Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to respond to this debate on behalf of the official Opposition with you in the Chair, Ms Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for sponsoring the debate and all those who have added their names to these two important petitions: a petition calling for an independent review of low-traffic neighbourhoods and a petition calling for the exemption of blue badge drivers from low-traffic neighbourhoods.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions this evening—I have been getting better at learning the names of Members’ individual constituencies, but bear with me if I get any of them wrong, Ms Harris. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) is quite right that we must continue to work hard to reduce the impact of air pollution on our constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said that we need a joined-up approach—I quite agree with that—and that everyone should be able to travel from A to B in a green way.

I heard a lot from the right hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) about the so-called war on motorists and how there were alternatives to it. I have to say, I did not hear many mentioned, but I thank them for their advocacy on behalf of their constituents. I think this shows the importance of proper consultation and considerate planning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said that low-traffic neighbourhoods can work when they are supported by the residents they affect, but that that must include consultation and co-production with disabled people. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) that effective consultation is important and that the views of all the different kinds of road users should be taken into account. Crucially, I agree that the debate must be based on evidence. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) was right to draw attention to the ongoing consultation about LTNs. Where there is a clear need for change, action should be taken. Her recognition of the positive impact on school zones was also important.

Low-traffic neighbourhoods have become a common part of many communities across the country in recent years. They play an important part in delivering safer streets and cleaner air and in helping encourage people to use active travel to get around. We know that benefits local economies, improves physical and mental health and brings down carbon emissions.

In many areas, LTNs have become a core part of life for the communities who live in them, with many enjoying the reductions in noise and air pollution thanks to the reduction in congestion as a result of roads being closed to through traffic. Obviously, there often need to be exemptions: emergency services, public transport, permit holders, and sometimes taxis. However, the overall reduction in most through traffic from LTNs is still significant.

Studies have shown that in areas where LTNs have been introduced, traffic has been reduced by 32% on average, with only a 4.5% increase in traffic on boundary roads. Nitrogen dioxide pollution has fallen by up to 9% in some areas with those schemes. Inside LTNs in Waltham Forest, road injuries have fallen by up to half compared to before the schemes were introduced. Data shows that 61% of people living in low-traffic neighbourhoods support the schemes. It is important to talk about the benefits of the schemes, because, despite what the Government try to say, the evidence shows that for the most part they are popular with local people and effective at achieving the desired reduction in levels of pollution and road injuries.

However, not everybody who lives in low-traffic neighbourhoods supports the schemes. Some have legitimate criticisms of how the schemes have been designed and implemented. In some individual cases there has arguably been a failure to consider the needs of particular groups, including—as is the subject of one of the petitions—those with limited mobility and blue badge holders. We can all agree that local authorities that introduce the schemes should ensure that accessibility needs are carefully considered and prioritised as proposals are designed and consulted on.

Many low-traffic neighbourhoods already exempt blue badge holders, but many do not. The Government’s own review on low-traffic neighbourhoods has found that of the LTNs surveyed, 38 exempted blue badge holders and 34 did not. It is clear that more can be done to ensure that LTNs consider the needs of those with limited mobility. I am interested to hear the Minister’s views on how the needs of disabled people, and those with limited mobility, can be considered from the start of the process when it comes to designing and implementing low-traffic neighbourhoods.

There is a balance to be struck between ensuring that the needs of all constituents are properly considered, and supporting the right of local communities to make the right decisions for their areas. That point—that this is a decision for local communities—is extremely important. Measures to improve road safety around schools and in residential streets are vital for the safety of children, are often demanded by local communities themselves, are essential to meeting legally binding objectives set by central Government on, for instance, air pollution, and are ultimately decisions to be made by those who know their local areas best.

Labour’s position on low-traffic neighbourhoods is clear: they are decisions that should continue to be made by local authorities, not be decided by diktat from Whitehall or Westminster. Of course, these decisions must be made with proper consultation, and the concerns of each community must be taken on board. Central Government have a role to play in ensuring that is the case, but if we go too far we risk undermining the independence and autonomy of the elected local decision makers who know their areas best.

Although I appreciate the strength of views in the petition that calls for a review of LTNs, as colleagues have noted the Government recently commissioned a review and published it just weeks ago. It came after the Prime Minister claimed that he wanted to stop “hare-brained” safety schemes and the so-called “war on motorists”, so let us look at some of its findings. Some 58% were unaware that they lived in low-traffic neighbourhoods altogether. Of those who were aware, more people were positive than negative. A clear majority of people were concerned about the number of vehicles travelling through their areas, and they were equally concerned about the pollution that they caused. That is not exactly the outcome it appears the Prime Minister was looking for when he commissioned the review. Perhaps that is why it was reported that the Government tried to permanently shelve it.

It would be remiss of me not to point out the pure hypocrisy behind the Government’s apparent about-turn on low-traffic neighbourhoods. Despite decrying these schemes, which their own review have found to be largely unobtrusive and popular, as part of the so-called “war on motorists” senior Conservatives themselves championed the schemes from the start. In July 2021, a prominent politician described low-traffic neighbourhoods as “transformational”, and warned:

“if you are going to oppose these schemes, you must tell us what your alternative is”.

Who was that? It was the disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

In November 2022, another distinguished colleague of ours in this House said that decisions on low-traffic neighbourhoods are

“entirely a matter for local authorities…to make.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c.493.]

Who was that? Why, it was the right hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), the Chair of the Conservative party. Would the Minister like to tell us what the current Prime Minister thinks the alternative to these schemes is? Does he agree with the right hon. Member for North West Durham that they are best left to local authorities themselves to decide on?

It is increasingly clear that the Prime Minister’s desperate attempts to deflect on to this so-called “war on motorists” are just hollow soundbites with no substance behind them. Just a quick look at his record confirms that. The cost of driving is soaring: car insurance costs are up 80% in just two years. The charge point roll-out for electric vehicles remains off track. The Government are set to miss their own 2030 target of 300,000 public charge points by several years. The state of our local roads today is just shocking: there are more potholes on British roads than craters on the moon.

Despite the Prime Minister’s and the Transport Secretary’s desperate attempts to politicise local transport issues such as road safety, school streets and reducing local air pollution, the evidence tells us that these schemes remain largely popular, and that they are effective and inobtrusive for most people. Although the Prime Minister may be keen to airbrush history, not too long ago these very schemes were championed by the most senior figures in his own party.

Many LTN schemes are far from perfect, and there are perfectly legitimate questions about how to design them with sensitivity to the needs of constituents—especially disabled people and those with limited mobility. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on how we can best support local authorities to do just that, but we should not forget the basic principle that decisions about local roads and local neighbourhoods are best made by those who live in those neighbourhoods and those who have been directly elected to represent them. These powers and responsibilities have been devolved to local government for many years. We should not let a desperate quest for political relevance from those at the top of Government to lead us to put our lives at risk, fail to tackle harmful air pollution and backslide on the basic principles of local democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I am sorry but I will not. I have taken multiple interventions and am going to try to make some progress. I am only on page 6 of my speech, which was meant to take only 10 minutes.

The review that has taken place has flagged particular concerns over the impact on disabled residents, the high number of penalty charge notices, the cost of the LTN schemes, and even concerns from individual emergency services that delays to crews caught up in LTNs could potentially risk lives. Those are not concerns that should be under-managed in any way.

Many disabled residents, as well as groups representing the views of disabled transport users, felt that inadequate consideration had been given to their needs and the impacts of LTN schemes on disabled people. In addition, several LTN schemes reported by local authorities to the DFT had not carried out equality impact assessments. We believe we have tackled these issues through the draft guidance, which sets out clear expectations for comprehensive and in-depth local engagement and full consideration of the needs of all road users in such a scheme.

We are clear that we will not support LTNs in future unless they are designed and delivered having had regard to the new statutory guidance, which will apply to new and existing schemes. Although it is guidance, we reserve the right to take further action if local authorities do not follow it. Local authorities are expected to consider the guidance. As with the new guidance on 20 mph limits, those that do not follow it could find implications for the future award of funding. As I have set out, I will pass that message on.

On the key accessibility point, the Government are committed to improving transport accessibility and supporting disabled people to have the same access to transport as everyone else. The LTN review found that too many schemes had not fully considered the impact of the changes on disabled people. I make the point that local authorities are bound by the public sector equality duty, and it is for them to ensure that they fully consider the impact of any proposed scheme in such a way. Any infrastructure they install should be delivered in a way that enables them to comply with equalities legislation.

The second petition we are debating requested that a flag be added to DVLA records to identify vehicles that belong to blue badge holders, so that they can be automatically exempted from any restriction and not attract enforcement activity. Although I understand the concern, I am afraid that currently that is not a viable solution. I will try to address in detail why that is the case. Clearly, blue badges are linked to the individual and not the vehicle. A badge holder may travel as a driver or a passenger in any vehicle, including a taxi or minicab, allowing them to access more easily the goods and services that they need to use. Therefore it is not possible to flag with the DVLA every vehicle in which a blue badge holder may travel. Likewise, although local authorities have access to a record of blue badge holders in their area, badges are registered to the individual and not the vehicle in which they travel.

Notwithstanding that, our draft LTN guidance makes it clear that local authorities should always consider exemption from restrictions for blue badge holders, as well as for deliveries and other essential services. It also addresses things such as emergency services. Again, I do not want to read out the entirety of it, but I encourage anyone who is passionately interested or who is contemplating this matter to look at the sections on exemptions and exceptions and how the individual situation for disabled people can be improved. The guidance sets that out in quite a lot of detail.

To answer the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) when she identified particular problems, I make the strong point that there should be considered, ongoing, good-practice principles of monitoring and evaluation, in line with the active travel fund monitoring guidance, but, where local authorities detect hotspots, where a disproportionate number of PCNs are issued or where representations or appeals are being made, that should alert them to a possible need to review the cause. The monitoring of PCNs and challenge levels should be carried out from the outset. That clearly includes monitoring the impact on local communities, the impact on the disabled, the impact on individual businesses, and the way in which the fines are being taken.

I cannot address much more, given the nature of the guidance being an unfinished document that the Government have to respond to.

[Simon Lightwood]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Guy Opperman]

Very well.

[Simon Lightwood]

I will be brief. In my reading of the Department for Transport website and the “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” research report, at no point is it mentioned that it is an interim or draft report. Will the hon. Member elaborate on that and explain, if it is an interim report, when the final report is expected?

[Guy Opperman]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted that. The final report will be this summer.

The situation in terms of the way ahead is that we need to find a way in which our local communities can use a process that has been around for a considerable time and managed in local communities in, by and large, a satisfactory way, but has clearly been expanded substantially over the last few years. We need to find a way in which the Government can provide the guidance and then local authorities can implement the schemes in an appropriate way. If they are not implemented in an appropriate way, clearly there have to be consequences.

I assure the petitioners, who are the most important people here, that we are working to ensure that local authorities give proper consideration to the needs of all users and gain buy-in across the local community, in all shapes and forms, when discussing and then implementing any local authority LTN schemes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The UK has a proud bus manufacturing history, from London’s iconic original Routemasters to Alexander Dennis’ next generation of hydrogen double-deckers used today in the Liverpool city region. As operators and local authorities decarbonise their fleets, UK manufacturers are ready to power that green revolution, but our bus makers are at risk from cheap models imported from overseas. This week, a major UK operator is preparing to procure Chinese-built buses for tens of millions of pounds due to cost pressures and because this Government have not set out a full industrial strategy since 2017. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what he will do to back British bus manufacturers and secure their role in this green revolution?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman will know that it is not possible, given our international commitments under the World Trade Organisation, to specify that people have to buy British buses. He will also know that British bus manufacturers are very competitive. The Government have made support available to businesses through our Advanced Propulsion Centre and UK Export Finance. As I said to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), if the shadow Minister thinks that there is any unfair competition with subsidised imports, the Trade Remedies Authority has all the tools at its disposal to deal with that.

We back British buses. We have fantastic manufacturers, and I have confidence in them. In a fair competition, our bus manufacturers can take on the world. Wrightbus has had £76 million of support from UK Export Finance to support its ambitious exports. It is a shame that he does not have the same faith in British industry that we do.

Draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2024

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 General Committees

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the Minister for introducing this delegated legislation. As we all know, transport has the highest carbon emissions of any sector, so decarbonisation should be a key priority. The Government first consulted on the amendment in this order in 2021, so why has it taken until today for us to consider it? Nevertheless, Labour supports this legislation.

The RTFO order is a key policy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in transport—and, might I add, it was introduced by a Labour Government. The extension of the order to include recycled carbon fuels is welcome; after all, RCFs can be as much as 50% less polluting compared with fossil fuels. By 2033, the change is projected to result in the supply of more than 1 billion litres of additional low-carbon fuel, resulting in a saving of more than 15 million tonnes of greenhouse carbon dioxide equivalents. Crucially, the increase in the number of qualifying fuels in the RTFO order will contribute to lower costs for general road fuel consumers.

I welcome the caveats for RCFs in the order; thankfully, the Government recognise that they are not renewable. I am glad that RCFs will receive only rate 1 certificates per litre of fuel, rather than full credits, and to see the publication of the technical guidance on the specifics of how fuel suppliers can fulfil their obligations.

The exemption of small businesses that employ fewer than 50 people is welcome, but it raises a number of questions on which I seek the Minister’s clarification. Are the Government confident that recycled carbon fuels can perform the same action as ethanol, or are they to be diverted exclusively to sustainable aviation fuel? If the latter, what are the Government’s intentions for the RTFO-supported fuels that currently go into petrol? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the change on UK fuel products that trade internationally?

More widely, why is there a nuanced understanding of the necessity to decarbonise here, but not in the recently published national networks national policy statement, which allows the inclusion of residual emissions in new projects? Why has the Prime Minister rowed back on the Government’s commitment to vehicle electrification by moving the petrol and diesel vehicle ban back to 2035? Where is the Government’s commitment to rail freight, hydrogen and biogas?

Overall, Labour supports this delegated legislation and the necessary wider decarbonisation of our public transport, but we must ensure that the Government have assessed the impact on the UK’s wider fuel sector.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords]

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

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

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If no one else wishes to speak, we will come to the Front Benchers. I call the shadow Minister.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak in my inaugural Committee of the whole House on behalf of the official Opposition. As we set out on Second Reading, Labour is clear that the Bill can help to sustain a thriving London pedicab industry that is also safe and trusted by its customers, and we support its progress. However, there are two areas in which Labour believes that the Bill can be improved: pedicab infrastructure, and the crucial safeguard of requiring enhanced disclosure and barring service checks for pedicab drivers.

Amendment 8, which was tabled in my name and those of my Front-Bench colleagues, would enable Transport for London to use pedicab licence fees for investment in pedicab infrastructure in London. Alongside passenger safety and unregulated fare charging, one of the biggest issues presented by unregulated pedicabs is the nuisance of operators blocking pavements and roads as they ply for trade. The Heart of London Business Alliance, which represents over 600 businesses across London’s west end, is clear that pedicabs frequently block pavements and roads outside many of its members’ premises. That can cause chaos at busy periods, such as when many hundreds of people are filing out into the street after a west end show.

The amendment would enable Transport for London to use fees levied from pedicab licences to invest in infrastructure that supports the industry. That infrastructure could include designated pedicab ranks in certain areas, designed to relieve the nuisance of blocked pavements by giving operators a specific area in which to pick up customers. TfL has already set out in its potential licensing framework that it will consult stakeholders on the provision of pedicab stands. I hope that the Heart of London Business Alliance, along with other associations and bodies, including the London Pedicab Operators Association, can feed into those discussions.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a good closing speech on why regulation is important. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and I share the view that the Bill strikes the right balance between allowing a sustainable and supported pedicab industry to develop, and giving Transport for London the powers that it needs to ensure that the sector runs safely. Does he agree?

[Simon Lightwood]

I agree, but there could be enhanced DBS checks, which our new clause 3 would provide for.

As I have said, TfL has already set out in its potential licensing framework that it will consult stakeholders, and I hope that that will include the London Pedicab Operators Association. Of course, although it is vital that fees are set at a level that enables investment, they must remain proportionate. We are trying to provide for a prosperous pedicab industry, after all, so we must ensure that fees are not prohibitive. Clause 2(4) already provides for TfL to set fees at a level that enables the recovery of costs incurred for administering the licensing scheme. Licensing fees being set on a cost recovery basis is fair and proportionate. Amendment 8 to clause 2(4) would simply grant TfL a degree of flexibility while acknowledging the benefits that investment in pedicabs infrastructure can have.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech clearly setting out the importance of having the right balance. Does he agree that, from this work in London, lessons could be learned for other towns and cities around the country, and that encouraging the pedicab industry and other delivery by bicycle in a sensitive way around the country could generate a great number of local jobs and remove fumes and other menaces from the public realm?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point; hopefully, during TfL’s consultation, it will engage with those other organisations to ensure maximum benefit. Labour’s priority, after all, is to grant TfL the flexibility it needs to implement a regulatory regime that promotes safety while also allowing the regulated pedicab industry in London to flourish. Naturally, infrastructure such as pedicab stands would be competing against many different demands for the use of central London’s kerbsides, and it will remain TfL’s responsibility to work with local authorities on where infrastructure can be viably located.

Some hon. Members may not agree that this Bill is an appropriate place to discuss pedicab infrastructure. Labour believes that on the contrary, the conduct of pedicab drivers and the safety of the public are undeniably linked to TfL’s ability to fund and make provision for infrastructure that supports a regulated pedicab industry. Amendment 8 clarifies one potential revenue stream for the provision of that infrastructure, and I hope the Government will consider its merits carefully.

I now turn to new clauses 1 to 3, which stand in my name and those of my Front-Bench colleagues. All three new clauses concern the safety of children and vulnerable adults using pedicabs. As we heard on Second Reading, and as has been reported widely in the media and by numerous stakeholders, misconduct by pedicab operators arguably provides the strongest case for the desperate need to regulate the industry. Blocking streets and pavements, reckless driving and noise nuisance are all important areas that regulation will address, but they pale in comparison with the vital responsibility we have to ensure that TfL has the power to ensure public safety effectively. As TfL’s proposed licensing framework sets out, that emphasis on safety will be its guiding principle for pedicab regulations.

At the front and centre are eligibility requirements for operators and drivers. TfL has set out a raft of proposed licensing requirements, including alignment of visa status requirements with taxi and private hire licensing, English proficiency, and highway code and hazard perception awareness. That is of course welcome, but TfL is also clear that it would like to see compulsory enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks for pedicab drivers, again in line with the taxi and private hire requirements. That should be a vital component of ensuring the safety of pedicab customers, but TfL has explicitly stated on page 5 of its draft licensing framework that it would require changes in legislation, because while clause 2(6)(a) of the Bill empowers TfL to regulate licensing eligibility, enhanced DBS checks may not form part of those requirements if TfL does not have the right powers. Those difficulties were raised in the other place and were acknowledged by the Lords Minister himself.

The draft licensing framework also makes a clear distinction between basic and enhanced DBS checks, and explicitly states that enhanced DBS checks for pedicab drivers would be TfL’s preference. I say for the benefit of colleagues that an enhanced DBS check may show information held by local police forces on individuals. That intelligence may prove vital when deciding whether to award a licence to a pedicab driver, and it is absolutely right that TfL should be able to require enhanced checks. While enhanced DBS checks are not a panacea, they are clearly an important component of thorough eligibility requirements. Labour recognises the need to balance getting the Bill swiftly on to the statute books with the need to ensure that it conveys sufficient powers to TfL to truly make pedicabs a trusted and safe mode of transport in London. If TfL does not have the right powers to vet pedicab drivers through enhanced DBS checks, that will threaten its ability to truly implement a watershed regulatory framework.

Labour’s new clause 1 would add this Bill, upon Royal Assent, to the list of existing taxi and private hire vehicle legislation under section 177 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017. As colleagues may be aware, section 177 empowers the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance on how licensing authorities can ensure the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults. Including pedicabs in the list of licensed activities covered by the statutory guidance would be a crucial step towards a safer pedicab industry.

Labour’s new clause 2 is designed to build on new clause 1 by turning the Secretary of State’s power to issue statutory guidance to TfL into a duty. Crucially, under subsection (2), this guidance would also include a requirement for enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks to be a condition of a licence. In concert with new clause 1, this new clause would equip TfL with the powers it needs to properly regulate in the name of safety by including enhanced DBS checks as a baseline standard for driver eligibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I will keep my remarks brief, as this is the penultimate main business before the Easter recess, and far be it for me to delay colleagues returning to their constituencies. I am grateful for all hon. Members who have participated in the Bill’s progress, particularly the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). I am grateful for the hard work of colleagues in the other place, which meant that the Bill came to us in a much improved state, specifically by adding the provision for the regulation of noise nuisance. Their efforts to pressure the Government into changing their approach on requiring parliamentary approval ensured that the powers are fully devolved to Transport for London. That is commendable.

As I set out on Second Reading and again in Committee, Labour supports the Bill. For years there have been calls on the Government to grant Transport for London the powers it needs to regulate this industry. Labour welcomes the Bill as that will finally become law, and a regulated pedicab industry in London will soon emerge, but it has taken far too long to get here.

I must repeat what I emphasised on Second Reading: there is no doubt that the Bill is hugely welcome to London’s west end and a handful of other London areas, but these measures should have been introduced as part of a far wider transport Bill. Elsewhere in transport policy there remains desperate need for major transport reform, particularly on e-bikes and e-scooters, but the Government continue to duck that responsibility and have refused to use this opportunity to bring forward a long-promised and long-delayed transport Bill.

I have been listening carefully to the Minister’s arguments, and I welcome the Government being content that TfL can mandate enhanced DBS checks for pedicabs under current private hire vehicle legislation. It is regrettable that proposed new clauses 1 to 3, all pertaining to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and children, were not accepted. TfL itself has indicated throughout its draft licensing framework that passenger safety will be its guiding principle, and it is keen to incorporate enhanced DBS checks into licensing conditions under clause 2(6)(a), but believes that it currently does not have the powers to do so. Each of Labour’s new clauses offered a different way forward to incorporating enhanced DBS checks into TfL’s regulations.

It is disappointing that the Government have not taken the new clauses forward, but Labour welcomes the opportunity that tabling them has presented to facilitate a discussion on the importance of TfL having the powers to integrate enhanced DBS checks into its licensing regime. I welcome the exploration of alternative means, as the Minister described, to achieve the same objectives. In the light of that, I gently ask the Minister to meet me at his earliest convenience to discuss this issue further, and to identify ways that we can work together on a cross-party basis to grant TfL the powers it needs to keep customers safe.

Overall, this Bill is welcome, if not long overdue. It is a great addition to the statute book. Once again, I thank all hon. Members and Lords in the other place for their involvement, in addition to the Clerks and stakeholders who have helped us scrutinise the Bill effectively.

Transport

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from Transport questions on 21 March 2024.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Good morning, Mr Speaker. Passenger watchdog Transport Focus published a report last week, which found huge regional variation in bus passenger satisfaction across the country, with large numbers of passengers “being let down”. Under the Tories’ deregulation of the bus sector, passenger satisfaction with some of our operators is miles below the average of 80%, with some as low as a dismal 66%. In places such as West Yorkshire, Labour Mayors are not standing for it any longer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) said, Tracy Brabin has announced her intention to pursue franchising to reverse decades of Tory decline. But the vast majority of local authorities do not have those powers, so will the Minister adopt Labour’s plan to give every local transport authority the same powers to take back control of their bus services?

[Guy Opperman]

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was at the launch of the said report and have read it. He will be aware that, for example, one reason for the complications is that the number of people working from home has increased by 40%. We have a plan to tackle that with the record investment that is being made to Mayors.

[Official Report, 21 March 2024, Vol. 747, c. 1032.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman):

An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood).

The correct response is:

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Good morning, Mr Speaker. Passenger watchdog Transport Focus published a report last week, which found huge regional variation in bus passenger satisfaction across the country, with large numbers of passengers “being let down”. Under the Tories’ deregulation of the bus sector, passenger satisfaction with some of our operators is miles below the average of 80%, with some as low as a dismal 66%. In places such as West Yorkshire, Labour Mayors are not standing for it any longer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) said, Tracy Brabin has announced her intention to pursue franchising to reverse decades of Tory decline. But the vast majority of local authorities do not have those powers, so will the Minister adopt Labour’s plan to give every local transport authority the same powers to take back control of their bus services?

Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Anthony Browne]

My hon. Friend is spot on; that is the entire point. We are creating a framework with a lot of flexibility in it because, as various Members have noted, this is moving technology. If we look back in 20 years’ time to where we are now, we will say, “Oh, that was very basic.” Things will change: technology will change; our understanding of the technology will change; and our understanding of how humans interact with the technology will change. That is why it is really important, as my hon. Friend said, that we keep the legislation flexible so that we can advance it.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wonder whether the Minister has considered whether it would be better to start with a stricter level of safety and then, as we get used to the technology and understand its limitations, perhaps look to reduce it to the levels that are proposed.

[Anthony Browne]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. The Law Commission, whose work feeds into all this, recommended three standards of safety, and we have chosen the highest. There is a risk that, if we set the bar far too high, it will be impossible for the industry to develop in the first place. There is a balance that needs to be struck.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

Okay. I hope that the Minister will rectify that apparent omission promptly. As I say, amendment 14 is not binding the hands of Government at all. Holding a review is an important part of the future process, and I hope that the Government will reflect on that. The Minister said that the Government intend to hold reviews; I just do not understand why he is not prepared to put that into the legislation. However, on this occasion I will accept the Minister’s word on that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Power to authorise

[Simon Lightwood]

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 3, page 3, line 17, at end insert—

“(1A) An automated vehicle may be authorised for use in non-road public locations under subsection (1) as long as the Secretary of State is satisfied that the authorisation will not impact the accessibility of the locations to existing users, including pedestrians.”

This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to authorise vehicles such as for use in public places other than roads (such as automated mobility scooters and delivery robots on pavements, for example) as long as the impact on accessibility has been considered.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 4 stand part.

Amendment 17, in clause 5, page 4, line 24, at end insert—

“(5) An authorisation requirement may require purchasers of relevant vehicles to be provided with a demonstration of any authorised automated features under section 4 at the point of sale.”

This amendment would mean that sellers of automated vehicles may be required, under the terms of their authorisation requirement, to demonstrate automated features to potential purchasers.

Clause 5 stand part.

Amendment 16, in clause 6, page 5, line 10, at end insert—

“(6) Authorisation requirements must include a requirement for authorised self-driving entities to publish an equality impact assessment.”

This amendment would require authorised self-driving entities to publish equality impact assessments, reporting on the potential impact of their vehicles on, for example, those with protected characteristics and other road users.

Clauses 6 to 9 stand part.

Amendment 24, in clause 94, page 68, line 20, at end insert—

“or a delivery robot vehicle.”

This amendment would add delivery robots to the definition of ”authorised automated vehicle”.

New clause 4—User-in-charge: reaction times—

“Within two years of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission, and lay before Parliament a report of, a study into the reaction times of users-in-charge of automated vehicles when receiving an instruction to take full control of an automated vehicle and their ability to react safely to the relevant situation.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a study into the ability of users-in-charge of automated vehicles to retake control of a vehicle when necessary.

[Simon Lightwood]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Grahame Morris]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

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

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

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

[Simon Lightwood]

Clearly, the only way we can have absolute clarity on the robot issue is to put it in the Bill and reference the inclusion of delivery vehicles specifically. There is potentially a mistake in terms of getting in the way of future investment and economic gains because of the grey area that continues to exist. We have had no clarity from the Government on when they may look at the issue further.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for his comments regarding the insurance industry. Again, the amendments were there to give that transparency and clarity to that industry and to disabled groups. I will not be pushing any of the amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Register of authorisations

[Bill Esterson]

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 10, page 7, line 21, at end insert—

“(1A) The register referred to in subsection (1) must be made available online.”

This amendment would mean that the register of automated vehicle registrations is available online.

Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 15, in clause 61, page 44, line 2, leave out from the third “of” to the end of line 4 and insert “—

(a) identifying, improving understanding of, and reducing the risks of harm arising from the use of authorised automated vehicles on roads in Great Britain; and

(b) assessing the accessibility of automated vehicles authorised under section 3.”

This amendment would extend the purpose of automated vehicle inspectors to include assessment of automated vehicle accessibility.

Clauses 61 and 72 stand part.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. Amendment 15, which I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, seeks to make a specific obligation on inspectors to ensure that they assess the accessibility of automated vehicles when investigating incidents. Part 3, chapter 2 sets out the role of inspectors to identify, improve the understanding of and reduce the risks of harm arising from the use of authorised automated vehicles. Currently, clause 62 states that the incident can be

“not of a kind specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”,

suggesting that inspectors have discretion to investigate a wide range of incidents. The amendment would ensure consistency of inspectors in assessing the accessibility of a vehicle.

Gaining information on the accessibility of AVs is intrinsic to improving the understanding of and reducing the risks of harm involving AVs for disabled users and other disabled road users. We believe AVs present a fantastic opportunity for disabled people, so we must ensure that it is fully realised and grasped. Disabled people currently take 38% fewer journeys than non-disabled people.

[Anthony Browne]

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

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

self-driving vehicles in Great Britain.

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

As I said at the beginning, the role of the inspectors is not to assign liability, blame or whatever else; it is to find out what actually happened in detail to ensure that it does not happen again. On the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I do not think that that has been decided, but I will write to him.

[Simon Lightwood]

It is important that disability is considered at every possible opportunity. This technology has the capacity to increase the number of journeys for disabled individuals, but getting it wrong could force that to go in the opposite direction. However, I will not press my amendment to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 61 to 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clauses 67 to 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 82

Power to grant permits

[Simon Lightwood]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 82, page 58, line 11, at end insert—

“(5A) A permit may only be granted if the service meets all relevant standards issued by the appropriate national authority relating to the provision of information to users in an accessible format through regulations.”

This amendment would require automated vehicles to meet relevant accessibility standards before being granted a permit to provide automated passenger services.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clauses 83 and 84 stand part.

Schedule 6.

[Simon Lightwood]

The amendment would require automated vehicles to meet certain standards of accessibility, specifically in respect of the provision of information to users in vehicles, before being granted a permit to provide automated passenger services. The amendment sets out that this will take place by way of regulations to require a threshold of standards for the purposes of accessibility.

How the technology covered by the Bill will develop and be used over time is a great unknown, and it is vital that accessibility exists for disabled people so that they can benefit from it too. Disabled people are mentioned only in clause 87, which lacks detail. We need clear and consistent accessibility standards for the technology so that, for instance, those with sight loss can still utilise it.

As I mentioned, we currently have a substantial gap in our transport network, with 38% fewer trips taken by disabled people compared with those without disabilities. We are clear that disability and advocacy groups must be consulted from the very beginning, and that makes an advisory council even more vital. Guide Dogs is clear that AVs can unlock independence for those with sight loss, but vehicles must be safe when it comes to interacting with pedestrians and passengers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

It is disappointing that the Government are once again not grasping this. There are real opportunities here for disabled people, but also real risks that the technology could pose for disabled people in their interactions with the environment. To be clear, the amendment does not advocate that AVs become public service vehicles. Our aim is that they vehicles should be accessible to use if they have that use case. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 83 and 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 85

Consent requirement for services resembling taxis or private hire vehicles

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clauses 86 and 87 stand part.

New clause 2—Accessibility information for passengers in automated vehicles—

“After section 181D of the Equality Act 2010, insert—

‘Chapter 2B

AUTOMATED VEHICLES PROVIDING AUTOMATED PASSENGER SERVICES

181E Information for passengers in automated passenger services

(1) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of facilitating travel by disabled persons, make regulations requiring providers or operators of automated passenger services to make available information about a service to persons travelling on the service.

(2) The regulations may make provision about—

(a) the descriptions of information that are to be made available;

(b) how information is to be made available.

(3) The regulations may, in particular, require a provider or operator of an automated passenger service to make available information of a prescribed description about—

(a) the name or other designation of the service;

(b) the direction of travel;

(c) stopping places;

(d) diversions;

(e) connecting local services.

(4) The regulations may, in particular—

(a) specify when information of a prescribed description is to be made available;

(b) specify how information of a prescribed description is to be made available, including requiring information to be both announced and displayed;

(c) specify standards for the provision of information, including standards based on an announcement being audible or a display being visible to a person of a prescribed description in a prescribed location;

(d) specify forms of communication that are not to be regarded as satisfying a requirement to make information available.

(5) Regulations under this section may make different provision—

(a) as respects different descriptions of vehicle;

(b) as respects the same description of vehicle in different circumstances.

(6) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Welsh Ministers;

(b) the Scottish Ministers.’”

This new clause mirrors existing provisions in the Equality Act 2010 relating to the provision of information in accessible formats to bus passengers, and applies them to automated passenger services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

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

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

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

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

[Grahame Morris]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

I understand that there is actually a bus captain on CAVForth—a person who can deal directly with passengers and help them. That is part of the point I was making about being flexible, as we do not know how self-driving buses or taxis will operate. Self-driving taxis would not have a human being in them, so their disability requirements would clearly be different from those for taxis with people in them. We are on a learning curve about the best way to make all automated services accessible for people, which is why we have focused on gathering evidence and requiring accessibility to be included in permitting systems, but are not trying to set in stone, in primary legislation, exactly what those accessibility requirements should be. I do not know the specific requirements of CAVForth off the top of my head, but I can write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.

New clause 2 is unnecessary: pretty much all the provisions are in there and it is too rigid. We need to have a more flexible approach to ensure that the provision is optimal for disabled passengers and right for their needs in the different use cases.

[Simon Lightwood]

It is a great shame that the Government have, on three occasions now, failed to grasp the opportunities presented by our amendments to fully realise the potential of AV vehicles and to mitigate the risks presented to disabled people. At the appropriate time, we will wish to push new clause 2 to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 85 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 86 to 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93

Provision of information about traffic regulation measures

Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords]

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition on Second Reading this afternoon. As my colleagues in the other place have set out, Labour welcomes this short yet vital Bill and will support its progress, but it is long overdue. After years of asking for these powers from the Government, the Bill will finally give Transport for London the power to tackle the blight of unregulated pedicabs in London—largely in the city’s west end.

As colleagues will know all too well, pedicabs have been able to operate without regulation for decades due to a legal loophole in London. They are not considered taxis under the current law and are instead defined as “stage carriages” under section 4 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869.

However, with section 4 no longer in force, a completely unregulated pedicab industry has emerged in London. Indeed, as the Minister inferred, it is the only form of unregulated public transport in the capital. Between 2018 and 2023, 24 pedicab operator incidents were reported in London, including six sexual offences and 13 injury-causing collisions. Pedicabs have also been notorious for egregious overcharging of tourists, as of course they are currently entirely free to determine their own fares, sometimes seemingly at random. As the Minister referenced, a tourist with two young children was charged more than £450 for a seven-minute journey in a pedicab. The driver intimidated the tourist into immediate payment and then disappeared—presumably to avoid being reported. This is just one of many concerning reports of unacceptable behaviour from unlicensed operators.

It is clear that TfL urgently needs the powers necessary to regulate, and I am pleased that the Bill will go a long way in making pedicabs safer for passengers, because it is this emphasis on safety that is so vital. I know that the Minister and I agree that we do not want pedicabs banned from London streets; we just want them to be as well-regulated on safety as any other mode of public transport.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is speaking very eloquently. I also welcomed the words from the Minister this afternoon. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a very similar situation with other new forms of transport, such as e-scooters and e-motorbikes? Hopefully, there can be a similar discussion about the safety issues and about balancing the need for new forms of transport against the safety of pedestrians. Perhaps he can say a few words about the need for the Government to look at that issue as their next objective in this area of transport policy.

[Simon Lightwood]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I would have liked to have seen the Government hold to their promise of delivering a comprehensive transport Bill. Things such as e-scooters need a decision one way or the other; we cannot extend the trials indefinitely.

A regulated pedicab sector can bring enormous benefits to London, as a unique zero-carbon way to travel in an equally unique, thriving part of London with a bustling night-time economy. Indeed, a sustainable pedicab industry can be in keeping with the treasured, colourful, unique character of the west end, while also ensuring that regulations are in place to keep passengers safe.

I am pleased that the Bill has reached this Chamber in a much improved state, thanks to the hard work of colleagues in the other place, notably Labour lords. In particular, we welcome that the Government have conceded on ensuring that the power to regulate is entirely devolved to Transport for London, rather than the time-consuming and unnecessary step of requiring parliamentary approval. Such a requirement would have been anomalous compared with TfL’s wider powers on private hire regulations, or indeed with other combined authority’s regulatory powers. For that reason, we welcome the Government’s removal of subsection (2) of clause 6 and the insertion of clause 7 on guidance from the Secretary of State instead.

Additionally, we warmly welcome the Government’s decision to amend clause 2, to make provision for regulation on noise nuisance, which is a key concern that stakeholders have been raising for years. That being said, as positive as the Bill is, the Government have taken far too long to get to this point. Transport for London, Westminster City Council, the Local Government Association and various night-time economy trade associations have been calling for action on pedicabs for years. And for years, the Government repeatedly promised action, with private Members’ Bills even being proposed on the same topic by Government MPs. The reality is that this legislation is desperately overdue and should have been part of a much more comprehensive transport Bill. Local councils, industry bodies and manufacturers alike are crying out for clarity from the Government on e-scooter and e-bike regulations, for instance, but the Government seem to refuse to take this opportunity to make progress in this area.

None the less, the Bill is important in its own terms, and I am pleased that TfL’s power to regulate on this issue will be on the statute books in due course. A key issue that many stakeholders, including the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association and Transport for London, have raised is making pedicab operators eligible for enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks in line with taxi and private hire drivers. I know that that was raised by several colleagues in the other place, where the Minister said that the Government are looking into it. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update and say whether we can explore that in Committee, because this is an opportunity to ensure that passenger safety is as robust as possible.

Overall, this is a much-needed but desperately overdue Bill. I look forward to working with the Minister and other colleagues as the Bill progresses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Recent statistics show that the Bee Network is already making a daily difference for bus passengers across Greater Manchester, with an 8% rise in patronage in the first month of franchising alone and more bus services running on time than before. Liverpool and West Yorkshire are now following in Greater Manchester’s footsteps and exploring their own franchising plans to revolutionise local transport for thousands of residents. Does the Minister agree with Labour’s plan to give every local authority, not just Metro Mayors, the same freedom to take back control of their own bus services? If not, what does he say to the millions of people whose bus routes are being so badly cut back under this tired Tory Government? Does it not prove that while the Conservatives dither, Labour delivers?

[Guy Opperman]

With respect, the number of bus journeys in England increased by half a billion to 3.4 billion in the financial year ending March 2023, and that happened because of massive Government funding, which has effectively doubled since 2009. The hon. Gentleman is actually lauding something that is funded by this Government. It is unquestionably the case that we have allowed certain local authorities and Mayors to engage in franchising—something we introduced—but there has to be a way of paying for it, and it has been demonstrated repeatedly that when Labour organisations are challenged on this, they struggle to find out how they are going to deal with the funding, because, quite simply, they do not have a plan.