Smart Motorways

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered smart motorways.

As ever, it is a real pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Betts. I know that, as the MP for a neighbouring constituency, you are very aware of this topic, so thank you.

On the morning of 7 June 2019, Jason Mercer said goodbye to his wife, Claire, and left for work. While travelling on the M1 near Rotherham, he was involved in a minor collision. Two years prior to the collision, the hard shoulder on that section of motorway had been converted into a full-time running lane. Local authorities, emergency services and local people had all objected to that, but were ignored. With no emergency refuge nearby, and with the hard shoulder removed, Mr Mercer and his fellow motorist stopped on the inside lane of the motorway to exchange details. Minutes later, both were dead. With a steep bank immediately behind the safety barrier, Mr Mercer was unable to move out of the live lane. Their vehicles were hit by a lorry, and both men were killed instantly. The stationary vehicles were not detected by the then Highways England for more than six minutes. The lane in which they were stranded was closed only after both men had been killed. Mr Mercer’s was one of 79 lives claimed on Britain’s growing smart motorway network in the period up to July 2022.

Since their inception, the alarm has been raised repeatedly about all-lane-running motorways. In 2016, the Select Committee on Transport found that the attendant safety risks of all-lane-running motorways had not been addressed. It recommended:

“The Department should not proceed with a major motorway programme on the basis of cost savings while major safety concerns continue to exist.”

Five years later, in 2021, the Committee again criticised the smart motorway programme, noting that

“the promised safety improvements were delivered neither efficiently nor effectively.”

It argued that safety risks

“should have been addressed before those motorways were rolled out.”

It is hard to escape the conclusion that had they been addressed, Jason Mercer might still be alive. Multiple inquests into deaths on smart motorways have said as much. In recording a verdict of unlawful killing, the inquest into Mr Mercer’s death listed five contributing factors, including the absence of a hard shoulder, the lack of stationary vehicle detection technology, and insufficient driver training on how smart motorways work. The inquest into the death of Sheffield-based Nargis Begum, killed in 2018 on the same stretch of the M1 as Mr Mercer, found that the lack of a hard shoulder contributed to her death. Yet National Highways, inexplicably, continues to claim that smart motorways are safer than conventional motorways. Data that it offers to support that conclusion is misleading, to say the least.

The 2016 Select Committee report noted:

“The ‘smart’ in smart motorways does not come from the loss of the hard shoulder…It could be seen as disingenuous to present this change as part and parcel of ‘smart’ motorways. The Department cannot use a reduction in risk in some hazards to justify an increase in risk in others.”

The implementation of new safety features is of course welcome. The installation of stopped vehicle detection technology in particular is a much-needed safety feature. But it is far from a magic bullet. Although SVD can reduce the time that it takes to identify stopped vehicles, it is far from perfect.

The lack of a hard shoulder is inherently dangerous, particularly without frequent emergency refuges to provide a place of safety. The spacing of emergency refuges is one of the most concerning aspects of design changes made as the all-lane-running programme has developed. The initial pilot project saw refuges spaced at 400-to-800-metre intervals. In later designs, that was expanded to a frankly staggering 2,500 metres between refuge areas. That is more than 1.5 miles.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady, who brings to Westminster Hall and the Chamber many issues that I support, and this is one of them. I look forward to the Minister’s comments. There are conflicting opinions on smart motorways and their safety. Northern Ireland has seen the introduction of smart motorway techniques, which in Northern Ireland are referred to as intelligent traffic systems. We have that on the A12 Westlink. We cannot ignore the fact that many fear smart motorways because of the arguments about no hard shoulder. Does the hon. Lady agree that before smart motorways are implemented, the Government must ensure that there is sufficient signage to make drivers aware of that? They may be driving on roads they have never been on before and not notice the change. More signage is needed before any more people panic or become involved in road traffic incidents.

[Sarah Champion]

I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman says.

Just imagine that someone is having a heart attack, their car is breaking down or they have been in an accident, and they then have to drive a mile and a half to get to a safe space of refuge. It is difficult to fathom. The only explanation that I can come up with is that a decision has been made on cost grounds, and that is hard to reconcile with the repeated claims of National Highways that its overriding priority is the safety of motorists.

The 2021 Select Committee report recommended that the roll-out be paused pending the collation and analysis of five years of safety data. The Government’s acceptance of that recommendation was welcome, but misleading. Not only do all-lane-running motorways continue to operate but, as the hon. Gentleman said, new schemes are being built and brought online. By spring of this year, four new sections of all-lane-running motorways will begin operation. While the Government dither, constituencies like mine continue to host death-trap roads. Make no mistake, all-lane-running motorways are death traps.

In 2014, with the road operating as a conventional motorway, an average of 14 vehicles became stranded in live lanes each month between junctions 32 and 35A of the M1. In 2018, the first year of all-lane running for the same stretch of motorway, a staggering 81 vehicles per month were stranded in live lanes. Each of those incidents represents a potential tragedy. Each saw a motorist stationary in high-speed traffic, hoping and praying that other motorists would see them in time—staring in terror at their rear-view mirror as vehicles hurtled towards them. And what is National Highways advice to motorists stranded in live lanes? Hon. Members will not believe this, but it is: “Keep your seatbelts on, turn on your hazard lights and call 999”. No place of refuge is available. Motorists are forced to wait and hope.

We are told that technology mitigates the risks—that stranded vehicles will be spotted quickly, that lanes will be closed and we will be safe—but even with stopped vehicle detection technology, it can still take several minutes to detect a stationary vehicle. Almost 10% of vehicles stopped in live lanes on smart motorways are not detected within a minute. Almost 2% are not detected within five minutes. Still worse, SVD does not even work properly. The Office of Rail and Road has disclosed that SVD has failed to meet key performance requirements on detection rates, speed of detection or even the number of false alerts. That is simply not good enough, and it makes the claim that all-lane-running motorways are safer than conventional motorways difficult to comprehend.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is illustrating the issue well. I was sitting here and thinking about when someone is stuck on the hard shoulder and vehicles are going by at a speed in excess of 70 miles an hour. Does she agree that the speed factor contributes to how quickly they can stop, and that compounds the panic and fear?

[Sarah Champion]

If we have to stop on the hard shoulder, having those cars racing by is terrifying. If there is no hard shoulder and we are stuck in a live lane, we can see them coming, but we have no control other than to hope that our seatbelt works.

The claim that smart motorways—all-lane-running motorways—are safer than conventional ones is ridiculous. It is based largely on offsetting the safety risk that is introduced by removing the hard shoulder against the safety improvements that a managed environment delivers, but those two things are not mutually dependent. As a 2016 Select Committee pointed out, it is perfectly possible to introduce a managed environment while retaining the hard shoulder. National Highways should not continue to offset the safety improvements delivered by technology against the risk of removing the hard shoulder in an ever desperate effort to justify what it does.

Roads with safety features in place that retain the hard shoulder do exist, and they are called controlled motorways. It would seem logical to use them as a realistic point of comparison when determining relative safety, but that is a comparison that National Highways seems hugely reluctant to make. I have repeatedly questioned it about this and have requested a direct comparison between the rates of fatal incidents involving stationary vehicles in live lanes on controlled motorways and on all-lane-running motorways. It was with much kicking and screaming that the data was eventually published in the second year progress report. The comparison is truly shocking. The rate of incidents involving stopped vehicles in which someone was killed or seriously injured on controlled motorways was 0.06 per 100 million vehicle miles travelled. For all-lane-running motorways it was a staggering 0.19 per 100 million vehicle miles travelled.

In the name of increasing capacity on the cheap, National Highways has more than tripled the likelihood of serious incidents involving stationary vehicles. Given those risks, it is hard to overstate just how important the proper functioning of the managed environment is, and yet the technology is far from reliable. For the month of September 2022, the national availability of stopped vehicle detection technology was recorded at 98%, and for warning signs 90%. That might sound reassuring, but for crucial safety equipment, a failure rate of 2% and 10% is shocking. Would we trust a seatbelt that worked 90% of the time? It is not unreasonable to ask that those features work reliably before placing our lives in their hands.

Last month, technology across the network was down for several hours during planned maintenance on National Highways’ DYNAC system. No advance warning was provided to motorists. This was the latest in a series of outages that whistleblowers have reported and that have deeply alarmed National Highways staff. Those whistle- blowers have said that the technology is out today, but I am unable to verify that. It is hardly surprising that the public lack confidence in these roads.

E-petitions calling for smart motorways to be scrapped and hard shoulders restored have received more than 10,000 signatures. Research conducted by the RAC has shown that 85% of motorists believe that safety is compromised by the removal of a hard shoulder. Worse still, just 46% of respondents felt confident that they knew what to do in the event of a breakdown in a live lane. The consequences of that lack of public awareness were shockingly exposed during the inquest into the death of Nargis Begum. The inquest heard that 153 vehicles passed the stranded vehicle, but no one reported it to the authorities. Why? Because they believed the vehicle would be detected by CCTV. That is not unreasonable in the face of National Highways’ repeated claims about the efficiency of its technology, and yet National Highways testified to the inquest that detecting a stopped vehicle using CCTV was not “practicable”.

National Highways belatedly recognised the importance of public education in ensuring that smart motorways can operate safely. The result was a public information campaign in which actors dressed as insects smeared on windscreens sang to the tune of the Pet Shop Boys’ “Go West”. Understandably, this staggeringly misjudged campaign was condemned by those who had lost family members on smart motorways.

During the recent Conservative leadership campaign, it was a relief that both the former Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss)—and the current Prime Minister expressed concern about these roads. The current Prime Minister branded them “unsafe” and committed to banning all new smart motorways. Campaigners and bereaved families were left bitterly disappointed when, just weeks later, he U-turned, with the Secretary of State for Transport reverting to the familiar refrain of waiting for evidence.

How much evidence do the Government need? How many more people have to die? How many more families will be left to grieve for their loved ones? We cannot continue to gamble with the lives of motorists. Removing the hard shoulder greatly increases the risks for motorists. The technology that is meant to secure their safety is unreliable, incomplete and ineffective. Tinkering around the edges, tweaking designs and rolling out flawed technology will not remove the inherent risk that the Government have chosen to introduce to our motorways. People are dying and yet the Government continue to delay, searching for an answer that is staring them in the face.

Had Jason Mercer been able to pull on to a hard shoulder, he would still be alive and Claire Mercer would still have a husband. The Government can prevent further loss of life, but to do so they need to recognise something that even the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), the former Minister who commissioned these smart motorways, has admitted, namely that they were a mistake. Nothing will bring back Jason Mercer, but the Government can at least put right their mistake and restore the hard shoulder across the motorway network. I plead with the Minister to do so right now, before more lives are needlessly lost.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Because your constituency neighbours that of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), I know you also have an interest in this issue. I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham for securing this debate about smart motorways. I will make some general points before I address the ones that she and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made.

The strategic road network—our major motorways and A roads—is the safest part of the country’s road network. Data shows that there are far fewer incidents and casualties per mile on the strategic road network than on the rest of the network. However, that does not detract from the fact that every death on our roads is a tragedy and one death too many.

The M1 is a route that I use regularly to go to and from my constituency of North West Durham. Recently, I visited junction 28 to see the issue with traffic backing on to the motorway, which hon. Members from the region raised recently in Westminster Hall. I have every sympathy for those who have lost loved ones in road accidents and particularly Jason’s widow, Claire, who is here today. I promise to listen as they and others continue to press for greater improvements in road safety.

Hon. Members will be aware that in 2021 the Transport Committee conducted an inquiry into the roll-out and safety of smart motorways. We have agreed to take forward all the Committee’s recommendations. Most significantly, we have paused all new schemes that are yet to start construction until we have built up further safety and economic data. That pause continues and the data continues to be gathered.

[Sarah Champion]

I am listening acutely to what the Minister is saying. He must be aware that the pause is not impacting the schemes that have already left the drawing board, so smart motorways continue apace. If the Government are concerned enough to pause the new ones, why are they not pausing all of them?

Public Transport Authority for South Yorkshire

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Mr Hosie.

Constituents have raised with me time and again the desperately poor standard of public transport links in South Yorkshire. For the majority of Rotherham constituents, public transport means buses. In early 2020 I conducted an extensive survey to gather a clear picture of bus services in Rotherham and the day-to-day frustrations that my constituents face just trying to get around. Suffice to say, the results were damning: 80% of respondents stated that their bus was usually late, 85% said the service did not offer value for money and a staggering 91% condemned services as unreliable.

The survey was conducted just prior to the pandemic, and in the subsequent two years the service has got remarkably worse. Getting to work, the shops or home in the evening should not be such a challenge, but for many in South Yorkshire, public transport is simply not a viable option. If we are serious about encouraging people out of their cars, sustained investment in a reliable, efficient and cost-effective bus network is vital. Instead, we are left with failing bus companies, poor reliability, a lack of interconnectivity, slow services and really high fares.

In South Yorkshire passenger transport executive, we have a body that has neither the funding nor the power to drive up standards. I agree that an alternative model for the delivery of public transport in our region is long overdue. Poor public transport links are holding us back, but the reality is that without the funding to drive up standards, I cannot see structural change alone delivering the improvements for people in Rotherham. That is why it is so bitterly disappointing to see the Conservative Government rejecting South Yorkshire’s detailed and ambitious bid for funding to transform our bus networks.

I would like to personally pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and, indeed, the four local authorities and their staff, for working tirelessly to put the bid forward. The outgoing Mayor of South Yorkshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central, has worked relentlessly to make the case for investment to the Government. I share his profound disappointment that, instead of delivering for our constituents, South Yorkshire has, as he put it, “been shafted”.

Sadly, this was all too predictable. The Government talk about levelling up; they talk about investment, and the Prime Minister talks about “a bonanza for buses”, but that is it—just talk. When it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, delivering on promises and proving that levelling up is anything more than a buzzword, the result is always the same: zero. My constituents are not interested in arguments about regulators or transport authorities; they want a bus service that is fit for purpose. Instead, this Government have made it clear that, when it comes to the desperately needed funding to make that bus service a reality, South Yorkshire is, once again, back of the queue.

Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill (First sitting)

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Gibson]

This Bill aims to do two things. First, it introduces a mandatory database of taxi and private hire vehicle driving licence suspensions, refusals and revocations for all licensing authorities in England. Secondly, it creates duties on licensing authorities in England to report safeguarding and road safety concerns about drivers licensed by other authorities, and for those authorities to have a duty to take account of those concerns. These are essential changes to empower our licensing authorities to continue in their tireless work to keep the travelling public safe by giving them the information they need to make informed licensing decisions.

I have already spoken about clause 1, so I will move on to talk about the other clauses relating to the database and the responsibilities of licensing authorities to it. I will speak first to clause 4, as it pertains to the database itself, and then I will discuss clauses 2 and 3, which relate to the duties on licensing authorities to use it.

Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to provide or designate a database to record the suspensions, refusals and revocations of taxis and private hire vehicles driving licences. This allows for a database, such as the NR3 database established by the Local Government Association and the National Anti Fraud Network, to be designated as the database that all authorities must use. This should help the Bill come into effect and provide its benefits much sooner, as this system is already being used voluntarily by many good local authorities.

Clause 4(3)(b) would ensure that there is a reasonable time limit for holding entries about a driver. The 11-year period specified in the Bill ensures that the information is available to licensing authorities to support their decision making, while still allowing, in line with other record keeping such as Disclosure and Barring Service checks, for that prior history to no longer be disclosed. The 11-year period broadly aligns with the filtering of less serious adult convictions within the regime in which the disclosure and barring regime operates. It is also worth remembering that all licensing authorities require drivers to be subject to an enhanced DBS check and most to a barred list check, with relevant convictions and non-conviction information disclosed as part of this process.

Clause 2 creates a duty on licensing authorities in England to record on the database information about certain suspensions, refusals and revocations. As explained earlier, authorities would have to record all suspensions, refusals and revocations of taxi and private hire driving licences where they have relied, at least partly, on relevant information, by which we mean safeguarding or road safety concerns. Clause 2 also ensures that those records are made promptly within five days of the decision being made and that authorities must keep their database entries up to date, including those as a result of appeals. That means that the information that authorities use to make their licensing decisions will be as current as possible, which is essential for effective decision making.

The database would also hold only basic information about a decision and the licence holder, to allow authorities to search effectively. To receive details of a decision, the authority would need to contact the relevant authority that had made the entry. That ensures that only those with a business need for the details of those licensing decisions can access them.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. On a point of clarification, will the fee associated with database entries be paid by the local authority or by the individual, and does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that it will be enough to cover all the administration costs, or does he think that the Government will need to, in effect, underwrite the database?

[Peter Gibson]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. From the information that I have been provided, because the majority of local authorities are already part of the National Anti Fraud Network, which runs the database, the additional cost that will be incurred by local authorities that were not already adding to the database in doing so is marginal. I think it will be a couple of pounds per driver entry, so it is a nominal cost, which I am sure she will agree is a small price to pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell, and a pleasure to find myself in this Bill Committee some three and a half years late—a long wait for a cab, one might say. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Darlington, who has elegantly explained the issues and proposed solutions. I hope that in a cross-party way we can see the Bill through to fruition. I strongly echo the wise words of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, the long-term author of many of the proposals, but, as he says, there is much more to be done.

I will not repeat the points that I raised on Second Reading, but will make a few observations. I looked back to see the minor differences between the two Bills, and will seek an explanation as to why there have been changes, which might give some pointers to the Department’s thinking. I am not sure whether they came from the Minister or the hon. Member. There are minor changes in the short title, or is it the long title?—I can never remember which—of the Bill. There might be some thinking in the Department as to why that was done.

I have already mentioned the fees that have been introduced into the Bill this time, which seem a sensible addition. There is a subtle change in clause 5’s terminology from “out-of-area” to “licensed in other areas”. I am not sure whether that represents a change in the Department’s thinking. It is obviously a vexed issue with changing technologies. As we have all observed, much of the legislation was created at a time when things were genuinely local. In the modern world of apps it is very different, so the change in terminology might be telling us something that we should be aware of.

I particularly wanted to refer to the excellent Library briefing by Dr Roger Tyers, issued some months ago. I was interested in that briefing because there is reference to the short debate three and a half years ago on a Friday, when the Bill was talked out. Many of us who have witnessed Fridays in the Chamber will recognise that it is not the most uplifting way of discussing legislation. I was slightly frustrated that, as promoter of the Bill, I never had a chance to respond to some of the points made that afternoon, so, three and a half years later, I shall use the Library briefing to pick up the thread.

Very subtly in that Library briefing on page 11 there are references to some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman who talked it out, which were quite sensible. It was not just a question of filling the time, because important points were raised around proportionality and the definition of relevant information. One point made was about whether the measure was far too draconian, so that we were in danger of potentially punishing people in too dramatic a way for a relatively minor misdemeanour. It is important to put it on the record why that is not what the Bill tries to do. There are some answers to that in the Library briefing in a reference to the National Anti Fraud Network data-sharing agreement, which I doubt is background reading for most people, but I dug it out.

A long time ago, as a local councillor, I was on the licensing committee. People here in Committee have served on licensing committees and will know that the area is very complicated. There is guidance from the Department, but there is also local discretion. This is one of those issues that are sensitive, because there are different issues in different areas—sadly, as we know—and very good reasons why some authorities would want to have higher standards, so although there is a debate about national standards, it is not a simple debate. What really struck me in the data-sharing notice from the National Anti Fraud Network, which I think is worth quoting, was where it says:

“Every application must always be considered on its own merits. A licensing authority must not fetter its decision-making, or appear to have simply relied upon the previous decision of another authority. The purpose of the register is not to mean that an applicant who has been refused a licence on one occasion will always be refused.”

In other words, all that is happening here is that as much information as possible is being made available to those making decisions. It is not pre-empting the decision. That document goes on to make the very sensible point that

“it will always be relevant for an authority to consider a previous refusal or revocation, and the reasons for that decision.”

I will not labour the point, but I think the answers to the issues that were raised in the few minutes at the end of the debate to which I have referred can be answered, and I put it on the record that they have been answered. This raises a further, technical set of issues, which I suspect the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon is far better placed to have a view on than I am, in relation to the complex relationship between the police and local authorities, in terms of what they can and cannot tell local authorities. Certainly when I was researching this legislation some years ago, I was very struck by the expertise of some of the licensing officers, who were explaining the nuances of this. Of course, there was a time when, in local areas, people knew their patch: the police knew their patch and the council knew its patch. It is sometimes quite hard to write these things down, but they would know who were the people whom it would be absolutely right to give another chance and who were the people whom we would not ever want to take a risk on. Trying to codify that is hard but I believe that, in the complicated web of legislation that we have, we may be getting closer to something that works. In the end, the real aim here must be passenger safety; it has to be. This goes right back to the professor’s point that he remains worried that, in the current situation, people are still at risk.

As ever, none of this is easy. We are trying to balance protection of the public with being reasonable to drivers, who may sometimes make a mistake and deserve a second chance—I think we would all want that. But I think that this Bill does no more than stop the gaming of the system, and that it is absolutely to be commended.

[Sarah Champion]

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Darlington for bringing forward the Bill. It is much needed and very sensible. Of course, I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge for all the work that he has done and thank the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani). When she was the Minister for this subject area, she was going to bring forward some more comprehensive taxi legislation. I hope that the present Minister will consider the work that she has done and consider finding time to bring that forward.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon spoke about the long relationship that we have had on this topic, and I want to bring a bit of that to the debate, so that everybody, but particularly the Minister, knows why this legislation is so important. I learnt about taxi licensing because Rotherham Council got it horribly, horribly wrong. I am delighted to say now that because of how wrong we got it and because of Government intervention, we now have some of the highest standards in the country. That is important because taxis, by their very nature, tend to be transporting, in a real position of trust, some of the most vulnerable people in the country. It is taxis that are commissioned to take children to school, and to take children and adults with special needs to where they need to be. We put our most precious loved ones into the back of a cab, on the assumption that the person will take as much care with their transportation as we would. Sadly, as we discovered in Rotherham, that was not the case. Children were known for their vulnerabilities, picked up because of that and exploited—sometimes in the taxi by some of the taxi drivers. But sometimes they were being commissioned from place to place and taken by the taxi drivers to do it. And they were doing all this in plain sight, because taxis, by their very nature, are transporting vulnerable people around, so it was not discovered in time.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

I am so grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and thank her for raising the SEND issue. We had a bad issue in Sandwell involving a SEND transport contract that was handed out, and safeguarding requirements not being met. Is she as hopeful as I am that the new database could be used in procurement by local authorities? That will be really important, as I am sure she agrees, in ensuring that our most vulnerable—particularly those with special educational needs, for example—are protected when they are being transported to where they need to go.

[Sarah Champion]

I wholeheartedly agree. I will highlight two—I will not call them omissions; that is not in the nature of this Bill Committee—additions that the Minister could consider in the future. Given the experience in this room, I hope they will be supported. The first, which the hon. Member for Darlington raised, is cross-border travel. I said that Rotherham now has some of the highest standards in the country. Unfortunately, because those standards are not replicated nationally—having CCTV in all taxis, for example—a taxi driver with lower standards could come from out of area to work in Rotherham. They may well be on the database and they may well have not committed any crime of note, but they would still be able to operate in Rotherham with lower standards of safety and protection for passengers. Will the Minister consider bringing in, at a later date, national minimum standards that apply to all taxi drivers, so that someone getting into a taxi, wherever they are, can have that same certainty?

The second addition—this is a rather a geeky point; my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings knows I am slightly obsessed with this—is around Disclosure and Barring Service checks. I met a woman whose abuser went to jail and then changed his name by deed poll, so his DBS check was clean, because the checks basically look at someone’s name and any associated records attached to that name. The Government are currently undertaking—I hope—an inquiry into the risks associated with change of name. It is known that registered sex offenders do that. There have been a number of high-profile cases that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon has been involved in. It happens. I am really concerned that close that particular loophole. I would appreciate anything the Minister could say to the Home Office and Justice, which are both looking into this, to make sure that the loophole is closed.

[Sir John Hayes]

Those issues were looked at in some detail, as the hon. Lady will know, by Professor Abdel-Haq in the report that I commissioned. I am grateful for her kind words, by the way. Cross-border travel is a thorny issue, but Professor Abdel-Haq’s recommendation 11 states:

“Government should legislate that all taxi and PHV—

private hire vehicles—

“journeys should start and/or end within the area for which the driver, vehicle and operator (PHV and taxi…are licensed.”

He goes on to say that appropriate measures need to be put in place to exempt specialist services, such as chauffeurs, disability transport services and others. However, the huge issue of cross-border journeys was looked at in some detail by that committee. Professor Abdel-Haq also looked at her second recommendation. I take the view of the hon. Member for Cambridge about local particularities, but I would go so far as to say that we cannot be too rigorous. There has to be a thorough and rigorous process that gives people the assurance that, wherever they get a taxi, those standards and checks will be in place. I strongly endorse the hon. Lady’s recommendations. This is precisely the kind of additional work that I recommended in my earlier intervention, and which I know the Minister will want to take forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I would be delighted to. I can only thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings for the work he has done in the past, and for the emphasis he puts on the cross-border issue now. He knows only too well the risk, but also the potentially quite simple solutions that we could put in place to give every passenger that certainty. I thank him again for raising that.

[Dr Johnson]

I listened carefully to the hon. Lady, and if I heard her correctly, she suggests that someone could evade DBS checks by changing their name by deed poll. If so, that has much wider application than taxi drivers; it would also apply to those working in healthcare professions and with children in schools. I would press the Minister to look at that urgently.

[Sarah Champion]

I can only say that I share the hon. Member’s concerns. It is something that keeps me awake at night, I must say. In the case of the survivor who I am speaking about, Bella, the perpetrator changed his name while in jail. It is a very simple process that can be done through an online form or on paper. The checks are so slight that they are incredibly easy to evade.

I am deeply grateful for all the work done by hon. Members in the room on the topic. I urge the Minister to refer to the points we have raised, particularly around the cross-border matter and the change of name. This is not a political issue; it is a safeguarding issue, and I hope the Minister takes what we say in that spirit.

[Sam Tarry]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who has a great deal of expertise on this issue and has worked cross party in such a fantastic way to bring these measures forward, I do not want to talk too much about the points I made on Second Reading. However, it is important to note that there is so much consensus across the House on the need for the Bill. The hon. Member for Darlington has worked incredibly hard; he has spoken with stakeholders and taxi users and has reached out across the House in a commendable way. For Members on the Labour Front Bench, this is something that needs to happen as soon as possible, with the Government’s support.

We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham about the harrowing and tragically avoidable situations that the legislation could begin to address. As she explained, the taxi system has been used to abuse people; it needs to transition to being a shining light in terms of standards. I hope that Government support for this private Member’s Bill can make that a national priority.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich West made a good point about SEND transport. It is imperative that everyone, including older and disabled members of our communities, is fully confident in their taxi driver. Recently, we have seen a huge growth in taxi systems; we can pick up our phone and have a taxi at the front door in just a few minutes. As a London MP, I am perhaps more confident than others, given Transport for London’s regulatory framework, but the situation is not necessarily the same across the country. There is the well-known issue of some local authorities, which I will not necessarily name, issuing a vast number of licences. In fact, there were so many licences in some of those cities that the streets would surely be gridlocked with taxis. In reality, the situation in those towns and cities is perhaps more about bumping up the funds available to the local authority than safety and addressing the issues of cross-border working.

In my Second Reading speech, I mentioned how long it has taken for the measures to get to this point. One reason why I was prepared to withdraw my amendment is that I want the Government to move forward on this. Many of the recommendations of the task and finish group are partly addressed in the Bill. It could still go further, but something is obviously better than nothing. We have in the Bill some key measures, which the hon. Member for Darlington has worked hard to put there. It will move things forward, get on the statute book, put national standards in place and, importantly, introduce the database, which can be checked across the country. That is essential to ensuring we do not have a patchwork approach across the country. As in any other sector, standardising safety means setting national standards, and it is important that this legislation makes that happen. I hope we can move forward positively.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Thursday 11th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The Mayor is a chum, and I would like to think the hon. Member is a chum, too. The cities eligible for the intra-city fund announced in the spending review 2020 have been chosen with the appropriate governance and on the basis of a range of factors, including population, economic growth rates and congestion. The Government are already investing substantially in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough through the £1.5 billion A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon upgrade that was completed last year and a devolved allocation of £95 million from the transforming cities fund for 2020 to 2023, and we are also developing plans for a new Cambridge South station and, obviously, East West Rail.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

What plans he has to convert additional stretches of motorway to smart motorways.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)]

Highways England is delivering its plan for 2020 to 2025, with sets of all-lane running motorway schemes being delivered over the current road investment period. We have committed £500 million to ensure these motorways are as safe as possible.

[Sarah Champion [V]]

Since its conversion to a smart motorway, the 10-mile stretch of the M1 between junctions 32 and 35A has seen an average of 68 breakdowns a month in live lanes. Each of these incidents has the potential to end in a tragedy. By contrast, in the three years prior to its conversion, not a serious incident occurred in which a vehicle was struck on the hard shoulder. When will the Government stop gambling with the lives of motorists and abandon these dangerous, ill thought out death traps?

[Grant Shapps]

I congratulate the hon. Lady for all her campaigning on this subject, and she knows that I share her passion. When I spoke to her a year ago today to explain the 18 different steps involved in the smart motorways stocktake, she warmly welcomed that work. Smart motorways have been under development since 2001 under the Blair-John Prescott Government. I think I am the first Secretary of State in 12 to carry out the stocktake and review, and I will not rest until these motorways are as safe as possible.

Transport

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Recent years have seen a rise in emissions, largely caused by increased traffic growth, which is encouraged by an ever-expanding road building programme. Although the Government are expanding roads, they are not concentrating on safety, which is specifically what I want to focus on.

My constituent Jason Mercer was killed last summer on an all-lane running section of the M1 in South Yorkshire. All-lane running is often branded by Highways England and civil servants as “smart motorways”. It is not. All-lane running means using the hard shoulder as a permanent live traffic lane without fitting the required safety features. Mr Mercer and another motorist were forced to stop, following a minor collision. Without a hard shoulder, they were left vulnerable and exposed in a live lane when one of their vehicles was struck by a lorry, killing both men instantly. The lack of hard shoulder also meant that the men eventually had to be airlifted out because there was no other way for the emergency services to reach them.

The same 16-mile stretch of the M1 that claimed Jason’s life has seen five fatalities in just 10 months. Nationally, the number of fatalities on “smart motorways” continues to rise at an alarming rate. The Secretary of State recently announced that no further smart motorway schemes would begin until the outcome of the Government review of their safety. He has insisted that smart motorways must be at least as safe as traditional motorways or should not proceed. That is most welcome, but what about the existing death traps?

I want to be extremely clear: all-lane running is fundamentally flawed. It is profoundly unsafe. The existing sections need to be reverted back to roads with a hard shoulder, with immediate effect. If we keep all-lane running open, more people will die, simply to increase motorway capacity on the cheap. That is not hyperbole. Yesterday, The Times detailed a 2012 report by the Highways Agency—the precursor to Highways England—that stated that for the 10 miles of the M1 that borders my constituency, the Highways Agency had decided not to include the planned safety features, as that would increase the cost of the scheme by between £1 million and £2 million—just under 2% of the total budget. There have been five deaths in the past 10 months on that stretch of motorway, for a saving of £1 million to £2 million. Each death, in near identical situations, was because Highways England’s penny-pinching meant that the safety features were never installed.

Highways England knew that rolling out all-lane running would result in deaths. That is not speculation: Jim O’Sullivan, the chief executive of Highways England, told the Transport Committee on 23 October 2019 that that was the case—that by avoiding the safety features, he was likely to see deaths. We have seen deaths. Highways England knew that the all-lane running motorways would kill. Someone, somewhere will have signed off a report that identified the risks and put a figure on the cost of saving lives—a cost that they decided it was not worth spending the money on. I have supported Jason Mercer’s widow, Claire, in her campaign. She is now looking to sue Highways England for corporate manslaughter. It is clear that Highways England knowingly failed in its duty of care to motorists.

A key safety feature that Highways England decided to scrimp on in South Yorkshire was refuges. We originally should have had six on our stretch of road, but we do not have them. Stopping the roll-out will not save lives on my stretch of road and in other constituencies. Will the Minister please, please revert all-lane running back to where it was—roads with a hard shoulder—until the money is found to put the safety features in place? If the Government cannot find the money, the roads should be left as they are, with a hard shoulder.

All-lane Running Motorways

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the safety of all-lane running motorways.

Last year, in June, my constituent Jason Mercer said goodbye to his wife Claire at 8 am. Fifteen minutes later, he and another motorist were dead. Jason had been involved in a minor collision on the M1 in South Yorkshire, but in March 2017 the hard shoulder on that section of motorway had been converted into a full-time running lane, so, with no emergency refuge in sight, Jason and his fellow motorist were forced to stop in a live lane to exchange details. A steep bank immediately behind the safety barrier meant there was nowhere to move off the road, and instead they were left exposed. A lorry hit one of the stationary vehicles, killing them both instantly.

The safety features promised when the motorway was converted have still not been installed. Jason is one of the growing number of victims of so-called “smart motorways” on which the flow of traffic is controlled by remotely adjustable speed limits. Specifically, Jason was killed on the all-lane running, or ALR, motorway on which the hard shoulder has been permanently removed. Tragically, Jason is not the only victim of that ill-conceived scheme. That same 16-mile section of the M1 has seen five fatalities in just 10 months. Nationally, 2018 figures show 107 deaths across the whole of our motorway system and—let me repeat—I have had five fatalities in the past 10 months, in near-identical circumstances, on 16 miles of road. I acknowledge that ALR schemes can deliver capacity improvements, but they do so at the cost of motorists’ lives.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this important issue. Does she agree that that could have been avoided had police advice been listened to? In the Parliament of 2010 to 2015, I went to see the Minister’s predecessor with the South Yorkshire police, who had said, “This arrangement is not safe.” Recently, Chief Inspector Darren Starkey of the South Yorkshire police wrote to me that

“any stranded vehicle, in any live lane or carriageway on any motorway or other strategic road presents an immediate safety risk”,

but that when there is a hard shoulder, those

“risks are less than being in the live lane”.

[Sarah Champion]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point and for all his campaigning on the issue. It was not only the police but the local authorities, the other emergency services, the RAC and the AA—everyone with any common sense knew that taking away the hard shoulder was going to lead to fatalities.

Hazards presented by the removal of the hard shoulder are manifold. The hard shoulder allows stricken motorists to stop in relative safety, outside the flow of traffic. In its absence, at a minimum, there should be emergency refuges along the carriageway. Mr O’Sullivan, the chief executive of Highways England, recently revealed to the Select Committee on Transport that 38% of all breakdowns on ALR motorways took place in live lanes, not in refuges. Even having refuges, therefore, does not keep people safe.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

Dev Naran, a young constituent of mine, lost his life suddenly in 2018 in an accident on the M6. His parents are in Parliament today. The coroner’s regulation 28 report on his death raised some of the huge issues that the hon. Lady is exploring: despite the name, there is no automated system for spotting broken-down vehicles and where there is, at one place on the M25, it is overwhelmed by false positives; we do not know how often screens that are used manually to look for broken-down vehicles are refreshed, or how many screens an individual has to look at; and there is no consistency in the spacing of refuges, as she said, and huge stretches have no refuges at all. Officials have been too blithe about the problems she is pointing out. I hope that the Minister will stand up to the officials and take the huge problems seriously.

[Sarah Champion]

I echo those concerns, and the hon. Gentleman’s hope that the Minister will now do something. My heart bleeds for the families.

Reaching safety is particularly challenging in newer schemes, where refuges are being spaced further and further apart. The M42 active traffic management pilot placed refuges 500 to 800 metres apart, but in newer ALR schemes that has increased to roughly 2,500 metres. To be explicit, someone needs to travel 2.5 kilometres, or just over 1.5 miles—with a blow-out or an overheating engine, or after being in an accident—before being able to get out of a live traffic lane. The greater the distance between refuges, therefore, the less likely it is that a motorist will be able to reach safety. Motorists are instead left exposed, stopped in live traffic. I can only assume—I am sorry to say this—that that decision was made to save the Government money.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Champion]

I will, multiply.

[Gareth Johnson]

Does the hon. Lady agree that not only motorists but workers in recovery vehicles need extra protection from smart motorways? One way of achieving that might be to enable those workers to use red lights rather than the simple amber lights that they use at the moment. That would afford them greater protection from other vehicles that might otherwise not see them on the road.

[Sarah Champion]

I will come on to the existing lighting system, but yes, motorway rescue is walking into a death trap.

[Alexander Stafford]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one way in which to deal with the situation is to increase the speed at which the gantry signs change to close the lanes, so that people have more warning? Does she also agree that we need quicker access for the emergency services to deal with accidents when they happen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will come on to the reality of the stopped-vehicle protection system, which unfortunately is somewhat shocking.

The smart motorway is meant to be smart, and its systems should come into play—for example, to close lanes to traffic automatically—but that of course relies on the stranded vehicle being detected. It pains me to say, however, that the vast majority of England’s smart motorways are unable to deliver on that. Almost all smart motorways are underpinned by Highways England’s MIDAS—motorway incident detection and automatic signalling—system which, by monitoring traffic flow, allows congestion to be managed. But the system has a significant and life-limiting flaw: it is unable to identify a lone stationary vehicle.

A 2016 Highways England report found that detecting a stranded vehicle took an average of 17 minutes. Safety is compromised still further by Highways England allowing up to three minutes to close a lane once a stationary vehicle has been detected. In Jason Mercer’s case, detecting his stationary vehicle took more than six minutes, and the lane in which he was stranded was only closed after the crash that claimed his life.

Stationary vehicle detection, or SVD, technology reduces the time taken to spot stranded vehicles by an average of 16 minutes. Highways England committed to fitting SVD throughout the smart motorway system in 2016. That has not happened. Four years on, SVD is in operation on only two sections of the M25, covering just 24 miles of England’s more than 230 miles of smart motorway. The Highways England chief executive acknowledged that, had SVD been installed, a number of fatalities on all-lane running motorways could have been prevented.

Even where SVD is in place, questions remain about its effectiveness.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing a debate on this incredibly important issue. Over recent months, sadly, there have been a number of fatalities and accidents on the stretch of the M1 by Luton. Since raising the issue, a number of residents have echoed concerns about the safety of that stretch of smart motorway. Does my hon. Friend agree that any review by the Government is welcome, but that including in it all the voices of road users and workers is vital?

[Sarah Champion]

I completely agree, and I compliment my hon. Friend on already raising the issue in the Chamber. The consultation was always flawed, and all the evidence mounting is just not being listened to.

A recent report in The Sunday Times revealed that the system’s own chief designer has highlighted weaknesses in the system, warning:

“The density of traffic at higher volumes means it is very difficult to detect stopped lone vehicles without an unimaginable number of false alarms.”

The Minister must not believe Highways England when it tells him that SVD is the panacea for safety improvements for all-lane running schemes. It is not; it is seriously flawed.

The risks to motorists do not end when a stranded vehicle is detected. Once detected, the system should close the lane that the stranded vehicle is in by marking it with a red X on the gantry. In 2016, non-compliance with red X signs was 7% to 8%. However, research by the RAC this year found that more than a fifth of motorists had driven in a lane closed by a red X sign in the past year. If a motorist is detected and lane closures are put in place, their chance of being hit by an oncoming vehicle remains alarmingly high. It will require a concerted education and enforcement programme to reduce non-compliance, and I urge the Minister to commit to that without delay.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate and compelling case. Those concerns were first raised by the Select Committee on Transport, chaired by Dame Louise Ellman, back in 2016. They could—and should—have been addressed much earlier. Some of those who tragically lost their lives could have been saved.

[Sarah Champion]

That is the sad reality. I will come to the Transport Committee’s damning quote. I thank my hon. Friend for her work, as Chair of the Committee, to hold Highways England to account.

The Department for Transport has been aware of the dangers of ALR for some time. Many risks were highlighted in the 2016 Transport Committee report that my hon. Friend mentioned; it concluded that the Committee was unable to support ALR due to fundamental safety concerns. The Department for Transport, in contrast, argued that ALR is not only safe, but safer than traditional motorways. That position is hard to comprehend, but I have tried to figure it out. It is based on the twisted logic of offsetting the safety improvements of a managed motorway environment against the hazards of removing the hard shoulder. The issue with that logic is that those factors are not exclusionary. It is perfectly possible to maintain a hard shoulder on a smart motorway, but it costs more.

By suggesting that the risks are a necessary component of the improvements, the Department unjustifiably downplays the inherent dangers. The Transport Committee’s report labelled that approach “disingenuous” and robustly warned against decreasing the risk of some hazards to justify an increase in others. Highlighting the intrinsic problems of all-lane running compared with other smart motorway schemes, the Committee was damning in its criticism of the Department. It stated:

“The All Lane Running design has been chosen on the basis of cost savings, and it is not acceptable for the Department to proceed with a less-safe design, putting people’s lives at risk, in order to cut costs.”

Motoring organisations, including the RAC and the AA, have been warning for some time that ALR presents an unacceptable risk—concerns echoed by local authorities and police forces. Yesterday, it came to light that the AA will no longer carry out roadside assistance on all-lane running motorways due to serious safety concerns. How bad does it have to get before the Minister will act? Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, in response to the consultation on the conversion of junctions 32 to 35a of the M1, warned starkly that,

“from an operational perspective, the emergency services suggest that the risk of collisions involving stationary vehicles...is an unacceptable one which will have serious and potentially fatal consequences.”

Jason Mercer was one of those fatal consequences. Last year, there were nine fatalities on smart motorways.

There is no evidence that ALR can ever be delivered safely. I therefore strongly believe the Government must stop the roll-out with immediate effect. Until the obvious and intrinsic risks of removing the hard shoulder are addressed, existing schemes should revert to traditional motorways from today. At a minimum, Highways England must prioritise retrofitting stationary vehicle detection to existing ALR schemes, with a clear deadline for when that work will be completed. I support the RAC’s call for existing schemes to be retrofitted with refuges no greater than one mile apart, but I would go further and ask for the originally proposed 500 to 800 metre intervals. While that work is undertaken, the hard shoulder should be reinstated. If it is not possible to install refuges, the scheme should not go ahead on that road.

Urgent action—both enforcement and education—is needed to improve compliance with red X signs on gantries. Safety of motorists must always be paramount. Before the scheme even began, the Government were inundated with warnings about the intrinsic risks of all-lane running and were urged to rethink their approach to increasing motorway capacity. It is totally unacceptable for a Government to risk lives in the name of cost savings.

I cannot change the past. I cannot bring Jason Mercer back to Claire. But it is in the Minister’s gift to stop more deaths.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

That is one of the precise questions that the Secretary of State is looking at. I do not want to pre-empt that work, but I absolutely accept the hon. Gentleman’s reason for asking that important question.

Highways England is constantly monitoring, and it has introduced a number of measures. This is ongoing work. It is not something we think is done and dusted; it is live as we speak. The truth is that, for anyone involved, one accident is one too many. I want to ensure that no one ever dies in this way again, and that the legacy of the people who have died is that that sort of accident, and the situation in which it occurred, cannot happen again. That is why the Secretary of State announced an evidence stocktake soon after taking office. He has called in all the evidence and data, and he is looking at a package of measures to deal with this issue, which will be announced imminently. It would be sensible if, following the debate, we quickly reconvened the all-party group on road safety. Perhaps we might go further and create a taskforce for all colleagues who are interested in this issue, so we can listen to their concerns and ensure that that work is fed directly in.

I hope my hon. Friends and colleagues on the Opposition Benches understand that I cannot pre-empt the Secretary of State’s announcement, but let me make one or two key points in response to those that were raised. It is true that the principal rationale for smart motorways is to increase capacity, reduce congestion and reduce pollution. There are environmental benefits to ensuring that we maximise the use of existing motorways rather than building new motorway capacity, but there are real issues about awareness, information, the positioning of refuges, rescue, vehicle monitoring, and the safety of vehicles re-entering the highway. All those issues have to be got right, and that is why I am responding in the way I am.

Smart motorways have increased capacity. Since we introduced the scheme, more than 1 billion journeys have been made over the 250-mile network of smart motorways. I do not want people to think this is a very small patch of malfunctioning motorway; it is extensive, and over the last 15 years, millions of people have driven up smart motorways.

[Sarah Champion]

This debate is about all-lane running, not smart motorways. It actually is about a very small stretch. Please, Minister, do not just focus on smart motorways and how wonderful the M25 is. We get that. We are talking about all-lane running, which is where we do not have investment.

[George Freeman]

I understand. I am setting the context, because I think there is quite a lot of public misunderstanding about what smart motorways are. I am short of time and I am keen to get to the end of my speech if I can.

The conversion of the hard shoulder to a running lane is a key feature of capacity management, and we avoid having to build more motorways when we can increase the capacity of existing ones. I totally accept that there are real issues, which the hon. Lady raised, not least of which are refuge placement and ensuring that we have full CCTV coverage so we are able properly and quickly to monitor vehicles that are in trouble and ensure that they are dealt with properly. The scheme has been running since 2014. To the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, there is a lot of data that we ought to be able to draw on, and we are drawing on it in this review.

It is worth reflecting that the hard shoulder on a traditional motorway has never been deemed a safe place to stop. One of the problems is that, traditionally, people have seen the rescue telephones and thought of it as a safe place to stop, find facilities and make a phone call. It is not and never has been. One of the things we have struck is a misunderstanding that it is a good place to pull over. It is not. Let me repeat that the hard lane has never been that and is never that. In contrast, there have been no collisions in refuges resulting in fatalities.

In the original pilot on the M42 in 2006, refuges were set very close together, at approximately 500 metres apart. Based on operational insights, further performance data and ongoing monitoring, Highways England moved that to 1,000 metres on all other dynamic hard shoulder running schemes, and then to 2,500 metres on all-lane running schemes. That is one of the things the Secretary of State is looking at.

Highways England undertook a review of operational all-lane running schemes and found no consistent correlation between the number of live-lane stops and the spacing of emergency areas, but I take the point my hon. Friend made about drilling down into that data, and I will ensure that that is done. We and Highways England know that motorists not only need to be safe but need to feel safe and need to know what to do when they are in the dangerous situation of a breakdown or a collision. We need to ensure that everyone has that information properly.

The specification for the maximum spacing of emergency areas on new schemes has been reduced from 1.5 miles, which is about 90 seconds at 60 mph and equivalent to the spacing of lay-bys on sections of A road, to 1 mile, which is about 60 seconds at 60 mph. However, again, we need to look at the data; on particular sections, given the geography of the road area, the spacing might need to be different. Highways England will also install a number of additional emergency refuge areas in locations with the greatest spacing. We need to look at whether there are particular blackspots where we need more refuges.

All emergency areas are fitted with orange surfacing to make them more visible, and better advance signing will give motorists more information about how far away the next one is. I want to go further and ask whether we could use digital technology, which many drivers use for satellite navigation, to ensure that every driver knows when they are in one of these areas, where the refuge is and what they should do. Technology can help us ensure that we avoid the sort of tragedies we have seen.

Identifying a broken-down vehicle is key, and I know that is something my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford has raised. If a driver is unable to reach a place of safety, the regional traffic control centre can and should use the overhead electronic signals to close lanes, display warning messages and slow down approaching traffic, as well as to create an access lane for the emergency services. To reduce response times in setting those signals, Highways England has installed a stopped vehicle detection system on two sections of the M25 and will shortly install one on part of the M3. Again, however, if that is the prerequisite, we need to put it everywhere and ensure that it works properly. Highways England is designing it into all-lane running smart motorway schemes that are currently scheduled, and it is exploring how to provide the same benefits on all existing all-lane running smart motorways. I say that not to suggest that it is an adequate response to the points that were made, but simply to highlight the work that is going on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaign, and the whole House sends its condolences to her constituent. Our motorways are actually the safest roads, but she raises an important point. If the public feel that the use of red lights will help them feel safer, we will be minded, after looking at the evidence, to approve the change.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

My constituent Jason Mercer is dead because of the Government’s ill-conceived all-lane-running scheme on the M1. Will the Minister please meet me and Claire Mercer, Jason’s widow, to discuss the safety implications of the scheme and the stopping of next year’s roll-out?

[George Freeman]

Yes, I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady, as will the Roads Minister, Baroness Vere. I am also delighted to confirm that the Secretary of State will be announcing a short review so that we can deal with that problem quickly.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I rise to get more clarity and commitments from the Minister, specifically on road safety and reducing loss of life. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I will focus on towbar failure and substandard trailers.

On the compulsory registration of trailers, I remain concerned that a non-commercial trailer weighing between 750 kg and 3.5 tonnes can be on the road without being subject to routine safety checks. Given that vehicles over 3.5 tonnes are regularly tested, it seems logical for trailers that are, say, 3.4 tonnes, or even 1 tonne, to be subject to regular checks. Accidents with trailers of such a size could easily cause serious injury or death, as we have heard throughout the Bill’s passage. Provision for regular testing would help to shape the behaviour of road users, giving them greater responsibility for the maintenance of their vehicles.

Some very heavy trailers, perhaps even weighing 3.4 tonnes, sit off-road without maintenance, potentially for months or years, before being taken on a road or motorway without any formal scrutiny. That presents a potentially deadly risk to road users and pedestrians. The Minister has spoken about the opportunity the Bill presents for raising public awareness of safety issues. Can he provide any detail of his thoughts on what an education and public awareness campaign might look like? I welcome the commitment he has given to extend testing for all trailers over 750 kg if recommended by the report provided for under clause 20, but that does not go far enough.

We have an opportunity with the Bill to ensure that all trailers over 750 kg are registered on a compulsory basis. Such an intervention would help to prevent serious accidents and deaths on our roads. Regular checks would increase the likelihood of a culture change, leading to owners of heavy trailers taking more responsibility for the safety and roadworthiness of their vehicles. The Minister has said that the report will make recommendations on whether regulations should be extended for compulsory registration for trailers weighing more than 750 kg. Will he say where he believes the threshold of acceptable risk lies, and at which point he believes all trailers should be registered on a compulsory basis? Will he make a personal commitment to extend regulation, without delay, to all trailers over 750 kg at the point the threshold is crossed?

On towbars, we have during the Bill’s passage heard compelling information about the potential lack of compliance with towbar safety regulations. Specifically, I refer again to the National Trailer and Towing Association’s findings that 91% of inspections carried out as part of its free towbar check failed to meet adequate safety requirements. The Minister knows that the Rotherham Towing Centre in my constituency is the second facility in the UK to be accredited by Horizon Global. Customers using such accredited centres have the assurance that a towbar fitted to their vehicle is safe.

There are, however, currently no legal requirements for towbars to be fitted by qualified professionals. There are not even specific standards with which the tow hitches and their fitting must be aligned. The examination at the MOT stage has a very high threshold for failure. In Committee, the Minister rightly said it was important to differentiate between small numbers of data and evidence. To that end, I am pleased that the Government have agreed to report on the compliance of existing provisions for the installation of towbars. Given the agreed need for good evidence-based policy making, does the Minister agree that the report should include details on the number and causes of road traffic accidents involving towbars, as well as the already agreed trailers, under clause 20? He expressed concern that it might not be realistic to retrospectively assess accidents for which data had not been recorded. Will he commit to reporting on accidents involving towbars going forward?

I note that the Minister has said that the level of recorded towbar defects is very low, but staff at my local garage, RH Motors, which does MOT testing, said that the threshold for giving notification of a problem with a towbar is very high. The Minister has stated that he would consider the guidance for staff at MOT stations on the threshold for reporting faulty towbars. What steps has he taken to review this for future guidance?

Finally, on the inspection protocol, the Minister has said that if an extension of periodic testing is proposed to cover all trailers, it would be appropriate for that to examine the tow connection on the trailer itself. Given the concerning evidence suggesting that many towbars and hitches that are examined are not safe, and given that most are not examined at all, does he agree that it would be more prudent to introduce periodic testing for all towbars without delay?

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

National Policy Statement: Airports

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Five and a half years ago when I became an MP, I became a member of the Transport Committee. At that time, we were doing an inquiry into the three options for south-east airport expansion. I went into it completely open-minded, but at the end of the inquiry I was absolutely convinced that Heathrow was the only viable option. Five and a half years have passed, and I have seen this Government and the coalition pass the buck on making a decision on this important topic—whether there was a general election or a mayoral election coming up—so I am really glad that we are now having the vote.

However, the issue has been ignored and put on the back burner for 50 years. In 1968 the Roskill commission on south-east airport capacity was launched, and since then we have been on the continuum of not grasping the real opportunity to invest in our infrastructure. I contrast what we have done with what has happened with Hong Kong airport. The difference is that that airport is owned by the state and there is a very clear commitment and understanding that investing in a country’s infrastructure helps it to grow.

I recognise the difficult time that many MPs have had in making the decision on how to vote. I completely understand the role of constituency MPs in serving the views and opinions of their constituents. But I would ask everybody else for whom this is not a direct constituency issue to think of the national interest, and what will happen to our economy in 10, 20 or 50 years’ time if we do not invest.

I say this for a particular reason. During the Transport Committee inquiry, we had some of the big international airlines come and talk to us about what their preferred option was. They said, “Actually, this is not an issue for us any more because we plan 20 years ahead, minimum, and so we have already started to discount the UK as our hub.” I know that we are in a race against time, but I want us to be putting forward a really clear message that we will invest in the infrastructure and in the people of this country. I am therefore very proud to be voting for the Heathrow option.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords] (Second sitting)

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Jesse Norman]

It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. As colleagues across the Committee will be aware, trailer safety has rightly been discussed in some depth, both throughout debate in the other place and on Second Reading in this place. It is an issue with which I have personally been engaged throughout my time as a Minister. It has been a great pleasure to work with the hon. Member for Bristol South, and I am delighted to see her here today. Many members of the Committee will be familiar with her work on trailer safety.

Before we consider the amendments, it is worth outlining the facts that brought the hon. Lady to the subject. In January 2014, young Freddie Hussey was killed by a runaway trailer as he and his mother, Donna Hussey, walked to their home in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and since her election to Parliament she has worked indefatigably with the family in their campaign to improve trailer safety. In April, I attended the latest in a series of trailer safety summits arranged by the hon. Lady. The event brought together a range of stakeholders in the trailer and towing sector to discuss how safety can be improved. Freddie’s parents, Donna and Scott Hussey, also spoke of their own experience and their subsequent campaign to improve trailer safety, and it was a great honour for me to have a chance to discuss these issues directly with them.

As the Committee will be aware, the Department and its agencies have undertaken significant work as part of our continuing commitment to improve towing safety standards since the tragedy. Highways England leads the national towing working group, which brings together a range of towing stakeholders to address the issue. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency reviewed and published further guidance on safe towing practices alongside launching the “Tow Safe for Freddie” campaign. A large number of existing measures deal with the safety and roadworthiness of trailers, and we continue to review them. Like motor vehicles, almost all trailers must now be approved before they may enter service. That may be undertaken at the level of manufacturer and model, or on an individual basis for bespoke or custom-build units.

There is an annual roadworthiness examination that applies to larger trailers with a gross weight of more than 3.5 tonnes and trailers in a number of other categories. Under that regime, about 250,000 trailers are tested every year. I am pleased to say that the units exhibit high standards with a pass rate at first test of almost 90%, but—it is important to say “but”—as has been noted, the regime applies overwhelmingly to commercial trailers, with a minimal number of non-commercial trailers falling within its scope. As the hon. Member for Bristol South noted, about 1.4 million trailers fall outside the current testing regime despite weighing more than the vehicles they are towed by, which do require an MOT.

On Second Reading, the hon. Lady asked how our report will be undertaken, and I would like to provide some clarity today. The report will draw on existing data, but we are looking at what else may be included to inform a full and proper consideration. Members will understand that when producing such reports, it is crucial that we are able to speak with authority and make recommendations that are informed by data. The Department for Transport has a worldwide reputation for the quality and comprehensive nature of its work in data collection and use. I would like to reassure Members about an issue raised on Second Reading by saying that the data used in the current reporting systems is comprehensive and world-leading. It informs the Department’s work on road safety and is reviewed regularly.

The reporting form used to capture information on accidents contains many different data categories, allowing us to understand and identify trends in road traffic collisions. It provides details about the roads, vehicles and persons involved, as well as any injuries that occurred. Reporting systems continue to be refined to improve the depth of the data that informs departmental assessments. I am happy to share the contents of the reporting form with Members, if they would find it useful.

The hon. Lady is right to point to the under-reporting of accidents. Levels of under-reporting appear to be fairly consistent, which is a challenge to overcome, as I hope Members understand. The wholesale development of new reporting systems to collate new data would require several years’ work and is not achievable in the timeline of this legislation. It is crucial that the reports are based on validated and verified data to assess the issue, so the STATS19 accident data will inevitably form an integral component of the report we undertake. The report will, however, provide the starting point from which we can consider whether significant changes are necessary to how we report on trailer safety. Due attention will be paid to the challenge of under-reporting of accidents and we will consider what other types of data we may be able to obtain to inform our recommendations beyond that contained within STATS19. Working with stakeholders in the sector may well comprise an element of this undertaking.

The debate on these issues has been valuable and I thank both Members and peers for their thoughtful and considered contributions. As Members will be aware, on Report in the Lords, Baroness Sugg confirmed my intention to undertake a report on trailer safety, and the continuing discussion, both in the House and with stakeholders at the trailer safety summit, reaffirmed this commitment.

The Government amendments before the Committee today are intended to ensure that we can deliver fully the intent of the amendments made in the other place. That will be achieved in a manner that reflects the extent of our devolution arrangements. Should the safety report recommend that periodic testing is extended to cover all trailers weighing over 750 kg, that may be achieved through an extension of the existing safety regime. The proposed amendments replace the amendments tabled on Report in the Lords and comprise two additional clauses within part 2 of the Bill. Both amendments include in full the recommendations peers sought on the issues of trailer registration and trailer testing.

The provisions in new clause 1 on trailer safety will replace those proposed in the Lords. The new clause details the report to be undertaken and states that it must be published within one year of the legislation coming into force. The report will cover the number and causes of road accidents that involved trailers and caused injury or death to any person involved. The data contained in the report is not restricted to those points, but will contain that as a key thrust of the considerations. The report will cover recommendations sought by peers on whether regulations should provide for an extension of compulsory registration and testing requirements to apply to all trailers weighing over 750 kg.

The reporting period will cover a continuous period of at least 12 months and end no earlier than 18 months before the provision comes into force. That will allow the Department for Transport time to validate and fully consider the substantial body of data that will underpin the recommendations in the report. “Reported Road Casualties GB” is published each autumn, and we anticipate that the proposed timeline will allow us to draw on, at a minimum, the release later this year.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am listening with interest to the Minister. Does he plan to capture data about trailers weighing more than 750 kg? There is potential in the legislation to make registration of trailers weighing more than 750 kg compulsory, if that is substantiated by the data.

[Jesse Norman]

As I said, the report will make recommendations on whether regulations should provide for an extension of compulsory registration and for testing requirements to apply to all trailers weighing more than 750 kg.

Amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol South, further proposes that the report will consider the

“levels of compliance with existing provisions relating to the construction, condition or safety of all trailers.”

A great deal of data is already recorded for those trailers that are subject to an annual test and checked at the roadside by the DVSA. The information may well prove valuable in the assessment of the safety of trailers generally, although hon. Members will be aware that it will not cover data for the great number of trailers to which the hon. Lady refers, which are not currently subject to the regular testing requirements. Nevertheless, a consideration of the compliance with those provisions will contribute to the report.

With a trailer population outside the annual test regime in excess of 1.4 million, each weighing between 750 kg and 3.5 tonnes, it is difficult to gather a robust data sample for those trailers to inform the consideration in the report. While the Department will consider which data sources we may draw on to inform any judgments on the standards of roadworthiness of light trailers generally, there is a need to be proportionate in how we gather data in the context of a wider enforcement strategy.

Larger trailers are the focus of existing enforcement, because they have long been recognised to pose the biggest risk. I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol South will appreciate that our position at the moment is that the amendment should not be made. The Department is keen that the report should be beneficial and will examine which additional sources of data we may draw on to inform a full consideration of trailer safety and compliance with both existing provisions and any new provisions that may arise from the report.

Regarding amendments (aa), (b) and (c) to new clause 1, tow bar safety was raised on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Rotherham, and it is certainly an important issue when considering trailer safety. She spoke in particular of vehicles to which a tow bar has been subsequently been fitted, but which carry safety concerns. It is worth focusing here on the definitional question whether “tow bar” covers only the attachments merely to cars or the towing vehicle, or whether it also captures the attachment part of the trailer and where it attaches. That raises questions about definitions that make her amendment hard to carry through, but I will speak to both halves of the question.

Car and vehicle tow bars are subject to examination at annual tests. Cars and heavy vehicles with tow bars fitted are subject to checks both on the mechanical condition and on the relevant electric fittings. The rates of failure of tow bars of this kind at annual tests are extraordinarily low. The figures are published, and in 2016-17 the number of tow bar defects accounted for 0.001% of total defects for cars and light vans—an absurdly low figure. In the case of heavy goods vehicles, the rates of failure are also very low. Nevertheless, Members are right to raise concerns about the consequences of a tow bar failing. At the trailer safety summit, I saw evidence of the state of some tow bars that had been allowed to deteriorate.

[Sarah Champion]

I took the opportunity of the extended lunch break to call my garage, RH Motors, which does MOT testing, and asked about trailers and specific tow hitches. Staff there had recently been on the training, and they said that the threshold for notifying a problem with a tow hitch as a fault is very high; it tends to be due to acute corrosion. With the new regulations having literally just come in, they were not sure whether more guidance had been issued for MOT stations. Will the Minister consider that for future guidance?

[Jesse Norman]

That is an interesting question and I will certainly consider it. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning it. At the trailer safety summit, we saw evidence from the police force in Somerset of the condition to which some tow bars had been allowed to deteriorate. It is a source of genuine concern. However, it is worth pointing out that the scope of the amendment goes rather further than our discussion on Second Reading. In the proposed form, the report would require an assessment of all accidents involving a trailer to determine whether the tow bar may have contributed. While the contributing factors are recorded, which may allow us to discern such a link, the amendment would oblige us to assess retrospectively accidents for which the data has not already been recorded, which would be very difficult.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We have similar issues on the route down the M5. I have worked with Avon and Somerset police, and they feel that issue acutely. They would like more resources to be able to do more stop-and-checks on the motorway, and throughout Somerset and Devon. Highways England’s work in the towing safety group is largely determined by the prevention of accidents to stop the back-up along the M5, but we want to look much more at safety. Vehicles are being kept over winter—in some cases, several winters—in large farm areas or other areas that are not checked. Perhaps people do not realise the danger that can be posed by things that they have not seen eroding over that period. That is why driver behaviour and education are so important, but ultimately, mandation may be the only way forward.

Working with the police, I have seen some shocking examples of agricultural and leisure vehicles, such as horse boxes and boat trailers, and photographs thereof, that show that it is a major issue. I understand the issue of proportionality and the risks associated with establishing a new bureaucracy, but—as my hon. Friend for York Central said—the key point is that we do not know the scale of the problem, and we do not know how it impacts on both the commercial and non-commercial sector. That is the point we have to get to. It does not matter whether the accident is caused by a commercial or non-commercial vehicle, it is still an accident and, potentially, a death. I will continue to work with the Government and all parties on this, but I emphasise again that this is why better data connection and the sharing of knowledge and information are key.

I am happy not to press my amendment, given the assurances that the Minister has given. I have a question for the Minister. We have kind of piggy-backed on the Bill, which is an enabling Bill that may not be enacted, as I understand it. Will the Minister comment on what happens, if the Bill is not enacted, to the work done to highlight trailer safety, the report, and the provisions and assurances that have been made? If the Bill is not required, how will the provisions that we have agreed and discussed be taken forward?

[Sarah Champion]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I welcome the approach taken by the Minister. It is heartening to hear how he is genuinely open to discussion, debate and new evidence coming forward, and I am optimistic that the consultation is genuine—rare in this day and age—and that it will actually influence this Bill so that we get the strongest and safest legislation.

I welcome the Government’s amendment 3, new clause 1 and the associated amendments already taken from the other place, but I also want to speak in support of the new clauses tabled by Labour Front Benchers and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South.

I want to talk about tow bars. I am referring to the retrofitted tow bar or tow hitch to a motorised vehicle, and I particularly support amendments (a), (c) and (e) to new clause 1.

I start from the position that anything on the road that involves a motorised vehicle has to be roadworthy, hence the need for cars and light commercial vehicles to have an MOT, likewise the associated checks for heavy goods transport vehicles and the attachments that they tow. From my position—I think it is common sense—it cannot be right that, currently, trailers under 3.5 tonnes can be without such scrutiny. As the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby has said, some of them sit in a field or garage for a long time and are then taken straight out onto a highway or motorway without any due regard for their fitness or safety, and indeed without any legal responsibility to have any due regard for this.

Looking specifically at tow bars, I have to admit that the Minister has done a vast amount of research on this and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South has immersed herself in the topic. I came to it two weeks ago by accident, in that I was invited by my constituency business—Rotherham Towing Centre—to come and see their work. They are proud to be only the second facility in the UK to be accredited by Horizon Global, one of the world’s largest towing equipment suppliers. As an accredited centre, customers can be sure that the tow bar fitted to their vehicles is safe and secure, but the reality is that anybody can fit tow hitches and tow bars to their vehicles. The consequences of tow bar failures can be catastrophic, and many of us are aware of horrific incidents—not least the case of the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South. Unsafe towing can result in serious injury, damage or indeed death. Yet currently there are no legal requirements for tow bars to be fitted by qualified professionals, or indeed for there to be specific standards with which the tow hitches and their fitting need to be aligned. The Minister has an opportunity to change that. There is nothing to prevent an unsafe badly fitted tow bar from being used. As I have already said, at the MOT stage, tow bars have to be seriously unsafe for them to be considered a failure.

I welcome the Minister’s comments on this, but hope he is able to give serious consideration to including the amendments, particularly amendment (a) to new clause 1 as the Bill moves forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to all colleagues for the very thoughtful and intelligent contributions they have made. I will pick up on each of the issues they have raised.

Perhaps I can start with the hon. Member for Bristol South who, in many ways, is the mother of these amendments. Her point about the importance of affecting driver behaviour and driver education has also been made separately and forcibly to me by the hon. Members for Rotherham and for York Central—it is very important and well understood. In due course, there may well be a case for extending our road safety communications more widely. As the hon. Member for Bristol South will know, we are effective in many ways on road safety education, but it is important that we cover all aspects, so I am grateful to her for that comment.

The hon. Lady asked whether the trailer safety report will fall away. The answer is that it will not. That is because I hope and suspect that the Bill will be enacted—with the support of the Opposition, it certainly will be—and even if it is not enacted, the Government have made a commitment to produce a report according to the standards we have outlined.

Let me pick up on a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham. Of course, it is an offence to use a trailer on the road that is not roadworthy or that is in an unfit condition. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight, as several Members have, the 91% figure found on the assessment. Without getting too philosophical—the House will know my background in this area—there is a difference between data and evidence, and small numbers of data. We need a more comprehensive view. When we have one, we can legislate if we need to with certainty. If we need to regulate, we can do so with all the comfort and assurance that we would need.

[Sarah Champion]

I completely agree with the Minister, but capturing illegal, un-roadworthy vehicles tends to happen when things go wrong. The likelihood of the police stopping someone unless one of their trailer lights are out is incredibly slender. It is more about prevention and having a register. Regular checks would enable us in most cases—something could go wrong the day after the test—to guarantee more likelihood of compliance.

[Jesse Norman]

One great benefit of the Bill is that it has brought into the foreground a set of issues. It is the beginning of a conversation and a process of reflection that the Government need to have, and it will go well beyond the Bill itself. One can imagine what the different elements of that would be. The first might be education and public awareness, the next stage might be specific intervention, and so on all the way up the tree. I would not rule any of that out—it is just a matter of understanding the basis on which we operate.

In a way, it is a cautionary tale. The hon. Member for York Central mentioned tyre safety, which is another serious issue. She will know that Frances Molloy has campaigned in a very admirable way, having had a bereavement that was just as devastating in its own way as that of Donna and Scott Hussey. The view she has taken is that all tyres over 10 years old should be banned. In fact, in answer to her original campaign, the Department set out in guidance that no tyre aged over 10 years old should be fitted to the front steering axle of a bus. The effect has been remarkable and transformative in that we have seen very little infringement. We have tried on two previous occasions to commission what we considered to be an evidentially robust means of investigation. I am pleased to say that, after several years of trying and failing, we now have a process in mind. That is an example of how one can do an awful lot in advance as part of the process of evidence-gathering—that is what we are trying to do in the context of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

The Opposition welcome new clause 2 and believe that good progress is being made in addressing vital safety issues. New clause 1 addresses reporting and understanding the evidence, and new clause 2 concerns the application of what happens next, so in some ways it is the most significant part of the Bill. As I have indicated, we want to ensure that significant steps are taken to improve trailer safety and that a solid inspection regime is put in place.

Clearly, we will want to see an initial report on the evidence gathered as a result of new clause 1 to know how best to proceed, and I believe that new clause 2 will enable that to happen. However, we will need to ensure that there is then proportionate follow-up action that provides public safety first and foremost. We want an opportunity for regular inspection, but that action should feed into trailer design to ensure that products on the market are safe and of the highest standard, that trailers are used safely, and that we learn from evidence.

Let me raise one further point. We have talked about British trailers, but obviously people from other countries use our roads. I wonder how an inspection regime will impact them and ensure that the highest standards are achieved across our roads and that safety is upheld at all times.

[Sarah Champion]

I have a series of questions for the Minister, rather than a speech. Could he give clarity on who is responsible for the periodic testing of trailers and the resources? Will he consider including tow bars or tow hitches in new clause 2, subsection (1), which states:

“Regulations may provide for periodic testing of the construction, condition or safety of relevant trailers”?

I have to apologise—I thought consideration of the Bill would last for four more sittings. Otherwise, I would have tabled amendments to that effect. It would be gracious of the Minister to comment on that.

[Jesse Norman]

I am very grateful to colleagues. If a testing regime is to be introduced, the Department will decide what the best way of doing that is. I anticipate that it would be done through an extension of work that has already been commissioned by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and other relevant authorities.

Foreign trailers on our roads will be expected to obey the laws of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the same way that any other trailer would. They will be subject to the applicable law. I want to be sure that I have caught the question that the hon. Member for York Central raised.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying the point. The answer is, of course, that laws will apply to those trailers just as they would to domestic trailers. However, she rightly raises a wider point. Whether there is a difference in the assessment of trailers brought in from other countries—they may be subject to different regulatory rules—could well be considered in the wider trailer safety report. The report could also consider whether EU standards, or those of other countries, are doing the job we expect them to do. Hopefully that covers all the questions.

[Sarah Champion]

Would the Minister consider adding inspection of tow bars and tow hitches as the Bill progresses?

[Jesse Norman]

I cannot take that as a formal amendment, but I will certainly give the matter consideration.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Clause 23

Regulations

Amendment made: 5, in clause 23, page 13, line 35, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) A statutory instrument containing any of the following (with or without other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament—

(a) the first regulations under section 1;

(b) the first regulations under section 2;

(c) the first regulations under section 13;

(d) the first regulations under section 18;

(e) the first regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations);

(f) other regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations) which amend an Act.”—(Jesse Norman.)

This amendment requires the first regulations for periodic testing of trailers (see NC2), and any later regulations which amend an Act, to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Extent

Amendment made: 6, in clause 24, page 14, line 8, leave out “Section 11 extends” and insert—

“Sections 11, (Trailer safety: report) and (Trailer safety: testing regulations) extend”.—(Jesse Norman.)

This amendment provides that the new clauses about trailer safety (see NC1 and NC2) extend to England and Wales and Scotland.

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Commencement and transitional provision