Avanti Trains

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Snape]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they next expect to meet Avanti Trains to discuss payments made to the company under the service quality regime.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)]

My Lords, officials regularly meet Avanti to discuss its performance against service quality regime targets and how it will make improvements for passengers and to the customer experience. To date, no payments have been made to Avanti under the service quality regime. The evaluation to determine the first service quality regime performance fee for April to October 2023 is currently under way.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that, at a recent internal meeting at Avanti trains, various slides were produced for its management? I have some of them with me at the moment and I shall quote from them. Managers joked about receiving “free money” from the Government and performance-related payments being

“too good to be true”.

The presentation went on to say that the Department for Transport supports the firm and added:

“And here’s the fantastic thing!—if we achieve those figures”—


that is, the Government’s punctuality figures—

“they pay us some more money—which is ours to keep—in the form of a performance-based fee!!”

Does the Minister accept that this is a situation where the Treasury takes the revenue, the passengers take the strain and the directors take a bonus for providing the worst train service in the UK? This is not a policy; it is lunacy.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

As I referred to in my opening response, no payments have been made to Avanti under the service quality regime thus far. The department considers the comments from the leak to be a very serious issue, and expects the highest standards of culture and leadership from Avanti’s operators and senior management. We are extremely disappointed by the tone expressed in the leaked presentation. Officials have met their counterparts at First Rail Holdings, Avanti’s parent company, and spoken to the managing director to convey the seriousness of this issue. The Rail Minister has also met the chief executive of FirstGroup.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, if the House were sitting for five days next week and the Minister had Questions every day, and he arrived six minutes late on Monday, eight on Tuesday, 10 on Wednesday, 12 on Thursday and 14 on Friday, with the remarkable phrase, “I apologise for my lateness to arrive at the Dispatch Box and hope it does not disrupt the House too much,” one of two things would happen. We would have a whip-round for an alarm clock for him, or the Chief Whip would be looking for a new Minister, because that is accountability. Is nobody holding Avanti trains responsible? Those times I have given to the House are times of trains being late that do not qualify for any payment whatsoever. The long-suffering public are putting up with this day in and day out. Does the Minister think I am overegging it? The 9.35 for Euston was 21 minutes late in this lunchtime.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The decision to award the contract to First Trenitalia was contingent on the operator continuing to win back the confidence of passengers, but as with other operators, it is a combination of things. Its train crew issues are linked to its continued lack of driver overtime and ongoing industrial action. There are many issues that contribute to this. It is not always the operators’ fault.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, last week, the Government launched a draft rail reform Bill, which they claimed would put one organisation in charge of all the railways. It is pretty obvious that that organisation will be the Government. How will that actually improve the appalling service that Avanti is still giving, in spite of the Government actually being in charge now?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. We are committed to reforming the railways, and we are getting on with delivering improvements for passengers, freight customers and the taxpayer now. Rail reform remains a priority for government. Our priority for the next 12 months is delivering the improvements I just mentioned, and we are focused on collaborating with the sector to lay the foundations for a reformed industry, taking more of a whole-system perspective within the current legal framework.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister remember that Parliament passed a minimum-service requirement in the context of strike action? Is it the case that, if there is bad weather, Avanti or any other rail company can order a fleet of taxis to ensure that passengers complete their journey, but if there is a strike, no alternative transport can be so ordered? Will the Minister look into this to ensure that the Act that Parliament passed is followed to the letter?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I will certainly have a look at that.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lord Snape for his tenacious pursuit of Avanti’s inferior performance. However, it is not just Avanti; Govia Thameslink regularly fails two-thirds of its performance measures. The industry is in a mess. Why do His Majesty’s Government not initiate legislation, already in draft, to create Great British Railways; or even better, call a general election and hand over this mess to a properly mandated Government?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The noble Lord asks about the Govia Thameslink Railway service. The new service quality regime was introduced in 2023, and the targets set for that period were drawn from the best available information at that time. We have been able to review and evaluate the outcomes of a standard set in 2022-23, with new levels for 2023-24. The department regularly discusses and reviews performance with Govia Thameslink Railway, and its service quality regime results have improved year on year. We will continue to hold it to account to deliver further improvements for passengers.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, a number of times in this short session, we seem to have had it suggested that somehow the Avanti staff are to blame. I suffer along with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, regularly on that Manchester Piccadilly to Euston route. The staff are wonderful; it is not the driver’s fault if they are eight minutes late, or the fault of the person bringing you a cup of tea if they are 40 minutes late. The problem does not lie with the Avanti staff, who are working under incredibly difficult conditions. Can the Minister join me in expressing support for those staff in the work that they are doing under very trying circumstances?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I absolutely agree with the right reverend Prelate. I travel from Wales on the GWR system. Yesterday, we were an hour late arriving at Paddington. The staff are very good, and they keep us informed as to what the issues are. As I have said previously, the issues are not always the operators’ fault; they are very often to do with infrastructure.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

The Minister referred to improving standards from Govia Thameslink. However, in the first year of the current contract, it failed on seven of the nine targets, which were then reduced and loosened. When the Minister says that it has improved, has it improved against the new, looser and lower targets, or has it actually improved its service to customers? Secondly, on reaching those targets, its leadership is entitled to a massive £23 million bonus. Will it achieve that on the lower targets that the Government have set?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The noble Baroness asks several questions there, and I would answer by saying that the targets are proportionate to the level of investment agreed with the business plan for any given year.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

On service levels, do the Government share the concerns of the RMT union about Avanti’s proposals to withdraw cash payments from its catering services? This move shows scant regard for those older and poorer passengers who use only cash. Does the Minister agree with me that it would be far better for customers to have the option of cash and card for catering services?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

That really is a matter for the operator; it is not for government to decide that particular issue.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, LNER generally performs significantly better than Avanti, but it is now proposing to reduce the hourly service from Berwick-upon-Tweed to a two-hourly service and lengthen journey times. How is that the improvement in passenger experience of which the Minister spoke?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I must confess that I am not aware of that, but it is something that I shall take back to the department and look into.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, why will the Government not just publish the contracts that we have with train operating companies? When I travel on Avanti back and forward, on every journey there is somebody in the carriage I am in who knows something about the contract, and I can tell you that the Government do not come out of any of those conversations well. Are all these contracts different for different train operating companies, so that they can compete with each other—because they do not seem to be? Why do the Government not just come clean and tell the people who are paying for all this nonsense what the contracts state that have been made on their behalf?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The Government are very conscious that it is taxpayers’ money; they keep that in mind. As to publishing contracts, again, that is something that I would have to take back to the department.

Pavement Parking

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)]

My Lords, the Department for Transport received over 15,000 responses to its consultation on this matter. The Government want to take the right step for communities and ensure that local authorities have the appropriate and effective tools at their disposal. We are working through the options and the opportunities for delivering them and, as soon as those matters are certain, we will publish our formal response and announce the way forward.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, cars on the pavement force pedestrians into the carriageway. That means blind people, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs—in fact, all pedestrians—are taken off the pavement and put on a very different path: into that of oncoming traffic. In London, there has been a ban on pavement parking for years. If it is good enough for the capital, why not the rest of the country?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My noble friend makes an important point, and I cannot help but agree with him. Pavement parking is a widespread problem and a complex issue. We must ensure that whatever approach is taken works for all road users in the community. We know that our streets belong to us all and understand that parking on the pavements damages them and exposes pedestrians to risk. We have empathy for those members of our society for whom pavement parking poses particular difficulties—those who have sight and mobility impairments, wheelchair users and those with prams and buggies—but we must get this consultation right.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I commend the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his Question. There is a major challenge; he and I are fortunate enough to have a degree of assistance in navigating cars and motorcycles on pavements, but others do not. There is an additional hazard as well, which is the new fashion of using electric bikes on pavements. Those are a real danger to all the same cohorts that the noble Lord spelled out. Is it not time to do this now? It would not cost much and might get the Government some popularity.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Again, the noble Lord makes a valid point, which I cannot disagree with. E-scooters are allowed on public roads only as part of the e-scooter rental trials, and private e-scooters can be used only on private land. The use of any e-scooters on the pavement is illegal under current legislation and the Government have no current plans to change this. But at the end of the day, these things have to be enforced and it is a matter, particularly in London, for the Metropolitan Police. It is also for councils to look at and I cannot help but agree with the noble Lord.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister looked surprised at the idea of government popularity. Can I encourage him to seize the day, because this is not just about people being forced into the road? It is also about uneven pavements that are left behind after lots of vehicles have parked on them. That is a danger to everyone who walks along the pavement. Does the Minister agree that it should be part of the rights of pedestrians in the 21st century to be able to walk safely down the pavement, and that since the Government’s consultation took place in November 2020, it is high time they got on and did something?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

As I pointed out in my first Answer, the department received over 15,000 responses to its consultation, covering tens of thousands of open comments. Every one of these has to be considered fully, giving due regard to the wide range of opinions expressed. Pavement parking is an extremely complex issue. All the options which are recommendations of the Transport Select Committee have supporters and detractors, and significant challenges in their deliverability and effectiveness. Yes, it is time and I am hopeful that in the not-too-distant future we will come out with a report on this.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, all of us have enormous sympathy with the points the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Blunkett, have made. Can the Minister just disclose a little more about the options the Government are considering for better enforcement of the law? Will he tell us what they are, so that we might contribute better to this debate?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I cannot disclose them at the moment, but as I said, I am very hopeful that in the not-too-distant future we will be able to come forward with suggestions.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, one of the reasons for parking on pavements is that cars have got wider. Do the Government have any plans to discriminate between 4x4s—which are wide, long and heavy, and thus also damage pavements—and smaller cars, and encourage the use of the latter in urban areas?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I understand the point the noble Lord makes, but we have no plans to discriminate against 4x4s or wider vehicles at the moment.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I remind my noble friend that the government consultation on banning parking on pavements across England ended three years ago. Last month, local authorities, supported by the LGA, again called upon the Government to extend the powers currently held in London to the rest of England, in order to prevent parking on pavements. Does my noble friend accept that, if all councils across England had the same powers as London, that would enable the Government to meet their active travel plans much quicker?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

To a certain extent, I accept that. As I have said, the department has received over 15,000 responses, and it takes time. Yes, three years is a long time, and I am very conscious of that.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

In fairness, I have only just joined the department. I assure noble Lords that I am taking this very seriously and will do all I can to get a response out as soon as possible.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, in London I jump for my life from bicycles on the pavement. Can the Minister add bicycles to the list when he is looking at enforcement?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I, too, jump out of the way of bicycles. I take the noble and learned Baroness’s point; it is a serious issue, and enforcement should be more rigorous.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, we are told in so many areas that we are awaiting the results of consultations and that we do not have the resources to undertake them more speedily. Are the Government exploring the possibility of using AI to do a quick analysis of many of these responses and get the results faster?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am not sure it is a question of resources; it is a question of analysing the 15,000 responses to the consultation. As for AI, I am afraid I am not an expert in that matter.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, has my noble friend has a chance to look at the Bill in my name on Road Traffic Act offences involving e-bikes, e-scooters and pedal bikes, which has received its First Reading? In particular, will he look at the provision whereby there should be a review of illegally operated scooters to prevent further accidents and casualties?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I have not yet had the opportunity to look at my noble friend’s proposed legislation, but as soon as I leave here I will go straight back to the department and do so.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not about time that the Government grasped the nettle and said that roads are for things with big wheels, such as cars, bikes and scooters, and that pavements are for people who are trying to walk? It does not take three years to make a decision like that.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I think I have covered the point the noble Lord raises. I agree that three years is a long time but, in fairness, it takes time to analyse all of this. I undertake to move as fast as I possibly can on this issue.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a lot longer than three years. I raised this question at least five years ago with the Minister’s predecessor, and I got a completely anodyne answer. It reflects badly on the Government when a simple situation is called complex that really is not complex at all.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I cannot answer for my predecessor. All I can say is that I am very aware of the issue and undertake to move as quickly as I can.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

That the Bill be now read a third time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)]

My Lords, before I begin, I will briefly update the House on our engagement with the devolved Administrations. In line with the Sewel convention, the Government are seeking legislative consent Motions from the devolved legislatures of Scotland and Wales. The legislative consent Motion process is engaged for Scotland and Wales in relation to automated passenger services and the powers under Clause 40 to require reports from the police and local authorities. The Welsh Government laid their legislative consent memorandum in November. I am grateful for their constructive engagement to date. The Scottish Government laid an initial memorandum in December and we are awaiting a supplementary memorandum, outlining their recommendation on consent, later this month. UK government officials are working closely with their Scottish counterparts to clarify questions and provide support. The devolved Governments are rightly taking a close interest in this legislation, and we will continue to work constructively with them to progress the consent process.

A privilege amendment was made.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a short speech, conditioned by my being a former pilot with experience of Boeing, probably the most sophisticated company in the world on unmanned aircraft. The net result so far has been that 346 people died recently, although, thankfully, nobody died in the Alaska experience. Given that situation, although this Bill is supposedly about safety on the roads, we need to take great care; I recognise that we need a framework here, but I hope my noble friend will listen to what the noble Lord suggested earlier in the debate and have the Office of Rail and Road help oversee this Bill as it is implemented in relation to vehicles on the road.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is nearly three months since the Bill had its Second Reading in this House. I am hugely grateful to colleagues on all sides for the very detailed scrutiny and challenge that they have provided over that period, as has already been alluded to. I heard what noble Lords have said.

The Bill has seen real benefit from the open and positive manner in which the opposition Front Benches have engaged. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Tunnicliffe, for the series of constructive discussions we have held on safety and other matters. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, brings with him many decades of experience in the world of transport safety, and I am pleased that we have been able to draw on that during the Bill’s passage. I am grateful too to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her contributions, both in the Chamber and in our separate meetings. I also thank those who joined me for our two round-table sessions on data and accessibility, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Brinton, and my noble friends Lord Holmes and Lord Borwick.

I am also grateful to the teams at Wayve and Oxa, which have been so accommodating in welcoming me and colleagues across the House to experience self-driving technology in action. For those who have not yet had the chance, I can tell them that riding in one of these vehicles is simultaneously astonishing and—for want of a better phrase—reassuringly dull.

I am sure that colleagues will join me in thanking the countless policy officials and legal experts standing behind this piece of legislation. I am very grateful to the Bill team: Josh Kossoff, Marty Zekas, Dani Heard, Fran Gilmore and John Latham. My thanks also go to the policy leads Jenny Laber and Catherine Lovell; to Sam Cook, our drafter; and to Adam Lawless and Sean McGarry in my private office.

Finally, I pay tribute, one last time, to the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission. Their painstaking review is the foundation on which this legislation is built, and we have felt the benefit of their expertise throughout our debates. In particular, I thank the review’s lead lawyer, Jessica Uguccioni. The Bill receiving its Third Reading today is, in no small part, the product of more than half a decade of her work.

At Second Reading, I spoke of the potential benefits of bringing self-driving technology to our roads: safety, connectivity and new economic opportunity. Thanks to the careful and considered scrutiny of this House, the Bill now moves to the other place all the better able to make those benefits a reality.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Network North

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 14th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what proportion of the £36 billion transport investment plan ‘Network North’ will be allocated to schemes outside the Northern region.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)]

My Lords, £36 billion of funding redirected from HS2 will see improvements to transport throughout the country. Every penny of the £19.8 billion committed to the northern leg of HS2 will be reinvested in the north, every penny of the £9.6 billion committed to the Midlands leg will be reinvested in the Midlands, and the £6.5 billion saved through our rescoped approach at Euston will be spread across every other region of the country.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister knows that this document, Network North, is supposed to compensate the Midlands and the north for the scrapping of HS2 north of Birmingham by providing lots of other rail schemes more quickly. Will the Minister publish a list of these new schemes, which does not seem to be available at the moment, with estimates of the cost of each one and when they are likely to be operational? Will he tell us how he calculates the £36 billion that he says will be saved by the cancellation of HS2 north, bearing in mind that millions—possibly billions—have already been spent and now wasted? Finally, how can a document called Network North include among its proposals the promise of a new station at Tavistock?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his Question. I will have to look at his point on the calculation and come back with an answer; I do not have the figures broken down in front of me. Network North will deliver a wide range of rail infrastructure investments across the country. While I have already given the exact figures for what we will spend on the northern leg of HS2 and have committed to the Midlands leg, we are also building a brand-new station and line connection in Bradford, with journey times reduced from 56 to 30 minutes to Manchester via Huddersfield. We are better connecting major cities across the north, with more frequent trains, increased capacity and faster journeys, expanding the network. We will upgrade connections between Manchester and Sheffield, Leeds and Sheffield, Leeds and Hull, and Hull and Sheffield. We will fully fund the Midlands rail hub, increasing investment to £1.75 billion and connecting more than 50 stations. We will upgrade the rail links between Newark and Nottingham, halving journey times between Nottingham and Leeds. I could go on, but I am very happy to write to the noble Lord with more detail.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was pleased to see, towards the end of the Network North report, mention of the A75 and the A77 in Scotland. Those are very important roads for Northern Ireland travellers going to England and Glasgow. Can the Minister update us on that, because it is important for United Kingdom connectivity?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Scotland will benefit from funding to deliver targeted improvements on the A75 between Gretna and Stranraer, which is one of the main routes from mainland Britain to Northern Ireland via the Cairnryan ferry. The UK Government have committed to providing £8 million development funding to the Scottish Government for a detailed feasibility study to develop options to improve the A75, and made it a priority action in our response to the Union Connectivity Review of 7 December last year. Additionally, as part of the announcements in Network North on 4 October, the UK Government have committed to provide funding to deliver targeted improvements to the A75, pending a business case being submitted by the Scottish Government.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind the House that, when HS2 was cancelled, the Prime Minister said that,

“we’ll reinvest every single penny, £36 billion, into hundreds of transport projects in the North”.

and the Midlands. Yet the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, sent us a letter telling us that some of the money, £8.4 billion, would be spent on pothole alleviation across the country, including in such great northern counties as Wiltshire, and that only 31 of 70 road schemes that would be given the go-ahead were in the north and Midlands.

Following on from my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Question, will the Minister write to me with a list of the business cases for new public transport investment that have been presented to the Treasury since this announcement was made in October? How many of these business cases have been approved? I think that a lot would be. On this side of the House, many of us believe that the Government are holding back public investment so that they can justify tax cuts within their fiscal rules.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I will be very happy to write to the noble Lord and give him an explanation of where the money is going. The Prime Minister said:

“Every penny of the £19.8 billion committed to the Northern leg of HS2 will be reinvested in the North; every penny of the £9.6 billion committed to the Midlands leg will be reinvested in the Midlands; and the full £6.5 billion saved through our rescoped approach at Euston will be spread across every other region in the country”.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, on 20 November the Minister wrote to us explaining how £8.3 billion—already down from the £8.4 billion specified in the letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Vere—would be divided up among local authorities across Britain for use on road projects. A third of that money is going to local authorities in the south of England. Can the Minister explain to us whether, in future allocations, a third of that money will go to the south of England? Can he explain why no money at all is going to Wales? The Government specified that HS2 would be of great benefit to Wales for our links with the north of England. Now that those links will never be created, Wales is at a disadvantage as a result.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I think the noble Baroness must have missed the fact that £1 billion is being spent on improving the north Wales line through electrification. In November we announced the £8.3 billion of truly additional highways maintenance funding over the period from 2023 to 2034. The next thing is for local road surfacing and wider highways maintenance. That covers £3.3 billion for local authorities in the north-west, the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, £2.2 billion for those in the West Midlands and the east Midlands, and £2.8 billion for those in the east of England, the south-east, the south-west and London.

[Lord Mott (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the investment in the north and the Midlands, particularly the improvement between Newark and Nottingham. I am very aware that East Anglia is not quite in the north of England but, if I may make a plug, can my noble friend the Minister give us an update on any extra funding or resources going into improving rail services in my home county of Cambridgeshire?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the Ely area capacity enhancement programme comprises a series of infrastructure upgrades to increase rail freight and passenger capacity in the east of England. Ely is a key hub on the cross-country freight route from Felixstowe to the north Midlands. The other, via London, is at operating capacity. Existing infrastructure in the area and its layout limit the ability to operate additional passenger and freight services. The approximate cost for full delivery of the programme would be £550 million. The scheme would increase freight capacity into the Port of Felixstowe from 36 to 42 trains per day, but the good news is that this would be expected to remove 98,000 lorry journeys per year from the roads.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

Will the Minister arrange for himself and his colleagues to have geography lessons?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I happen to have an O-level in it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I am glad to hear that the Minister is interested in removing lorries from roads. The major problem on the trans-Pennine links is lack of rail capacity. The M62 is jammed with trucks carrying containers between the east and west coasts. Unless there are new rail paths across the Pennines, nothing will change. Are there any plans to reinstitute the idea of a new rail line between Manchester and Leeds?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

That is something I am not aware of at the moment, but I will certainly look into it and come back to the noble Lord.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)]

My Lords, we begin once again with the question of safety. I am grateful to colleagues across the House for their constructive engagement on this issue. The Government’s position remains that the safety standard is best articulated in statutory guidance, with the benefit of consultation. This is the most appropriate way of assessing the public’s attitude to risk, which in turn is the only objective answer to the question of “How safe is safe enough?”. This rationale was set out by the law commissions and is not one from which we intend to deviate.

Nevertheless, I have reflected on our discussions in recent weeks and recognise the strength of feeling on this subject. This is a novel area, with an uncertain future. It is therefore reasonable that Parliament should expect to set the parameters within which the safety standard will be defined. To that end, I have tabled government Amendments 3 and 7. This will establish the “careful and competent driver” standard as the minimum level of road safety that the statement of safety principles should look to achieve—in effect, cementing our safety ambition into law. It will also guarantee a substantive debate in Parliament on the first iteration of those principles.

As I have said previously, the “careful and competent” standard is considerably higher than that of the average driver. This means the objective of a significant improvement in road safety is now baked in from the beginning. Further, I recognise the desire to clarify that this improvement in safety applies to all road users. I can therefore confirm that the statement of safety principles will include an explicit principle on equality and fairness. This could include, for example, a declaration that overall safety benefits should not come at the expense of any particular group of road users. Further detail could then specify that training datasets must be representative of different sectors of society. The exact framing will of course be shaped by consultation.

More broadly, I reiterate the point I made in Committee that references in the Bill to “road safety” do indeed already apply to all road users. This is also the case in existing road safety legislation, where offences such as dangerous driving are concerned with the safety of all road users; this includes, but is not limited to, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, motorcyclists and disabled people.

For these reasons, I believe the intent of Amendment 4 is now provided for. Indeed, our proposed Amendment 3 achieves this without the ambiguity created by relative terms such as “significantly better”.

Regarding Amendment 2, Clause 1(3) already establishes that safety is to be assessed in relation to location and circumstances. The safety considerations and appropriate assessment methodologies will vary depending on the location, circumstances, use case and road users in question. It is more appropriate that these details be defined in approval and authorisation requirements, rather than the statement of safety principles.

The first part of Amendment 1 would effectively apply a minimum safety standard equivalent to that of a novice human driver who has just passed their test. The practical limitations of human driving tests constrain the monitoring and assessment of each new driver’s performance to a short time window. These limitations do not apply to self-driving vehicles. We can assess performance in multitudes of situations, including rare ones, and across thousands of miles of driving. We therefore believe safety is best assessed by a combination of real-world, track and virtual testing.

More pertinently, the amendment looks to redefine the phrase “safely and legally” in purely statistical terms. Doing so would contradict the law commissions’ basic principle that these concepts are ultimately defined by public acceptance and public confidence. As I said at the outset, we do not believe it wise to deviate from this principle. I hope that, with the additional assurances of government Amendments 3 and 7, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will agree with me on that point.

Before I conclude, I will briefly address the security point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. Cyber and national security sit at the very heart of our plans to bring self-driving vehicles to UK roads. Vehicles with automatic systems will be subject to detailed technical cybersecurity assessment as part of the well-established type approval process. This will include assessment to ensure vehicles continue to be cyber resilient throughout their lifetime. Before a company can be authorised as a self-driving entity, it must meet requirements relating to good repute, which will include consideration for cybersecurity. We will, of course, be working with the police and the security services to enable this.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. It has been a very interesting series of contributions on the subject of safety, which we will go on debating for a very long time. The Minister, as we know, has moved and made improvements. I will study carefully what he said in his response, because I detect some further studies that may come in future guidance, or something like that. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

3: Clause 2, page 2, line 16, after “that” insert “—
(a) authorised automated vehicles will achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or higher than, that of careful and competent human drivers, andMember’s explanatory statement
This amendment embodies the standard of a careful and competent driver in the statement of safety principles that will guide the operation of the automated vehicle authorisation scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this group covers the general functioning and underlying mechanics of the regulatory framework. It includes government Amendments 11, 25 and 26, which correct minor and technical drafting issues. It also includes government Amendment 33, which applies the affirmative procedure to regulations setting the maximum penalties that can be levied against regulated bodies. Following careful reflection, we agree with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that it would be inappropriate to leave these regulations entirely to the negative procedure. I am grateful to the Committee for its considered recommendations and hope that this provides sufficient reassurance.

I will begin with the subject of consultation. I know that there have been calls for specific groups to be named in the Bill. Government Amendment 6 therefore creates an explicit obligation to consult the three groups with the greatest interest in the safe operation of the system: road users, road safety groups and businesses in the industry. However, this list is not exhaustive. It is the Government’s intention to ensure that anyone who feels that they are affected can feed into the development of the statement of safety principles. The consultation will be public and therefore open to all, including trade unions.

Amendment 5 looks to include

“other groups whose safety or other interests may be affected by the application of the principles”.

As drafted, this would add little to the existing requirement in Clause 2 to consult representative organisations. Amendment 28, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, instead proposes an overarching advisory council. The requirements he proposes are very broad, explicitly mandating representation from, at the very least, 11 different groups and sub-groups. The noble Lord proposes that the council advise and review evidence from government, as well as reporting regularly to Parliament on

“any related matters relevant to … self-driving vehicles and associated public policy”.

This is an extremely wide remit which could not be carried out by a group of this size without extensive co-ordination, expert input and supporting staff, which would create unnecessary bureaucracy and carry additional administrative costs. I completely understand the noble Lord’s interest in ensuring appropriate independent scrutiny of the regulatory framework. However, in the Government’s view, this is a role for Parliament and the statutory inspectors, both of which are free to consult any group they deem necessary in carrying out their respective functions.

Turning to Amendment 34, the Bill does not look to change the insurance provisions set out in the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act. The Law Commission considered the Act and concluded that it would be premature to change its application now. It determined that change need be considered only if real-world use-cases encounter challenges in settling claims. However, I recognise the points noble Lords have made and assure them that we are working closely with the insurance industry to anticipate potential issues of this kind. My colleague, Mr Browne, is due to meet with the Association of British Insurers imminently as part of this engagement.

The amendment would apply a presumption of liability to authorised automated vehicles regardless of whether the self-driving feature was active at the time of the incident. This would be disproportionate and potentially unfair. Consider, for example, the implications for a human driver who uses their vehicle without ever activating its self-driving features. Further, such a change could lead to risk-taking behaviour. We would not wish to encourage the perception that the safety of self-driving vehicles somehow reduces obligations on other road users.

Moving, finally, to Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the Long Title of the Bill states that it is to regulate the use of self-driving road vehicles on roads and in other public places. To be clear, this means that driveways and other non-road locations to which the public have access are already within the scope of the Bill. Pavements are also covered, as they are included in the definition of “roads”. Clause 4(4) also creates the flexibility to regulate use-cases in which a road vehicle uses both public roads and private land. Therefore, as drafted, the amendment would have little to no effect.

However, I recognise the broader point being made about pavement use and accessibility. Ensuring that pedestrians and other vulnerable road users have safe and accessible spaces, including the pavement, is essential to road safety. That is why there are existing restrictions on the use of road vehicles in these spaces. This question goes well beyond the safety of self-driving technologies. It was therefore not considered by the Law Commission, and any potential future changes would need to be subject to careful consultation.

I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to withdraw Amendment 5.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. I was particularly interested in the comments on my Amendment 34, which I thought would bring some interesting views. I said that I did not think it was a solution, but I am pleased that the Minister is at least looking at this issue with the insurance industry, because there has to be a solution that everybody accepts.

I am particularly grateful to my noble friend, who may or may not divide the House on his amendment on not a supervisory board but a consultation board. I think it is a rather good idea. It is separate from my Amendments 9A and 9B, which I will speak to in a later group, but I certainly support my noble friend’s amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 5.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

6: Clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) Those organisations must include organisations appearing to the Secretary of State to represent—(a) the interests of businesses involved, or likely to be involved, in the manufacture or operation of mechanically propelled road vehicles designed to travel autonomously,(b) the interests of road users, and(c) the cause of road safety.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides details of the types of organisation that will have to be consulted on the statement of safety principles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not take up the House’s time. We have nothing to add to this debate, although it has been very interesting. I have to deliver our judgment, which is that we are pretty sympathetic to this group. Much will depend on what the Minister says, and the extent to which he is able to give assurances may cause our view to change, but we are broadly sympathetic and will listen carefully to the response of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, particularly those who joined me for a detailed discussion following Committee.

The Government want all parts of society, including those with disabilities, to be able to reap the benefits of self-driving technology; I see no disagreement between us on that point. The question at hand is not one of ambition but rather the most appropriate form and timing of intervention.

It bears repeating that we are all dealing with an industry in its infancy. It is not clear what kinds of services will ultimately come forward, and therefore what kind of accessibility provisions are appropriate. What is clear, however, is that if we try to compensate for that uncertainty with unnecessarily broad requirements, the greatest risk is that the industry simply does not develop at all.

If we want self-driving technology to serve the needs of disabled people, we must have a viable self-driving industry in the first place. That is why we have anchored our approach in the recommendations put forward by the law commissions. Their central conclusion on this issue was that our focus should be on gathering evidence and gaining experience. On their recommendation we have built reporting on accessibility into the new passenger permit scheme and have committed to using this learning to develop national accessibility standards for permits. Although we will do so in a more flexible, non-statutory form, it is on their recommendation that we are establishing an accessibility advisory panel to inform that process. We will of course also draw on the deep and hugely valuable expertise of our existing statutory Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

Alongside this, the Government will continue to support the development of accessible self-driving vehicle designs. This investment has already helped five separate projects to deploy accessible vehicles, and there will be further opportunities as part of our £150 million CAM pathfinder fund, announced last year.

Beginning with Amendment 8, the authorisation process exists to ensure that self-driving vehicles operate safely. It is not designed to regulate the physical construction of vehicles. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Borwick points out, most developers are currently working to incorporate self-driving systems into existing, mass-produced models, not creating new vehicles from scratch.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

That is not actually what is happening in the marketplace. General Motors has developed the Wayve vehicle, which is now being used in San Francisco. If the regulation is there, the market is already ready and large companies such as General Motors are already making the provision.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I hear what the noble Lord says and am not going to argue with him on that at this point. Where there are overlaps between safety and accessibility, for example in the training of human detection systems, these will be addressed as part of the statement of safety principles. Beyond this, accessibility provisions are best made at the service level, of which vehicle design is just one part.

That is why our approach focuses on understanding how services can best be delivered for disabled users, which can then inform standard permit requirements. As drafted, the amendment would also apply these accessibility principles to any vehicle authorised as self-driving. That would include everything from private cars to vans, HGVs and even tractors. This would be disproportionate and out of step with the way we regulate conventional vehicle designs.

While Amendments 18 and 20 focus on passenger service provision, they could impose design requirements that are simply too sweeping to be workable. Requiring that every automated passenger service vehicle be “accessible to disabled people” would likely require adaptions, including full wheelchair accessibility. Imposing this requirement on the full self-driving passenger service fleet would be disproportionate, and not something we require of conventional taxis and private hire vehicles. This would make the UK market unviable, to the detriment of all users, including those with disabilities. As colleagues have noted, the needs of disabled people are broad and diverse. I note that even vehicles that claim to be 100% wheelchair accessible frequently cannot accommodate the full range of motorised and larger chairs.

Amendment 19 looks to apply the accessibility requirements of existing taxi, private hire and public service vehicle legislation to the passenger permitting scheme. This would not have the desired effect, as these requirements are largely imposed on the human driver. Furthermore, novel automated services may not fit neatly into these traditional modal schemes. Indeed, this is the very challenge that the law commissions were looking to tackle when they recommended the approach we are now taking. Nevertheless, I recognise the points that my noble friend makes and undertake to reflect on how we can best align our standard permitting conditions with the spirit of the Equality Act. These will also reflect the Bill’s specific requirements to consider the needs of older and disabled people before any permit can be issued.

I turn now to some details of the permitting system. Amendment 22 places an unnecessarily high burden on issuing authorities to guarantee that permits enable learning and improve understanding. The Bill already requires that authorities consider the likelihood of this. A more stringent standard would be impractical and add little value. Applicants will naturally be required to provide evidence of their plans for accessibility reporting as part of their permit application. Pre-deployment reports of the kind proposed by Amendment 24 would therefore be redundant.

The reporting process is outcome focused, requiring providers to explain what they are doing to meet the needs of disabled users. Vehicle accessibility could naturally be one of the many inputs that help to do this. I contend that a separate reference, as proposed by Amendment 23, is therefore also unnecessary.

Amendment 21 would require that relevant disability groups be consulted before each permit was issued. Consultation with such groups will naturally form part of developing the national minimum standards for permits. To require separate consultation for each individual permit would be excessively onerous and there would be considerable ambiguity as to which groups would be relevant in each case. Both these issues could severely inhibit the growth of new services.

Amendment 27 would require the Government to annually commission and pay due regard to research on self-driving vehicles’ accessibility. I have already described some of the work that we are undertaking in this space, which will of course continue. However, the wording of this requirement is too general to be effectively implemented and enforced.

I wholly appreciate the strength of feeling on these issues. By explaining the position taken by the Government and the law commissions, I hope that I have been able to offer at least some assurances.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and the Minister and his officials for their engagement between Committee and Report.

I will take a couple of points that my noble friend Lord Borwick raised as I entirely understand where he is coming from. The difficulty is that, if one is talking about logic, everything that currently is in place would need to necessarily remain as it is until it ceases to be, and then we could start again in terms of accessibility and inclusion. The Palace of Westminster is not perfect, but it is pretty accessible. Changes were made and compromises had to be given—and it is a grade 1 listed palace.

I say to all the businesses currently involved in this that I see the argument that the choice of vehicle—described as a donor vehicle—has not been able to be made accessible. One would assume that all the systems, software and platforms used, as they have been built from scratch, are fully accessible to blind, learning disabled and older people—indeed all people whose needs must be catered for. If those platforms and software systems are not accessible, that tells rather a large truth about what we are considering.

It is desperately disappointing that we find ourselves in this situation, when the promise of automated vehicles is accessible mobility for all, enabled through human-led technology. It is pretty clear that we are not quite there yet. I hope there will be greater changes and much more thought and reflection, potentially between Report and Third Reading. There is so much that needs to be done on access and inclusion. It is hard for me to make this decision but, having considered this deeply, sadly I find myself in the position of withdrawing my amendment at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for raising these issues. I am afraid that my consideration of these things comes to the conclusion that it is a mess. There are various bodies in the Department for Transport that have various responsibilities in various other forms of transport. There is the road safety investigation branch; I cannot for the life of me see why we are going to have a road safety investigation branch. If we are, I am not quite clear in my mind how that will add value. Some clarification from the Minister would be welcome. We probably need a sensible internal review in the Department for Transport to see to what extent we need all these bodies or whether they have sufficient common themes to be brought together, thereby bringing together the expertise. All in all, I think this is a challenge for the Government, and I hope they rise to it.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for taking the time to meet me yesterday to discuss these issues in more detail. I absolutely agree with him on the importance of independent input into the system, and I have already touched on where the Government see these key functions lying. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned, this is central to the purpose of the independent statutory inspectors, whose role is established in Part 3, Chapter 2 of the Bill. They will have complete independence and all the necessary powers to investigate incidents involving self-driving vehicles and make public recommendations to improve the safety of the system. They are functionally the same as their marine, air and rail equivalents. All these bodies are part of the department, but nonetheless maintain their independence.

Separately, the Government will continue to be held to account in Parliament on their administration of the self-driving system—both at the Dispatch Box and by the Transport Select Committee. Indeed, government Amendment 7 will enable even greater scrutiny in this House of the first iteration of our statement of safety principles. Finally, we will continue to receive independent advice from our expert advisory panel, featuring representatives from the RAC Foundation, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, and a selection of academics and engineers.

I will begin with Amendments 12 to 17, which look to change the role and purpose of the statutory inspectors to cover vehicle technologies that were never designed to meet the self-driving test. Our focus in this piece of legislation is on delivering the recommendations of the law commissions. Recommendation 32 of their report specifically calls for independent incident investigation to form part of the self-driving vehicle safety framework.

Our view is therefore that the inspectors’ role should be focused explicitly on incidents involving self-driving vehicles. This will require specific skills and expertise, and close working with the other arms of the self-driving safety framework. I recognise the noble Lord’s desire to see the remit expanded. While I fear that we disagree on that point, I assure him that the Bill permits flexibility to make sure that edge cases are not excluded. For example, the inspectors’ powers extend to vehicles that have at any point been authorised as self-driving, including those that, for whatever reason, have had their authorisation revoked or otherwise called into question. Further, provided an incident involves at least one self-driving vehicle, inspectors will be able to investigate all vehicles involved, self-driving or otherwise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down, will he do me a personal favour and put me out of my agony? What has happened to the road safety investigation branch?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am not sure that I completely understand, so I am unable to give an answer. As far as I understand, it still exists.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

It does not exist.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

11: Clause 42, page 29, line 3, leave out from “liable” to end of line 4 and insert “—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(c) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that a fine for an offence under clause 42(4) imposed in summary proceedings in Scotland may not exceed the maximum fine generally available in such proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

25: Clause 88, page 62, line 1, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a drafting mistake, enabling the devolved administrations to make regulations about information-sharing in relation to passenger services within their competence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, these are important issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has raised. She has, with her characteristic acuity, asked lots of penetrating questions about what the proposed legislation actually means. For the part of the Official Opposition, we will listen carefully to what the Minister says in reply but, if we are not satisfied, we will support the noble Baroness in her testing of the opinion of the House.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by briefly clarifying a point that I made earlier in response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, which I am afraid I did not hear correctly. I should have responded by saying that the right legislative vehicle for the Road Safety Investigation Branch remains under consideration.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for her insightful and challenging remarks. I reiterate that we take the protection of personal data and intellectual property very seriously. I can confirm that the Bill does not seek to replace or change existing legislation on either personal data protection or intellectual property rights. The Bill does not enable us to contravene this legislation, whether domestic or under treaty obligations. Indeed, this would be beyond the scope of the Bill, which is confined to creating an effective safety framework for self-driving vehicles.

Although that may necessitate the use and sharing of information, this will not be done indiscriminately. We will do so only for specified public interest purposes because safety and security must come first. These purposes would be considered and developed with stakeholders. They would be subject to consultation and would be laid in the House before coming into force. This will provide multiple opportunities for input to, and scrutiny of, the proposals. Indeed, we are required by law to consult the Information Commissioner’s Office if our regulations permit or require the sharing or use of personal data.

As colleagues have highlighted today and in our meetings, it is not just the application of the law that is important but the understanding of it. That is why we are consulting the ICO in the development of specific guidance for the self-driving vehicle industry; that guidance will support the interpretation and understanding of existing personal data protection legislation in an industry-specific context. I hope that this provides some reassurance before I turn to the amendments.

On Amendment 29, the noble Baroness is right to understand Clause 95(2) as a clarifying clause or a “notwithstanding” provision, as she has referred to it. I am advised that the correct legislative form is to use “does” rather than “must”, but the effect is the same. The clause ensures that the Bill is consistent with data protection legislation, and is written using standard drafting. Its effect is that recipients of information must continue to ensure that their processing complies with data protection legislation and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The clause provides confirmation that these obligations continue to apply to provisions made in or under the Bill.

To be clear, the Bill does not change existing data protection legislation. However, the UK general data protection regulations do allow new purposes for the processing of personal data to be set out in law. This law must meet an objective of public interest and be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

33: Clause 97, page 70, line 6, leave out subsections (5) to (8) and insert—
“(5) The following regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure—(a) regulations under section 36(9),(b) regulations under section 50 that amend an Act, an Act of the Scottish Parliament or an Act of Senedd Cymru, and(c) regulations under paragraph 2(7) of Schedule 6;and all other regulations are subject to the negative procedure.(6) The effect of regulations being subject to the affirmative procedure is—(a) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State, that the statutory instrument containing the regulations may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament;(b) in the case of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers, that the statutory instrument containing the regulations may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cyrmu;(c) in the case of regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, the effect provided by section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010).(7) The effect of regulations being subject to the negative procedure is—(a) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State, that the statutory instrument containing the regulations is (unless it also contains regulations subject to the affirmative procedure) subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament;(b) in the case of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers, that the statutory instrument containing the regulations is (unless it also contains regulations subject to the affirmative procedure) subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of Senedd Cyrmu;(c) in the case of regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, the effect provided by section 28 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that regulations setting the maximum monetary penalties under the automated vehicle authorisation scheme and the passenger service permitting scheme will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 6th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

That the Bill do now pass.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the consideration of the Bill. Your Lordships’ invaluable insights, careful consideration and scrutiny have helped guide government amendments and resulted in a Bill that is not only in excellent shape but is one which I am confident we are sending to the other place with a consensus from your Lordships’ House.

As I mentioned at Second Reading, the Government have been committed to bringing forward this legislation when parliamentary time allowed. I am pleased to have had the privilege of taking this small but very important Bill through the House, and that your Lordships have been united in supporting the principle behind the Bill—namely, addressing the legal anomaly concerning London’s pedicabs.

Before I move on to my thanks, I will first draw noble Lords’ attention to an update following Report last week. My department published guidance on 1 February relating to the safe use of batteries in e-cycles and e-scooters. This matter has been raised consistently throughout the Bill’s passage through this House.

The guidance will raise awareness for owners on how to safely purchase an e-cycle or e-scooter and ensure that these meet manufacturing requirements and are bought only from reputable sellers. Other matters covered by the guidance included safe storage and charging, the warning signs for fire risk and how to address them, and how to dispose of batteries responsibly. I hope your Lordships consider this a helpful development and, as I mentioned in my comments on Report, the Office for Product Safety & Standards, and Defra, are in the process of reviewing the position with regard to batteries.

I now commence my thanks by recognising the critical role of my honourable friend Nickie Aiken, the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster, in raising awareness of the issue of pedicab regulation in London. She has been a tireless campaigner and shown commitment and determination in ensuring the legislation be brought before Parliament.

I am also most grateful for the constructive way the Opposition Front Benches have engaged with the Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their thoughtful contributions both on the Floor of the House and outside. I thank all the other noble Lords who have contributed with such clarity; playing their part in ensuring that the Bill we send to the other place is in great shape. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, who has been a prominent supporter of my honourable friend Nickie Aiken’s campaign.

I hope noble Lords will join me in thanking all the policy officials and lawyers in both the Department for Transport and across government, whose efforts have contributed to making the Bill happen. I thank in particular the Bill team, Kenny Way, Chris and Donelle, and Adam Lawless in my private office. I also extend my gratitude to—I apologise for not having their surnames—Diggory and Douglas, the drafters in the Office for Parliamentary Counsel, who have prepared the Bill and its amendments during its passage.

Finally, I thank Transport for London for its engagement and support in bringing the Bill forward. The Bill will ensure that TfL has the tools it needs to effectively regulate pedicabs for the first time, and the Government look forward to a regulatory regime being implemented. As we send the Bill to the other place, I am confident that it will need very little, if any, amending. The Bill will make London’s roads safer and address the anti-social nuisance caused by rogue pedicabs.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the officials who have worked on this Bill and the Minister’s private office for the work they have put in. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for taking due account of the points that we made in the passage of the Bill. On the main question of how this regulation is going to be conducted, we have reached an acceptable consensus, and I thank him very much for that. I also welcome his statement today about the battery issue, which I think is a real public health and safety hazard. I am glad to see the Government recognising that and doing something about it.

This Bill, while not the most important piece of legislation we have ever seen—indeed, I think I may have remarked before that it basically affects two wards of a single London borough—is nonetheless tackling something that has been a considerable nuisance by ensuring that the pedicab sector is properly regulated and does not damage London’s reputation as an attractive tourist centre, which I think is very important. So we support the Third Reading of this Bill and look forward to its quick passage in the other place.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to those of other noble Lords. Getting this Bill through your Lordships’ House has been very interesting process. There must have been a record number of people who went to see the clerks in the Public Bill Office and said they would like to add something about scooters and batteries, how you should ride scooters and that you should not do it on the pavement. We were all told—quite rightly—go away because it was outside scope. Now, at least the Minister has said that he and his department are looking at that and will also look at batteries, which are a very important part of it. One day, perhaps with this Government or probably the next Government, we might see something about riding bikes, electric or otherwise, and scooters where they are supposed to be, which is on the road, not on the pavement.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I have nothing further to add. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

1: Clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert “(including, in particular, provision about making noise)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment spells out that provision in pedicab regulations about the conduct of drivers can include provision about making noise. Regulations might, for example, prohibit a driver from making certain kinds of noise or noise over a certain volume at some or all times or in some or all places.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for your Lordships’ continued interest in this small but important Bill. The Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords, and I reiterate what I have said in private sessions: that your Lordships’ engagement has helped the Government reflect on the Bill’s provisions.

The first group today consists of a single amendment. It will amend Clause 2(6)(i), which relates to the conduct of pedicab drivers. It will specify that pedicab regulations can include provisions about making noise. During Grand Committee, I was clear that the Bill as drafted provided sufficient scope for pedicab regulations to address the issue of noise, under Clause 2(6). Furthermore, Transport for London has provided assurance that the playing of loud music and causing disturbance would be covered in its regulations.

However, it was clear that your Lordships felt particularly strongly about this issue. This is understandable. The Government are aware of the stories of loud music being played from pedicabs during the day and long into the night, and understand the disruption this causes to residents, businesses and those going about their daily lives. The Government have therefore tabled the amendment in recognition of the importance of this issue and to support the emergence of an effective regulatory regime.

Consistent with the approach taken in the Bill, the precise manner in which noise nuisance is addressed will be for Transport for London to determine in bringing forward regulations, and, again, this will be subject to consultation as per Clause 1(3). I hope that noble Lords welcome this amendment and that it satisfactorily addresses any outstanding concerns. I beg to move.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the amendment tabled by my noble friend. I am hugely grateful to him for having listened carefully during our debates in Committee. I congratulate him on the influence he has been able to have in the department in securing the Secretary of State’s agreement to this change.

I note that my noble friend said that in the Government’s view, the Bill’s original wording was sufficient to tackle the concern about noise; none the less, it is reassuring to have noise provisions in the Bill. I should be particularly pleased if my noble friend emphasised when he winds up that the explanatory statement alongside the amendment on the Marshalled List points out that the regulations that can be made to deal with noise, and which would be subject to consultation by Transport for London, might

“prohibit a driver from making certain kinds of noise or noise over a certain volume at some or all times or in some or all places.”

As my noble friend knows, one of my concerns, and one of the reasons why I was keen to get provisions on noise in the Bill, is that there has been a tendency to talk about noise only after a certain time of day. The existing law that allows any clampdown on noise pollution very much kicks in after a certain time and, as we know, the noise made by these vehicles and their drivers can be particularly disturbing and disruptive at any time of day. That is worth us reinforcing, so that TfL knows the expectation of this House.

As this is probably the last time I will speak during the passage of the Bill, I thank my noble friend again and congratulate him on his successful stewardship of this important Bill, which people have waited a long time for in London. I congratulate him on what he has been able to achieve over the past couple of months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition, I will be very brief. We support this amendment and congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward; it demonstrates that Members of the House have been listened to. There is clearly a problem of noise created by pedicabs, and it affects people of all social classes who live in Soho, Mayfair and parts of Westminster. We are glad to see this amendment being proposed.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the acceptance of this amendment. We recognise the point made by my noble friend Lady Stowell about noise being disallowed after 9 pm. Clearly, during the winter months and dark nights it is not good to have this sort of behaviour and high levels of noise on the streets. That was very much behind the thinking in bringing this amendment forward. I am very grateful to all other noble Lords who have spoken, and I will certainly pass the thanks on to the team.

Amendment 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, we on this side of the House have enormous sympathy for the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has proposed, and I find myself, at least on this occasion, in full agreement with the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Borwick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. However, it is the Government’s decision that one of the few transport measures they were prepared to put in their programme for this Session was a pedicabs Bill which, of course, is of very limited reach and scope. In fact, you could say that its reach is two wards of a single London borough. That is a pity, given that the country has enormous transport challenges in front of it, such as a failing railway system and the need for bus regulation. I could go on.

However, one of the issues that clearly has to be addressed is the one highlighted in this amendment. Although it would be inappropriate to try to carry amendments on this question of electric batteries, I hoped that the Minister might be able—indeed, I have urged him privately to do this—to come up with a timetable for when the Government might address these wider and more important questions. I am looking forward to his speech because it seems to me that in the House we have had a lot of concern raised about electric batteries and about the experimental period, as it were, of regulation of e-scooters, and we do not know how long that is going to go on for or what the outcome is eventually going to be. I would have thought that the Government must have a plan—after all, they are, I assume, thinking they might be re-elected—so we would quite like to know what future plans the Government have on what are very important and serious matters in which lives are at stake.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for their diligence in scrutinising this Bill’s provisions. This second group of amendments is focused on electric pedicabs. My department is aware of concerns held by noble Lords surrounding batteries in e-cycles and e-scooters. Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, seeks to place a requirement on the Government to introduce independent conformity assessment processes for electrically powered pedicabs and the batteries used to power these vehicles. If I may say so, she Baroness puts her case well, and I will now seek to answer some of her points.

Noble Lords may recall my response to an amendment tabled in Committee on conformity assessments and potentially placing requirements on power-assisted pedicabs. My response to the amendment debated today will echo my previous position. The Bill is about closing the legal anomaly so that London pedicabs can be licensed for the first time. The amendment raises a much wider question about the construction of electrically assisted pedal cycles.

The UKCA, the UK conformity assessment marking, and its EU equivalent, the CE, the conformité Européene, demonstrate a manufacturer’s claim of conformity with statutory requirements. All e-cycles and e-scooters need to comply with UK product safety regulations. This includes the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008, which set out the detailed health and safety requirements for the design and construction of a product. Additionally, there is an existing requirement in these machinery regulations that responsible persons for all machinery within scope, which would include power-assisted pedicabs, must draw up a detailed technical file and a declaration of conformity. There are existing requirements to carry out appropriate conformity assessment procedures. In instances where the responsible person does not comply with existing requirements, they are in breach of the regulations.

The Government are seeking to reform the UK’s product safety framework through the product safety review. The Office for Product Safety and Standards is currently reviewing responses to its consultation on how it regulates all products on the GB market, including machinery, and where multiple regulations apply to specific products. The Government’s intention is to publish a response later this year that summarises findings and sets out its future plans.

Product regulations would not cover a scenario whereby a pedicab driver or operator adapted their power-assisted pedicab following purchase, However, Clause 2(6) provides Transport for London with the ability to make provisions relating to matters such as safety requirements, testing, speed restrictions, and the quality and roadworthiness of pedicabs. Therefore, there is sufficient scope for Transport for London to determine the expected standards for pedicabs operating on London’s roads.

Although pedicab batteries when not supplied as part of a pedicab would not be subject to a regime that requires the UK conformity assessment marking to be affixed to them, their safety would be covered by the General Product Safety Regulations. These regulations require that all consumer products placed on the market are safe. Furthermore, batteries must comply with the Batteries and Accumulators (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008, which restrict the substances used in batteries and accumulators, as well as setting out requirements for their environmentally friendly end of life.

In bringing my comments to a conclusion, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the work of the Office for Product Safety and Standards, and Defra. They are in the process of reviewing the position on batteries. This includes examining the new EU battery directive and looking into the safety of the lithium-ion batteries used in e-cycles and e-scooters. This work should conclude in 2024. Alongside this, my department is developing guidance on the safe use of batteries in e-cycles and e-scooters, and we will publish this soon. I respectfully suggest that the Bill, with its narrow focus on licensing London pedicabs, is not the place to start tackling this issue. It is best dealt with as part of the wider work being taken forward by the Office for Product Safety and Standards and by Defra.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response, although it was rather disappointing. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, makes the point that this is not the right place for these regulations, but he accepts that there is a clear danger. I simply approach it from the point of view that this might be a good place to start dealing with this danger. However, I accept that pedicabs make up a tiny percentage of the problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, says.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

3: Clause 6, page 4, line 24, leave out subsection (2)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that pedicab regulations will no longer be subject to any form of parliamentary procedure.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this final group of amendments covers the process for regulations made under the Bill. Amendment 3 places responsibility for making pedicab regulations solely with Transport for London, meaning that pedicab regulations will no longer be subject to any form of parliamentary procedure.

Noble Lords will be aware that this marks a shift in the Government’s approach. The Government have listened to, and reflected on, the points raised at Second Reading and in Grand Committee, and reached the conclusion that these powers should rest with Transport for London. The Government have reached this view for several important reasons. First, it is consistent with the position for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing in the capital, where Transport for London has demonstrable experience of operating effective licensing regimes. Secondly, the Bill’s provisions extend to Greater London only, addressing the legal anomaly that has meant that London’s pedicab industry has been unregulated. The Bill presents a solution to a London-centric issue. Thirdly and finally, the relative size of the pedicab industry in London is an important factor. Estimates suggest that pedicab numbers range from 200 up to 900 in peak season. This is a significantly smaller industry than London’s taxi and PHV industries, where there are over 100,000 licensed vehicles and over 120,000 licensed drivers. Therefore, this amendment offers a proportionate approach.

While I am confident that this amendment is supported by the majority of your Lordships, I am aware that there may be some noble Lords concerned that Transport for London would seize this opportunity to remove all pedicabs from London’s streets, or to impose draconian restrictions that all but ban these vehicles. I reiterate that I do not—

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I apologise for jumping in on this point but it is very important. The Minister said that the generation of regulations would be solely the responsibility of Transport for London, which is exactly where we seek to be. In preparing for this debate I looked through the Bill, and all the Minister’s amendment does—I say “all” but it may be enough, in which case I will be delighted—is to take a subsection out of Clause 6. Can I be assured that that subsection’s deletion effectively removes any DfT input to the creation of regulations other than the amendment that goes with it to introduce guidance?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Yes, that is my understanding of the amendment and is correct.

Although I am confident that this amendment is supported by the majority of your Lordships, as I said, I am aware that some noble Lords may be concerned that Transport for London would seize this opportunity to remove all pedicabs from London’s streets or to impose draconian restrictions. However, I reiterate that I do not understand this to be TfL’s intention and, furthermore, it is highly unlikely that pedicab regulations could be used to do this.

However, this moves me to Amendment 4, which gives the Secretary of State the option of issuing statutory guidance to Transport for London relating to how functions under pedicab regulations are exercised. The amendment specifies that statutory guidance may cover how functions are exercised so as to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm. This amendment intends to strike a balance with the removal of parliamentary procedure for secondary legislation made under the Bill. The Government remain aware this will be a newly regulated industry, and this amendment will give the Secretary of State the option of influencing the shape of the London pedicab regime.

Transport for London or any person authorised by it to carry out functions under pedicab regulations on its behalf will need to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. This provides a level of oversight which I hope provides assurance to any noble Lords with concerns. Further to this, Clause 1(3) requires TfL to conduct a consultation prior to making pedicab regulations.

I hope this demonstrates that the Government have listened, and that these amendments are viewed by your Lordships as a thoughtful way forward, one which will best enable Transport for London to commence work on bringing forward its regulatory regime. I beg to move.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, this is almost full circle for me. About six years ago I received several complaints about pedicabs, and I tabled Written Questions for the then Minister, to be told straight off, “It is nothing to do with the Government—it is a matter for Transport for London”. Therefore, it is quite good that, coming full circle, many of these issues will be taken—with guidance—by Transport for London. That is the right and proper place for some of these issues; it makes sense to me.

I am particularly pleased that notice has been taken of safeguarding issues, particularly for children, and I am sure guidance will include that, and for anybody who is in a vulnerable situation as well, whether it be children or young women. That is absolutely right and proper.

I slightly worry that the issue of identification has not taken place. For example, if a pedicab driver does something that is not correct or behaves in an outrageous way—as we have often seen happen—as I understand it, there is no way to identify who is the owner or the driver of that pedicab and therefore to take action. I hope that this issue might be raised, maybe in guidance to Transport for London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I first thank the Minister, as others have done, for the amount of time he has taken on this Bill. Our central concern was that this is a London problem, and we created TfL to look after London’s problems. Now, I am in favour of TfL—somewhat biasedly, because I helped create it—but it has lived up to our expectations and has done a good job over the 23 years of its existence. It is very much the right organisation to do this task.

I thank the Minister for his Amendment 3, which he assures me will give TfL sole responsibility for developing regulations. I do take the point about why subsections (1), (3) and (4) are being retained, but I am sure it is all right because I have faith in the wonderful drafting powers of his team. If, upon consideration, they become a concern, I am sure that a government amendment will be tabled at Third Reading to amend any conflicts between the different parts. I hope he will give that consideration, if his team do advise him that there is a conflict.

Having said that I am in favour of Transport for London doing this task, I grudgingly accept that some of the concerns about TfL getting carried away and banning everything in sight, and making people bankrupt by charging them utterly unreasonable fees et cetera, do make a case for Amendment 4. Therefore, I recognise that that is the trade-off between the important position to take throughout the parliamentary process, while making sure there is a potential for government to create guidance that TfL has to have regard to. The balance between the two amendments, from our point of view, is acceptable.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has produced Amendment 5, which is drafted very much in the terms of many of her amendments, in the sense that it is motherhood. I am actually in favour of motherhood; it helps the world go round, and it says a series of sensible things. But the problem with putting something in legislation is whether it says all the things that should be said, or whether, conversely, it contradicts things that might be wanted. I am afraid I cannot support her. I do not think it is her intention to press the amendment, but I do commend it as a questionnaire for the Minister, to clarify the Government’s position on the points raised.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I once again thank your Lordships for their careful consideration of the Bill. I have outlined the purpose of the Government’s amendments in this group, and will now address Amendment 5, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.

I first reiterate the Government’s objective in bringing forward this Bill. The purpose is to provide Transport for London with the tools it needs to regulate London’s pedicabs so that journeys and vehicles are safer and fairer. This means addressing both the safety-related and traffic-related concerns, and tackling the antisocial and nuisance behaviour of certain pedicab operators and drivers.

Amendment 5, which attempts to set objectives to which the Secretary of State must have regard when issuing statutory guidance, shares the Government’s objectives. However, this has been tabled in response to the Government’s Amendment 4, which provides the Secretary of State with the option of issuing statutory guidance to Transport for London relating to the exercise of its functions and the pedicab regulations. This provides clear parameters for the scope of any statutory guidance and therefore Amendment 5 is not necessary, as the matters it covers are addressed by provisions in the Bill. In addition, I note that prescribing in detail what the Secretary of State must consider when issuing guidance could have the effect of inadvertently excluding from the scope of the guidance matters which have not been specifically listed. For this reason, a general approach is considered preferable.

I will highlight some of the relevant provisions in the Bill. Clause 2(5) covers fares, including what fares may be charged and how passengers are notified of these. Clause 2(6) covers a wide range of issues relating to the operation of London’s pedicabs. This includes safety, the quality and roadworthiness of pedicabs, the working conditions of drivers and their conduct. Clause 2(7) gives Transport for London the power to place limitations on where and when pedicabs can operate, and Transport for London has already confirmed it will need to give proper consideration to the matter of pedicab ranks, taking into account the needs of pedicab drivers, passengers and other road users. Clause 3 sets out the enforcement mechanisms available to Transport for London and includes details of penalties.

A couple of points were raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, talked about identification of the pedicabs. That really will be a matter for Transport for London, however it intends to license them. I can think of various ways it could do it; I am sure he could as well but it will be a matter for Transport for London. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, regarding the need to consult, that is written into the Bill, most certainly, and I feel quite sure that cycling organisations will be included in that. I think that more or less covers everything apart from the point from the noble Lord, Lord Borwick. On that, we can confirm that this is solely Transport for London’s responsibility.

Amendment 3 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

4: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to Transport for London about the exercise of their functions under pedicab regulations.(2) The guidance may, in particular, include guidance about how those functions may be exercised so as to protect children, and vulnerable individuals who are 18 or over, from harm.(3) The Secretary of State may revise any guidance issued under this section.(4) The Secretary of State must arrange for any guidance issued under this section, and any revision of it, to be published.(5) Transport for London, and any person authorised by them to carry out functions under pedicab regulations on their behalf, must have regard to any guidance issued under this section when exercising their functions under the regulations.(6) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult whoever the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member's explanatory statement
This clause allows the Secretary of State to give guidance to TfL about the exercise of functions under pedicab regulations. Subsection (5) requires TfL, and those authorised by TfL to exercise functions under the regulations, to have regard to the guidance when exercising functions under the regulations.

East Coast Main Line

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with train operators about changes to the East Coast Mainline timetable in December 2024.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)]

My Lords, the department holds regular discussions with its operators to ensure that they continue to respond to changes in demand, balancing capacity and reliability with value for money for taxpayers. As part of the December 2023 timetable change, the department agreed that London North Eastern Railway should provide some additional Sunday services and the Rail North Partnership agreed some reductions to TransPennine Express services to stabilise the service while it completes its driver training programme.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, Berwick-upon-Tweed station, serving the Scottish borders and north Northumberland, normally has a quite good hourly train service on the east coast main line. However, now LNER has resurrected the previous abandoned plan to slash that service by half from December, so that the trains will be only every two hours and with longer journey times. Is the Minister prepared to challenge this—or is publicly owned LNER doing what the Government have told it to do?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The industry is currently close to finalising its response to the east coast main line major timetable change consultation that was undertaken in 2021. While it will not be possible to address every concern raised, I am confident that the industry proposal is an improvement over what was offered in consultation. The Rail Minister is in regular contact with Transport for the North, having met with the chair and chief executive in recent months.

[Lord Haselhurst (Con)]

My Lords, has the Minister been able to assess the amount of spare capacity on the rail system serving both north and east of a critical place in what we call the east of England? Does he agree that there needs to be a plan for the future—maybe one that cannot be implemented immediately but that we can set our minds on to ensure that it takes place without waiting another 10 or 20 years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My noble friend will be aware that we had the Williams-Shapps review into the creation of Great British Railways but unfortunately have not had time in this Session to introduce legislation. However, I take his point, which is well made.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister explain why this government-owned railway, LNER, has apparently changed all the fare structures to remove most saver and supersaver fares—presumably with the intention of reducing the number of passengers that use it?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

At the Bradshaw address, the Secretary of State committed to expanding single-leg pricing, on most of LNER’s network, for example. This went live on 11 June 2023. In the plan for rail, we set out our intention to simplify fares and improve the passenger experience. We are determined to find innovative ways to get people back into rail.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, next year will celebrate the bicentenary of the original railway line, between Darlington and Stockton-on-Tees. Would it not be extraordinary to reduce the service from Darlington—and Northallerton—to London in what is its bicentennial year? Will the Minister use his good offices to examine the timetable which LNER is proposing for next year, to ensure that we continue to have good hourly services to these regular commuter runs?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I hear what my noble friend says. I will certainly take it back and have a look at it.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister implies that the 2024 timetable is more or less complete. That would have involved seven railway operators, Network Rail and the DfT achieving a consensus. Such a consensus would have had winners and losers. Who made the decision as to who would be the losers?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

With great respect to the noble Lord, I am not too sure that I understand his question. Perhaps we can have a look at it later.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, when there was a proposal to close railway ticket offices, we saw how essential public consultation was in revealing the true impact of a planned change. In the Minister’s response, he referred to a consultation on this LNER timetable change that took place in 2021. Three years on, things are very different. Can he assure us that there has been public consultation since then and that there was full public consultation before this changed timetable was introduced?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I assure the noble Baroness that the Government are committed to full consultation on the issue.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Transport for the North. Some of the difficult decisions that have had to be taken have been partly because of the upgrading of the trans-Pennine route, which is a huge investment as far as the Government are concerned over the next few years. Will my noble friend assure us that the planned upgrade for York station, which will allow greater capacity eventually to serve areas such as Berwick-upon-Tweed, is in the Government’s future plans?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

A lot of these changes to the trans-Pennine route are part of the Making Journeys Better plan, outlining how TransPennine Express under DfT OLR Holdings will work to make things better. Having completed an in-depth review of the business, these services are expected to be restored from December 2024. I will have to come back to my noble friend on his question about the railway station.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the problems of the east coast main line, important though they may be, pale into insignificance for those of us who have the misfortune to use the west coast main line? Given the fact that Avanti trains’ punctuality levels in the last six months of 2023 plumbed the depths of 43.5%—the worst in railway history, as far as I can ascertain—can he tell the House what those improvements outlined by the Secretary of State were before it was given another nine years of inflicting misery on the rest of us?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

As the noble Lord knows, the department awarded a new National Rail contract to First Trenitalia to continue operating the west coast partnership in September 2023. The decision to award the contract to it was contingent on the operator continuing to win back the confidence of passengers. The Rail Minister and officials have met regularly with First Group and Avanti’s senior management to understand the challenges and hold them to account for issues within their control. In fact, I understand that the Rail Minister met with them only this month.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, as I was coming in on a very pleasant journey from the beautiful city of Salisbury in the south-west on Monday, I went through the new schedule of train strikes that have been thrust at us again. I seem to remember that a couple of months ago we spent many long nights debating minimum service levels. I am confused, so could the Minister help me in my confusion?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My noble friend is right; we did spend many hours debating this. We now have the minimum services levels Act and, frankly, the department expects train operators to make use of the legislation wherever appropriate.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is the decision by the Government to award Avanti another contract not rewarding failure? Do we not need a regulator that will put passengers first and the companies second?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I take the noble Lord’s point, but the Government do put passengers first. The Government are concerned with passengers getting value for money, and we take this very seriously.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, in the last 10 years, £75.2 billion of subsidy has been handed to rail companies. In return, the public do not own a single engine, carriage or seat, and it is impossible to even get the machines at rail stations to tell you what a good route or fare is. How many more billions need to be handed to rail companies before we can get an affordable and reliable train service?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The Government have put an awful lot of money into the railways. It is about time perhaps that some of the railways delivered back for the good of the people—the taxpayer, who has put an enormous amount of money into the railways.

Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 2023

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Lords Chamber

I look to the Minister to explain, within the ORR’s own rules at the moment, how this could be justified. I hope that he is able to produce an answer, either now or in a further document, on how the department came to these conclusions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of the Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 2023 and for the many informed points that were raised, which I will now try to answer. I do not have to declare anything, but I do have a passionate interest in heritage railways: there is nothing quite like a Santa special with the grandchildren.

These regulations are made under the powers conferred by the Transport and Works Act 1992. They address a long-standing concern by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch about the effectiveness of signs at these types of level crossings. The regulations will apply to England, Scotland and Wales. The regulations were subject to the negative procedure and came into force on 18 November 2023.

I will now provide some background information about the legislation. There are two categories of level crossing on Great Britain’s rail network, which are governed by separate legislation: crossings where the railway bisects a public right of way and crossings where the railway bisects a private right of way. These regulations cover the second category and replace the Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 1996. There are around 3,200 private crossings in Great Britain. Around 2,500 of these are on Network Rail’s tracks, around 700 are on heritage rail lines and one is on a tramway. Many of these crossings were created in the Victorian era to maintain access for local landowners, such as farmers. These crossings are the responsibility of the relevant railway operator.

In recent years, the number and diversity of private crossing users have increased. This has been due in part to the increase in the popularity of online shopping, which has led to a large increase in the number of couriers and home delivery drivers using private roads. Van travel has grown substantially over the last 25 years, increasing by 106% to 55.5 billion vehicle miles in 2019, according to the department’s own estimates. Some of these users may be unfamiliar with how to use or operate these crossings safely. In addition, rail traffic along some formerly quiet routes has increased since 1996, increasing the risks to users of private crossings.

The Rail Accident Investigation Branch undertook a comprehensive review of these crossings in 2009. It found that the signs used at these crossings are not always easy to understand and that their design does not always reflect the risk at individual crossings. The Rail Accident Investigation Branch made several recommendations, including one that the requirements for signs at private crossings should be reviewed. The report also found that the 1996 regulations contained a limited range of signs that did not reflect the full range of users of private crossings. For example, there are no symbols in the regulations for tractors, horse riders and farm trailers, all of which often use private crossings; the Rail Accident Investigation Branch reported that this can create confusion.

Since that report, there have been several serious accidents at private crossings, including at Frampton level crossing and Frognal Farm. These prompted the Rail Accident Investigation Branch to recommend that the signs themselves be redesigned; these new regulations do just that.

The department has spent several years working with sign experts to create a suite of signs that address the concerns raised by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch. This involved commissioning research, as well as consulting twice on the revised sign designs. The first consultation in 2022 ran for eight weeks and received 64 responses from rail operators, private residents and other interested parties. We worked with the Office of Rail and Road, Network Rail and the Rail Safety and Standards Board to revise the proposed signs in light of these responses. We then tested them with experts on level crossings, signage and human factors to ensure that they were clear and effective. These signs were then subject to a second consultation, which ran from 5 April to 10 May 2023. We received further responses, which we used to refine the new regulations.

I believe that that perhaps explains the background and need for these signs. I will now address the other areas raised. In answer to the points by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about implementation, I will try to explain how we expect the new regulations to be implemented. I am aware that this has caused concern among some heritage rail operators. All existing signage that complies with the 1996 regulations remains lawfully placed until it needs to be replaced. However, once a sign needs to be replaced, only a new sign may be erected. This is an important point, as it means that there is no legal requirement for operators to replace existing signs. These will remain lawfully placed until the end of their serviceable life. In practice, this could be several decades. Perhaps this will help heritage railways to replace signs over a period of time, reducing the cost.

Nevertheless, we believe it is important that the new signs are introduced as soon as possible. This is particularly important for the mainline railway, where the risks to users are greatest. We have agreed with Network Rail that, on the mainline railway, the older signs will be replaced as soon as possible, and by the end of control period 7, in 2029, at the latest.

The risks are lower at private crossings on heritage railways due to the lower speed and frequency of the trains. The department has no intention of changing the Transport and Works Act to allow the Secretary of State to mandate the early phasing out of these existing signs. None the less, we hope that the heritage rail sector recognises the improvements that the new signs bring and will make all reasonable efforts to adopt the new signage as soon as possible. My officials have written to the Heritage Railway Association and other heritage railway operators to make this point clear.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and other noble Lords raised the cost of installing new signs. We estimate that this will range from £2,000 for a simple installation to £4,000 for a more complex one. These costs include the costs of the signs themselves, staff or contractor costs, and materials. Our estimates are based on Network Rail’s own experience and have been validated by the heritage sector.

Most of the costs will be borne by public sector bodies, particularly Network Rail, which is responsible for around three-quarters of private level crossings on the rail network. We estimate that the cost to Network Rail will be between £800,000 and £1.7 million per year between now and 2029. These costs have been reflected in Network Rail’s funding settlement for 2024 to 2029.

The cost to heritage operators is estimated at between £253,000 and £506,000 per year. However, this assumes that heritage operators adopt a similar rollout of the signs to 2029. In most cases, these costs will not be additional, as the signs would have had to be replaced at the end of their serviceable life.

The share of the costs will vary between operators, depending on the number of private crossings on their estate. Some will carry a larger share, others minimal. As I mentioned previously, we hope that the heritage sector recognises the benefits that these new signs bring and looks to implement them by the end of 2029.

Heritage railways are important stakeholders for the department, and we are keen to ensure that no burdens are placed unduly on them, especially as many have been impacted financially by the pandemic. However, we are keen to see the safety benefits of the new signs across the whole of Great Britain’s rail estate. Ensuring that the messaging on the signs is consistent is essential for safety. We therefore urge the sector to look to erect the new signs as soon as it can, using a risk-based approach. Officials in the department recently wrote to the Heritage Rail Association setting this out.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the question of Explanatory Memoranda. The department continues to work hard to improve the quality of these, and I recognise that they are a vital part of the legislative process. Regular training on secondary legislation is available to all officials, with additional content targeted at those who are developing or drafting SIs and their products.

On other points raised by noble Lords, I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, about the whistle. I am sure that is something that heritage railways can take up. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on ford signs, I will have to have a look at that and write back to her.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the issue of the Welsh language. We heard from some respondents that they would like the ability to place signs in the Welsh language in Wales. Although the policy area is not devolved, we believe that this is the right thing to do and are currently working with experts to translate the signs into Welsh. These will be used where risk assessments say they would be of benefit. We expect this work to conclude later this year, but due process must apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

The essence of my point is that, superficially, this burden offends the rule that the railways claim to take through the ORR that safety improvements are not necessary if their cost is grossly disproportionate to the benefit. If it is above £5 million you would have to set that down on a piece of paper. Would the Minister mind setting out on a piece of paper, and sharing it with all who have spoken, how the department came to the conclusion that the benefits are greater than the cost and that the cost is not grossly disproportionate to the benefit? It is a simple idea that saves the railways spending lots and lots of unnecessary money. It is a very sensible idea and it is recorded; eventually you find it in their rules. The sum should have been done.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we could discuss this for ever and a day: the cost of a life. To me, one life saved, at whatever cost, is a life saved. That is particularly important.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I am sorry, but safety legislation, in virtually every area, does not take that view. We do not talk about it very much, but the ability to spend money on safety is almost infinite. There has to be a point where you say “Enough is enough”—otherwise, transport and virtually all activity involving risk would grind to a halt. You have to take a sensible, proportionate view, which British safety legislation does. The very sound Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 does not require risk to be eliminated; it requires it to be reduced to as low as reasonably practicable, and a court has ruled that that test includes cost.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on that point at this stage. I now have to conclude—

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I apologise. It seems to me that the basis of this discussion is a significant difference between the statistics used in the Explanatory Memorandum and those used by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. The Minister referred to the number of near misses. The EM says there are on average 137 per annum. It also says that there are on average two fatalities a year. That is very different from the figures the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, produced. I hope the Minister will agree to write to us to set out the statistics and clarify that the Explanatory Memorandum is based on accurate information, because it is clearly having an impact on some people’s approach to this debate.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that point. I will go back to the department, we will look at those figures, and I will write to those noble Lords concerned about this point.

To conclude, these regulations address recommendations made by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch to improve the quality of the signs to be used at private level crossings. They have been tested in a real-world environment and have been subjected to two consultations, which allowed interested parties to make their views known. As a result, we have now placed into legislation a set of signs that are fit for purpose and a vast improvement on those they replace. They will instruct users on the safe use of the crossings and improve safety outcomes for the many people who rely on them. I am sure noble Lords agree that this is the right thing to do.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this group of amendments. As has been rightly stated, it covers a serious and significant aspect of the Bill under consideration.

I will speak to my Amendment 55A, which, quite simply, goes to the question around the provision of data to establish liability in the event of an AV being involved in an accident. What we know from the whole question of automated vehicles is that they are simultaneously both extraordinary producers of, and consumers of, data. There are so many data issues, which need to be considered right through every element of the Bill in front of us.

When it comes to the swift understanding, investigation and attribution of liability in the event of an accident, it is clearly critical for all of that data to be understood by the parties who require it in the establishment of liability for the accident. Amendment 55A simply asks the Secretary of State to review the current situation and to produce guidance to bring clarity, certainty and whatever is required to avoid delay, distress and any other negative elements that would be occasioned if the wrong approach were taken in the event of an automated vehicle being involved in an accident where there was an inability to gain the right access to the data and to quickly and efficiently establish liability. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)]

My Lords, once again I am grateful for the contributions in this group. One of the central functions of the Bill is to clarify how liability is to be handled in a world of self-driving vehicles. This is a complex area and I reiterate my thanks to the Law Commissions for their many years of work developing the approaches that we are discussing today. I am grateful also to noble Lords for their insightful contributions and scrutiny on this critical issue.

Amendment 55G, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, would require a study to be conducted on human reactions to transition demands. Before I address that proposal, I will respond to his specific point about how liability applies during the transition period. The Bill is explicit that the authorised self-driving entity remains responsible for the behaviour of the vehicle until the transition period expires. After that period, liability shifts to the driver. However, it is a misconception to imagine that manual control will simply be forced on the driver at the end of that period. Clause 7(3)(e) mandates that vehicles be capable of dealing safely with a situation in which the user-in-charge fails to assume control. In other words, although legal responsibility shifts back to the driver once the transition period expires, the vehicle is still required to bring itself to a safe stop without their intervention. A vehicle that was unable to do that would not be authorised.

On the amendment itself, there is already a considerable body of evidence on response times to transition demands, particularly using simulators. Much of that underpins the international automated lane keeping systems regulation to which I referred earlier. There are a number of additional research projects in this space already in development across the Department for Transport and its agencies. For example, one such project looks to explore what activities a user-in-charge can safely perform while their vehicle is driving itself. This is a question that will also require ongoing monitoring and evaluation over time. We will be able to mandate information sharing from authorised self-driving entities to further expand this evidence base as the technology develops.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I am not trying to be difficult, but I did not quite understand the point the Minister made about the ASDE still being liable. Let us hypothesise a simple situation. A vehicle is being driven autonomously. A warning is given so the driver takes control, but he is unable to stop the vehicle in time from crashing into a motorcyclist or whatever. The driver is in control—is it clear that he is not liable? Does the Minister see what I mean? I think you can have a situation where you are required to take control but it is too challenging a situation for you to do what is necessary, and you get involved in an accident. Are you then liable? I just do not understand. I am not clear what the position is.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing up that point. I think the Bill specifically protects the driver from being put in an impossible position by the handover, but I might go away and get proper clarification instead of standing here and—while not guessing—giving my opinion.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

That is fine with me. Perhaps, in the meeting we are going to have, we can discuss this question so that someone who actually understands it properly can explain it to us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

That will be a challenge.

I will pick up from where I left off. We will be able to mandate information sharing from authorised self-driving entities to further expand this evidence base as the technology develops. Such issues may also be considered and reviewed as part of the general monitoring duty under Clause 38. For those reasons, I believe the amendment is unnecessary.

On Amendment 55A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, he is right that swift and reliable access to vehicle data will be central to correctly apportioning liability—a point also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. As our policy scoping notes set out, we intend to develop regulatory requirements covering data recording, retention and access, in line with the Law Commissions’ recommendations. Ensuring that those are appropriate and proportionate will require careful consultation and impact assessment. The approach proposed by the amendment is unlikely to allow for that and therefore will not adequately address the issue.

Amendment 55F calls for the Government to lay a Statement on who is responsible for insuring and maintaining authorised automated vehicles. The Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence to use or permit the use of a vehicle without appropriate insurance or in a dangerous state. The offence therefore applies to the driver, and potentially to others who enable the use of the vehicle. Clause 49 is clear that the user-in-charge is to be considered a driver for all purposes other than those relating to how the vehicle behaves. The responsibility for roadworthiness and insurance therefore sits with the user-in-charge, just as it does with a conventional driver. Self-driving vehicles that do not require a user-in-charge must be overseen by a no-user-in-charge operator. These operators may own and oversee fleets of vehicles, meaning that they would be responsible for maintenance and insurance. Alternatively, they may simply offer an oversight and incident response service for privately owned vehicles. In this case, it is more appropriate that those responsibilities sit with the owner. Where the responsibilities sit will therefore depend on the business model, and that will be clarified by the Government as part of each operator’s licensing conditions as necessary.

Amendment 55H calls for a Statement on the information that will be published to support the underwriting of self-driving vehicle insurance. Under the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act, self-driving vehicles require policies where the insurer has first-instance liability when the vehicle is driving itself. The insurer is then able to recover against the person responsible, which may be the authorised self-driving entity, following an incident. The Government will establish a public register of self-driving vehicle authorisations, including a list of authorised self-driving entities. The Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency vehicle registration database will then identify which vehicles have been authorised as self-driving. That will provide clarity about which vehicles require a self-driving insurance policy. While we feel that this information will be sufficient to ensure that vehicles are fit for underwriting purposes, we recognise that further data could support the more accurate pricing of risk. My officials have begun discussions with insurers about what could be needed, and this dialogue will continue as the secondary legislation is developed. I trust that clarifies the position, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, agrees that Amendments 55F and 55H are not needed.

With Amendments 38 and 52, the noble Lord looks to remove the need for the victim of an incident to prove that an automated vehicle was driving itself in order to make a claim for compensation. There is no such need to begin with. Where a conventional driver-operated vehicle is involved in a collision, the victim has a claim against the at-fault driver. In practice, either the victim or the driver will contact the relevant insurer for the vehicle, who will then investigate the claim to establish fault and issue compensation appropriately. This approach is long-established and set out in law. It generally works well, and it is not the function of the Bill to change it. The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act assigns the insurer first-instance liability in incidents caused by an automated vehicle that is driving itself. That means the victim is able to claim compensation from the relevant insurer whether there is an at-fault driver or whether the vehicle was in self-driving mode. A claim can be made in either case. The insurer can then determine whether that claim is covered by the conventional third-party insurance or the self-driving vehicle insurance. As I have set out, we will be setting authorisation requirements mandating certain forms of data logging. This information will help the processing of claims.

On Amendment 39, it would be inappropriate to apply a presumption of liability inconsistently across different road users. That could even encourage risk-taking behaviour and ultimately compromise road safety. I recognise the wider point that the noble Lord is making about the safety of other road users. In our earlier discussion about accessibility, I referred to some of the measures we will use to avoid specific groups being placed at a disadvantage by the introduction of self-driving vehicles. For example, we will look to include principles of equality and fairness in the statement of safety principles and will take steps to prevent data biases. These will also apply to vulnerable road users.

In conclusion, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I am happy to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that we have a further conversation about it.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am happy to accommodate that.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

The noble Lord has assured us that this is a probing amendment, and I am convinced he is not expecting many answers from me. I give way to the Minister.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling these amendments and for sharing his perspectives on these issues. I will begin by briefly addressing his point about public understanding and properly communicating what he refers to as the “look and feel” of a world with self-driving vehicles.

In previous debates, I have referred to The Great Self-Driving Exploration. This ground-breaking study was specifically designed to allow people from all walks of life to understand more about self-driving vehicles and to comment on whether they felt their introduction would be beneficial. This is just one example of the work we have been doing in this space.

Amendment 63 looks to require that a statement be made on the necessary changes to highways legislation that may arise from the use of self-driving vehicles. As I set out earlier this afternoon, the Bill does not require changes to our roads, nor are changes considered necessary for the safe deployment of self-driving vehicles. The Bill already sets out the legislative changes that we believe are necessary to enable their use. Local authorities are responsible for managing their road networks, and the existing legislative framework provides them with a wide range of powers to regulate traffic. It also places duties on them to ensure that they do so effectively, for the benefit of all road users. We believe that this existing framework is sufficient to enable them to regulate traffic, including self-driving vehicles, appropriately. Highways legislation is a complex area of law, covering a wide range of powers, duties and responsibilities. For many parts of the Bill, a statement of the kind proposed in the amendment would be irrelevant and would cause unnecessary delay in implementing the new regulatory framework.

My noble friend’s Amendment 62 calls for a consultation on updating the Manual for Streets to take into account the introduction of self-driving vehicles. As I have made clear, self-driving vehicles must adapt to our roads, not the other way round. We would therefore not expect significant changes to the Manual for Streets to be necessary. As was pointed out, the manual was first published in 2007 and updated in 2010. The department is working on bringing together and updating both manuals, which will be published in due course. I will ensure that my noble friend is updated on the progress of this.

Local authorities are responsible for the design and management of their roads, and for setting their own design standards. We have long encouraged them to use the principles in the Manual for Streets in doing so. The department produces a wide range of technical advice documents on aspects of street design and traffic management, of which the manual is just one. There is no statutory consultation requirement for the Manual for Streets, so imposing such a requirement in this case would be unnecessary. However, in line with good practice, key stakeholders have been involved in its development.

Tying the commencement of the Bill to the production of the manual would appear disproportionate, considering there is relatively little overlap between the two. It would therefore cause unnecessary delay in implementing the framework for self-driving vehicles. While I recognise that I may not have been able to provide my noble friend with all the answers that he was looking for, I hope that these explanations have none the less been helpful and go so some way to allowing him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend has not actually provided the answers to any of the questions that I raised, but I am not wholly surprised by that. I shall say only that it is indeed part of the purpose of the proposals to cause delay to the implementation of the Bill while we work out what we are trying to achieve. My noble friend has acutely put his finger on that point—so we are at odds on that.

However, given the lateness of the hour and the fact that I do not think that further debate would be fruitful in eliciting helpful responses from my noble friend, I ask the Committee’s leave to withdraw the amendment.