Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend has made the case for that road to me on many occasions, not least when I was in Cornwall and he took me around the area that we are talking about. The Government are making funds available through the local road fund for local schemes that support economic growth. It will be up to Cornwall Council to prepare and submit the bid for funding in the normal way, but Cornwall has a very successful history of obtaining funds through that grant, and I wish it well with that scheme.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

The UK Airprox Board investigated 23 near misses between aircraft and drones in six months last year. Of those, 12 were deemed to involve a serious risk of collision. The British Airline Pilots Association wants the Government to run tests on what would happen if a drone were sucked into an engine or hit a windscreen, and the Government have had a working group on the matter since 2013. So why is it only this summer that Ministers will say anything? Should we not know by now what tests have already been done, what regulatory and other options are being considered and when Ministers expect any agreed option to be put into practice?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I assure the House that we take that matter very seriously indeed, and we are aware of the risk of a collision with a drone. Yesterday, I met representatives of the British Airline Pilots Association, and that was one of the topics that came up. As the Secretary of State said in answer to an earlier question, severe penalties are in place for people who get involved with such activities. There are a number of technologies, such as geo-fencing, which would prevent those aircraft from entering sensitive airspace. We take the matter very seriously, and we are considering the best action to take.

[Richard Burden]

On a different but also topical subject, I was in Kent yesterday talking to businesses that had felt at first hand the traffic chaos surrounding 32 days of Operation Stack last year. I know that the Government are consulting on lorry parks and junction improvements for future years, but what are they going to do to prevent a repeat of last year’s scenes from occurring in 2016? I am not asking the Minister to tell me who he is meeting; I am asking him what the action plan is.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

Operation Stack is a critical part of controlling access to the ports and trying to make the ports flow more smoothly. We had exceptional circumstances last summer, with strikes as well as challenges over migrants closing the tunnel. The Operation Stack proposals, which are effectively to create an off-the-highway holding area, represent a significant investment; it is a £250 million project. The closure of the consultation is only a few days away. I have met Highways England and local providers of highways, and we are working on what we can do in the short term. I will keep local Members informed of that progress.

Road Routes to the South-West

Richard Burden Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing this debate and indeed all the hon. Members who have contributed to it. They have demonstrated the widespread concern that exists about the need for improved road infrastructure in the south-west. That concern has existed for decades, including concern about a second route through from London to sort out the issue of the route through from the M5, and so on.

[James Heappey]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard enough today to be impressed by the need for improvements to the road network in the south-west. Does he agree, therefore, that the commitment to abandon the A358 improvements that was made in the Labour party manifesto last April was deeply misguided, and will he reassure us that his party has already abandoned that commitment?

[Richard Burden]

I will come on to some of the history around this issue in a little while, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman can just be a little patient on that point.

I will just offer apologies for my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). I heard his name come up before. He takes his duties as a member of the Health Committee very seriously and it is meeting at this moment.

The A303 has occupied a lot of the discussion today. Clearly, it is a road that has tested the ability of successive Governments to deliver the kind of objectives that we have been talking about. I think that there was broad support for the road investment strategy that was announced in 2014. However, what I am concerned about and what I would like to press the Minister on today is that despite the Government’s commitment of £2 billion for seven road schemes in the south-west up to 2021, I am not sure that the numbers add up and I am not sure that the start dates are anything other than aspirational.

What we know is that when the previous Labour Government left office, the Highways Agency had a costed and timetabled plan to improve the A303 and to dual the A358 from Ilminster to Taunton, to remove the need to create a new dual carriageway through the Blackdown hills. What we also know is that after 2010 there was a rowing back on capital investment that was worth around £4 billion in total. So when we hear now about this £2 billion coming back in to fund some of these projects, it is important that we interrogate the Government about it a little bit.

According to the pages for the seven schemes on the Highways England website, only five of them have estimated costs and, if I have added up the figures for them correctly, their combined total comes to £2.15 billion. That is already more than £150 million over the £2 billion budget without the other two schemes being considered, and before scope creep and other inflationary pressures are considered.

In March 2015, the Government produced their “feasibility study” of solutions for an alternative road route to the south-west. However, I wonder what it all means, because it is about two years ago—in this very hall, actually—that I pressed the Minister’s predecessor to ensure that that study would lead to progress, but the future seems to be about as clear as mud at the moment.

The status quo pleases no one and it is necessary that we find a solution to the A303 and to Stonehenge. As far as I can see, however, the bottom end of the current cost estimates already seems to double the £410 million estimate that led Labour to review the costs back in 2005. So, can the Minister confirm when he expects a costed and timetabled set of options for the road? In the meantime, has he asked Highways England to evaluate short-term and medium-term options to improve traffic flow and alleviate congestion? Also, can he satisfy concerns that the current front-runner—a 2.9 km tunnel—would protect the integrity of the archaeological site, as required by article 4 of the world heritage convention? And in the event that the Government cannot satisfy the objective of providing a fully costed and timetabled proposal by 2017, what would he do? Would he consider, for instance, handing this work over to the National Infrastructure Commission to consider?

[Neil Parish]

I have a general question for the shadow Minister. In 1997, when the Labour Government came in, they cancelled the scheme to dual the road between Honiton and Ilminster, so I would just like to know whether there has been a change of policy by the Labour party.

[Richard Burden]

It is absolutely true—in fact, I think the hon. Gentleman said so in his opening remarks—that the history of these roads, across successive Governments, is riddled with changes of mind, delays, inquiries, and further delays and further inquiries. If I understood his opening remarks correctly, the important thing now is to interrogate the Government over the current plans, and that is where I have certain problems. I do not see a costed timetable; I do not see that the budget covers what already appears to have been committed to; and I would just like to know how the whole thing adds up. The interest that hon. Members have shown today during this debate indicates that they share my concern that we know what the figures are and what they add up to, and that we know when—as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) said—there will be spades in the ground.

Before I finish, I will just raise a couple of other points with the Minister. As well as increasing road capacity, it is also important that we address the issues of, first, the quality of the roads and, secondly, the design of the roads, to ensure that they are as safe as possible. In its first piece of large-scale research as a watchdog, Transport Focus has identified that the top two priorities of road users in the south-west are those two things: improving the quality of roads; and ensuring that the roads have a safer design than they do now.

On the first issue—the quality of the roads—can the Minister put on the record that the Government will meet their pledge to resurface 80% of the network by 2021, as pledged in the Department for Transport’s Action for Roads 2013 document and repeated in the road investment strategy? If that is not going to be the case, perhaps he can explain what the current estimate is.

On the second issue—the safer design of roads—can the Minister offer me some assurances about what he is doing with Highways England to address the safety concerns that have been raised? In the last year, there has been an 8.4% increase in the total number of people being killed or seriously injured on the roads. And in the latest Highways England-financed road user satisfaction survey for May 2015 to October 2015, both the areas of the south-west that were surveyed saw steep drops, when compared with the figures for the previous six months, in the number of road users who said they felt safe. The surveys and the existing casualty figures seem to reveal that the Government are not doing enough to improve road safety in the south-west.

We should address these issues; I think the Minister has to address them. Perhaps it would help him to address them if the Government brought back national road safety targets, as we have often urged them to do.

In closing, I will say that Labour appreciates the infrastructure challenges in the south-west. No Government have been entirely consistent on this issue, and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton has made that point. So it is essential that the current Government now bite the bullet and deliver genuine improvements to road routes.

However, if the Government are going to do that, there must be transparency and clarity. We need to know what the figures are. We need to know if it is £2 billion or £3 billion that is going to be spent; if it is £2 billion, then it already appears that that sum has been exceeded. And what will the Minister do on those other issues of road quality, including resurfacing roads to achieve the 80% target that the Government have committed to, and the serious concerns about road safety, which have already been revealed in surveys during the last year?

Draft Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Tachographs) (amendment) Regulations 2016

Richard Burden Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 General Committees

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Hanson.

I hope we will not have to divide the Committee on this statutory instrument, because a lot of it seems non-contentious. I know that the UK prides itself on our high standards of commercial vehicle safety. For example, the Freight Transport Association has observed that there is little evidence of impropriety in this country in relation to the calibration of tachographs. However, I want to press the Minister on one area of the regulations that I have significant concerns about.

While the crux of the regulations is to ensure better quality of tachographs, if I have read them right, they also extend exemptions from drivers’ hours rules from 50 km to 100 km. As far as I know, the EU regulation that gave rise to this SI allows that but does not require it. I would appreciate it if the Minister’s confirmed whether I am right about that. If I am, and the extension is not required by the EU regulation, one has to ask what Ministers are trying to achieve by inserting it in these regulations.

The Government’s explanatory memorandum says:

“Road safety is improved by ensuring that professional drivers’ working hours are not excessive”.

However, by doubling the radial base for exemptions, do the regulations not have the potential to undermine that objective completely? That certainly seems to be the view of one of the key bodies that the Government consulted on these regulations. The Minister referred to some responses he received from business, but he did not refer to the response he received from Unite, the main trade union involved in the road haulage industry. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests.

I want to quote from the consultation document that the Government put out to interested bodies and from Unite’s response. The consultation asked:

“Do you agree that we continue to apply the national derogations to EU drivers’ hours (for USPs, vehicles using natural or liquefied gas or electricity and those carrying live animals to market,) with the extension to 100km radius? Please explain your reasons. Also, can you provide any further information on the costs or benefits of the extension of these exemptions/national derogations for any of the various sectors?”

Unite’s response was quite instructive:

“Unite believe what we need to remember is the reason the legislation was put in place was to combat driver fatigue. However with changes and derogations i.e. the introduction of Periods Of Availability (POA), the POA has been abused by employers to stretch the driver’s working day and get round the law.

Employers have an obligation in law to ensure their employees do not come to any harm at work (Health and Safety regs, Management regs and the Corporate Manslaughter regs).

However tiredness for drivers is endemic (just-in-time) industry imperatives and physiological intimidation seems to be the way transport operations do business today. POA is a tool that is being misused by employers to reinforce these practices. It is time that this is addressed with the removal of POA. This would be a major step in making roads safer for us all.”

Question No. 7 in the Government’s consultation was:

“Do you believe we should retain the 50km criterion for driver CPC or increase it to 100km? Please explain your reasons”.

The response was:

“Unite believes we should retain the 50 km criterion for driver CPC for the reasons stated above”.

Looking through the Government’s explanatory memorandum for these regulations, I am still none the wiser as to why they felt it necessary to double the distance and the radius-based exemptions in the UK. In fairness to the Freight Transport Association, it has been a bit clearer than the Government. It says:

“The complexity of rules will be significantly reduced by all radius based exemptions being uniform 100 km and therefore reduce the chance that the driver is penalised because he has become confused by the complexity rather than posed a realistic threat to road safety”.

I get that, but what I find unsatisfactory is that the Government do not appear to have addressed this issue at all. While the impact assessment looks at this issue, it takes the view that the extension to 100 km will be

“a deregulatory and proportionate measure reducing the administrative and financial burden on businesses and individuals”.

Again, I get that, but as far as I can see, the impact assessment makes absolutely no reference to the issue that Unite raised—in other words, any possible implications for safety. Can the Minister outline whether he has received any responses raising concerns about safety and the possible impact on driver fatigue that this extension could have? The impact assessment recognises that there were 95 accidents involving heavy goods vehicles for which fatigue was listed as a contributory factor, so why does that assessment not consider the possibility that that number could increase?

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend might want to comment on the fact that Brake, the road safety charity, says that one quarter of all crashes on Britain’s main roads are tiredness-related and that extending the hours could have a further significant impact, to the detriment of other people on the roads.

[Richard Burden]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Driver fatigue is, to use Unite’s word again, “endemic” in the road haulage industry. Drivers have long hours. There are not many other professions in which people do not know where they are going to stop for their next meal or where they will be able to go to the toilet next. They do not know whether they will be stuck in a traffic jam that means that they just cannot finish work when they need to, however tired they are.

My hon. Friend is right. The problem of fatigue affects not only the driver, but potentially other road users; it is a hazard to other road users. It is therefore very unsatisfactory that the Minister appears to have just skated over that. He has not mentioned it at all in his explanatory memorandum or in his statement today. I therefore ask him to answer this question when he responds to the debate. Why has he not addressed this issue? I want to be confident that the Government are not creating a situation in which more drivers further from home will be under pressure to drive regardless of their fatigue levels. Surely it is reasonable, if we are to pass this SI today, that we get some answers from the Minister on this issue.

We may not get to the bottom of this in the time available today. If a lot of what the Minister proposes in the regulations is sensible, it would be unfortunate if the whole SI had to be held up on this one point. If that is not to happen, we need to know from the Minister what he will do to listen and to act on the concerns that have been expressed to him by hon. Members here today and by Unite. One way he could do that would be by building in a robust review mechanism for the SI, but as far as I can tell he is suggesting precisely the opposite.

Paragraph 12 of the explanatory memorandum, entitled “Monitoring & review”, states:

“A review provision should be included in all secondary legislation that regulates business other than in exceptional circumstances where the potential benefits of doing so are clearly outweighed by the potential adverse effects…The reasons for not including a review provision in this instrument are, firstly, that most of the substantive changes that are being made by the instrument are amendments to primary legislation which is outside the scope of the review provision policy. Secondly, almost all of the changes to secondary legislation are simply the updating of references to EU Regulation 165/2014 and as such the introduction of a requirement to review the amended instruments would be disproportionate in the circumstances…Andrew Jones MP has made the following statement regarding the inclusion within the instrument of a periodic review provision:

‘It is not appropriate in the circumstances to make provision for review in this legislation.’”

That is simply not good enough. Either the Minister can fully answer the concerns that have been raised about the extension of the limit from 50 km to 100 km in a way that we can all understand and that is watertight, or, if he cannot do that today, he can acknowledge those concerns and undertake to build in a robust review mechanism and a timetable for that review, through which any concerns can be explored and addressed. What is simply not acceptable is for him to do neither of those things. I therefore invite the Minister to revise what he said in his explanatory memorandum, to commit today to a review of these changes and to tell us what that review will consist of, when it will happen and how he will conduct it.

The reason for that is related to precisely the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth made about improving road safety through more effective enforcement of tachograph legislation. It is important that professional hauliers and drivers have adequate places to stop for rest breaks, as required by law. As I have said, there are not many occupations where someone’s place of work makes it unclear when they will get their next meal, where they will next sleep or even when they will be able to use the toilet.

The logistics industry has highlighted a package of measures to make the industry a more attractive place to work. Much of it relies on Government support for the appropriate infrastructure. For example, does the Minister recognise that Highways England must ensure the provision on its network of adequate secure lorry parking, with toilets and provisions?

As an aside, I would be grateful if the Minister updated the Committee on the M20 lorry-park consultation and when he hopes to publish a response. Will he also tell us what the Government are doing to deal with the manpower time bomb in the industry, with the failure to attract sufficient new recruits, when it is vital to our economy?

I gather the regulations are the foundation for the development of what Ministers refer to as “smart” technologies that will automatically record driver location. Will the Minister provide a timeframe for when those might be introduced? Until then, even with these regulations to improve the assessment of tachographs by enforcement bodies, concerns remain about falsification as well as ability of the DVSA to monitor and enforce drivers’ hours effectively.

Although there is little evidence of falsification in the tachograph calibration market in the UK, the Road Haulage Association has recognised that the falsification of tachograph records is one of the most significant offences within the industry, with enforcement agencies unable to track rest stops, and any threat of sanction sadly often woefully weak.

I would be grateful if the Minister revealed whether the trend, highlighted by the RHA and others in the previous Parliament, of a dramatic fall in recent years in the number of roadside checks and issuing of fixed-penalty notices has continued. Will the Minister write to me outlining the figures and the amount generated from fixed-penalty notices issued to drivers of heavy goods vehicles and firms, indicating the proportion relating to tachograph offences?

I would welcome some answers today to the issues I have raised, in particular those that draw on the response that the Minister has already received from Unite. As he is unlikely to bring the Committee to a place where we can reach firm conclusions today, will he do the only possible thing, if the SI is to receive cross-party support, and commit himself to review the operation of the regulations with a clear timetable, so that the issues can be properly addressed? I look forward to his response.

[Andrew Jones]

There were many questions there. Let me start with the consultation, to which we received 13 responses. I am aware of concerns, but also the broader welcome for the proposals, which I want to put in context. In March 2014, the regulations changed across Europe, so that the exemption was either 100 km or zero. That automatically increased the radius of operation for certain drivers’ hours.

These derogations are common sense and limited. They are limited in distance to 100 km, but they are also limited to the type of vehicle they apply to. They would apply to Royal Mail vehicles, vehicles transporting live animals, and light goods vehicles that are propelled by gas or electricity. This is not a wholesale change to all drivers’ rules. If we had not made the change to 100 km and it was zero—we had a choice of either zero or 100—we would have brought into play thousands of vehicles that are currently outside the scope of the regulations, which would have been disproportionate.

I will write to the hon. Gentleman with information about the number of prosecutions. The number of fixed penalty notices has gone up in the last few years. Some 22,494 fixed penalty notices were issued last year, raising £3.8 million, which is the highest figure for some years. To put that in context, 17,000 fixed penalty notices were issued two years ago, raising £1.9 million—the amount of money raised has doubled in two years. He asked what proportion of that is tachograph-related, and I will have to do some further investigation, but obviously I will write to him.

[Richard Burden]

If I could take the Minister back to what he said before—this makes the point about why we need a review—if he is right that the EU regulation allows zero exemptions or 100 km exemptions, why is none of that mentioned in any of the paperwork that I have seen so far? How does that work? As I understand it, the whole point of the exemptions is to set out not what the regulation requires, but where there can be national derogations, so how on earth can the regulation say that we can either have zero or 100 km? It allows up to 100 km, but where does it say that we cannot have 50 km?

[Andrew Jones]

My understanding is that that choice was made in 2014, so we had no choice—that relates to previous amendments that were debated and discussed at the time. Our choice now, two years on, is different—it is a choice of either zero or 100. Let us remember that the choice applies to Royal Mail vehicles, vehicles transporting live animals and light goods vehicles propelled by gas or electricity, and only these categories.

[Andrew Jones]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the question I answered on 10 December 2015. Basically, the exemption applies to small passenger-carrying vehicles—effectively people carriers, with eight passenger seats or fewer. These are effectively private vehicles. Such vehicles are exempt from EU drivers’ hours rules and the need to use a tachograph. The same applies to vehicles with between 10 and 17 seats used for non-commercial purposes, which is effectively a minibus carrying scouts or a club football team, and vehicles that are used to carry passengers along regular routes—effectively a local bus service. Such services will be caught up by the change to 100 km. That is my understanding. If I am not correct, I will of course write to the hon. Gentleman.

In Operation Stack, the M20 lorry park is used when there are blockages at the port of Dover or the port of Calais that mean that HGVs cannot pass through as smoothly as possible. The key has been to get the holding area off the highway, and we have had problems when the M20 was closed in both directions because of problems last summer, which brought much of the local economy to a standstill. There has been a consultation on replacing the holding area, and we do not yet have a date for publishing the results, but it is clear that we want to press on. This is a national issue, which is why the Government allocated £250 million to create the holding area in Kent, and we want to press on with that as quickly as possible.

The question about benefits for drivers is very important. The road haulage industry is hugely important to our country. If there were no road haulage, we would be running out of food within days. If we do not have the right numbers of drivers, we will struggle. However, there is a piece of work being carried out by the industry, in partnership with Government, on what we can do to increase the numbers of people joining the industry. The industry has reckoned that there are some significant gaps in driver numbers; however there is a very positive story in the numbers of people now applying to join the sector. To update the Committee, the data showed that 55,000 applicants joined the industry—took their tests—in the past year, which is a significant upgrade on previous years. My intention is to build on that.

There are initiatives to try to bring people into the industry, working with the Department for Work and Pensions and with the armed forces, bringing in people who are leaving our military, but as well as tackling the supply—people joining the industry—we also have keep people in the industry, which is the retention piece. That is where driver facilities come into play. Driver facilities are simply not good enough—that is clear. I am not sure, however, that we can say that that is the responsibility of Highways England; these facilities are largely delivered by private sector organisations and that should continue.

Timescales for introduction were also mentioned. Essentially, we are looking at 2019 for the introduction of smarter tachographs, but they would not have to be applied to domestic vehicles, I think, for another 15 years— therefore, they would not apply until 2034, which is some way away. I think I have answered all the questions that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield asked.

[Richard Burden]

There is one question the Minister has not answered and it is crucial to the way we respond today: will he review the operation of these regulations? In other words, will he change what he said in his explanatory memorandum?

[Andrew Jones]

I review all road safety issues on a rolling basis. I do not think we need to build in any kind of statutory position in legislation to do that. This is a regular feature of all policy development. Road safety is at the heart of what we are trying to do. Tachographs play a key role in ensuring that drivers are not abused by their employers and not driving when they are tired. They contribute to road safety as part of a broader road safety plan. The Government published our road safety plan in December and it has been widely welcomed by the industry. We do not need to have periods of statutory review, but whenever we look at the data, which are published on a quarterly basis for all road accidents, we of course try to look at the causes, and I obviously keep that under review.

[Richard Burden]

I am grateful to the Minister for that, but I go back to his explanatory memorandum, which says that review mechanisms should be built into secondary legislation unless there are exceptional reasons not to do so. What are the exceptional reasons for not building in a review mechanism in this case?

[Andrew Jones]

Let us remember that in this case we are dealing with a very small number of vehicles. The exact nature of the tachographs is still to be defined, so there is further round of legislation to follow, but we are not planning to make any changes, because only a very small number of vehicles are involved.

Question put.

Assessment of Exhaust Emissions

Richard Burden Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 General Committees

[The Chair]

We have until 5.35 pm for questions to the Minister. I remind hon. Members that questions should be brief. There will be an opportunity for debate after the questions, and I may, at my discretion, allow supplementary questions.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I apologise to the Committee in advance, Mr Nuttall, as I am suffering from a cold. I hope that I do not tax Hansard too much, and that it does not mess up the Official Report too much if I start coughing, spluttering or sneezing.

I have two sets of questions. I welcome the fact that the regulation has been scheduled for debate; I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for recommending it. My first set of questions is on the regulation itself, and the second set is on the subject of Volkswagen, which both the European Scrutiny Committee and the Minister have mentioned as being directly related to it.

A number of organisations opposed to the revision of the emissions testing rules, including, I understand, the European Parliament’s own legal affairs committee, have argued that the introduction of conformity factors runs counter to the aims and content of the 2007 EU regulation on the type approval of vehicles. Will the Minister confirm what legal advice the UK Government have received on that matter, and can he assure the Committee that the UK would not end up being prosecuted in the event of a legal challenge?

Will the Minister also confirm how he expects the review mechanism to work in practice? He is absolutely right that the regulation itself will not weaken Euro 6 regulations, but let us be clear that the criticism has been that by allowing a conformity factor of 0.5, there could be an open-ended permission after 2020 for manufacturers to breach the standards by up to 50%. If the reason for the conformity factor is technical deficiencies, or potential technical deficiencies, in testing machinery, what will be done to stimulate the technological improvements that will avoid the need for a conformity factor so great after 2020, and hopefully altogether?

My third question relates to recent discussions in the Select Committee on Transport. In correspondence with the Committee and the Commission, the DFT emphasised its willingness to focus on a new test approach based, I understand, entirely on real-life driving. Will the Minister tell us what feedback the Department has received from the Commission about supporting research by the Joint Research Centre, and what steps the Government are taking to implement that approach?

To simplify administration and the cost of testing, manufacturers will need to test only a minimum number of vehicles representing extremes of performances of wider families of vehicles. How will the Minister ensure that that is done appropriately, and what assessment has he made of smaller manufacturers, for which testing costs could be most acute?

I turn to the VW scandal. The Minister will be aware that legal proceedings are under way in several countries, including Germany, the United States of America and South Korea. What discussions has he had with the Serious Fraud Office and the Competition and Markets Authority, and why is the UK not suing VW? In a written answer before Christmas, he assured me that he would make a statement in the new year on the emissions inquiry, so can we have one now on how many vehicles have been re-tested, what has been found, at what cost, and when he expects the programme to be completed? Will he confirm that the Government will still seek reimbursement for the Vehicle Certification Agency’s re-testing? Does he agree with VW’s decision not to compensate VW owners in the European Union?

Finally, in addition to the 1.2 million customers affected by the NOx defeat devices, I understand that Volkswagen has since admitted to irregularities in tests for carbon dioxide affecting up to 36,000 vehicles. What tests have the Government done to verify that, and can the Minister assure us that VW will be liable for the costs relating to the tests and any shortfall in vehicle excise duty that arises from those irregularities?

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Gentleman asked quite a number of questions. I will take the questions on VW first.

The Government first became aware of the installation of software fitted to Volkswagen vehicles to distort emissions testing following the announcement of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s investigation on 18 September last year. We have widely condemned VW’s behaviour and demanded that it take early action to rectify the situation. Our priority is to protect the consumer, to restore confidence in the real-world performance of diesel vehicles and to ensure that VW supports its UK customers.

The VCA has secured an assurance from all automotive manufacturers outside the VW group for which it has issued emissions type approvals that defeat devices have not been used. The Government have called on the EU to conduct a Europe-wide investigation into whether there is evidence that cars have been fitted with illegal defeat devices. We have obviously gone on to test vehicles, and on 10 November, the Secretary of State announced an emissions testing programme to look for defeat devices and to improve our understanding of the real-world emissions performance of vehicles used in the UK. That investigation is vital to restore public confidence.

The VCA, our type approval authority, first reran lab tests for those VW group vehicles for which it had provided approval. Those initial tests provided valuable information for improving our ability to detect a defeat device and strengthened our understanding of the impact on vehicle emissions. To ensure the independence of the testing, the Department is funding the programme and neither the cars nor the testing facilities will be provided by the vehicle industry. We are completely distant from anything in the sector. We are testing 40 vehicles that are representative of a significant proportion of the overall vehicle fleet. The testing is proceeding well and we are using all the facilities we have in our country to make the process happen as quickly as possible, but we are only halfway through it. That is why we have said that the findings will be published in the spring. It would be premature to make further announcements today because we would be doing so only halfway through the programme, which would not be appropriate. We have been clear that we will not provide an ongoing commentary because we will need to conduct in-depth analysis when we have completed the process and ensure that the results are viewed in context, which can be done only at the completion of the testing. I cannot say more than that on the VW issue today.

I emphasise to the Committee, however, that although the VW crisis has brought things more into the public eye, the work on real driving emissions started long before the VW issue was on anybody’s radar, and that will continue. The proposal before us is about testing for all marques, not just one, and for all vehicle fuels, not just those diesel fuels used in the particular type of engine that caused the problem at VW. While VW is a part of this, that is only in the sense that it has brought the issue further into the public domain. On how we can improve performance, we are building on the success and progress that we have had on air quality over some years—we have gone from Euro 3, Euro 4 and Euro 5 up to Euro 6—and these proposals are a step change. I just want to put things in context for Members, because while that issue is related, it is not the key one.

I will now deal with some of the other questions. Provisions for small manufacturers will be discussed and agreed in the package 3 negotiations, which will take place later this year. The UK has already highlighted the importance of the matter to the Commission and is in discussions with manufacturers here, such as Aston Martin.

I can certainly confirm that discussions are continuing with the Serious Fraud Office and the Competition and Markets Authority. They are independent bodies, so it is for them to decide whether to investigate. We are fortunate to live in a country in which politicians do not direct the legal process.

We need to reflect a little on the issue of changes to measurement tolerance, which is a significant factor. The intention, with the first transition step in 2017, is that the conformity factor can be reached through software and calibration changes alone, and a conformity factor of 2.1 has been agreed. That includes any measurement uncertainty.

The second and final step, in 2020, will brings the conformity factor down to 1, which represents parity with the lab test plus, again, measurement uncertainty. Research conducted by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre examined the various sources of error in on-road emissions measurements. Its conclusion was that there was a worst-case error margin of 0.375, which was why the UK supported 0.4 as a conformity factor. However, some member states argue that other factors that increase NOx emissions in real-world conditions should be taken into account, so an overall figure of 0.5 was agreed.

The Commission has committed to the European Parliament to review the tolerance quickly. We are dealing with new equipment and relatively new technology. The reason why such testing has been used for heavy goods vehicles before cars was simply that the equipment was so big—it could be put in the back of a truck, but not in the back of a car. We are not in that position now as technology is miniaturising. The Commission has committed to a quick review of the tolerance and possibly to moving to much tighter tolerance. We therefore know exactly the direction of travel and there is clear technological progress.

A further question was asked about reviewing our own position on real-world testing, but we have to be clear about what we are asking for before we speak to the European Commission. The Department and chief scientists are considering the matter. Once we know what must be done, we will engage with the Commission and the Joint Research Centre.

On the question of legal challenge, I think that we can be very secure and we have no concerns about that. Our legal opinion is that real driving emissions measures are consistent with Euro 5 and Euro 6 measures. We are not aware of legal challenges on that, and the Commission and the European Parliament are also content. The proposal will complement Euro 5 and Euro 6 testing in a laboratory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

A lot of things to talk about arise from those questions and answers. The relationship between emissions and air quality is fundamental. We know that road transport is a key cause of the pollution that is damaging public health in towns and cities in this country, in the EU and around the world, so it is absolutely right that we are having this debate. Various Committees of this House have had and continue to have hearings on this matter, but it is important that other Members have the opportunity to scrutinise Ministers, and this is one such important opportunity.

However many issues are at play, we risk them being lost or conflated if we are not clear about two things. The accuracy of emissions testing has been an issue for a long time; it has not simply come up as a result of the VW scandal. Despite the leniency of the existing EU testing regime, it appears that in the European Union, as well as in the United States, VW has been involved in actively distorting test results.

I will return to the VW aftermath later, but let us consider specifically the regulation of testing. For a long time, emissions testing has been known to be inaccurate. Given the challenges of technology and the importance of getting variables to be as similar as possible for all tests, there is a gap between lab tests and emissions tests that reflects real-life driving. Policy makers and the industry have been aware of that for a while and have worked to improve the situation. In fact, an EU working group was set up as long ago as 2011, but the response has been woefully slow.

The well-known air quality crisis facing many of our urban areas, plus the opportunity for the UK automotive sector to become a leader in developing the necessary technology, should have prompted the UK Government to push for more action much earlier than they did. Despite what the Minister says, there is little evidence to suggest that the Government as a whole have not dragged their heels. As recently as July, there have been reports that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was briefing MEPs to oppose measures on real-life emissions testing, and it is still not clear what was happening there or, indeed, whether DEFRA was consulting DFT. It seems that it was only when the VW scandal made emissions testing a concern for the wider public that the Government felt compelled to act.

We are where we are, and the regulations before the Committee have left the European Parliament, and all of us, in an impossible position, stuck between a rock and a hard place. Plain and simple, the choice is between consenting to regulation that sets a series of standards but that, after 2020, has built into it an open-ended permission to breach those standards by up to 50%, or getting something in place now to avoid more delays and get the testing improvements that we need in the long run.

Most people accept that limitations in the technology used for testing cannot yet provide 100% accuracy in all conformity tests. That is why we will not oppose the motion, because we must be realistic and get the regulations in place for their planned introduction in 2017, which is important for policy certainty and for ensuring that air quality improvements happen as soon as possible. Lessons have to be learned, however, and the Government must realise their responsibilities.

Labour welcomes the efforts by the European Parliament and, from what the Minister says, the Government to ensure that a review mechanism is built in to the regulations. Saying that there will be a review mechanism is one thing, but ensuring that that happens and means something is something else. It is crucial that the Government do not think, “Job done,” and that pressure on that review mechanism remains. For the sake of public health, we cannot afford to have open-ended emissions breaches in real-life driving tests.

As well as advocating research into the measuring capabilities, there must be a consistent and constant review of the regime to ensure that manufacturers do not avoid limits through other means. The Minister says that all manufacturers in the UK, other than VW, have made it very clear that they have not been involved in the kinds of practice with which VW has been involved. I accept and welcome that, but it is important that the tests provide a failsafe, because public confidence is at stake. The industry is as aware of that as anyone else.

Group testing is a reasonable measure to keep costs down, but the Government must support the VCA to ensure that we get an accurate snapshot of all necessary vehicles. In the longer term, the Government have to be a leader in the European Union and press for a whole new approach that focuses on real-life driving scenarios in a way that is seen to be representative and reliable. Domestically, I will welcome a statement from the Government on what assessment Ministers have made of the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendations for an older diesel scrappage scheme and a review of vehicle excise duty.

Beyond the regulations, we must encourage the media, publications and consumers to maintain pressure for standards to be met. Manufacturers need to be encouraged to go below the emissions standards that are set out. It is easy to think that motorists do not care about emissions, but Which? magazine’s “Come Clean on Fuel Claims” petition suggests otherwise.

Turning to Volkswagen, the public outrage at what it has done has been real and marked. Not only has Volkswagen undermined trust in that company, but public trust in the whole automotive industry has taken a knock. That industry is vital to the UK and Europe, and is doing many good things, but the impact of the scandal has been very detrimental. Its aftermath and outcome are still not clear, however, and I appreciate the opportunity to put concerns to the Minister.

When did the Government actually know? I think that the Minister touched on this earlier, but before the scandal broke in the United States—back in 2013—the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre expressed concerns about the possible use of defeat devices. Why was that allegation not followed up? There is a need for a pan-European inquiry. The Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament are pushing for that and have written to all member states. Are the Government responding to that request and, if so, what will they be saying?

The second issue is to do with what is going on now. The crux of the matter is that still no one fully understands what has happened. Lawsuits are taking place in Germany, South Korea and the United States. There is talk of fines and compensation in some countries, but not in others. The fact that 40,000 drivers have contacted Volkswagen directly underlines the uncertainty facing retailers, workers and drivers. In October, in front of the Transport Committee, Volkswagen apologised profusely and said that it had let everyone down. Now Volkswagen suggests that in Europe the defeat devices were not actually defeat devices at all, and that it will not pay compensation to European Union owners, even though compensation might be paid to owners in the United States of America.

Part of the problem is that our Government have not done enough to press Volkswagen because otherwise why is there still so much confusion among motorists about what is going on? It took a month before Volkswagen first wrote to its customers. No cars have been fixed and no one has an idea of what impact any repairs will have on fuel economy. We need to know what needs to happen and who will pay for it. There is a real risk that the Government’s failure to handle Volkswagen properly will be seen in the same light as their handling of Google, for example. We cannot allow VW to be treated as a Google and to be let off the hook. I appreciate that Volkswagen wants to make sure that the solution does not impact on vehicle performance, fuel consumption or driveability—that is reasonable—but at the same time, the delay is causing extra problems for air quality. At what cost are we letting Volkswagen sort out the problems in its own time?

There are other concerns that the Government have to address. The latest figures suggest that the impact of the scandal on sales figures has not been as bad as was originally feared, but what if there are traceable costs for the retail industry as a whole? Years of false emissions data means, in practice, lost vehicle excise duty. Ministers have promised that drivers will not face higher tax bills as a consequence of Volkswagen’s actions, and we will hold them to that pledge. To do that, however, the Government have to be able to calculate the shortfall for the 36,000 vehicles that apparently have irregularities in not NOx but CO₂.

The Government also need to look at what the cost of VCA re-testing has been and how to recover those costs. Will any fines be levied? As the hon. Member for Glasgow South said, while no one wants to get in the way of the investigations of the Serious Fraud Office or other bodies, there is still a question about whether fines could be levied and hypothecated to promote sustainable transport in the UK.

The development of an accurate emissions testing regime is fundamental to improving air quality and public health and has to be a priority for the Department for Transport. It should not have taken this long, but while the regulation is not to everyone’s liking or ideal, it is a step in the right direction. The important thing now is that the Government have to back their words with actions and not think, “Job done.” That means pressing for the Joint Research Centre to develop better measuring equipment and ensuring the VCA has the resources and finances it needs to do its job effectively.

Let us continue the re-testing, but in respect of VW, surely the time has come for the Government to give their backing to the call for a full Europe-wide inquiry. Nothing short of that will dispel the suspicion that VW could become another Google. If that impression is out there, it is bad for consumers and for the Government, but it is also bad for the automotive industry as a whole, which across the piece seriously wants to tackle the air quality challenge. Part of doing that is restoring public trust, which has to be done by drawing a line under the VW scandal, and that can only be done by maximum transparency, a proper Europe-wide inquiry and appropriate accountability being ensured.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the portable emissions measurement equipment, which has been developed largely in response to the UK and others in Europe pushing for RDE, that actually enabled the investigators to unearth the VW issue in the first place. Europe is the first place in the world to introduce on-road emissions testing. The idea that we have been off the pace, complacent or asleep at the wheel is simply not true.

Has the reputation of the sector been damaged? Yes, it has. Has VW’s reputation been damaged? Yes. For what it is worth, my car has been recalled as part of the process. VW is not quite the company I thought it was when I bought the vehicle, and indeed paid extra for the environmental package as I sought to be a low-emitter driver. I am sure that the sector recognises that its reputation has been damaged. I have had that conversation with automotive industry players and with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. Real driving emissions testing is part of the answer and the key to recovering trust.

[Richard Burden]

I think the Minister is running two things together now; they are related, but they are separate. One is the need for real-life driving emissions testing, which is the purpose of this regulation, but the second point relates to VW and I do not think the Minister has addressed it. Before the scandal broke in the United States, in 2013 the EU Commission’s Joint Research Centre raised concerns about the use of defeat devices. I am not aware that that was followed up on. Was it and, if so, where was the follow-up? If it was not, why not?

[Andrew Jones]

Well, no hard evidence was shared by the Commission or the Joint Research Centre, and we cannot take action without hard evidence. It goes back to the point about real driving emissions testing being the answer. It is not a question of conflating different issues. VW and real driving emissions are separate but related issues. The VW crisis has brought to a head the work on real driving emissions, but that work started long before the VW crisis and will continue after the situation is resolved.

The Department was first aware of the situation on 18 September, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his written ministerial statement. He has been following up on the matter and pressing VW to take care of its UK consumers. For example, he took the issue up with its UK chief executive on 10 December. There was a further question about whether VW has breached EU regulations. I have to say that it is not clear that VW has breached EU regulations, which is why the RDE package 2 agreement has included an amendment of the text relating to defeat devices to require vehicle manufacturers to declare any alternative emissions strategies.

The situation regarding compensation is also different in the USA and in Europe. In the USA, Volkswagen does not have a technical solution; in Europe, it does. However, the point remains that we are in the middle of the testing process. We have ruled nothing in or out and we will not comment further until we get to the end of the process and put all of it into context, but we will certainly speak up for UK consumers, and that is what we have done consistently.

We are committed to improving air quality, and the RDE agreement is crucial to delivering improvements in UK air quality and decreasing real-world NOx emissions. The current arrangement is the best option we have for environmental and health benefits and to ensure that vehicle manufacturers improve real-world emissions now. The implementation dates and conformity factors are challenging, as everybody in the industry recognises, but they are achievable. It is right to set demanding targets, because the goal of clean air will benefit our communities and is clearly important. It will require vehicle manufacturers to produce cleaner cars, starting next year.

I recognise that more work needs to be done at technical level. The UK is committed to playing a full and active role in finalising the remaining technical issues. We will certainly press the Commission to start a review of how RDE functions, with the clear aim of reducing the margin for measurement uncertainty that is in the final agreement.

The motion urges the UK Government to continue to press for action on real driving emissions. I am happy to make that commitment, but I hope that it has become clear in the course of this debate and in the answers that I have given that we are not just pressing for action; we are taking action, and we are leading the way on taking action. We started a long time ago, and we will continue to do so. The UK has a strong record on public health and automotive, and we have brought the two together to provide significant benefits for the people of this country.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

That is not the impression I get when I meet representatives of the aviation industry. Indeed, the improvement of sustainable aviation is an industry-led initiative. I repeat that this is a very important year for the world in terms of tackling CO₂ emissions from aviation. We all want to achieve a globally based mechanism, and I am determined to ensure that we play our part in negotiating it.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I really do need to press the Minister a bit further on this. Recently, British Airways postponed its GreenSky project to establish a facility to produce advanced biofuels for aviation here in the UK. While the issues involved in that are no doubt complex, will the Minister listen to the increasingly widespread warnings from those involved in aviation that inaction and lack of clear policy direction from the Government are holding back the development and use of renewable fuels in aviation, thereby missing opportunities to boost jobs and skills in these technologies and making it more difficult to meet our obligations on carbon and harmful emissions?

[Mr Goodwill]

I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration in wanting to make more progress, but I have to say that there is more than one way of killing a cat. Yes, alternative fuels may have an important role to play, but more importantly—[Interruption.] More importantly, a market-based mechanism will allow other types of technology to be developed which can then be used to offset the emissions from aviation, which will always be dependent on liquid fuels. [Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this. As I have said, a huge amount of investment is being made available to Highways England. I visited the site with my hon. Friend earlier this year, and it would open up a large area of potential development, which is very important for his constituency.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Over the summer, roads to the channel ports ground to a halt, lorry drivers who were stuck in their cabs needed emergency water to drink, and local businesses were hit as Kent villages near the motorway network were cut off. The Chancellor’s announcement of a new lorry park may be a step in the right direction, but it will not keep the traffic moving of itself and it falls well short of highways management road improvement works that local partners tell me are needed if Kent is going to be protected from similar snarl-ups in future. Does the Secretary of State consider his lorry park “job done”? If not, what else is he going to do before, rather than after, the people of the south-east go through the same thing again?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not regard it as “job done” but I regard it as a great step in the right direction to find that level of resources available to solve what was an unacceptable situation for people in Kent last summer. It is definitely a step in the right direction, but I will obviously keep every other option under review.

Airports Commission: Final Report

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) on securing the debate, and thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate to take place. I thank, too, all the Members who have spoken today, but I will not attempt to go through all their contributions. If I had done a scorecard, I think we would have seen that 12 Members were broadly against Heathrow, and 10 were broadly in favour—I am not including those on the Front Benches. I wish to make particular mention of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who will be debating this issue a lot more in the coming months.

It is always a pleasure to see my opposite number, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), and I look forward to hearing what he has to say. We had hoped to hear from the Transport Secretary, as he is a member of the mysterious Government sub-committee considering this issue. We would have appreciated a report from him, but it looks as if we will have to wait for that.

The aviation sector is a key pillar of our economy. I hope that the House will forgive me if I say that it is also an industry that makes our world a smaller place. It fosters direct face-to-face contact and understanding between peoples across the globe in a way that no other industry or mode of travel does. It is for that reason that aviation is a central target for those who want to kill, terrorise, undermine that understanding, and spread fear among those going about their daily lives. We were reminded of that with the Sharm el-Sheikh tragedy just a few weeks ago. It underlines why the decisions that our Parliament was wrestling with this morning are so profound, not only for our country as a whole, but for those working in aviation. It is why it is right that we pay tribute today to all those who work in the civil aviation sector, on the ground and in the air.

As I said at the outset, the aviation industry is vital to the economy, generating around £50 billion in GDP, around a million jobs, and £8 billion in tax revenue. In 2014, UK airports handled 238 million passengers. We also know that aviation accounts for around 6% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions and that there are issues of noise. The Volkswagen emissions scandal originated in the automotive industry, rather than in aviation, and the public are increasingly demanding transparency and action on air quality issues, too. That is why the work of the Sustainable Aviation Network is so important. Bringing together airlines, airports, airspace managers, aircraft manufacturers, unions and so many more, it is already making a big contribution to the challenges that aviation faces in the years ahead.

The introduction and development of sustainable fuels could make a major contribution to reducing emissions. Aircraft technology is another issue. We have heard about the lighter, smaller aircraft, such as the 787 and the A350, that could take long-haul flights. There are also new initiatives in airspace management. Even though airports have seen their passenger numbers increase by more than 5%, their carbon footprint has fallen by almost 3%. Continuing with the sustainable aviation agenda is fundamentally important not just for this debate, but for jobs and skills in the UK.

Turning to the issue of airport capacity, we were promised a response to the commission before Christmas, and we await to hear from the Minister when we can expect it. Our job as the Opposition is to scrutinise the response, and we have been clear about the four tests against which we will measure it when it comes. Two of those are about the environmental challenges posed by the different options put forward for additional runway capacity at either Heathrow or Gatwick: first, how far the UK’s climate change obligations can still be met; and, secondly, how local noise and environmental impacts can be managed and minimised. Davies said that the expansion of Heathrow had to be contingent—his word—on the latter point being addressed. Gatwick and Heathrow have both told me why they believe their plans meet those tests. But both rely on scenarios that require action from the Government, and Davies himself emphasised that the choices made by the Government will make the difference to what can be achieved.

On noise, for example, airports and airspace managers need to know whether the framework is to concentrate noise geographically or to disperse it. Whatever they decide, why cannot the Government now agree in principle with the Davies commission’s proposal for an independent aviation noise authority, with statutory consultation rights? That could be agreed now.

If the expansion of Gatwick or Heathrow is to help rather than hinder the UK in meeting our carbon or air quality targets, we require a big modal shift, with a transformation in the way that greater numbers of people and goods travel to and from those airports. What actions will the Government take to ensure that their conclusions on airport expansion, whatever they are, are compatible with our environmental obligations?

As for our other two tests, we will be looking for clearer answers from the Government on how their decision on Davies will meet the capacity challenge. Everyone agrees that the capacity in the south-east needs reviewing; that is why Labour supported the establishment of the commission. But there are very different answers from Heathrow, Gatwick and others about the kind of additional capacity needed, and how that will inform where any new runway in the south-east should go. What are the Government’s conclusions about the differing impact that different decisions will have on short-haul capacity, long-haul capacity, regional air connectivity, transfer traffic and the relative growth of point-to-point and hub traffic?

That brings me to the fourth test that we ask the Minister to address. This cannot be simply about how well or badly air travel serves the south-east. The issue of connectivity to other parts of the UK is vital, as too is seeing this as an opportunity for rebalancing growth across the regions. While the question of a new runway at Heathrow, Gatwick or neither is a key decision for UK aviation, it is not the only one. Whatever decision is made on Heathrow or Gatwick, it will take eight, nine or 10 years to implement—longer, if there are legal challenges.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Richard Burden]

I would like to, but there is not time.

Aviation will not stand still in that time. Businesses will still need new routes to connect with existing and emerging markets. New aircraft such as the A350 and the B787 offer new possibilities for the economics of expanded point-to-point travel. If we are serious about rebalancing our economy, we must ensure that those routes are not simply dependent on what happens in the south-east.

Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, and—for freight— East Midlands are all international gateways to the UK in their own right and deserve to be treated as such. Will the Minister put the upgrading of rail links for the west Anglia lines in the next rail investment control period, to allow Stansted to achieve its potential in the south-east? Will he confirm that Manchester airport will be linked directly to HS2?

Having accepted the sense of Labour’s plan to create a National Infrastructure Commission, will the Minister endorse the call from my hon. Friend the shadow Transport Secretary for it to examine the long-term road and rail needs of airports and other transport gateways throughout the country, not simply in the south-east? Finally, when can we expect the promised review of the future of air passenger duty, looking at its purpose and how options for reform can improve the competitiveness of different airports in a devolved environment?

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

Motorists will not face any increase in taxes—we have made that fairly clear—but this is one of the issues that VW will have to address in due course.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Is not the reality, though, that Ministers’ statements are leaving motorists and people concerned about air quality none the wiser? Will the Secretary of State clear the air on one point, which is what happened at the EU Technical Committee yesterday? It was not just about setting a timetable for new cars to conform with existing emissions, was it? Did it not also involve an open-ended permission to breach those limits by 50%, and is not that what the UK representative voted for?

[Mr McLoughlin]

What was important yesterday is that we got agreement for real-world emissions testing right across the whole of Europe. That has been objected to in the past. We pressed for it in May, and I am very pleased that we achieved it yesterday. If the hon. Gentleman says that it is not as much as he would like or as fast as he would like, I would say that we have made more progress in six months of this new Conservative Government than was ever made by the previous Government.

Midland Main Line (Electrification)

Richard Burden Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I always seem to do so in debates about infrastructure, and today is no exception. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Harry Harpham) on securing this important and timely debate, which is his first in Westminster Hall. He introduced the subject skilfully and his arguments had great force. He has been a constant champion of public transport for many years, both on Sheffield City Council and since his election to this place.

It is four months or so since the publication of the Conservative party’s general election manifesto. Let us remind ourselves of what it said:

“We will back business by…electrifying the Midland Main Line from St Pancras to Sheffield”.

That is all very good. A decision to support electrification was made some three years ago, which was welcomed by passengers, local authorities and hon. Members of all parties. The midland main line has been the Cinderella of Britain’s main lines. As hon. Members have mentioned, the campaign to electrify the route goes back to the ’70s and ’80s, when British Rail said that doing so was “a first priority”, until the Conservative Government of the day withdrew their support. There is a distinct sense of history repeating itself. Nobody can fail to appreciate the strength of feeling that still exists on the issue in all parts of the House and all parties, and I am sure that passengers up and down the route will welcome the contributions of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.

The case for electrifying the midland main line is compelling. A Network Rail assessment in 2009 found that the project’s benefit-cost ratio was “technically infinite”, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) has said. More recent figures published by the Department show that the benefit-cost ratio of the project is superior to those of other major projects that are proceeding. Network Rail has said that the project is

“critical to delivering a reliable and sustainable railway and tackling overcrowding.”

In 2012, the Government talked about an “electric spine” that would convey passengers and freight from Southampton to Sheffield, which was, again, described as a first priority in terms of rail investment.

Rail investment in the north of England, including Yorkshire, falls notoriously short compared with the funding made available to other regions. According to the Department’s own figures, rail investment per head is lower in the east midlands than in any other English region. That point has been emphasised by hon. Members from the region; I am sure that the Minister will agree that they have been giving her “aggro” about that, to quote the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). The electrification of the midland main line would have gone some way towards addressing the inequalities.

Electrification is not the only problem, however. Some of the trains on the route date back to the 1970s. Although they have performed admirably over the years, they must be withdrawn or upgraded at significant cost by 2020 to comply with the Disability Discrimination Acts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) has pointed out. The clear aspiration was that the rolling stock would be replaced by superior electric trains, but that, too, has been thrown into doubt.

I will return to electrification in a moment, but it is important to set out that the upgrade package also contained significant speed improvements. Indeed, when the Secretary of State announced his decision to “pause” the electrification programme, he said:

“We will press on with the rebuilding to speed up and straighten the track at Market Harborough, and with the rebuilding of the Derby track layout. That will mean faster services soon, and it will enable us to make the most of the electrification and new trains that will result from future franchises.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 1073.]

That point has been made by several hon. Members. The problem is that as far as we can tell, there is still a £9 million funding gap for the Market Harborough project, and there has been no clarity from the Department about whether and how that gap will be filled. Worse still, there are worrying rumours and reports—most recently in Construction News—that the Hendy review has concluded that only a fraction of Network Rail’s control period 5 schemes are affordable. That throws into further doubt some of the things that the Government have been saying, so I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity today. It has been reported in The Sunday Times and Passenger Transport that on top of escalating costs, Network Rail’s budget may be cut further in the comprehensive spending review, threatening not only improvement projects, but essential maintenance.

That is a world away from what we were told in April, when the Chancellor said:

“Spending review will set out improvements to rail travel in East Mids including electrifying Midland Main Line from Bedford to Sheffield”.

Let us not pretend that that has nothing to do with the choices that the Government have made, and nothing to do with the fact that different choices are announced before and after an election when marginal seats are at stake. Ministers have adopted a policy of implausible deniability on the matter, but let us recap some of the facts. We first raised concerns about cost overruns on the great western main line in in May 2014, just weeks into the new investment period. Last October, the then shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), asked the Transport Secretary to say

“which electrification projects will be delayed or cancelled”—[Official Report, 23 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 1030.]

as a consequence of cost overruns. The Secretary of State was apparently so concerned about those matters that he ordered an “urgent” review of Network Rail’s projects, which he received in September. He has refused to publish it, so we can only speculate on its contents. The Transport Committee warned in January:

“We are concerned that key rail enhancement projects…have been announced by Ministers without Network Rail having a clear estimate of what the projects will cost, leading to uncertainty about whether the projects will be delivered on time, or at all.”

The Committee stated:

“Electrification of lines in the North West, the North trans-Pennine line, and the Midland Main Line, should not be put at risk due to the projected overspend on the Great Western Main Line.”

Crucially, we now know, thanks to documents obtained by Labour under the Freedom of Information Act, that in March, Network Rail’s board agreed to

“decisions required jointly with the DfT re enhancement deferrals from June”.

Unnamed sources in the Department initially denied to the BBC that there was any knowledge of these discussions before the election. However, Network Rail’s chief executive subsequently confirmed:

“In mid-March 2015, Network Rail informed DfT that decisions may need to be made in the coming months about the deferral of certain schemes.”

Are we now asked to believe that Ministers really had no knowledge? I have previously described the midland main line as something of a Cinderella route, and to believe what the Government have been saying about the route is a bit like believing in fairy stories, which always seem to end with a silver carriage turning into a pumpkin.

Voters heard promises to deliver the electrification of the midland main line in the best of faith. The only people who did not know that the investment programme was collapsing, apparently, were Ministers in the Department for Transport. Will the Minister address that today? It is a straightforward question, but her Department has refused to answer it until now. When Network Rail told the Department in March that decisions may be required on the deferral of major rail projects, were Ministers in the Department informed?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

I am happy to put to rest once and for all the conspiracy theory that the hon. Gentleman knows better than to perpetrate. My boss, the Secretary of State for Transport, has stated unequivocally on multiple occasions that the first time he received advice that either of these projects should be paused was on 15 June 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

The Minister has been very clear. She will have to answer my next set of questions, and I hope she will when she sums up. Were her officials therefore not telling her what they were being told by Network Rail, or was the chief executive of Network Rail telling porkies?

Looking ahead, it is not clear what remains of the Government’s much-heralded “biggest programme of rail investment since the Victorians.” It now looks as if the much-heralded northern powerhouse has had the power turned off, the midlands engine has been left to rust and the electric spine has been broken. There is enormous anger in the north of England about the northern powerhouse, of which the midland main line project is a part.

[Mr Bone]

I was not going to intervene, but I thought this debate had been constructive and useful on both sides of the Chamber. The shadow Minister’s political rant is out of place. I could easily ask, “How many miles of railway did Labour build in 13 years?” This is not the place for that debate.

[Richard Burden]

I have made it clear that there is cross-party anger about the delays to this project, and I think that anger is genuine from Government Members. I imagine that they are as concerned as Opposition Members about why something that was promised as recently as April has since been removed and about the discrepancies that appear to exist about what happened.

[Mr Bone]

Thirteen years.

[Richard Burden]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the record of the last Labour Government, I am happy to do so. There is not a lot of time.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. The shadow Minister might be happy to do so, but the Chairman is not.

[Richard Burden]

I will simply say that Labour invested more in the railways in real terms than any previous Government.

I hope the Minister is able to confirm today that, whatever happened in the past, Cinderella will finally get to the ball. Ultimately, passengers in that part of the country need to know whether the full speed improvements package will go ahead, as planned. I even hope that she is able to tell us that electrification of the midland main line will go ahead under a reasonable timetable, as promised. When will that announcement be made?

This has been happening not for years but for decades. Passengers deserve clarity, and the Government are the only people who can give that clarity. I hope the Minister will do that today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the £9 million shortfall. I need to investigate that further and will write to him. I believe that efforts are being made by several organisations to fill that important funding gap.

The hon. Gentleman has prompted me to answer his important rolling stock question regarding electrification and the cascade, on which he is absolutely right to focus. It will be the case that when preparation work starts for the new franchise, which will be let in 2018, all the questions around rolling stock specification and the requirement for new trains will be put into it. When we invited tenders for the TPE franchise, we gave bidders an option and set out what we knew about improvement works.

By the way, there is this idea that we are somehow not investing in the north, but has the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) travelled on the new electric trains that run between Manchester and Liverpool and Liverpool and Wigan? Electrification has come to that part of the UK for the first time. I hope that he will join me in celebrating the fact that those cities now have new electric trains, which were delivered by this Government, as promised. We are 100% committed to ensuring that the £38 billion unprecedented investment in the railways happens right across the UK, not including HS2, which, as my hon. Friends pointed out, is vital to speed up journey times to and from the north and to pull wealth out of the south-east. We will also continue—[Interruption.] Did the hon. Gentleman want to celebrate and welcome that electrification?

[Richard Burden]

There have been reports—I mentioned the one in Construction News—that say that the Hendy review has already concluded that only a fraction of the control period 5 projects are financially sustainable. Does the Minister have those reports as well? If so, how does she square them with what she has just said?

London Black Cabs

Richard Burden Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate and on the contributions that he and many other hon. Members, on both sides of the Chamber, have made. I mention in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). Like him, I suspect that this is the first of many debates that he will have with the hon. Member for Richmond Park. They were in agreement on the matter, and the consensus across the Chamber has been remarkable. I hope that the Minister bears that in mind when he replies to the debate.

Today’s debate concerns something fundamental for London, as many hon. Members have said, namely the future of black cabs in the capital. It is clear that existing regulation is insufficient to deal with the changes. That point has been made by the hon. Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Tooting and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—he made an excellent speech—and it has been recognised north of the border by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). Although black cabs are regarded as having some of the highest safety and accessibility standards for taxis anywhere in the world, the phenomenon of ride-sharing schemes and taxi apps has made it clear that regulation has simply not kept pace with the changes. That gives us a choice about how we cope with those changes and regulatory challenges.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Although I acknowledge that the subject of the debate is black cabs in London, I attended, along with other hon. Members, a national lobby of Parliament expressing the concerns about the matter across the midlands and in a number of the great cities in the north. This is a problem that we will all face, even if we do not face it immediately. Is it not a good time, as a Parliament, to look at the legal definition of plying for hire and to resolve the matter not only in London, but across the whole United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and without wanting to stray from the focus of the debate, I hope to say one or two words about that in a while. He was also right in his earlier intervention about the need for consistency in regulation across the piece, which has to be founded on principles.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting made the point, quite correctly, that we have a choice. We can look towards a future based on a race to the bottom, with all that that implies, or we can look to generalise the best standards for drivers and for passengers. I have referred to black cabs, but rising to the challenge of dealing with these changes is also important for the private hire industry. Properly regulated private hire has a role in the capital and elsewhere in getting people to the airport early in the morning, for example, and getting them home from nightclubs late at night or perhaps very early in the morning. Whether they use private hire or black cabs, passengers—across the country, not simply in London—need to know that services will be reliable and that they will be safe.

In London, about 3.5 billion passenger journeys a year are being recorded on the underground and the bus network combined, and London’s population is set to grow from 8.6 million today to around 10 million by 2030. As companies such as Uber recognise, that will have a profound effect on the nature of our transport system. With their emergence and success, Uber and other apps have made important headway in London, notably in the late-night market and the recreational market. They have been particularly successful in London’s suburbs, where the black cab network is sometimes at its thinnest. The promotions and public relations of such companies are something of a masterclass, it has to be said. Despite serious reservations about Uber, which I will say something about in a minute, it is not surprising that a recent YouGov poll found that a majority of Londoners thought that Uber was a good thing.

I want to recognise a good thing that Uber has done. It recently launched the UberGiving campaign to help to raise money for the global refugee crisis, in partnership with Save the Children. That is an innovative and worthy fundraising campaign. I suppose that the company would say that that is part of social responsibility, and I welcome that. Social responsibility goes beyond that, however, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Tottenham and for Tooting have said. If the company wants to be part of the fabric of the public transport system in its widest sense in London—I consider taxis and private hire vehicles to be part of that—and in the rest of the country, responsibilities must go with rights. Surely, an absolutely fundamental responsibility for a company is to pay its dues in taxes, which provide services in the country in which it operates.

Some of Uber’s actions give cause for genuine concern. There are regulatory disparities and issues about the use of taximeters. It is also important to ensure that the welfare of passengers is made paramount. Passengers have a right to know that when they book a journey through any operator, the service will be reliable, traceable and fairly priced. They should also know who is driving and be able to trace the vehicle’s registration and licensing details quickly and easily.

Such strengthening of safety regulation must extend to drivers as well. There are real concerns about the kind of culture encouraged by Uber and, I have to say, some private hire operators. To recruit new drivers, Uber’s website states:

“Make money on your own terms. Full-time and part-time driving opportunities for independent contractors in London give you the flexibility to access the platform as much or as little as you want. You can focus on driving your car when it works for you.”

That all sounds fine, in one way, but is it encouraging a culture—particularly as we have already heard from right hon. and hon. Members about the pay rates that Uber drivers often end up earning—of long hours, with drivers working 50 to 70 hours a week without any checks? The impact of tiredness on drivers and their passengers can be quite simply deadly. What assessment has the Minister made of the long hours that are being encouraged by not only Uber but the private hire industry more generally?

Beyond passenger and driver welfare, Labour recognises the genuine concerns of unions and private hire trade associations that Uber’s growth may be benefiting from a loose interpretation of the regulation on taximeters that I have mentioned. That is why I welcomed Transport for London’s decision to seek a High Court ruling on taximeters in May 2014. Apps such as Uber that involve a contract for vehicle hire must conform to the same standards of safety, licensing and insurance as the rest of the industry. They are neither black cab nor minicab, so it is vital that we understand and get a ruling on where they fit in the regulatory framework.

The delay in obtaining that ruling has gone on for some time, so the discrepancies persist. Does the Minister have any information about when that is likely to be resolved? Although it is clearly not for anybody here to speculate on the outcome, can the Minister confirm whether his Department has consulted with TfL to draw up contingency plans for all the possible scenarios that may result, and will he confirm what those plans are? Many hon. Members agree that any High Court ruling will address only one regulatory issue, but the kinds of problems that we are experiencing in London are being experienced not only in other parts of the country but internationally. They have come up in other European cities, in north America and even, in quite serious ways, in Mexico City.

TfL’s involvement and its announcement over the summer of a consultation on regulations have been timely. I will not go into too much detail about that at the moment, other than to ask the Minister to comment on two relevant matters: capping and off-duty driving. On capping, the transport network has to respond to the challenge of population growth, but there is real concern about where the unprecedented rise in the number of minicabs, which many hon. Members have mentioned today, is heading.

In an Adjournment debate before the summer recess, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), to say whether the Government will consider a cap on numbers and what their view is on such a cap. That Minister would not be drawn, but I hope the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), will tell us today whether a cap on numbers could be appropriate.

My other question on the TfL review is about the rules on who can drive off-duty taxis and private hire vehicles and when they can be driven. The Minister will recall that, when the coalition Government tried to introduce such a measure in the Deregulation Act 2015, they were forced to withdraw part of that proposal in the House of Lords simply because too many people noticed that it opened up the possibility of illegal pick-ups and malpractice, and made things such as sexual assault far more, not less, likely. Although I recognise that the review is primarily TfL’s responsibility, will the Government say anything in response to that review given the response when the Deregulation Act was debated in the previous Parliament?

That draws me to my final point, which picks up on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). A long time ago, the Law Commission was charged with looking in detail at regulatory disparities. It was recognised a long time ago that proper consideration is needed, and we have all known for years that a proper, thorough review of taxi and private hire regulations is needed to ensure safety and consistency and to recognise changing customer demands and expectations. That is why the Government asked the Law Commission to consider such matters but, after delay after delay and coyness from the Government about when anything would happen, Ministers jumped the gun just before the Law Commission published its findings and made last-minute additions to the Deregulation Act on PHV and taxi licensing outside London that, to put it charitably, were half-baked and ill thought out.

The Government got themselves into a mess on that, as we know, so where will they go from here? Will they respond to the points that have been consistently raised in this debate on the need to have proper consolidated legislation, a Bill, that can sort out the matter, that can update centuries-old regulations, that can address the challenges facing black cabs in London and that can incorporate long-overlooked taxis of sorts, rickshaws and ride sharing, and other such things? When will they set out their response to the Law Commission’s proposals and recommendations in general? If the Minister is not able to give that response now, will he let us know when he feels he might be able to do so? How does he expect that to fit with the likely timetable for High Court rulings on Uber and TfL’s regulatory review for London?

London’s black cabs are revered as having the highest safety and accessibility standards in the world. Last month, the Local Government Association called for its taxi operators to be put in line with the high standards enforced in London. Can we have a proper Bill to regulate taxis and private hire vehicles? Will the Government take the initiative, and when will they introduce such a Bill?

My final, final point is on emissions. A number of hon. Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, have spoken about pollution. If black cabs and the private hire industry are to help address the challenge of air quality in the capital, they need to be future-proofed. The Government’s commitment of £25 million through the Office for Low Emission Vehicles to help drivers upgrade to greener vehicles is a good step, but the Government are sending mixed messages. The Chancellor has tagged increased vehicle excise duty rates on all vehicles, including low emission vehicles. Outside of transport, we have seen the mothballing of a number of green policies since the election. May we see a bit more consistency? On taxis and private hire vehicles specifically, has the Minister received any representations from the taxi trade on the phasing in of emissions requirements? What is he doing to alleviate such concerns? Will he listen not only to the consensus in this debate on the future of taxis and private hire vehicles in the capital but to the people at the sharp end—the drivers, the trade associations and so on—who are telling him what is coming down the tracks? Something needs to be done. As well as answering the specific questions asked by hon. Members, will he confirm that he agrees that the time has come for comprehensive, thought-through legislation to get a proper taxi and private hire Bill on the statute book?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. This Government will not be bullied by any individual company. We must keep in mind the qualities of the taxi and private hire sectors and what they have delivered over many years—in some cases, over centuries—for our city. Both are strong, important players and need a protected future.

I know that the London taxi trade fundamentally disagrees with TfL’s views on how Uber calculates a fare. Many members of the taxi trade consider Uber’s smartphone app to be essentially a taximeter. Taximeters are, of course, forbidden in London’s private hire vehicles. Transport for London has recognised that the law in respect of the issue is unclear and has applied to the High Court for a declaration. Members have asked when that case will be determined. It is due to be heard in the High Court next month, so we should let the court make its decision.

Transport for London’s vision and strategy for the taxi industry is designed to maintain and enhance the high standard of service on which customers have come to rely. It will include development of the next generation of taxis, which will be environmentally clean and modern and suitable for passenger needs, particularly those of disabled people, a point consistently made by Members in this debate. The taxis will retain or enhance accessibility features to ensure a safe, smooth and comfortable ride.

The Mayor of London has announced plans to improve air quality in London, including by increasing the number of ultra-low-emission taxis. In April this year, the Office for Low Emission Vehicles announced the launch of a £45 million fund to support the roll-out of ultra-low-emission taxis across the United Kingdom. It includes £25 million set aside specifically for the Greater London area to help taxi drivers cover the costs of upgrading to a greener vehicle. The Mayor of London has pledged an additional £40 million, creating a £65 million fund to encourage the cleanest and greenest taxi fleet in the world.

At the same time, Geely, which owns the iconic London Taxi Company, announced plans for a new £250 million state-of-the-art facility to produce the next generation of low-emission London taxis in Ansty, near Coventry. Geely was awarded £17 million from the Government’s regional growth fund to build the facility, which will create 1,000 new jobs and ensure that the London taxi continues to be designed, developed and made in the United Kingdom. This shows the Government’s support for the taxi trade throughout the country and will mean that the London taxi trade will play a leading role in improving the capital’s air quality and meeting our climate change obligations.

Hon. Members may be aware that last year, the London Assembly’s transport committee began an investigation into taxi and private hire services in London. As a result of that scrutiny, the committee made a number of recommendations to the Mayor and Transport for London on steps that they could take to improve taxi and private hire services in the city. In some cases, the committee was critical of the role of the taxi and private hire section of TfL, and I understand that members of both London’s taxi and private hire vehicle trades gave evidence to the committee as to their dissatisfaction with TfL’s actions as the licensing authority. The committee is responsible for questioning and scrutinising the actions of the Mayor, so it is not for the Government to comment on local licensing matters or the committee’s actions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park will be aware that the Department for Transport asked the Law Commission in 2012 to conduct a review of taxi and private hire vehicle legislation throughout England and Wales, including London. That was against the backdrop of the Government’s red tape challenge and legislation that dates back to the first half of the 19th century and the age of the horse-drawn hackney carriage. Despite more recent legislation to allow for the regulation of private hire vehicles, the recent innovations that I and colleagues have described this morning have demonstrated that the legislation used to regulate both the taxi and private hire trades is becoming increasingly outdated. Licensing authorities throughout England and Wales are now faced with the challenge of accommodating 21st century technology in 19th century legislation.

The Law Commission undertook a comprehensive review, its final report containing recommendations for a modern and simplified structure. The report not only provided crucial analysis of the problems posed by the current law, but provided solutions designed to make a difference to both the travelling public and people in the industry. Updated and simplified legislation will provide a modern and simple framework, ensuring public safety and providing the trade with certainty, making growth and competition easier. I cannot yet give the House a date for the Government response to the review, but the Law Commission’s work has been powerful and important.

[Richard Burden]

It is good news that the Government are looking at the legislation, but it is not enough for the Minister to say that he does not know when the Government will respond. TfL is doing a review, the London Assembly is considering such matters, and Uber is growing. If the Law Commission has been meeting since 2012, when on earth will the Government make a decision about whether they are going to do something?

[Andrew Jones]

I completely recognise the importance of this case. We are seeing technological changes that require a legislative change, but getting this right is critical. The Government are still considering the matter, and I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any more detail at this moment.