Great British Railways: Headquarters

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of York’s bid to host the headquarters of Great British Railways.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the City of York Council for its time and effort in preparing York’s case and for providing me with the updated details in advance of the debate.

Earlier this year, following the Williams-Shapps rail review, the Government announced their intention to create the new public body, Great British Railways. Billed as a modern-day successor to British Rail, Great British Railways will take on the responsibilities covered by Network Rail, as well as further responsibilities from the Department for Transport and the Rail Delivery Group. The new body will bring the ownership and management of the railways under one structure, with the organisation responsible for collecting revenue, running and planning the network and setting most fares and timetables.

On 4 October, the Transport Secretary announced that he was looking for a town or city to host the new headquarters of Great British Railways and, in doing so, become the home of the railways. In the next 10 minutes, I hope to persuade you, Mr Efford, and the Minister that York has always been and should remain the home of the railways, a fact that should be recognised by locating the new headquarters of Great British Railways in our great city.

York was first connected to the railway network more than 180 years ago and quickly became one of the best-connected cities in the UK, having direct rail access to more than 150 towns, cities and villages, representing a third of the UK’s population. To accommodate that, at the time of its completion in 1877, York station was the largest in the world; to date, it remains one of the most impressive.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate him on securing the debate. He has my full support. Does he agree that, with the National Railway Museum based in York, the city is already at the centre of our railway heritage, and that it therefore makes sense to make York the home of our railway future, as well as our past?

[Julian Sturdy]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, based on which I consider that he might have had sight of my speech, because I will come on to that point. He is absolutely right: we have to link the past with the future. York has an amazing rail heritage and the railway museum is at the heart of that. I will touch on that further. York has an amazing opportunity going forward and I want to touch on some of the sites—the York central site—that really can deliver for York, but also for our future rail centre.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Sturdy]

I am bound to agree with that, as someone who lives and works on the edge of York, as many people in this debate do. We all know what a fantastic place York is to live and to work in, which is surely a huge attraction when we need to attract the right skills to this new headquarters. York provides that attraction; there is absolutely no doubt about that.

As we have touched on, there are also universities, including the University of York. The number of people who initially study at the University of York but ultimately stay to live and work in the city or just around the city tells its own story. Great British Railways will need to attract people with skills, and York has that attraction, without a shadow of a doubt.

[Sir Greg Knight]

My hon. Friend is indeed making a very strong case for York. Is there not also a precedent for moving a national headquarters to York? Was it not Edward I who, in 1298, moved the Treasury to York?

[Julian Sturdy]

I bow to my right hon. Friend’s knowledge of history, but yes, absolutely—the precedent is there. This issue is also about the future, as we have said. Nevertheless, I entirely agree with him.

Despite York Central being an important and distinguishing feature of York’s bid, that bid is not dependent on an individual site. City of York Council has put forward several other existing city centre office buildings that it regards as viable options. Such is the compact nature of the city centre in York that Great British Railways can expect similar levels of connectivity and business engagement wherever it is ultimately located in our great city.

To sum up, York is most definitely the right choice for Great British Railways for four main reasons. First, there are the existing Network Rail facilities, the strong connectivity, the rail heritage and the availability of a range of convenient city centre sites. Secondly, it has a skilled workforce, accounting for over 10% of the workforce of the national rail industry, as it is located at the centre of the north-east Yorkshire rail cluster, which is the largest in the UK. Thirdly, it has a leading status in training and innovation, driven by local businesses, colleges and universities. Fourthly, York’s position at the heart of the UK rail network makes it an ideal national administrative base. However, even more than those reasons, there is York’s potential contribution to the Government’s goals of strengthening the Union and levelling up in the north of England, especially given its strong links to Scotland, the north-east of England, Manchester and all parts of Yorkshire.

I understand that this process will be a competitive one, and that other rail towns and cities are being quick to make clear their interests, and I will admit that I am probably biased, as many Members are about their constituencies. Nevertheless, I think that York’s case is extremely strong, and I know that it would be a source of great pride for our city, which has been so prominent in English and British history, if its next chapter could include the status that comes with being officially recognised as the home of the railways and of Great British Railways.

Thank you very much, Mr Efford, for calling me to speak. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Motor Insurance: Court Judgments

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of recent court judgments on the cost of motor insurance.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Bardell. I would also like to warmly welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), to her role. I am sure that she is going to be a great success.

Today, I want to make the case for the removal of the EU rules contained in the European Court of Justice judgment in the case of Damijan Vnuk v. Zava rovalnica Triglav d.d. I would like to thank my constituent Robert Rams and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau for alerting me to this problem and providing some very helpful briefing information.

Mr Vnuk was the victim of an accident involving a reversing tractor inside a barn in a farmyard in Slovenia. He took his compensation claim to the European Court of Justice. In the United Kingdom, an incident of this nature would be covered by our compulsory employer’s liability insurance regime, but not all EU member states have such a scheme to protect employees in the workplace. In its 2014 judgment, the ECJ therefore shoehorned Mr Vnuk’s compensation claim into the EU’s motor insurance law. In doing so, it extended the scope of compulsory motor insurance to accidents on private land involving a very broad range of vehicles—essentially, anything with wheels and a motor that does not run on rails, no matter where it is used or for what purpose. This is manifestly different from the compulsory motor insurance requirement in the Road Traffic Act 1988, which applies to vehicles that are permitted to be used on our streets and roads.

The UK’s approach to compulsory motor insurance has been consistent since the 1930s. It is proportionate and it works. However, Vnuk had direct effect in EU law, and that means that it forms part of the retained EU law imported on to our domestic statute book via the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As a result of cases in the UK courts, such as Lewis v. Tindale, the UK’s compensation fund for people injured by uninsured drivers is now obliged to pay out in the circumstances covered by the Vnuk judgment.

The UK compensation fund is run by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, and every driver who takes to our roads funds the scheme through their motor insurance premiums. The combined effect of the Vnuk and Lewis cases and the 2018 Act is that the scheme is now having to bear very significant costs for which it was never designed, and motorists are left picking up the bill. Let us be clear about what we are talking about here: accidents on private land, in private gardens, in farmer’s fields, on golf courses, inside supermarkets, in banks or in offices—the list is long. These are places where what has happened, or even the fact that anything occurred at all, will often be difficult to establish with any clarity, and that gives rise to worrying opportunities for fraud. The extension of compulsory insurance to motor sport is a further side effect of the case.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent case, and unfortunately this Chamber cannot legislate. However, is she aware that salvation is perhaps on its way from our hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)? He has a Bill before the House, the Motor Vehicle (Compulsory Insurance) Bill, the Second Reading of which is on 22 October, which should deal with the very point that she is making.

[Theresa Villiers]

I am aware of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). I will come to it in a moment and I hope it has the potential to solve the problem. The trouble is, can we get it through Parliament?

The extension to motorsports is problematic for many reasons. For many people who enjoy participating in motorsports the costs of the new requirement—even assuming they can get the compulsory cover, which must be doubtful in some cases—will be very high. I understand that motorsports organisations and many participants in those sports have raised serious concerns about the judgment and asked for it to be removed from UK law. Although of course we can have a legitimate debate on the potential extension of compulsory insurance and compensation schemes to new scenarios, there can be no justification for leaving drivers to shoulder the whole cost by artificially forcing these new liabilities into our existing motor insurance scheme.

The sums at stake are very large. The Government Actuary’s Department has estimated that total annual costs could rise to more than £2 billion, which would mean roughly an extra £50 on the insurance premium of every motorist in the United Kingdom. That will hit hardworking people who may be struggling to make ends meet.

Of course, £50 is an average, so a disproportionate increase in premiums is likely to fall on groups such as young drivers, who already pay more because they constitute a higher risk during their first years on the road. Businesses with fleets of vehicles will be hit hard at a time when they may be struggling already to recover from the effects of lockdown, and motorists in parts of the north of England, where in some cases premiums are higher, could also end up paying more, which would work against the Government’s laudable levelling-up aspirations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am extremely glad to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), for whom I have the highest regard as a lawyer, a member of the Conservative party that delivered Brexit and—if she does not mind my using the expression—a spartan, because she was one of the people who brought about the situation that we are happily in at the moment, whereby we have the ability to repeal legislation and to deal with some of the problems that she mentioned. In particular, I would mention the fact that the primary legislation in question would be authorised by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, section 38(2)(b) of which enables us to override any EU law through an expressed and direct provision in our own primary legislation and therefore to deal with the problem as a piece of primary legislation.

I listened very carefully to what my right hon. Friend said about the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), which will receive its Second Reading on 22 October 2021. I merely venture to suggest that there are some precedents for private Members’ Bills to be given some additional oomph by the Government. If they put their mind to it and have the commitment to do it, which I certainly believe should be the case in this instance, it can be done. In fact, I did just that in relation to the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014, because the Government gave me full support for a Bill that was languishing at around No. 17 in the private Members’ ballot. The Act did some very substantial things, including imposing on our development aid projects the commitment and guarantee that we would make it a legal, judicially reviewable duty to enforce the protection of women and children in relation to international development aid. If the Government can do it for that, I would suggest that, given the scale of the problem, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet so expertly described, there is very good reason for them to give support to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and to ensure that we get the results that are needed in the national interest, as identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I agree with what my hon. Friend has to say. Does he agree that the quickest way to deal with this issue is for the Bill to go through on 22 October? He used the word “oomph”. It can go through quite simply, if the Government do not object to it. My understanding is that the Government are not going to object to it, but perhaps we could have some confirmation of that later.

[Sir William Cash]

I may say to my right hon. Friend, who is a very good friend of mine, that that is a very welcome piece of news, because this is exactly what happened in the case of the International Development (Gender Equality) Act. What happened was that the Clerks in the House were sitting there with bated breath to hear whether anyone was going to object, because all that has to be done on such an occasion is simply for any Member to object. It does not have to be a Whip; it can be any Member of the House. On that occasion, we got down to about No. 17 or 18 on the list—wherever I was. There was complete silence, and the Bill went through. That is what can happen, and I therefore strongly agree with what my right hon. Friends the Members for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) and for Chipping Barnet have said. I think this is a potential opportunity.

I was very interested in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said regarding the question of what the EU was up to at that stage. I am speaking as the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, and we shall keep an eye of these matters. We also propose reports, bring forward suggestions and inform the House accordingly in Hansard and so forth. On 30 June 2021, as my right hon. Friend said, the European Commission announced a decision to waive the requirement for UK drivers to show a motor insurance green card when entering the European Union. The decision needs to be fully implemented through publication in the official journal, and there is a waiting period of 20 days, so in the short term green cards are still needed.

The point I want to make is that on 29 June, the Transport Secretary published a ministerial statement, along the lines that my right hon. Friend mentioned, on the motor insurance directive—removal of Vnuk, in other words. It states the Government’s commitment, which the Minister announced on the Floor of the House:

“To remove the effects of the…ruling in the Vnuk case from GB law.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2021; Vol. 698, c. 8WS.]

Putting two and two together, if the Minister has said that the Government intend to remove the effects of it, and we have also the opportunity through the private Member’s Bill, and we know it is precedented for the Government to take the action I have described, I see the potential for a fair wind for this. That will be a tribute, not only to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, who has spoken today, but also my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough.

I would like to touch on the principles that underpin the issue of EU retained law. I will outline it by saying that the issue of EU retained law in this context arises partly in relation to the Road Traffic Act 1988, which has not yet been amended to comply with the European Court of Justice decision. Legislative change is necessary, as my right hon. Friend has said, to bring clarity on the matter, given that pre-exit European Court of Justice case law is now part of UK domestic law, as retained EU case law.

Given that, what is going to happen next? I will give a description of the extent, nature and depth of what my right hon. Friend for Chipping Barnet has rightly put forward, in one instance, with huge financial consequences, with the EU going into reverse, and the absurdity of our being in a position where the EU deals with it in its legislation and we are stuck with it in ours. I am now going to address the question of where I think the Government’s navigation should go.

In June 2016, just before the referendum, I was responsible for bringing forward a Bill that set out the basis on which the legislation after we won the referendum—as I was confident we would do—could be dealt with. There is a huge body of legislation, some of which I will refer to in general in a few minutes. Given the scale of the problem, the best thing to do was to deem all EU law as part of UK law, so that at least we grabbed hold of it as a whole, then we could deal with it on a piecemeal basis.

My Bill was one and a half pages long. The Bill we ended up confronting under the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), went far further and more regressively—if that is not a contradiction in terms—than was necessary, by incorporating the whole concept of EU retained law and the principles of EU law. With it came the assertion in section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 that the courts, if they wish to do so, given the circumstances of a case, would be enabled to quash any Acts of Parliament, if inconsistent with the judgments that they came to in interpreting the issues before them.

That is all very well, but those of us who are acquainted with the manner in which EU law was implemented under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, know very well that the Factortame case was the example above all others where the whole of the fishing industry was thrown into chaos, with Spanish fishermen invading our waters. The issue in question turned on the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. I remember saying to the Attorney General at the time that I thought it was a very unwise business for them to do introduce that Act, unless they put at the beginning, “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972.” Had they done that, then the judgment in Factortame, which struck down the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, could not have taken place because the courts would have been under an obligation to comply with the provisions of the Act, which would have said notwithstanding the Act of Parliament in question, the UK could legislate on its own account.

I referred to section 38(2) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which specifically contains the words “notwithstanding” and “direct effect”. It is notwithstanding the direct effect of any provisions that are on the statute book as part of EU retained law, and it enables us to override the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act and, some may care to note, the Northern Ireland protocol. So, the law is in place.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet indicated, it can be done by primary legislation. I am just adding a bit of flavour as to how it came about and how it can be done. I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and what he said in the context of the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough.

I turn to the question of the absurd situation identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and what the Prime Minister said about it some time ago, using very strong language. If it was an absurd position before he was Prime Minister, it is doubly so now, and that is why we need to tackle it. The intention behind the grandfathering, as it is called, in EU retained law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Knight Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts]

All the funding currently available to Access for All has been allocated to projects, including nearby Accrington station, with works due to be completed by 2024 at the latest. When further funding is available, any station without an accessible route into the station and to all platforms will be a potential candidate.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]]

Ministers are aware that E10 fuel, due to be introduced from September 2021, is not compatible with all motor vehicles, and that older vehicles in particular can suffer serious damage if they use it. What extra measures do the Government intend to take, therefore, to ensure that motorists are fully aware of these dangers, so that they do not in error fill their vehicles with the wrong fuel? Can the Minister also assure me that the information on the gov.uk website on whether a vehicle can run on E10 fuel or not is completely up to date, comprehensive and correct?

[Grant Shapps]

I can reassure my right hon. Friend that that website is already up to date and will be accurate. It is the case that some older vehicles and historic vehicles—the type of cars which I know he is very keen on—cannot run on E10 fuel. It will be clearly marked, and he will be pleased to hear that E5 will continue to be available, so that historic cars can continue to travel on our roads.

Draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Order 2019

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2019 General Committees

[Jesse Norman]

I am fully able to confirm that. If I am allowed to finish my speech, I will say that 2,500 post offices are already primed and ready to issue the permits.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum refers to two conventions: the 1968 convention and the 1949 convention. If someone applies for an international driving permit, will it cover only one of those conventions, or will it be a dual-purpose permit that covers both?

[Jesse Norman]

We are presently discussing the 1968 convention. Applying for such a permit now enables travel to countries that it would not have been possible to travel to post EU exit. For countries governed by the 1949 convention, a further IDP will be required.

[Sir Greg Knight]

My concern is that most British holidaymakers go to Spain—it is the No. 1 destination—but, as I understand it, Spain is covered by the 1949 convention and not the 1968 convention. Someone who wishes to go to Spain and who applies for the 1968 convention permit will therefore not be allowed to drive in Spain. I am anxious that the public are not misled, with ensuing chaos.

[Jesse Norman]

My right hon. Friend’s point is well taken; he is absolutely right to point out that Spain is governed by the other convention. People travelling to Spain will need that IDP. If they are travelling to Spain through France, they will need an IDP for both countries. That is well set out on the Post Office website and other websites, including gov.uk. We hope that will do a lot to alleviate any possible concerns.

The document would guarantee the recognition of UK driving licences after exit day and will also recognise 1968 format IDPs when presented by overseas visitors to Great Britain, in the same way we already do in this country for IDPs issued under the earlier 1949 Geneva convention and the 1926 Paris convention. All formats of IDP will cost £5.50, which, it is important to emphasise, is a charge that has not increased since 2004.

Although UK nationals will not be required to purchase an IDP if, as we expect, this country achieves agreements across the EU, the amendment is still required as the 1968 format IDP will be required to guarantee licences when driving in over 75 countries outside the EU. It is therefore important that the amendment is approved, since the 1968 Vienna convention will still come into force on 28 March 2019, irrespective of whether the UK ceases to be subject to EU law on 29 March or at the end of the implementation period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I have learned over many years that interventions from the hon. Gentleman are rarely short, and this has been no exception. I meet the insurance industry very regularly, and I promise him that its representations have not been unheard or unmade in this context. He is right to highlight them, but they are only one part of the wider picture. This order has no direct effect on insurance as such; it is about the driving permits themselves.

UK motorists drive to Europe every year, using ferries or the Eurotunnel, and they drive in Europe, whether for business or leisure. UK holidaymakers rightly want the option of hiring a car while abroad. Although the Government are still in the process of achieving agreements with the EU, as I have described, we are committed to minimising disruption to UK motorists following our exit. The Department is taking the appropriate measures to facilitate that.

The 1968 convention facilitates international road traffic and increases road safety through consistent traffic rules. In preparation for exit day, this country ratified the 1968 Vienna convention on 28 March 2018. That international agreement will come into force one year later, on 28 March—the day before the UK leaves the EU. Following exit day, the convention will guarantee the recognition of UK vehicles and driving licences when used in 23 EU member states, plus Norway and Switzerland and more than 70 other countries globally. The earlier 1926 and 1949 conventions also remain in place, guaranteeing UK licences in four EU member states, plus Iceland and more than 40 countries globally, including Japan and the USA, if the motorist presents the supporting IDP with their driving licence.

[Sir Greg Knight]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Is there any legal reason why the Government cannot issue a comprehensive permit that covers all the conventions? Otherwise, a motorist will have to have two or three permits in his pocket.

[Jesse Norman]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask that question—as he can imagine, it was the first question that I and officials asked. It is not possible in law because of the nature of the conventions and the relationships they bear to one another. We are fettered by the way in which the international structure of those conventions works. I would like nothing better than to have a consolidated format that could be applied for, but unfortunately it is simply not possible because of the way the treaties work.

The changes made by this statutory instrument will provide certainty for UK motorists driving in the EU following exit day in a no-deal scenario. The SI specifically will amend provisions of the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order 1975 to implement provisions of the 1968 convention concerning IDPs. These amendments will extend the 1975 order to the 1968 format IDP and extend the power to charge a fee for the issue of IDPs to IDPs issued under the 1968 convention in addition to those issued under the earlier conventions. The 1968 format IDP will cost £5.50 and will be valid for three years. This amendment therefore ensures that UK motorists can exercise their international legal rights to drive in the countries that are party to the 1968 convention once it comes into force for the UK on 28 March of this year.

The amendments also provide for the recognition of a 1968 IDP issued to non-UK residents by another country that is party to the convention, for those who may be temporarily visiting the UK. Although the UK will continue to recognise both EU and non-EU driving licences for up to 12 months, IDPs may provide immediate recognition and legitimacy at the roadside if the licence is not printed in the Roman alphabet. While we are still seeking agreements with member states on licence recognition and exchange, the SI will ensure that IDPs provide certainty for UK motorists who seek to travel in the EU following exit day.

IDPs under previous international conventions have been issued for many years, so the concept is not new, but the SI will expand the number of countries in which IDPs can be used and will enable the Government to issue a document covering them for the 1968 convention. The 1968 format IDP has a longer validity period and therefore reduces the frequency of reissue. To ensure that UK drivers will be able to get hold of these documents, we have significantly increased the numbers of issuing post offices: from this Friday—assuming that the Committee is content with the SI—2,500 post office branches will be issuing the document to licence holders, a huge increase compared with the 89 post offices that issue them today. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the order, which I commend to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I think, Mr Evans, that the decisive and energetic interventions have exhausted the volcanoes on my side of the Committee. I am grateful to the Opposition and Scottish National party spokesmen for their contributions and for their support for this small but important piece of legislation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will understand that this is not the place to rehearse the already considerable arguments over the benefits or no of no deal, but I will pick up on the three specific points he raised about the order.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Department is ready with additional resourcing. As he will be aware, the vast preponderance of the resourcing for this falls on the Post Office. To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, we have talked historically about up to 4,500 post offices. The first 2,500 of them are primed and ready to go; were it required, in the case of extreme levels of demand, we would be able to go to 4,500, but it is a staged process. That seems sensible, because at the moment we issue about 110,000 IDPs a year. Obviously that will go up, for reasons that hon. Members have described, but we want to be able to address whatever the demand may be, and we have made that contingency arrangement.

The price of £5.50 has been set on a cost recovery basis and therefore covers the cost involved. With regard to DFT guidance, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will be aware that it is already on the gov.uk website, on post office websites and on the AA and RAC websites, at least—I am sure that other motoring organisations will feature it in due course. There will be no absence of available guidance for people who are making journeys. Of course, it is widely understood that one of the effects of Brexit may be to create some complications for international travel, so we expect that guidance to be widely sought and reviewed.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; the volcano is not entirely exhausted. Does he have any plans to introduce an international driving permit app or to make the permit available so that motorists can have it on their phone, rather than needing to carry a paper copy around with them?

[Jesse Norman]

That is a very interesting and helpful suggestion. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, at the moment it is not possible to apply online for the 1968 convention permit. We are therefore unable to offer that service, because the format is determined by the conventions, but I am very grateful to him for that constructive suggestion, and I will ask officials to look again at whether the applicable law may permit something. I recognise, and I am sure the Committee recognises, that that would have considerable value. I will leave it there. I am grateful for all the interventions that have been made and for the support of the Opposition parties and my own colleagues.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Knight Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

10. What plans he has to reduce road congestion.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are in the middle of a £23 billion programme of investment to upgrade our strategic road network. We are also investing money in pinch points, with an additional £220 million going to tackle them last year. Throughout the country, that money is being used for smaller local projects such as junction improvements that can really make a difference to traffic flows.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some councils cause avoidable congestion themselves by the use of unnecessary and poorly-phased traffic lights? Will he encourage local authorities to audit their traffic-light usage to see whether some can be switched off? Will he also encourage the greater use of traffic-sensitive traffic lights?

[Chris Grayling]

I agree with both those points. Traffic lights play an important part in the management of traffic flows, but if they are synchronised in the wrong way or used in the wrong way, they can make things worse, rather than better. I absolutely join my right hon. Friend in sending to councils the message that they should keep traffic-light usage under constant review.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I can give the right hon. Gentleman comfort on that point. Through officials, we have consulted extensively with local authorities. Indeed, I will discuss some aspects of those consultations later in my remarks.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Lords amendment 14 deals with the regulation-making power in clause 9 and says that these regulations may, for example, deal with technical specifications. Can the Minister confirm to the House that the regulation-making power is wider than that and could, for example, require the operator to display the price per unit that is to be charged? It is important that motorists know what they will be asked to pay before they commit themselves to paying for it.

[Jesse Norman]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct that motorists should know what they will be paying. The Bill does what it says and Lords amendment 14 is technical in nature, but he has made his point, which we will be happy to look at more generally as we consider further aspects of the issue.

After clarifications were sought on which vehicles were covered by the definition in the Bill, the Lords made changes to clauses 1 and 2. Amendments 1 to 4 clarify that the measures in the Bill apply only to vehicles that are designed or adapted to be capable—in at least some circumstances or situations—of safely driving themselves, and are able lawfully to be used in that way on roads or other public places in Great Britain. For example, these amendments clarify that the insurance measures in the Bill will not apply to an agricultural vehicle on public roads which, although perfectly capable of autonomously running up and down a private field, could only be driven on the road manually by a human driver. Such a vehicle will fall under the current insurance regime under the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Lords amendment 5—the new clause after clause 6 —places a requirement on the Government to report on

“the impact and effectiveness of section 1; the extent to which the provisions…ensure that appropriate insurance or other arrangements are made in respect of vehicles that are capable of safely driving themselves.”

We want the report to be as relevant and useful as possible, so we have urged that the timing of the report should be after the measures have been in operation for a reasonable period. Our judgment is that a report prepared two years after the list is first published will cover a time when secondary legislation can be introduced, automated vehicles can be added to the list and insurance policies can be offered to drivers of automated vehicles. Subsection (1)(a) of this new clause will require the Secretary of State to report on the impact on consumers and industry, and on the effectiveness of clause 1—that is, whether the definitions and list work as intended.

By specifically referencing the Road Traffic Act 1988 in clause 7, Lords amendment 6 provides a definition of the term “road” to ensure consistency with existing legislation, and to provide clarity to the public and industry.

The Lords also made a number of changes relating to electric vehicles. They expressed concern that the draft text did not make it sufficiently clear that hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles were covered by the measures, alongside battery electric vehicles. Therefore amendments were made to add “refuelling” wherever “charging points” are mentioned. As the House well knows, the Government are taking a technology-neutral approach to the development and deployment of electric vehicles, and these changes serve to make that clearer on the face of the Bill.

The peers made two substantive changes to policy. The first was to add a power in clause 9 to enable the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to set availability, maintenance and performance standards for public charging infrastructure. It is inevitable that public charging points will fall into disrepair from time to time, particularly in the early stages as new technologies are developing. Having a significant number of public charging points out of action risks adversely affecting the experience of users, and could inconvenience and frustrate drivers of electric vehicles. Amendments 11, 14 and 30 therefore provide the Government with the necessary power to introduce regulations that would specify performance standards for publicly available EV charge points, and will ensure that operators take measures to ensure that faulty charging points are repaired. I believe that these amendments will improve the Bill, as the provision of this power will help to ensure that we have a widely available and reliable public charging network.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

Cheers! We had better watch out that this does not become the road to a marriage.

The right hon. Gentleman—the former Minister—talked about the standardisation of charge points, and I agreed with what he said. I thought that he was going to end with a reference to the “Hayes hook-up”.

I will be brief, although last night I got a slight kick out of speaking for longer than others thought I was entitled to. I support the Bill, as do the Labour Opposition, and I support the Lords amendments, most of which are tidying-up measures. I also welcome the clarification on hydrogen fuel cells because there is no doubt that hydrogen will play a big part in the decarbonisation of transport.

In particular, I support Lords amendment 32, which requires the Secretary of State to report on the impact of part 2 of the Bill. I have previously pointed out to the Minister that when I have tabled amendments suggesting that the Government should report, I have always been rebuffed. I looked back and found the new clauses about reporting that I tabled in the Public Bill Committee, and, in the context of the reporting to which the Government are committed, I hope that they will take on board some of my previous suggestions.

One of my new clauses, entitled “Review of impact of Part 2”, required the Secretary of State to report on

“the number and location of charge points in the United Kingdom…the resulting uptake of electric vehicles…the manufacturing of electric vehicles”.

Another, entitled “Report on electric charging points”, referred to the development of

“a strategy for establishing charging points for…domestic properties…urban and rural settlements, and…the road network.”

[Sir Greg Knight]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for the motorist to know where the charging points are? Most satellite navigation systems have a feature that will display the locations of filling stations. Is it not essential for them also to display the locations of electric charging points?

[Alan Brown]

I agree wholeheartedly. There are already online maps that can do that, but it is important for people to be aware that the information exists, so that they can take comfort in the knowledge that they can undertake longer journeys because they know exactly where the charging points are.

I also tabled a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to report on the impact of charging points on

“energy consumption…grid management, and…grid storage capacity.”

Regular reporting would obviously keep Members informed, but it would also help Governments to develop future strategies.

I welcome the Bill and look forward to its implementation, but I have another request. I hope that there will be some trials of autonomous vehicles in Scotland, because that has not happened yet.

Confidence in the Secretary of State for Transport

Greg Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am terribly sorry for stepping out of the Chamber earlier than I should have done. It should be me who steps down. I am grateful for being able to say a few words this afternoon, not least because I am a member of the Transport Committee.

I wanted to speak on this subject because I think there has been too much chopping and changing in the entire industry over the years. I recognise what the Opposition motion aims to deliver, but I ask them whether any more changes in leadership would actually deliver the stability that is required. I am not trying to make an argument that might play well; I absolutely mean it.

I have worked with the chief executive of GTR, Charles Horton, over a number of years, and I have tried to work between him and the leader of the RMT, Mick Cash, with whom I have a good working relationship, to try to find a way through the Southern industrial dispute. Charles Horton has now stepped down, which I know many people will celebrate, but, frankly, this is a man with years and years of rail experience who truly cares about putting things right. I am sorry because, frankly, I would rather see people stay in post to turn things around. If there are areas of responsibility, fine, allocate them, but then put that person under the spotlight to deliver the change that makes things better. I absolutely believe the same goes for the Government.

When the Government change position, it sometimes feels as though we have government by six-month fixed-term contracts; there is not enough stability and tenure in post. I support the Secretary of State. He has come to the Transport Committee and has been incredibly open and direct about, for example, where he sees the franchise system is not working and about the need for change.

Now that the Secretary of State has the opportunity to put new franchise agreements in place, it seems right that he should inject some of his ideas for change into those agreements. It is not as though he has constantly said that everything works well. He has admitted there are particular challenges.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one way forward might be to follow the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) to increase the availability of compensation to passengers who have been badly treated?

[Huw Merriman]

I certainly do, not least because my Automatic Travel Compensation Bill is awaiting Second Reading. The Bill is all about automatic and automated compensation, on which I have met the Rail Minister. It is fair to say that I have not quite persuaded him of the Bill’s merits, but it would place a duty on train companies that currently receive money from Network Rail where there have been delays. Only a third of passengers claim for such delays, so I contend that extra money is left with the train operators. My Bill would require the train operators to invest that money in technology so that my right hon. Friend and I could both tap in and tap out, which would tell us whether we had been delayed by more than 15 or 30 minutes, and if we had been, we would automatically be credited with the compensation we were due. That would be a good step forward, because passengers find it too complex and difficult to claim. Therefore, they do not claim, and as a result, they feel raw about the service. The Government could do more for passengers by making it easier to claim compensation, and perhaps passengers would then give us more support on some of the other changes we are trying to put through. That is a rather lengthy response, but I agree with my right hon. Friend. I hope that my Bill’s Second Reading will yield some success. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) has a similar proposal, perhaps we could merge the two.

On the rail timetabling issue, my constituency has had an additional service—a fourth service each hour—in an incredibly congested network. I take my hat off to GTR and my rail user group, which came up with an ingenious solution to deliver the extra service without any new rolling stock. The timetable just changed when trains go back and forth between Ashford and Brighton, which has worked incredibly well.

I understand that we, as MPs, are less likely to hear about things that have worked well. Quite rightly, we hear about the challenges where things have not worked. I use the trains every day to come into work, and today I had the opportunity to talk to one of the conductors on my line, a guy called Giles. I was supposed to be reading through the Transport Committee’s draft report on rail infrastructure, but I put it down to have a chat with the conductor. We chatted for the entire journey about some of the issues he has, and his points were well raised. He is aware that, as technology advances, the workforce will need to embrace it, too. His concern on the role of the guard, conductor or on-board supervisor, as these people tend to be called, is that there will be fewer of them. That is a valid concern, because most passengers on trains want to see a second member of staff on board.

My point is that, where the system is inflexible, if the second member of staff is unable to join the train for any reason, that train cannot roll. I was a Southern season ticket holder for 10 years and we had one train every hour, so when that train could not go because the conductor was not able to board, there was a two-hour delay, which was no good for anybody. It certainly was no good for tackling congestion or for those who had mobility issues in the station. So I like the flexibility that has now been introduced in Southern whereby in all but exceptional circumstances there must be a second member of staff on board. Where such circumstances do apply—and this cannot be where Southern has not recruited enough conductors—the train can still roll, so passengers can get home. Of course that type of situation has existed on Southeastern for years and it also exists on 30% of the rail network, where the driver operates the doors.

There is another point to make about incidents that have taken place, including one in Liverpool. Where the driver and the conductor are performing different roles, tragedies can occur. A young lady died on the tracks and the coroner’s inquest made the point that if the control mechanism is taken by one person, we are less likely to see that eventuality occur. I often hear safety used as the reason why this is an issue. I was asked by the rail unions to see whether a safety report could be created. We got the rail regulator to deliver that, but it was then ignored, so I feel that all sides need to work a little more together.

Transport Secretary: East Coast Franchise

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

That is absolutely true. The irony is—I shall say more about this later—that it is the rail unions that have been campaigning against the same European laws that the Labour party wants to keep. This is another example of Labour’s nonsensical position.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend amplify something that he hinted at earlier? Will he confirm that he sees the Government as an interim operator of last resort and that this is not a permanent renationalisation?

[Chris Grayling]

I do not intend that the arrangement will be permanent. What I am saying—I have said this all along—is that when we move ahead with the full future shape of the LNER, we will not do everything in exactly the same way. What has been done on this railway in the past has not worked, and I do not intend to do it again. We will do things differently. We will consider giving the staff a stake in the business, and we will look at a different kind of investment from the private sector. However, as I shall make clear, I believe—the Welsh Government clearly believe—that a partnership between the public sector and the private sector is beneficial to the country, and not something to be cast aside as an evil and sinister attempt to do down passengers.

Electric Vehicles and Bicycles

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, let me point out that this debate will now end at 17.45. I have been notified that six people want to speak, so you can probably do the maths yourselves, otherwise I shall have to impose a time limit.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr McCabe. Will you speak to the House of Commons authorities about whether it is possible to have the Westminster Hall monitors display the end time of the debate? That would be particularly helpful to Members when there has been a Division—or Divisions—in the main Chamber.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

We shall look into that. Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

I understand the concerns. However, if Members for constituencies that make conventional vehicles will bear with me, by the end of my remarks they will be optimistic about there being more than enough jobs for everyone.

Bringing forward the electric vehicles target to 2030 from 2040 would enable the United Kingdom to reduce our oil imports by almost 50% by 2035, saving £6.3 billion annually. Paris banned fossil-fuelled vehicles from the city centre and air pollution fell by 40%. Second-hand conventional diesel cars are losing a lot of their value, but it is possible to upgrade the batteries on electric vehicles. The key point for a lot of our constituents is that electric vehicles should be cost-competitive with petrol and diesel cars by 2022. At the moment, their running costs are already lower, but up-front cost parity is expected to come as early as 2022. That will be a huge tipping point for our economy.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I believe we should always embrace new technology while cherishing the past. Does my hon. Friend accept that, for people like me who have a journey of more than 220 miles to undertake, for the moment at least, an electric vehicle is not an option?

[Andrew Selous]

With some of the new chargers, an electric vehicle range of 300 miles is entirely possible. At the moment, I agree with my right hon. Friend, but if we play this right it will not be long before he will be able to motor up to East Yorkshire in comfort in an electric vehicle.

Nissan claims that by 2030, widespread adoption of a vehicle-to-grid service could save consumers up to £2.4 billion in reduced electricity costs. I am impressed by some of what the Government have done so far, but the 2040 target is too far out. We need to be bolder. The target for Scotland is 2032; for China, it is 2030; for Germany, it is 2030; for India, it is 2030; for Austria, it is 2030; for the Netherlands, it is 2025; and for Norway, it is 2025. I want the United Kingdom to be a world leader. The Government need to signal their intent to be at the front of the pack and not a best of the rest person coming up the rear.

Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [Lords]

Greg Knight Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

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

We can be proud of the safety culture across our transport sector in recent years, but we cannot be complacent and we want to maintain and improve safety standards. That is why we have to look at new areas where legislation is needed, and one of them is strengthening the rules against the minority of thoroughly irresponsible people who shine lasers at aircraft. At the same time, we will make it an offence to shine a laser at cars, trains, ships and air traffic control for the first time.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Will not the Bill throw into doubt the long-established police practice of an officer on foot jumping into the highway and waving a torch at a motorist in order to stop a vehicle? Would that not be an offence under the Bill because a strict liability offence is proposed, as I understand it, or does my right hon. Friend expect the police to have to pray for salvation and to rely on clause 1(2) to argue that they have a defence?

[Chris Grayling]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that point, which may have been a request to join the Committee and argue about it in great detail. I argue that any potential law and order intervention would judge there to be a key difference between a torch and the modern laser pen that is causing such issues and on which, particularly in relation to aircraft, we need the law to be substantially strengthened.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I am sorry to labour the point, and I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. That is what I initially thought would be the answer, but if we look at the Bill, we can see that a laser beam is defined in clause 3 as

“a beam of coherent light produced by a device of any kind”—

in other words, a torch.

[Chris Grayling]

I am not a physicist, but I think the key word is “coherent”, in that a beam is coherent if it focuses the light in a way that represents a danger to the public. As I have said, I encourage my right hon. Friend to join the Bill Committee—this may be one of the issues that are well worth debating—and I have no doubt that my colleagues on the Treasury Bench will be delighted to offer him such an opportunity. It is a serious point, however, and we will double-check.

I am very grateful to the other place, which has done a detailed job of scrutiny. Amendments made there have removed ambiguity and extended the provisions beyond vehicles to include air traffic control facilities. I thank my noble Friend Baroness Sugg and those in the Lords who took part in debates on the Bill, and the external stakeholders, particularly the UK Laser Working Group, that have made an important contribution to shaping the legislation.

It is important to say that there are legitimate uses for lasers. They are used as alignment aids in the construction industry, by lecturers in classrooms and by astronomers in the course of their work. We intend to legislate not against the use of laser pointers at all, but instead against their illegitimate use. They can dazzle, distract or blind those in charge of a vehicle, with serious and even fatal consequences. We know that, in aviation, such incidents take place during take-off or landing, or when aircraft such as police helicopters are carrying out civil safety duties.

Back in 2003, 15 years ago, there had never been a reported case of a laser being shone at an aircraft. The following year there were six cases, and by 2008 there were 200. There are now 1,000 a year, as indeed there were last year. Thankfully no aircraft, train or road vehicle in this country has had an accident as a result of these dangerous and senseless acts, but it is all too easy to imagine the potential consequences—for instance, a pilot being blinded by a laser when trying to land a passenger jet, or a train driver being dazzled from a bridge and missing a signal as a result.

It is already an offence, under the Air Navigation Order 2016, to shine a light at an aircraft to dazzle or distract a pilot. However, the maximum penalty is a £2,500 fine, and we do not think the fact that this is a summary offence gives the police adequate powers to investigate and pursue it effectively. Offenders can also be prosecuted, under another air navigation order, for the offence of endangering an aircraft. That carries a maximum prison sentence of five years and a £5,000 fine, but it involves legal complications. It is sometimes difficult to prove the endangerment of an aircraft.

The Bill will simplify the position. It is a straightforward measure, which will make it an offence for a person to shine or direct a laser beam towards a vehicle if it dazzles or distracts, or if the action is likely to dazzle or distract a person in control of a vehicle. It will extend to all transport modes, will give the police the powers they need to investigate, and will provide penalties that reflect the seriousness of the offence. This will be an either-way offence, which means that it can be dealt with in the magistrates courts or, as an indictable offence, in the Crown court. It gives the police powers, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to enter a property for the purposes of arrest and to search a property after an arrest. Those powers are not currently available to the authorities in respect of existing aviation offences. The maximum fine will be unlimited, and the maximum prison sentence will be five years. The Bill will extend to the whole United Kingdom. We have been working with the devolved Administrations, who are very supportive, and I am grateful to them for their co-operation.

As I said at the start of my speech, the Bill has already faced scrutiny in the other place, where it received strong cross-party support. It reaches us in much better shape as a result. One of the positive additions in the other place was the extension of the provisions to air traffic control, which has a key role in our aviation sector. It is right and proper for those who attempt to shine one of these devices at an air traffic control point to be treated in the same way. That is a constructive example of the way in which debate on such Bills can improve them.

The Bill has received widespread support from both the authorities and the transport industry. The British Airline Pilots Association has welcomed its reintroduction—it was, of course, debated before the general election, but had to be set aside because there was not enough time to proceed—saying that it is good news for transport safety. It has also been welcomed by airlines and airports, the National Police Chiefs Council, the National Police Air Service, the Military Aviation Authority, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Rail Delivery Group, Public Health England and the Royal College of Ophthalmologists. That is a pretty good list of supporters.

Everyone agrees that we need to do something about this problem, and everyone agrees that the actions of the small number of individuals who behave in this way are utterly unacceptable. We must give our police the powers to deal with them in the toughest appropriate manner. I hope and believe that today, in the House, we can give our support to a measure that I believe is absolutely necessary for public safety, and whose time has come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State was untypically churlish, and I can only attribute that to the fact that since I left the Front Bench he has become more bombastic—I think he is missing me. He is well aware— indeed, in his final remarks he acknowledged this—that this is a Bill that any decent Government would introduce. As he said, it was the subject of considerable discussion when that earlier piece of proposed legislation was introduced and there has been a broad measure of support across the House about the need for such a measure.

The use of lasers for malevolent purposes has grown, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) described. These devices were virtually unknown until the early 2000s; in 2003, fewer than half a dozen cases were reported. As he said, however, by last year over 1,000 cases were reported in various ways and forms. The need for legislation is proven simply on the basis that we know that these things can be used by those with malevolent intent to do damage and that they may well get access to a device that can be bought for as little as £1 on the internet and then go about their vile business.

The bringing down of a plane is obviously one of the principal fears, but, as the Bill now recognises, there are others, too—other transport modes are vulnerable. Someone with one of these laser pens could direct it into the face of a driver of a heavy goods vehicle or at a train driver from a bridge, so it is right that the Bill addresses all the risks associated with the misuse of these devices.

As has been said, the Bill encourages the identification of such malevolence, introduces tougher penalties and makes it easier for prosecutions to take place. There is an argument for extending the powers of the police still further by extending stop-and-search to, for example, people loitering on the edge of an airport or at a railway station with the clear intention of doing harm. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that when she sums up the debate.

Burke said:

“Early and provident fear is the mother of safety.”

It is right that we should be cautious and fearful, but it is also right that we should be prepared, ready to deal with any threat to public safety. These pens can present such a threat; we know that from what all the authorities report to us. The Bill is pertinent, prescient and it deserves the support of the whole House. I was proud to be—

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I can tell that my right hon. Friend does not want me to conclude quite so promptly, and on that basis it would be ungenerous not to give way and so extend my peroration a little further.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and join him in praising the Government for introducing this measure, but will he include himself in the congratulations, as he was an excellent Transport Minister and had a large part to play in this matter coming before us before, but unfortunately, because of the election, the Bill did not proceed into law?

[Mr Hayes]

My right hon. Friend is very generous and, of course, absolutely right in all that he just said, and I was just waiting for him to say it; I acknowledge that praise and thank him sincerely for what he said. Yes, I was involved in the outset of this. The shadow Secretary of State and I rubbed along very well together when I was on the Front Bench—and we did some good work together, too—but I think it is a bit rich to say that we would not have thought of this if it was not for the Opposition. We had been discussing and planning this, considering it and plotting the right way forward, for a considerable time, and I have absolute faith in the Secretary of State and my successor as Minister to take this matter forward with the same kind of diligence and concentrated effort that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) very generously attributed to me.