67, line 34, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “person making them”.—(Anthony Browne.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Grahame Morris]

My understanding is that the clause empowers the Secretary of State to require traffic regulation authorities to digitise traffic regulation orders and notices. The Minister explained this morning why that was so important, and it is set out in the supporting documentation. It is obviously vital for automated vehicles to be able to follow traffic rules, but this measure will have much wider benefits—for sat navs, for example, and for the ability of highway authorities to manage the signage and markings essential for communicating the regulations, such as temporary lane closures, road markings and changes to existing regulations.

Could the Minister explain one aspect? We discussed it just after lunch. The provision will not extend to Scotland and Wales, so how will it work when automated vehicles drive across the border? Can he guarantee that drivers will be informed, by some method, of the most up-to-date traffic regulations, so that they do not inadvertently break the law?

[Anthony Browne]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

I am really glad that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North was joking about his daughter’s birthday, because I would hate to be a source of big disappointment on her birthday. I know how important 14th birthdays are. He made an interesting point. How come, in all the Bill Committees that he has been to, people agree about what they want but disagree on the actual amendments? We want as much accessibility as possible for self-driving cars as well—we share that ambition—and we want as much safety as well, but we have our own ways that we have worked out are the best ways to get that. That is what we stick to. We make amendments when we think there is something that is genuinely better.

As a newish Member to this House, I make another observation. I have only been here while my party has been in government. It has struck me how many Opposition amendments basically tell the Government what to do. I understand that that comes from a frustration that they are not in government. That can change at elections—hopefully it will not, but that does happen. If you want to tell the Government what to do, you need to win an election.

[Grahame Morris]

I am trying to be helpful and would just remind the Minister that this is not a unique problem. In 2012, the then Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, paused the Government’s Health and Social Care Bill and rejected all the Labour and Opposition amendments in the Public Bill Committee, on which I served, and then brought back 1,000 amendments to his own Bill, many of which were Opposition amendments recycled. I am not suggesting that we should pause this Bill, but there is always the opportunity on Report to incorporate some of the suggestions that have been made.

[The Chair]

I am very grateful that the Minister did not table 1,000 amendments!

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

This is a complex and technical issue. As part of my extended engagement, I mentioned earlier that I have a roundtable coming up with the insurance industry about AVs and electric vehicles. I will happily write to the shadow Minister afterwards to clarify these points in black and white, and whether there are any issues resulting from that.

[Grahame Morris]

rose—

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on an intervention. Bill Esterson is speaking.

[Bill Esterson]

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

[Grahame Morris]

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

[Bill Esterson]

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