Roadworks: Journey Times

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Roger, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) on securing this very important debate.

Tonight, drivers in my constituency of Dumfries and Galloway will set what I think is a record. At the stroke of 8 pm, traffic cones will close the A75 road to motorists and force them to undertake a 96-mile—yes, 96-mile—diversion. That must surely be among the longest diversions ever forced on drivers. The overnight closure between Newtown Stewart and Castle Douglas is not a one-off; it is just the latest in a round of closures that will continue into November. A journey that normally takes 40 minutes will become a two and a half hour epic.

Although transport is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, I raise this issue in this Chamber because the A75, which is grandly titled the “Euro route” although it is often more akin to a cart-track, has significance for every one of our constituents. Sir Peter Hendy’s Union connectivity review identified the A75 as the key link between Northern Ireland, Scotland and England, as it serves the busy ferry port of Cairnryan in my constituency. It is of UK-wide importance. Estimates vary, but perhaps as much as 60% of Northern Ireland’s trade grinds along that road. Maintenance, as we have heard, is welcome and vital, but diversions such as the one I mentioned treat the public with contempt. Surely we can do better.

The other road that services the port of Cairnryan is the A77. It too could be a record breaker, for it had, according to the A77 action group, three closures for road accidents and 161 for works—and that is only between January and September of this year. It was shut on Monday and again on Tuesday; once for a lorry on fire and once for a lorry off the road. Further, the A77 still hangs by a thread in Glen App, where literally years of roadworks have failed to cure a landslip risk.

Scotland’s First Minister has agreed to visit Galloway to discuss roads from hell, which are screaming out for investment beyond mere patch-ups, and the £5 million in today’s Budget for the A75 is a start. I have invited the Secretary of State for Scotland to drive the A75 and the A77 too. He says his busy schedule will not allow it, but might someone from the Department for Transport make time to see how awful those unenviable record-breaking roads are? We hear boasts that Labour has reset relations with the SNP, so perhaps they could share a car with the First Minister.

Finally, I want to make an early plea that should anyone suggest a traffic cone tsar, we should instead call the position the cone arranger.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

That was terrible.

Driving Test Availability

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Before we proceed, let me first point out that I am going to call those who have submitted letters. Not every Member present and not every Member rising has written in. I have to give priority to those who have submitted an application to participate in the debate first. The second point I have to make, sadly, is that this debate is very time limited indeed. I am going to have to impose a time limit of three minutes and I may have to reduce that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for enabling the debate to happen, and everyone who has raised issues today. I will not add too much to the detail of what people have said already, but I will talk a bit about the impacts on my constituents.

I also need to declare an interest. I have reached 50 years of age without learning to drive, but changes to my circumstances at the start of July mean that there is now good reason and a strong imperative to do so. When I researched it over the summer for myself and for my husband, it became very clear that it was not an easy and immediate option for either of us. That was not a surprise, however, given the amount of messages already in my inbox.

By way of an example, a constituent of mine, Jai, came to my surgery on behalf of his daughter, who is desperate to start a career as a police officer—a career that we deeply need in constituencies across the country. She cannot start the job because she needs to be able to drive; she will be working in shifts. All she could find was a driving test months down the line in Birmingham, which is 150 miles away. She is one of the luckier constituents, in that she could actually find one.

My constituency has some significant areas of deprivation. I do not know, Sir Roger, whether you have been looking at the data packs produced by the Thames Estuary growth board this week, but they show some significant transport blackspots in my constituency and in yours. They are often associated with the areas of deepest deprivation, where it takes hours to get to centres for employment. Although we need to improve public transport and accessibility routes, it will take time. Furthermore, in constituencies with rural areas such as mine and those of many others in the room, we will always need to drive cars—it is fundamental.

There have been improvements to the capacity and number of tests and of people carrying them out, but I want to know how sustainable that is and what the plan is for sustainability. I want to know what has been learned to see how we could do things differently in the future to make sure that we do not get into this mess again. There is also the issue of blatant and obvious ticket touting. The technology now available with bots and other online grifters is turning a public service into a way to make money in a piratical way. What are the lessons for other implementations of digital services by the Government as, increasingly, that is the way services will be delivered?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Jas Athwal, you are on the list but you are not rising. Do you not wish to speak?

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I cannot speak because I have not made my maiden speech. I will make an intervention very shortly, thank you.

Tamar Crossings

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. The hon. Lady has made it plain that she is not giving way.

[Mrs Murray]

This important matter for residents of Cornwall and Plymouth should, in my opinion, surmount party politics. I refer the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) to a report on “Spotlight” this evening saying that a Member of Parliament for a constituency a long way from the bridge and the ferry has suggested that the ferry charge more.

I will now turn to the future of the crossings. The Minister should set up a working group, including representatives of all user groups, MPs, local councillors and local authorities, to consider putting the crossing on the same basis as the Dunheved bridge on the A30, which is one of some 10,000 bridges maintained by National Highways. In the meantime, I ask the Department for a contribution from National Highways towards the maintenance costs of the Tamar bridge.

Finally, I will expand on the modernisation of the toll collection system and updating to ANPR. Queues frequently build up because of tag failure and other matters related to the toll collection system, which results in many people from Plymouth and south-east Cornwall missing appointments and simply not getting to work on time. It also has a knock-on effect on the wider area, with road hauliers telling me that research has found that, for every minute a heavy goods vehicle sits in traffic, it accrues a cost of £1.30. On crossings such as the Tamar, each HGV sitting in traffic for 60 minutes at peak times or during heavy congestion will accrue a cost of £78. An ANPR system would help to alleviate this, and I ask the Minister to consider covering the costs of the tollbooth removal in the next five-year major road network programme.

Some 6,300 people signed the petition sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View and me. These people object to the toll increase following so closely the increase in January 2023, which would be a doubling in four years. It is now in the Secretary of State’s gift to refuse, and we ask him to do so. We know that we need to find alternative funding and, as I have outlined this evening, it could be annual funding from the RIS3 programme.

My final ask is for a public inquiry to be held before any decision is made to increase the toll. This has happened in the past for all but one toll revision order, and our constituents must be able to have their say. We received a copy of the letter that the joint Chairs of the Joint Committee sent to the Secretary of State last Friday, which has been copied to all MPs in Plymouth and Cornwall, stating:

“An intervention by your department supporting the crossings may enable the toll to be frozen.”

Our petition was supported by my hon. Friends the Members for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice).

I hope the Minister will look favourably on this request to help freeze the Tamar toll tax for our constituents, and also to immediately pull together a working group, or at least to provide support for us to set one up locally, so that a fairer way of financing these crossings can be found. An intervention by his Department to support the crossings may enable the tolls to be frozen.

Much has been made about levelling up. Doing away with this extra tax on the people of our area would be the single greatest thing that could be done to achieve this. It would create a level playing field for business and stop a regressive tax on residents that is in no way related to how much people can pay. It would also help to allow Plymouth’s freeport status to flourish. I ask the Government to help now, and to look in the longer term at righting what the Government could not afford to do just after world war two.

Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]

Roger Gale Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Opposition parties for their broadly positive approach throughout Second Reading and Committee. There is clear consensus across the House that we should embrace this new technology, given all the opportunities set out by the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). I also thank my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). As has been mentioned, he helped steer the legislation through this place, and clearly still has great interest in the Bill, which I welcome.

I will be brief. All the new clauses and amendments apart from one were raised in identical form in Committee, and my comments will not change much from what I said then. By and large, we agree with their various objectives, but we do not think they are necessary, and in a couple of cases we think they are inappropriate. On new clauses 1, 2, 5 and 8, data protection is clearly very important, and the Government support it, but the new clauses largely duplicate measures that are already in the Bill, or in other legislation.

This Government take protection of personal data very seriously. It is an important issue and requires careful consideration. The Bill does not seek to replace or change personal data protection legislation, nor does it enable that legislation to be contravened. It is not a Bill about data protection. Any changes to data protection legislation are beyond the scope of the Bill. It is the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office to regulate data protection issues. The ICO has an obligation to report annually to Parliament on the commissioner’s activities. Any report by the Department for Transport, such as that required by new clause 1, would risk duplicating that work. Also, the Department for Transport is not the data controller of information collected by regulated bodies, which means that reporting would be inappropriate.

The purpose of the Bill is to create a comprehensive and effective safety framework for self-driving vehicles. Information may need to be shared to achieve that; public safety and security must come first. Any regulations made under the powers in the Bill that permit further sharing or use of information would be developed in discussion with stakeholders and subject to consultation, and would be laid before the House before coming into force. That provides multiple opportunities for input into and scrutiny of proposals. Regulations will also be subject to a data protection impact assessment. The Secretary of State already has a duty under article 36(4) of the General Data Protection Regulation to consult the ICO on proposals for legislative measures. New clause 2 therefore duplicates a requirement already in law.

New clause 5 is unnecessary because all information-related regulations made under the powers in the Bill will already be subject to consultation under the requirements of clause 97. Clause 14 specifically requires that regulations that require information to be shared by an authorised self-driving entity or licensed operator must specify the purpose for which that data is to be shared. It would be unnecessary and onerous to duplicate those publication and consultation requirements.

Turning to amendment 8, the protection of personal data will be considered alongside the detailed development of authorisation requirements. These requirements will be set out in secondary legislation and will be subject to consultation and impact assessment. The amendment would place an additional burden on industry over and above what is required under existing data protection legislation, such as the legislation that covers the data in our mobile phones. At present, a certificate of compliance is not mandatory under GDPR. In addition, the schemes referred to in the amendment are industry-led and therefore not within the control of Government, so there is a risk that they would not achieve the intended result.

On new clause 3, the hon. Member for Sefton Central talked at length about the inadequacies of Government consultation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire said, there has been incredibly extensive consultation throughout this process. I have counted five different ways in which we will ensure consultation and engagement. The Law Commissions of England, Wales and Scotland have been looking at the issue for four years, and have been consulting throughout. The Secretary of State for Transport, who has joined us in the Chamber, and I held a roundtable with a whole range of road user groups, including groups representing disabled people, about the impact of the legislation. I will also meet disabled groups once the legislation moves through this House to consider some of the issues. We recognise that engagement with all groups, including the devolved Administrations, is incredibly important. The Bill will provide new powers relating to technical safety requirements, which will be set out in statutory guidance and secondary regulation. There will be consultation on those requirements with stakeholders, including but not limited to the stakeholders identified clause 2(4).

Following the passage of the Bill through the House of Lords, we have included a statutory requirement to consult the three groups with the most direct interest when developing the statement of safety principles: road safety groups, road user groups and the self-driving vehicle industry. That is not a comprehensive list of those likely to be consulted, but it shows the breadth of the consultation. Once in place, the safety requirements for authorisation, licensing and in-use regulation will be monitored and enforced by the Department for Transport and its motoring agencies, on behalf of the Secretary of State. In line with all public bodies, the Department and its agencies will be subject to scrutiny.

In addition, there is an expert advisory panel on the Department’s self-driving vehicle safety assurance work, which has been consulted. It provides advice and challenge. The panel includes representatives from industry, academia and road safety groups. We have given a non-statutory commitment to setting up an accessibility advisory panel. The Bill establishes a new independent no-blame incident investigation capability, which will ensure that we learn effectively from incidents that involve self-driving vehicles. Finally, the hon. Member for Sefton Central will be reassured to learn that clause 38 already creates a general monitoring duty that requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the performance of self-driving vehicles. I hope that all those engagements that I have made demonstrate that the Government share the hon. Member’s view that scrutiny of implementation and learning from experience are vital. All those future engagements are there, which is why new clause 3 is not necessary.

On new clause 4, accessibility is an incredibly important issue. I have made it clear, as has the Secretary of State, that accessibility is one of the strong arguments for legislating for self-driving cars. For many disabled people, particularly partially sighted or blind people, self-driving cars could have an incredible impact on their quality of life. I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central for the new clause, but it replicates powers held by the Secretary of State on the provision of accessible travel information about buses to automated passenger services. Automated passenger services provide a great opportunity to make travel more accessible and inclusive. Under the Bill, we already have the power to mandate that information be provided to users in accessible formats, through the permit conditions. That is more flexible tool than the regulations. Conditions attached to individual permits can be adapted to fit a wide variety of services. Some services may have alternatives to the provision of accessible-format information; for example, there may be a member of staff in a vehicle who can focus entirely on helping passengers and providing that information. In addition, the Bill expressly requires the appropriate national authority to consider accessibility in decisions to grant permits. That ensures that accessibility considerations are built into services from the start. It enables innovation to come forward in this nascent sector, and operators to consider the best way for their services to be accessible and inclusive. Finally, licensing and franchising authorities will also be able to steer requirements about accessible information formats. They can champion local needs through their role in providing consent for granting permits. As a result, we do not think that new clause 4 is necessary.

New clause 6 extends insurer first-instance liability for incidents involving automated vehicles to all circumstances, even when an individual is driving. The compulsory insurance regime in the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 was created to ensure that victims of incidents caused by automated vehicles receive prompt compensation. The Bill amends the 2018 Act to ensure it applies to authorised automated vehicles. However, there is no change to the principle that insurer first-instance liability applies only when the self-driving feature is switched on. New clause 6 would create an unnecessary discrepancy in insurer liabilities for manual driving, depending on whether the vehicle has a self-driving feature or not. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Sefton Central to withdraw new clause 6.

On the SNP amendments relating to clause 50, we consider that the user-in-charge immunity is a reserved matter. Indeed, the immunity will predominantly affect the application of reserved traffic offences, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) recognised. There is a limited range of devolved legislation in this area and immunity will have only a minor incidental impact on the Bill. We did meet to talk about it and we discussed it in Committee, but just to make it absolutely clear, this is not about what the traffic regulations are in Scotland—what the speed limit is, whether it is an offence to break the speed limit or drive in a bus lane. It is about whether liability rests on the driver or on the software company ASDE in a self-driving car. It therefore has no impact on direct legislation in Scotland.

More generally, public understanding and confidence will be key to realising the benefits of self-driving vehicles. It is vital that we have clarity and consistency across Great Britain about how these vehicles can be used, and what individuals’ responsibilities are. This was the first recommendation by the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission of England and Wales in their joint report. They stated that they did not think the public would be able to understand different or partial immunities based on distinctions between devolved and reserved laws. The power in clause 50 is necessary to ensure clarity and consistency in the immunity’s application.

As the hon. Member acknowledged, I met him and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport in the Scottish Government to talk about that. I sent a letter of assurance afterwards and I repeat what I mentioned in that letter. I assure him that where we propose to use the regulation-making power in clause 50, we will always consult with the Scottish Government and with other devolved Administrations.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I understand that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) wishes to withdraw new clause 1. Is that correct?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43

Fees

Amendments made: 1, page 29, line 19, after “State” insert “or by a traffic commissioner”.

This amendment corrects a drafting omission, by allowing no-user-in-charge operator licensing functions conferred on traffic commissioners to be taken into account in setting fees under Part 1.

Amendment 2, page 29, line 22, at end insert—

“(3) Money received by a traffic commissioner as a result of regulations under section 13 must be paid into the Consolidated Fund in such manner as the Treasury may direct.”—(Anthony Browne.)

This amendment is one of two that clarify what happens to fees, penalties or costs under Part 1 if they are made payable to traffic commissioners by regulations.

Clause 89

Procedural and administrative matters

Amendment made: 3, page 63, line 18, at end insert—

“(8) Regulations under subsection (7) made by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers—

(a) if they apply to a function in respect of which a fee is payable, must also apply to the function of charging and receiving that fee;

(b) if they apply to the function of issuing a notice under paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 6 (compliance notices and monetary penalty notices), must also apply to the functions under paragraph 4 of that Schedule (costs notices) so far as exercisable in connection with the first function.

(9) Money received by a traffic commissioner as a result of regulations under subsection (7) must, unless subsection (10) applies, be paid into the Consolidated Fund in such manner as the Treasury may direct.

(10) Money received by a traffic commissioner under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 6 (monetary penalties) as a result of regulations under subsection (7) made by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers must be paid to those Ministers.”—(Anthony Browne.)

This amendment makes provision about fees, penalties and costs made payable to traffic commissioners by regulations under Part 5.

Schedule 1

Enforcement action under Part 1: procedure

Amendments made: 4, page 78, line 7, after “Part” insert “(other than section 43(1))”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 1.

Amendment 5, page 78, line 14, at end insert—

“(5) Money received by a traffic commissioner as a result of regulations under this paragraph must be paid into the Consolidated Fund in such manner as the Treasury may direct.”—(Anthony Browne.)

This amendment is one of two that clarify what happens to fees, penalties or costs under Part 1 if they are made payable to traffic commissioners by regulations.

Third Reading

Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords]

Roger Gale Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Chair”, “Madam Chairman”, “Madam Chair” and “Mr Chairman” are also acceptable.

Clause 1

Power to regulate pedicabs

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 9, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

“(2A) When making or exercising its functions under pedicab regulations, Transport for London must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 7(1).”

This amendment requires Transport for London to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to the making of pedicab regulations and exercising TfL’s functions under those regulations.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, page 1, line 9, after “must” insert

“carry out a public consultation including details of the proposed licensing framework and”.

This amendment would require Transport for London to carry out a public consultation before making pedicab regulations and would require that consultation to include details of the proposed licensing framework.

Amendment 2, page 1, line 10, leave out “whoever” and insert

“the London Pedicab Operators Association, Cycling UK and whoever else”.

This amendment would ensure that the London Pedicab Operators Association and Cycling UK would be consulted by Transport for London before TfL makes pedicab regulations.

Amendment 21, page 1, line 10, leave out “whoever” and insert

“local authorities, elected representatives, and whoever else”.

This amendment would require Transport for London to consult with local authorities and elected representatives as well as anyone else it considers appropriate before making pedicab regulations.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(4) Transport for London shall not make provision for regulating pedicabs in public places in Greater London until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under the provisions of section 7.”

This amendment would ensure that no regulation could be introduced by Transport for London until the Secretary of State for Transport had issued guidance to Transport for London about the exercise of their functions under pedicab regulations.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, at end insert

“or at a level that enables investment in pedicab infrastructure in Greater London”.

This amendment would allow pedicab licence fees to be set at a level that enables investment in pedicab infrastructure in Greater London.

Amendment 6, page 2, line 29, at end insert —

“(d) designate sites to be used as pedicab ranks.”

This amendment would allow Transport for London to use pedicab regulations to designate sites as pedicab ranks.

Amendment 12, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

“(d) make provision for the designation by traffic authorities of places where pedicabs may stand for hire.”

This amendment allows for the regulations to make provision for the designation by traffic authorities of pedicab stands.

Clause 2 stand part.

Amendment 17, in clause 3, page 3, line 11, at end insert—

“(2A) The regulations may only create offences relating to the use of a pedicab for any of the following purposes—

(a) carrying passengers for hire or reward;

(b) travelling to carry a passenger or passengers for hire or reward;

(c) returning from carrying a passenger or passengers for hire or reward; or

(d) plying for hire.”

This amendment ensures that offences created by pedicab regulations only apply when the pedicab is being used to carry passengers, when travelling to or from carrying passengers, or when plying for hire.

Amendment 14, page 3, line 20, at end insert

“, provided that equivalent conduct committed by the driver or rider of a motor vehicle is subject to a civil penalty.”

This amendment provides that civil penalties relating to pedicab drivers may only be used if equivalent conduct committed by a driver or rider of a motor vehicle would be subject to a civil penalty.

Amendment 15, page 3, line 22, leave out from “immobilisation” to end of line 24 and insert

“and seizure by a constable in uniform or by a civil enforcement officer of any pedicab that—

(a) is being used in a manner that is causing alarm or distress to members of the public, or

(b) is being driven in a manner that—

(i) contravenes section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861,

(ii) contravenes sections 29 to 32 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, or

(iii) in the case of a mechanically propelled pedicab, would amount to a contravention of sections 29 to 32 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 if committed on a pedal cycle without mechanical propulsion, if the driver has been given warning on a prior occasion by a constable in uniform or a civil enforcement officer that the driver is using or driving the pedicab in a manner described in this paragraph or paragraph (a).”

This amendment ensures that the powers to immobilise and seize pedicabs are assigned to police constables in uniform or to traffic officers duly authorised by local authorities, and that they are proportionate to the powers to immobilise and seize motor vehicles in section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002.

Clause 3 stand part.

Clause 4 stand part.

Amendment 18, in clause 5, page 4, line 17, leave out from “means” to the end of line 21 and insert

“a pedicab, as defined in section 1(2), which conforms to the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983;”.

This amendment defines “power-assisted pedicab” as a pedicab which conforms to the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983.

Clause 5 stand part.

Clause 6 stand part.

Amendment 3, in clause 7, page 4, line 32, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to Transport for London about the exercise of their functions under pedicab regulations.

Amendment 19, page 4, line 32, leave out “may” and insert

“must, within six months of the passage of this Act,”.

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to Transport for London about the exercise of their functions under pedicab regulations within six months of the passage of this Act.

Amendment 10, page 4, line 32, leave out “the exercise of” and insert

“making pedicab regulations and exercising”.

This amendment clarifies that the Secretary of State’s guidance to TfL encompasses the making of pedicab regulations, as well as the exercise of its functions under those regulations.

Amendment 11, page 4, line 37, at end insert—

“(3A) In preparing guidance to be issued under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives—

(a) the benefits to the environment, economic vitality and the health and quality of life that properly regulated pedicab services can provide;

(b) the safety of pedicab drivers and passengers;

(c) the need to minimise danger, disruption and disturbance to the public;

(d) the reasonableness of pedicab fares for the passengers, riders and operators of pedicabs;

(e) the designation of places where pedicabs may stand for hire;

(f) the need for licensing and other charges or requirements imposed on pedicab riders and operators, and the penalties for contraventions of offences created by pedicab regulations, to be reasonable and proportionate to the risks that pedicabs pose to their riders, passengers and the wider public.”

This amendment defines the objectives that the Secretary of State must have regard to when drawing up guidance on pedicab regulations, including to take into account the benefits that properly regulated pedicabs can provide.

Amendment 5, page 5, line 6, leave out “whoever” and insert

“the London Pedicab Operators Association, Cycling UK and whoever else”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the London Pedicab Operators Association and Cycling UK as well as anyone the Secretary of State considers appropriate before issuing guidance.

Amendment 7, page 5, line 6, leave out “whoever” and insert

“with local authorities, elected representatives, and whoever else”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with local authorities and elected representatives as well as anyone the Secretary of State considers appropriate before issuing guidance.

Clause 7 stand part.

Amendment 16, in clause 8, page 5, line 8, at end insert—

“‘civil enforcement officer’ has the meaning given by section 76 of the Traffic Management Act 2004;”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 15.

Amendment 13, page 5, line 17, at end insert—

“‘traffic authority’ has the same meaning as in section 121A(1A) and (2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.”

This amendment is linked to Amendment 12.

Clause 8 stand part.

Clause 9 stand part.

Clause 10 stand part.

Government amendment 20.

Clause 11 stand part.

New clause 1—Protection of children and vulnerable adults—

“(1) The Policing and Crime Act 2017 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 177, in subsection (6), at end insert—

(g) the Pedicabs (London) Act 2024”

This new clause includes this Bill in the definition of “taxi and private hire vehicle legislation” for the purposes of section 177 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017. This permits the Secretary of State to issue guidance to public authorities exercising licensing functions so as to protect children and vulnerable adults.

New clause 2—Licensing functions under pedicab regulations: protection of children and vulnerable adults—

“(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to Transport for London under the provisions of section 177 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 as to how its licensing functions under pedicab regulations may be exercised so as to protect children, and vulnerable individuals who are 18 or over, from harm.

(2) The guidance must include a requirement for enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks to be a condition of licensing.

(3) The Secretary of State must arrange for any guidance issued under this section, and any revision of it, to be published.”

This new clause is linked to NC1. It would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to TfL as to how its licensing functions under pedicab regulations may be exercised so as to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm, including compulsory DBS checks.

New clause 3—Conditions of licensing: Disclosure and Barring Service check—

“(1) Any provision related to conditions of licences under section (1)(a) may include a requirement for pedicab drivers or operators to have enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential on this section.

(3) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument and may not be made until they are approved by both Houses of Parliament.

(4) Regulations under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under any legislation passed before this Act.”

This new clause enables TfL to include DBS checks as a condition of licensing for pedicab drivers or operators in any licensing provision made by Transport for London. It also permits the Secretary of State to make regulations to make any consequential provision.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I begin by putting on record my appreciation for the positive way in which the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), has engaged with our deliberations on this Bill.

As discussed on Second Reading, the differences of opinion on the Bill centre around whether its consequence, deliberate or otherwise, will be to legislate pedicabs out of existence. Pedicabs are to London what gondolas are to Venice. They are an essential part of the colour and vibrancy of our capital city. The Evening Standard recently warned of the damage being done to London’s nightlife and the night-time economy, and pedicabs are an essential part of that economy. I am sure we would not want to do anything to further undermine the viability of that night-time economy.

Is this Bill the equivalent of a morphine syringe driver to kill off pedicabs, or is it a necessary protector of responsible pedicab operators? Both I and, I think, the Minister want it to be the latter, and so does Cycling UK, which has a membership of some 70,000 cyclists—it is quite a large organisation—as well as the London Pedicab Operators Association.

I expressed my concern about over-regulation on Second Reading, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who asked the Minister for an assurance that

“when this regulation comes into force, it will be light touch and not onerous, so that we do not kill this young and perfectly acceptable industry?”

And the Minister replied:

“The answer is yes and yes.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2024; Vol. 746, c. 375.]

That clear and unambiguous response is extremely welcome.

It is important that we are able to deliver on that commitment. The question often arises of whether we can trust Transport for London. Those of us who live in London during the week, and others who are resident in London throughout the year, are quite concerned about Transport for London’s failure to listen on issues such as the ultra low emission zone extension and the proliferation of 20 mph zones.

Transport for London produced an outline of how it will use the process of regulation, which it will be given under this Bill, in January 2022, and it was updated in February 2024. The Minister made arrangements for the new draft to be circulated to all interested Members. Unfortunately, and I know it was not his fault, the draft was circulated not with his letter but late on Thursday, about half an hour after the House had risen and the deadline for tabling amendments had passed. My amendments therefore take no account of that document. Had I seen it before the deadline, I might well have tabled additional amendments.

Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 5th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and remain impressed that he has something to say on this issue, as on so many others. It will of course remain the case that should people wish to drive their cars, they will be free and able to do so. I think it will be a long time—indeed, the industry has predicted it will be several decades—before the number of automated vehicles outstrips the number of vehicles with drivers on our roads.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) mentioned, there is one major area that the Bill does not address, and which we have not considered in any meaningful capacity, which is the potential impact on jobs from automated vehicles. As a South Yorkshire MP, I am all too familiar with the economic impacts of deindustrialisation. Far too many towns and cities across the north have already suffered enough from lost livelihoods, with the social fabric of their communities ripped apart as a new economic model left them behind. We simply cannot afford to make those same mistakes again.

That is why Labour has been clear that artificial intelligence and automation must be harnessed as a public good—one that delivers social benefits, grows the economy and supports jobs rather than destroying them. That is why, during its passage through the other place, my Labour colleagues attempted to amend the Bill to establish an advisory council that would ensure the Government consult on the introduction of these vehicles with not only industry representatives and road safety experts, but trade unions. The Government opposed that amendment. From the way this Government have politicised the ongoing industrial dispute on our railways and Ministers’ failure to even sit down with union representatives, we have already seen just how important it is to have proper engagement with workforce representatives, as well as just how far this Government will go to avoid doing it.

I would welcome an explanation from the Secretary of State as to why he is so opposed to the idea of speaking to experts and trade union representatives about the introduction of such sensitive and consequential technology. Will he also say what steps he will take to ensure this technology creates jobs, rather than destroying them, especially in the areas of the country where low-paid work dominates? It is in exactly those areas, which still feel the ravages of deindustrialisation, that jobs in driving, warehousing and logistics dominate—all jobs that face the highest risks from automation. Unless the Government are prepared to play an active role in how we transition our economy, it is exactly those areas, like my constituency in South Yorkshire, that will be hit all over again.

I have talked a lot about what the Bill is, Mr Deputy Speaker, but allow me a minute to talk about what it is not. As the Secretary of State well knows, his Government have promised us all sorts of transport legislation over the years that they have failed to make parliamentary time for. This Bill is not his long-promised rail reform. It is not legislation to properly regulate e-scooters, e-bikes or drones, to set minimum standards for taxis, to extend franchising for buses, or to strengthen the powers of the Civil Aviation Authority—legislation that has been promised time and again by this Government, without any intention of actually delivering it.

I will close by pointing out the irony that the one major piece of transport legislation in this parliamentary Session is a Bill on driverless cars brought forward by a driverless Government who are running out of road.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chairman of the Transport Committee.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be able to contribute to this debate. I should flag that the Transport Committee conducted an extensive inquiry on self-driving vehicles and published our report on the subject last year. Our principal recommendation was to bring forward legislation to give the industry and investors the certainty to continue their work. We are very pleased indeed that the Government have taken on board our central recommendation and brought forward this Bill. We commend the Law Commission for the background work it did to provide the legal underpinning.

Hopefully there will be sufficient time for the Bill to reach the statute book before we get to the general election. Had it not been brought forward, there was a real danger of a missed opportunity. The UK has been a leading player in the development of this global technology, but there is no certainty that that would continue. One message we heard loud and clear from the sector was that it needs the regulatory framework and that certainty to allow further investment to take place, so we are, as I say, very pleased that that is happening. To give some idea of the scale, figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimate that by 2040, the annual economic impact to the country will be £66 billion. My fellow Select Committee member, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), raised legitimate concerns about the risk to jobs from this new technology, but there is an upside: 12,000 new direct jobs in automotive manufacturing, and more than 300,000 additional jobs in the wider economy, again using SMMT figures. There are economic opportunities —job opportunities—provided by this new technology.

It is always difficult to adjust to change in the economy. I often use the analogy that a few decades ago, lots of people were employed in manufacturing typewriters; now there is hardly anyone in that industry, but other job opportunities arose. That will also be the case in this sector. He is not in his place now, but I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) that the city of Milton Keynes has been at the forefront of the research and development and the testing of this technology in the UK, and long may that continue.

As other speakers have said, the advantages are not just economic; this technology also widens the accessibility of transport for many people who are, for various reasons, inhibited at the moment. That wider social value may be more difficult to quantify in monetary terms, but will be increasingly valuable. More generally, this technology will widen the transport choices available. Self-driving vehicles will replace some journeys made purely by car, but will also be part of an integral transport system where a self-driving vehicle may pick up people from a railway station, bus station or airport to complete their journeys. There are many, many upsides to this legislation.

I want to highlight a few other concerns we had during our inquiry, some of which the Government have already addressed. The first is on safety. We very much welcome the amendments put forward by the Government in the other place to introduce a more certain and wider definition of safety; we set out concerns in our report that the broad definition of a self-driving vehicle as being as safe as a

“competent and careful human driver”

was just a bit too vague and weak. The amendments that have been brought forward in the Lords to ensure proper consultation not just with the industry, but more widely with road safety stakeholders, are very welcome, while the change in the parliamentary procedure from a negative to an affirmative resolution will give it greater clarity. We very much welcome that.

I will raise two particular safety issues. One, which I mentioned in my intervention on the Secretary of State, is the need to ensure that drivers have the relevant level of skill and experience to intervene when the technology requires them to do so. As I said, those instances will obviously be immediate and often in challenging conditions, and will require skills over and above the general driving competencies and knowledge as to what a driver ought to do in those circumstances. I do not think it is necessarily something to include in the Bill, but, as the Government look at the consultation on safety, I strongly urge them to look at what changes to the driving test may be appropriate, and even at wider encouragement for everyone to have refresher courses. I think most drivers—me included—would be terrified at the prospect of resitting our driving test, as we have probably built up many bad habits over the years. There is, perhaps, a wider point about ensuring that drivers remain competent, but this new technology does introduce specific new circumstances that need to considered.

The second safety-related issue is about ensuring that MOT tests are up to date so that they properly capture all safety-critical technology. In the future, cameras, sensors, software and other technology will be as safety-critical as tyres, brakes and other mechanical parts that are currently assessed. Again, I urge the Government to look ahead and perhaps redefine what is encapsulated by the MOT.

Related to that is a concern raised with me by smaller garages about ensuring that they still have a fair chance of carrying out MOTs. As the technology becomes ever more sophisticated, there is a risk that the original equipment manufacturers will have a monopoly on maintaining software and related equipment and that only their garages will be able to carry out such work. There a wider point—this is not just about self-driving vehicles—about ensuring that the full spectrum of operators in the car repair and maintenance sector has fair access to doing that work.

I will also raise two points related to insurance. My friend and colleague from the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Easington—he is no longer in his place—mentioned data sharing. I welcome the fact that data sharing is referenced in the Bill and that its scope will be set out in secondary legislation. It is important for the insurance industry to be able to capture the full picture of driver behaviour and the behaviour of vehicles in this new world. That will not be limited to collisions, where the insurers will need to know what happened; there will be other injuries for which data must be available—say, a self-driving vehicle may brake suddenly, which results in a whiplash injury or related concerns. As a probing suggestion, is there a case for putting in the Bill a requirement for consultation with the insurance industry on the concept of data sharing, similar to the one that Government have set out for the setting of safety parameters? I will leave that with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to consider.

The second insurance concern was raised by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau about where we have what might be called a “black swan” event, with a significant co-ordinated cyber-attack that instructs many vehicles simultaneously to behave in a way that could cause mass public injury. The instruction might be to drive at high speed and turn sharp right into a crowded pedestrian area. The concern is that, as things stand, the absence of a mutualisation of risk could lead to such a level of claims that it would bankrupt the car insurance sector.

In property, there is an equivalent backstop to cover the event of such terrorist activity. Some thought needs to be given to that. Again, it probably goes wider than purely self-driving vehicles, because, as the Secretary of State mentioned, the technology is often already embedded in cars and could be hacked by a malevolent actor. The insurance industry is concerned about that, and I urge the Government to consider that perhaps not necessarily in the Bill but as part of wider reform.

Notwithstanding those concerns and questions, this is a welcome Bill with huge upsides economically and socially. As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) put it succinctly, it is an exciting new world, but for many people it is a scary new world, and we have a duty to bring the public with us.

There are many areas where transport is already automated and people accept it and are quite relaxed about it. They will get on a get on a docklands light railway train, which is automated, and aircraft flights are now 95% automated. In Milton Keynes, we have delivery robots going along the pavement and no one bats an eyelid about them. But as we see with smart motorways, if the public are not convinced about the safety of new technology, they will not accept it.

We all have a duty to make sure that the regulations ensure the safety of the drivers and the passengers as well as the wider roads-using and pavement-using public. The upsides are enormous, but we must bring people with us. I commend the Government for bringing forward the Bill, which is incredibly important, and I look forward to seeing it on the statute book.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

Scrutiny of accidents is going to be important, because we will learn a lot. We can improve safety with this technology—there is no question about that. The question is about the moral argument when accidents do happen and how we choose how vehicles should behave in those circumstances.

A constituent has come to me about a tragic case of a child being killed at a bus stop. A lorry lost control and swerved into the bus stop, and the child could not escape the vehicle and was crushed. It is an absolutely tragic story. My constituent came to see me about designing bus stops to make them safer for people standing at the roadside. Having lost her child in such tragic circumstances, I commend her for her consideration in wanting to improve the situation for others. As it is rolled out, this technology could prevent vehicles from colliding with roadside structures such as bus stops, so I accept that it can improve safety. This is an example of where we might be able to meet my constituent’s desire to improve safety in such circumstances.

This technology will need a great deal of scrutiny. We will learn a lot from the application of this legislation as more and more automated vehicles enter our road network, and an advisory council to consider all aspects of the technology is absolutely necessary.

Clause 2 says that the Secretary of State must consult, but the list is very limited and puts businesses, including those that design the vehicles and draw up the algorithms, in prime position above road user representatives and other concerned individuals. The list needs to be much wider, and there needs to be a statutory body to provide oversight. We are on a steep learning curve and we will learn as we go. I accept that we cannot stand in the way of progress, but we must accept that there are serious safety questions that require answers. An advisory council of the kind that has been recommended is absolutely necessary.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Minister.

High Speed 2 Compensation

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Three Members, plus the Front Benchers, still wish to speak. The debate has to end at 5 o’clock. I urge brevity upon colleagues.

Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Is the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) waiting to speak?

[Sir John Hayes]

indicated assent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

In that case, there are three Members waiting to speak. The debate has to end at 4.12 pm. The last speaker spoke for 25 minutes. At that rate, those on the Front Benches will not get a hearing. I call Sir John Hayes.

[Sir John Hayes]

I will speak briefly, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did notify Mr Speaker in advance that I was likely to contribute to this debate, not least because, having served on the Public Bill Committee, I was anxious to affirm some of the points made there and to endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) about the concessions the Government have made and the exemplary way in which the Minister has handled this consideration. The Government deserve credit for bringing this Bill to the House, following the P&O scandal, and for the continuing dialogue they have enjoyed with those of us who take a particular interest in these affairs.

New clause 2, which the hon. Member for Easington was referring to when I intervened on him, encourages the Government to look more widely at the terms and conditions enjoyed—perhaps I ought to have said “endured”—by many seafarers. The Minister knows that when I was the Minister responsible for these matters, I commissioned a growth study, which recommended that the Government take a more holistic approach to both the recruitment and skilling of those who go to sea on our behalf. We should remember that, although it is not often described as such, this is a kind of public service. Our merchant navy—our seafarers—do an important job that benefits us all, and that job should be recognised in the way that was recommended by that review.

The review also suggested that

“a vision and set of strategic objectives”

be established for our seafarers. A seafarers charter has been mentioned. I simply say to the Minister that this requires a bigger piece of work than the Bill. The Bill is to be welcomed—it does an important job—but there is a good case for a bigger review of these matters, and if I do not support the amendments today, it is because I think they do not go far enough.

One recommendation in the growth study was an interdepartmental ministerial working group on these matters. That is a sensible way forward given that we are not simply speaking of seamen, but of all those ancillary trades, crafts and industries related to the merchant fleet, all of which deserve proper consideration if we are going to revitalise this important part of our economy. What P&O did was not simply the unacceptable face of capitalism; it was a heartless, soulless kind of enterprise that has no place in a civilised nation. It was roundly condemned by Members from across this House, and rightly so, and it has acted as a wake-up call for Government and others as to what we need to do next.

When the Minister sums up, I hope he will commit to a rethink of how we build and maintain an appropriate merchant fleet, and set out a strategy accordingly. Because time permits no more, I will end on this: when people consider becoming seafarers, the conditions that prevail are an important barrier or incentive, and we owe it to all those whom we want to recruit to the industry to build on the Bill and do still more.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I have only just been made aware of the fact—I was unaware of this fact—that the right hon. Gentleman was not here at the start of the debate. He has been here long enough to know that, if he is in that position, then he does not tell the Chair that he is waiting to speak.

[David Linden]

I rise to speak to new clause 4 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). I will come on to the substance of the new clause later, but for now I want to offer my support to the Opposition amendments before the House.

My fundamental position on the Bill has not changed. Yes, I think it is a welcome step in the right direction, but it is incredibly unambitious in tackling the scale of the problems unmasked by the exploitative behaviour of P&O Ferries. It remains a source of extreme frustration to me that, when the P&O debacle unfolded, politicians in this place talked a really tough game, yet the legislation put before the House has not met the scale of the challenge. Even worse, the British Government have reneged on their previous commitments and, I would argue, have watered down the Bill. For example, in clause 3, as it stands, the House effectively gives a green light to port-hopping, which is symptomatic of how this whole problem came about, ergo letting the free market exploit existing weaknesses in legislation and regulation. To be blunt, when it passes, this Bill will be a bit of a missed opportunity, and all that remains for us during its remaining stages is to try to ameliorate it.

For the purposes of brevity, I will refer to new clause 4 as the Hebblethwaite amendment. Throughout Second Reading and in Committee, we spoke about the importance of giving this Bill teeth and of tightening things up. If Members speak to seafarers, as I have done to those in my constituency, they will know that one big source of anger is the fact that senior management at P&O Ferries got away scot-free with their utterly disgraceful behaviour. If we are to go as far as passing this Bill, please let us at least make sure that it has the legislative teeth to deal with the some of these complete reprobates, who have patently exploited workers and should not be deemed fit and proper persons to hold directorship roles.

Let us start with Peter Hebblethwaite, the CEO of P&O Ferries, who was paid £325,000 a year before bonuses. This is a man, as others have said, who proudly admitted to a joint Select Committee of this House that he knew the actions he was undertaking as company director were illegal, but he proceeded anyway, and he even had the gall to say that he would do it all over again if he got the chance. I absolutely agree with the RMT general secretary, Mick Lynch, who said:

“Gangster capitalists should not be rewarded for their appalling employment practices; they should be punished with the full force of law.”

However, herein lies the problem, because passing this Bill without my new clause 4 would mean that Mr Hebblethwaite has carte blanche to again behave as he did in March last year. In summary, there must be individual consequences for directors who seek to exploit workers, and the Bill currently lacks a personal liability clause. That is exactly what my new clause would do by enshrining in statute the ability to deal with these gangster capitalists who seek to ride roughshod over seafarers and other workers.

At its most basic level, Hebblethwaite was responsible for the unlawful sacking of almost 800 seafarers, using a pathetic, cowardly, pre-recorded video message. Despite all that, he is already out there promoting himself again; indeed he was rewarded with a promotion at DP World. What kind of a broken, sick system sees almost 800 seafarers summarily sacked—and sacked unlawfully—yet the boss is given a plum promotion for showing ruthlessness and the sheer brass neck to shove two fingers up to Government?

So, the kind of person this legislation would penalise if they fell foul of the Act is one who admitted breaking the law, and one who used handcuff-trained, balaclava-wearing security guards to remove dedicated, unionised seafarers and replace them with non-unionised workers, many of whom are paid a fraction of the UK minimum wage. Even worse, after experienced crew were fired by Hebblethwaite, the UK coastguard repeatedly detained P&O ships for a lack of crew training, including fire safety and lifeboat drills. But still—yes, still—Hebblethwaite is allowed to retain his position as a company director, which makes a mockery of our legislative framework.

Only by adding new clause 4 to the Bill can we finally deal with these gangster capitalists who Government Ministers had tough words for last year. But what will they do this afternoon when the Division bell rings? Will they vote to bring the likes of Hebblethwaite to heal, or, now that the media circus has moved on, will their protestations be exposed as little more than hollow words?

This Bill is underwhelming and many of us are seeking to give it greater teeth to ensure that never again can a company director like Hebblethwaite take such a calculated risk with people’s jobs and livelihoods, knowing fine well that the consequences of doing so result in nothing more than a few uncomfortable column inches. We need to enshrine in statute a strict deterrent which makes personal liability a reality for the Peter Hebblethwaites of this world, because if this whole sorry episode has taught us anything, it is that bad bosses will continue to be bad bosses unless we hit them where it hurts. It is on that basis that I have tabled new clause 4.

P&O Ferries and Employment Rights

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

P&O’s mass sacking of ferry workers and their proposed replacement with agency contractors is a body blow to our Dover and east Kent community, where the majority of these job losses have occurred. It is devastating news for the P&O workers affected, as well as their families. Be in no doubt that this is shameful corporate behaviour by P&O Ferries and its owner DP World, and DP World must be held accountable for it. It is an insult to the decades of loyalty and hard work shown by the Dover workforce.

If P&O’s reported behaviour with the mass sackings was not bad enough, a female P&O worker who is a constituent of mine was thrown off her vessel in Rotterdam. P&O said that she and others had a ticket through Eurotunnel, but P&O had not booked the tickets, and they were stranded on a coach in Calais. Eventually, they returned home by DFDS ferries. I take this opportunity to thank the ferry operator DFDS, which has stepped in and helped passengers and others deserted by P&O over the last few days. This latest development puts further strain on DFDS, and I would welcome a meeting with DFDS and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to see how the businesses operating with good practices can be better supported on the Dover-Calais route.

This announcement was a U-turn on solemn assurances given to me and the RMT union over the last two years. DP World should rethink its behaviour and reverse its decision. In recent days, I have spoken with many Ministers and pressed for the Government to do all in their power to bring pressure to bear on DP World to do so. In response, No. 10 has roundly condemned the sackings, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is considering action on possible breaches of the law, and Transport Ministers are reviewing all Government dealings with DP World and P&O Ferries. I hope that DP World will take heed and reverse its decision. This is not so-called fire and rehire; it is simply bad business behaviour, and we should all be united behind stopping it.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in telephone conversations we had with the chief executive of P&O, it became clear that he was acutely embarrassed by having to tell us what he told us, and that this came straight from the top in Dubai, not from P&O?

[Mrs Elphicke]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. It is clear that this decision was authorised and made by DP World, and it is right that DP World should be held to account for the decision and its impact on east Kent and UK trade as a whole. The decision is a violation of the principle that businesses should treat their employees fairly and with respect, and it cannot be tolerated. It is right that the Government have taken a firm position to condemn what DP World and P&O Ferries have done. However, like colleagues, I press the Government to go further over the coming days.

If P&O Ferries does not change its mind, it is also vital that the impacted workers are properly supported. I am grateful to the Work and Pensions Secretary and the Employment Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who have listened to my calls for immediate action and a rapid response team to support the workers impacted in our community. In addition, I am working closely with the leadership of Dover District Council and Kent County Council to do everything to see that the maximum possible support is provided. I am grateful to local businesses that have already come forward with job offers and practical support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

When the chief executive officer of P&O rang me last Thursday at about midday, he told me that this was not a choice about some 800 jobs; it was a choice about 800 jobs or 3,000 jobs. Many companies, in the air, on the roads and at sea, have had to make redundancies as a result of both covid and rising fuel prices, but I know of none that have done it with the brutality, sheer indignity and crass stupidity with which P&O has handled this on behalf of head office in Dubai. About three months ago, P&O was running an advert for staff recruitment, saying:

“It’s not just a job. It’s family”.

In east Kent, those of us who use P&O regularly and those of us whose constituents work for P&O regard them as family and friends. They are good, honest, decent, hard-working men and women. They are skilled and dedicated, and we cannot afford to lose them. So my message is simply this to Dubai: reinstate those 800 men and women now. Then, if you need to, get around the table and talk about what restructuring may need to be done and do it properly. If you don’t do that, I fear that the ship will be renamed—it won’t be the Pride of Kent, but the Shame of Dubai.

International Travel

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

The travel industry has stepped up to the plate, by and large. For nearly everywhere that people can book—I encourage consumers to take a look—people are able to get a guarantee of a refund or a change of date if there is a change in status, and holiday insurance has become quite adept as well. The Government have also tried to assist. For example, under the Air Travel Organisers Licensing scheme—ATOL—people used to be able to get only a cash refund, but we have made those vouchers effectively Government guaranteed, so that people can take them with assurance. That is also helping the travel sector to weigh up its difficulties with cash flow.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, I am working very closely with the travel industry. He is absolutely right to raise the case. The most important thing that people can do is check before they book—particularly now, particularly this year—to make sure that refunds and rebooking are allowed in their contract.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]]

The Secretary of State’s statement will be a lifeline to the aviation industry which he has done so much to try to support throughout the pandemic. Inbound tourism is clearly very important to the economy of the United Kingdom; I therefore hope that he will be successful in swiftly ensuring that overseas visitors, not just returning British passengers, will be able to enter the United Kingdom relatively easily and safely. I hope my right hon. Friend will also be able to work with the FCDO to ensure that all World Health Organisation-approved vaccines are accepted in overseas countries, particularly including European Union countries such as France.

Finally, with reference to the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), will the Secretary of State ensure that there are facilities not only at airports, but at the channel ports particularly, to ensure the swift flow of passengers?

[Grant Shapps]

I absolutely hear the call for inbound tourism, which I have heard from both sides of the House. We are working on that as phase 2; there are some further complications with how to accept different proofs of vaccine, but I absolutely agree with the idea that, as a very good basis, we should accept vaccines that have been approved by the World Health Organisation.

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about not just airports but other types of port. Those around the channel tunnel are, of course, some of the busiest in the country. I think that it is right to tell people that the additional checks are likely to cause delays on both sides of the channel this summer. They will want to prepare and plan their journeys with supplies and ensure that they pick the best time of day to travel to avoid such delays. I am already working closely with my French counterpart to minimise any delays as much as possible.