Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be brief. It has been an interesting debate on this group of amendments because we have started talking about infrastructure separately from what goes on it. That is an important issue to look at because, whether in terms of the comments that I remember the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, making at Second Reading about the benefits of living in the countryside or the comments of other noble Lords who have mentioned the need for proper infrastructure, the key to this—it was in the press at the weekend, I think—is that the infrastructure mapping must be accurate. Who is going to do it?

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggesting putting it on an old railway line. The old railway line is on the maps already, but can you drive down it safely? Is it a guided bus rail, which is another form of getting around? Not only do all these things need to be kept up to date but somebody needs to be responsible for ensuring that they are up to date and for what happens if they are not. I am sure that this is all on Minister’s mind for when he responds, but there is further work to be done here.

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

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the many contributions to this interesting debate. I will try to address the issues that have been raised.

These amendments concern the integration of self-driving vehicles into the existing transport system, particularly the extent to which each may need to adapt to accommodate the other. I begin by clarifying a key point. Self-driving vehicles must be capable of operating safely and legally using the infrastructure as it exists today. There can be no expectation on the part of developers that our roads will change in some way to accommodate their vehicles. Nor do we consider such changes to be necessary for safe deployment.

Vehicles will need to be able to cope safely with issues such as wear and tear, road closures and variation in signage that are found across our road network. This also extends to digital infrastructure. Self-driving vehicles can make use of services such as data connectivity, GPS and digitised traffic regulation orders, but like humans they will need to be able to maintain safety in the event that these services are unavailable. Those which cannot do this would not be authorised.

Government and local authorities have duties to manage and maintain their road networks for the benefit of all users. Over time, local authorities may choose to adapt their networks to leverage the wider benefits from self-driving vehicles. This might include, for example, investing in information systems that can communicate directly with vehicles. However, this is a long-term view. Considering that we are still in the early stages of the deployment of this new technology, it would be premature to anticipate what such changes could look like. Our guiding principle remains that self-driving vehicles must adapt to our roads, not the other way around.

This brings me to Amendments 37 and 50, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. These probe our plans for adapting the road network to accommodate self-driving vehicles, including how this will be funded. For the reasons that I have set out, the deployment of self-driving vehicles does not require any adaptations of our physical or digital infrastructure. This means that there are no associated costs and that the noble Lord’s amendments are therefore unnecessary. It means that the infrastructure reviews proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in Amendments 23 and 24, are also unnecessary, along with consequential Amendments 58 and 60. However, in relation to the noble Baroness’s comments on the condition of the road network, I note that the Government have recently announced the biggest-ever funding uplift for local road improvements, with £8.3 billion of funding to resurface over 5,000 miles of roads across England.

Amendments 51 and 61 call for strategies to be published on the application of self- driving vehicles in rural areas. The Government have already published their comprehensive vision for the future of self-driving technology in the UK, Connected & Automated Mobility 2025. As part of that vision, the policy paper considers the opportunities for self-driving technology to improve public transport and to enhance mobility in rural areas. Furthermore, in October last year, we published the Future of Transport rural innovation guidance, providing local authorities with advice and support to embrace technologies such as self-driving vehicles in rural areas. To publish further strategies would risk duplicating this existing work. On the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, about public transport, our investment in trials such as CAVForth in Scotland and Harlander in Belfast demonstrates clearly that our commitment extends well beyond private use of self-driving vehicles.

On Amendment 48, Clause 47(4)(b) specifically states that the user-in-charge immunity does not extend to the qualifications of the driver. The requirement to hold a valid driving licence therefore continues to apply to the user-in-charge, even while the self-driving feature is active. This is necessary as they may be required to resume control of the vehicle in response to a transition demand.

In a no-user-in-charge vehicle, there is never a requirement for a qualified person to assume control. While a no-user-in-charge feature is active, any person in the vehicle is simply considered a passenger and will not need to hold a driving licence.

Driving licence categories will continue to apply to self-driving vehicles as they do to conventional ones—for example, by weight and number of seats. It would be premature to consider new categories of driving licence at this stage, but it would be possible in the future under the Road Traffic Act. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, feels that this clarifies the position sufficiently.

Amendment 44 concerns the interaction between self-driving vehicles and ChargePoint infrastructure. Self-driving vehicles are not yet on our roads and the technology for automated charging is still very much in its infancy. However, we will continue to monitor the future direction of the technology. Should developments demonstrate a need for regulation in this space, we will consider next steps on consultation. The Government are focusing our current intervention on areas where an accelerated pace of rollout is most needed, such as high-powered chargers on the strategic road network and for local street charging.

Amendments 54 and 56 refer to delivery robot vehicles and devices. It is the Government’s view that the Bill already contains the necessary legislation to regulate the safety of all self-driving road vehicles. In line with Clause 94, any mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted to be used on the road is already within the scope of the Bill.

As I have said previously, the definition of a “road” extends beyond the carriageway itself. For example, it includes the pavement. Delivery robots and devices that meet these criteria would therefore be in scope. However, to pass the self-driving test, they must drive legally and comply with all relevant regulations. This includes construction and use regulations, and restrictions on pavement use by motor vehicles. Any future changes to regulations on pavement use would need to be balanced with the need to maintain safety and accessibility for other road users. All in-scope vehicles will be subject to the monitoring, assessment and reporting requirements set out in Clause 38. This makes additional reporting requirements unnecessary.

I know that my noble friend Lord Lucas, who tabled Amendment 45, is a long-standing advocate for this particular use case. Although it sits outside the regulatory framework that we are proposing, which is concerned only with roads and other public places, I reassure him of our interest in its potential. We are one of the first countries to explore the business case for self-driving mass transit on segregated routes, with 10 feasibility studies under way backed by £1.5 million in government funding. We are already looking at how regulatory requirements could be overseen for segregated routes. Work is under way with the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to establish a firm footing for the kind of deployment that my noble friend is interested in. While the technical regulations being developed in support of the Bill may be a useful guide for these “off-road” applications, the frameworks are distinct.

I hope, as a result of what I have said, that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, sees fit to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. This has been a good debate, with some important points raised. It is a good example of us trying to think positively, outside the box, about the important issues that this new technology will raise for us all. I just pick one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, which is the potential to benefit rural areas. I fear that they will probably be the last areas to benefit, unless there is a proper plan. That is the sort of thing we should rightly be doing here at this stage of the Bill. However, having listened carefully to the Minister, I will look very carefully at Hansard, because he said some interesting but worrying things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to each of the amendments in this group, a lot of which have what I call a “motherhood” characteristic. In other words, they are self-evidently sensible things to do; the debate is whether these ideas are properly caught by the language or whether, indeed, they need to be on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I would like the Minister to try to answer in two ways: first, whether he essentially disagrees with the concept in the amendment and, secondly, if he agrees with it, why we should not have it in the Bill.

I start with Amendment 25; I believe Amendment 59 is consequential to it. This is an entirely reasonable amendment. It is difficult to believe that the standards expected and the areas considered will be identical—or even largely identical—to the present MoT regime, and therefore I think a review is entirely sensible.

Similarly, my noble friend Lord Berkeley has made a good point in Amendment 37A—and, as I read it, Amendment 57A is consequential—that the Office of Rail and Road could make a singular contribution. The ORR’s problem is that it has the responsibilities of a railway inspectorate on the one hand and, potentially, of a road inspectorate with particular reference to this area. The problem, particularly on the railways, is that there is often not enough business to keep such teams properly employed. The skills required are very similar. It could be a merger of two teams or learning from each other—there are all sorts of things that one can think of when it comes to drawing the rail and road people into the way that the various investigatory and rule-setting powers would work. As I said, Amendment 57A is consequential.

My noble friend Lord Liddle has three amendments in this group. I shall speak particularly to Amendments 40 and 41. I did not find these the easiest to read because the whole problem of taking a statement and then adapting it to a new meaning is not without its hazards. I will quote the appropriate subsections from Clause 61. Subsection (1) says:

“The main purpose of the role of inspector is that of identifying, improving understanding of, and reducing the risks of harm arising from the use of authorised automated vehicles on roads in Great Britain”.


That is then conditioned by subsection (2):

“It is no part of that purpose to establish blame or liability on the part of any person in relation to a particular incident”.


That is a no-fault environment in which many people would agree you get a better result out of the inspection of events. However, we feel that we need to take that further. Amendment 40 would add, at the end of the wording in subsection (2),

“unless the investigation concludes that a failure in the technology of an automated vehicle is at fault”.

That would give it a specific requirement to bring out and invite the inspector to say, “It was the technology that caused this accident”. We think it important that they are able to specify that the technology was at fault.

Clause 68(1) says:

“An inspector must report any findings of an investigation to the Secretary of State”.


In a sense, that implies that this is pretty routine stuff and it only needs to go to the Secretary of State. We believe that because of the complexity, and the obvious desire of the people who have looked at this at some length that parliamentarians should be involved with the evolution of this, there should be a caveat to that. Amendment 41 proposes to add

“who must lay this report before Parliament should the investigation find a technological failure of an automated vehicle to be the cause, or one of the causes, of an incident”.

So the situation would be that the Secretary of State received all reports where the technology had not been found at fault, but where the technology had been found at fault, that would be reported to Parliament.

In Amendment 55E, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has asked for a workforce strategy. This is classic. The whole of the UK, frankly, calls for a workforce strategy, and over and over again you see decisions being made without regard to the workforce capability. There is a good case for this particular role, but the Government should grasp the proper use of workforce strategies in managing our society. We think of the problems of doing something as being about physical things, such as factories, but over and over again it is the limitation of skills. Any activity is as much about the skill of the people working with it—it is particularly interesting to look at this in the military—as it is about the kit they are using to deliver it. We should be thinking more and more in these terms. I do not know whether this is one of the launch areas, but bringing it up in the Bill was a good thing.

Finally, Amendment 56A from my noble friend Lord Liddle, as stated in the explanatory statement, is

“to probe the difference between ‘automated,’ ‘autonomous,’ ‘autonomously’ and ‘self-driving’”.

There is an unwritten rule that, when writing standards, you never use synonyms. The moment you use synonyms you ask people to start trying to define the difference. If you have a good, simple concept, it should have one label in any regulation. It makes the writing very boring, because there is so much repetition, but it makes it unambiguous. I am afraid that this document is somewhat ambiguous because of the various terms that it uses for the same concept.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The amendments in this group concern the day-to-day operation of the regulatory framework.

Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, refers specifically to incidents in which the technology of a self-driving vehicle is at fault. In such a situation, it would be for the in-use regulatory scheme to determine whether regulatory sanctions were appropriate. Criminal penalties would also apply if the authorised self-driving entity had failed to disclose relevant safety information. Separately, a statutory inspector may also conduct an independent safety investigation. The statutory inspector is then responsible for publicly reporting on safety lessons and making recommendations for improvement. These reports would include the failure in vehicle technology and any other causation factors.

The amendment therefore confuses the role of a statutory inspector with that of the in-use regulatory scheme and the police. In doing so, it inadvertently contravenes a long-standing fundamental principle in incident investigation: learning, not blaming. In developing the inspector role, we have been guided by international standards, best practice and precedent, including that established by our own exceptional existing transport accident investigation branches. All three of these branches conduct no-blame investigations.

I have similar concerns that his Amendment 41 also risks departing from established precedent in safety investigation. An inspector must be able to report neutrally and factually without being influenced, directly or indirectly, by any person or organisation. Historically, this has extended even to Parliament. Indeed, none of the reports published by the existing air, maritime, and rail accident investigation branches are required to be laid before Parliament. However, I am happy to reassure the noble Lord that it is absolutely the Government’s intention to make all the inspector’s reports, findings and associated recommendations publicly available on GOV.UK, as is the case for the existing branches.

I confirm that specific testing for self-driving vehicles will be considered for inclusion in the MoT. Naturally, this will need to be an evolutionary process, developed in line with the introduction of the technology. The MoT will continue to play an important role in ensuring the ongoing maintenance and roadworthiness of the vehicle. However, we will not depend on it to ensure that self-driving vehicles drive safely. Authorisation places the obligation on the authorised self-driving entity to ensure that its vehicles continue to satisfy the self-driving test. The Bill grants powers to set requirements, secure information and issue sanctions as necessary to ensure that this is done. The review proposed in Amendments 25 and 59 could therefore unnecessarily delay the implementation of Bill.

On the noble Baroness’s specific question, in the event of an authorised self-driving entity ceasing trading, safety must be the priority. It would not be right for a vehicle to drive itself without someone taking responsibility for how it behaves. Given that this market is still emerging, there is much that we do not know about future ownership models and what consumer protections will therefore be needed. However, I can confirm that the important issue of the handling of ASDEs’ insolvency will be considered, following consultation, as part of establishing financial and good-repute requirements for authorisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am always happy to meet the noble Lord.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and thank all those who have taken part in this short debate. I want to pick out a couple of things. One is about the urgency of the reform of the MoT, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which stands in a bit of contrast to the Minister’s point. I am delighted that the Minister has acknowledged that there is a need to reform the MoT, but I believe that he used the word “evolutionary”. Evolution can move very slowly. One point that has come across from noble Lords across the Committee is that current vehicles are part of the way there and have a whole system of software that needs attention in an MoT. I hope that the Minister will take away the fact that those changes need to be worked on with some urgency and that we need changes to the MoT in the near future.

Very good points have been made about the need for skills strategies, and to make the best of innovation by having the skills that will be needed. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part and withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I suspect that between Committee and Report, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and I will discuss this in detail. We might even try to do it at the meeting with the Minister.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I once again thank noble Lords for their contributions in this group. Self-driving vehicles present an opportunity to radically improve the accessibility of transport. In particular, automated passenger services could help open up new transport links in areas where accessible services are currently limited. As colleagues rightly point out, however, it will take work to get this right. Indeed, I remind the House of the Law Commissions’ comments on this subject; they said:

“there is much that is not known about how passenger services will operate in the absence of a driver. The immediate need is to collect more evidence and gain more experience, particularly on issues such as accessibility and safeguarding”.

The Government have taken that on board. We are undertaking research to improve our understanding of the current driver duties, so that we may better design requirements to ensure journeys are accessible. Further, applicants for passenger permits will not only be required to show how they are designing services to meet the needs of older and disabled people but obliged to publish reports on how those needs are being met in practice. That is in addition to the requirements under the public sector equality duty, to which I referred in our earlier debate.

On Amendments 53 and 57, we recognise the importance of co-designing the development of self-driving vehicles with disabled people. In our policy paper Connected & Automated Mobility 2025, we committed to setting up an accessibility advisory panel before we launch the passenger permitting regime. The panel will advise on the granting of permits and assist in the development of national minimum accessibility standards. Although we have chosen to do that through non-statutory means, such a body is in line with the principle underpinning the Law Commissions’ recommendation.

The Government already have a statutory adviser on transport accessibility in the form of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The committee has an established role in providing independent advice to the department. It provided feedback as part of the Law Commissions’ review, and its expertise will be brought to bear alongside the advisory panel. Creating further statutory roles risks duplication; I do not wish to see additional complexity added at the expense of a material improvement in outcomes. By contrast, the flexibility offered by a non-statutory solution enables a tailored response that can adapt quickly to the rapid evolution of policy in this area.

I turn to the proposal for a “statement of accessibility principles” put forward by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. I absolutely recognise the points he raised and the intent of his amendment, and I reassure him that the measures in the Bill already provide scope to consider accessibility at every stage. As I said during our last debate, the Government will require anyone seeking authorisation to submit an assessment of fair outcomes. As well as considering accessibility for people with different needs, the assessments will cover data biases. Applicants will be required to include plans for how they will avoid their vehicles unfairly discriminating against particular groups, as was recommended by the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation.

My noble friend’s amendment highlights the importance of adopting a whole-journey approach when reviewing accessibility. In his very apt words, there must be a “golden thread” running from the physical vehicle design to the booking system, the integration with public transport, the support offered by operators and beyond. Indeed, the respective roles of each of those elements will likely change considerably as the technology develops and as users become more confident. That is why we look to address those important issues in Part 5 of the Bill as part of the automated passenger services provisions. These provisions allow us to set specific requirements covering the whole-passenger experience, rather than splitting them across the authorisation and operator licensing processes. As I said, accessibility is a mandatory consideration in setting those requirements.

We have already indicated in our policy scoping notes that equality and fairness are likely to be included as part of the statement of safety principles. Therefore, a second set of accessibility principles may create overlap. However, I hope that this offers my noble friend some reassurance that the intent of his amendment is already being considered.

Finally, I turn to the proposal that Clause 83 be removed. Clause 83 disapplies existing taxi, private hire and bus legislation to vehicles operating under an automated passenger services permit. The application of existing public transport legislation to self-driving vehicles is complex and uncertain. While it will remain possible for providers to be regulated under these regimes, as was the case for the CAVForth bus project in Scotland, relying on this alone could leave gaps in regulation. This in turn could lead to unintended consequences and hamper the development of the automated passenger services industry. Therefore, the Law Commissions recommended offering a separate bespoke scheme, creating a clear and lawful route for service providers to become licensed. As well as bringing clarity, this has allowed us to create a modern, flexible framework, specifically designed to help grow our understanding of how automated passenger services can best support people with disabilities. The Government want public transport to be available to all. The intention of Clause 83 has never been to undermine that goal. Its purpose is simply to avoid the ambiguity and potential overlap in how current passenger licensing laws might apply to service providers.

In conclusion, I respectfully ask my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond to withdraw his Amendment 26A. I look forward to discussing these issues further with him and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in the coming days.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response.

The reality is that the current measures on accessibility in the Bill are not specific and are insufficient. To my noble friend Lord Borwick, I say that it is entirely possible that we could add to Clause 87 to make it specific to and sufficient for that purpose; I will certainly get my drafting pen out between Committee and Report.

I look forward to the meeting with the Minister to cover these issues. It is essential that we get them right at this stage. I will give an example of what happens if we do not. For many years, and potentially still, there have been stations on our network that are described as fully accessible; they are marked as “fully accessible” stations on the overall map of the network, be it in London or nationally. Indeed, they are: if you arrive at the stations, they have wide gates; if you have access needs or are a wheelchair user, they have audio announcements; and if you happen to be visually impaired or blind, they have lifts that enable passengers to access the platform. They are fully accessible stations—but you cannot board the train when it arrives. That is why it is critical to look at the golden thread of accessibility for the end-to-end experience. Just one small step, be it even tiny, can trip up the whole process of enabling an accessible experience.

The Bill needs to be beefed up on accessibility, otherwise it will be a game of catch-up and missed opportunities. The Minister said in winding up that there is “scope” for that, but scope is not actuality. He said that there is potential and opportunity, but opportunity is not inevitability. We have the opportunity in the Bill not to slow anything down. Through the input of disabled people from the outset, we can actually speed up the process and have free consultation from them—although everybody who is part of the co-production should, rightly, be paid and supported.

More needs to be done between Committee and Report. The opportunity that accessible automated vehicles provide cannot be left to go the way of other transport developments over the previous 200 years. We will certainly return to this between Committee and Report, potentially with some specific amendments on Report, but for the moment I beg to withdraw my Amendment 26A.

Driving Licence: Young and Newly Qualified Drivers

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are planning to introduce a graduated driving licence for young and newly qualified drivers.

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

My Lords, the Department for Transport has no plans to introduce a graduated driving licence scheme for young drivers. The department commissioned the £2 million Driver2020 research project to examine interventions designed to help learner and newly qualified drivers improve their skills and safety. We look forward to receiving the findings from that project, which will feed into considerations on further measures we could take to improve road safety for young drivers.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that, in Wales, seven young men—still teenagers—lost their lives in tragic car accidents in the few weeks before Christmas. Year after year, young drivers, particularly young men, are grossly overrepresented in road casualty rates, and research shows that a combination of inexperience and incomplete brain development often features in the cause of accidents—although I obviously cannot comment on the two concerned. There is widespread support for graduated driving licences from the Association of British Insurers, the RAC, Brake, Project EDWARD and the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. Will the Minister agree to add to the work that the Government are currently doing a thorough look at their recommendations to see whether it is now time for graduated driving licences in order to save these lives?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I assure the noble Baroness that the Government take this very seriously and are always prepared to listen to what others have to say. Going back to my earlier point, our largest young driver research piece is the Driver2020 project, an evaluation of interventions to improve the safety of young, novice drivers in partnership with the Transport Research Laboratory. It started in 2019 with 28,000 learner and novice drivers taking part and was completed in summer 2022. We look forward to getting the report this year.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a qualified HGV driving instructor; I have done a lot of work with young drivers. Why does my noble friend the Minister not understand that young, novice drivers are completely ill-equipped and unable to block out distractions from youngsters in the back of the vehicle unless they have an older driver with them?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I do understand that. It is not a question of generalising; not all drivers are that bad. We must aim at making sure that the young, novice driver—who is perhaps not as experienced as others—is properly dealt with.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, while one has enormous sympathy with what is behind this Question, how can the Government get into these matters of further sophistication when there is an enormous waiting list for driving tests? The last stated figure was an 18 and a half-week wait for a driving test, which is very important to people trying to get jobs. The Government are supposed to be working towards a nine-week target. Can the Minister report progress on that, or is it just another example of a country that is not working any more?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I cannot give the noble Lord exact figures on that issue, but we will have a look at it and perhaps write to him.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, no one wants to prevent young people getting in their cars to get jobs and so forth. But with the considerable increase in the volume of traffic, particularly on motorways, and the introduction of smart motorways, is it not ludicrous that a novice driver can pass their driving test and drive straight on to a motorway or in the dark, both of which they may never have done before?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I take my noble friend’s point, but I think noble Lords should be aware that on acquiring their first full licence a new driver is on probation for two years. During that time, they are subject to a limit of six penalty points for any driving offences, including any received when in the learning stage. If six or more points are received, the driver loses their full licence and must apply again for a provisional licence, re-entering the learning stage, so it is quite stringent.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the noble Lord agree that one reason why young people sometimes drive so badly—and why so many young people are convicted of driving without insurance—is that the cost of insurance is way outside the budget of most families, even when the child in that family has learnt to drive through a driving school? Is it not time that the Government and the insurance industry got together to talk about educating young drivers to drive better and to obtain more driving experience?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. He makes a very good point, and it is something which the Government could well look at.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who will be 70 later this year. Can my noble friend explain why it is that when you are 70, you have to reapply for your driving licence? Why pick on 70?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Can I say that I agree with my noble friend? At the age of 70, drivers must renew their entitlement and, at most, every three years after that. To renew the entitlement, they must make a legal declaration that they can meet the standards required to drive and confirm that they have listed any medical condition. That is the important point: whether there are any new medical conditions.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, while I support reviewing the issue of young drivers, perhaps if the Minister is to do that, he will look at older drivers. As far as I know, there have not been any young drivers driving up motorways in the wrong direction.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Again, I would say that it is about, every three years after becoming 70, making a medical declaration to ensure that a person is of sound mind and able to continue driving on our roads.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, many Members of this House are grandparents with teenage grandchildren. I say as one of them that it is exceedingly alarming to know that a new driver who has just passed their test can take a number of youngsters out after a party or some other gathering or to a gathering. Hopefully, they are not breaking the law by drinking, but the behaviour in the car and the distraction is a genuinely serious issue and a major cause of many of the accidents about which we are concerned.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right; I cannot disagree with her. That is why the Government have commissioned the young driver research piece, the Driver 2020 project, and I hope that it will produce some suggestions as to how we may deal with this.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I want to apologise to the House. About a year ago, I got up and claimed that insurance and other details said that women drivers were substantially better drivers than men, and I wanted to argue their case. Sadly, within 24 hours of my asking that question, two female members of my family committed minor offences in motor cars. I therefore wish to ask my noble friend to try to justify my position by indicating that between young drivers—young people of both sexes—young women drivers are safer drivers for insurance purposes than young men.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am afraid I am not in a position to comment on that. What I can say, on a very serious point, is that, overall, the figures for 2022 are that one fifth of all car collisions resulting in death or serious injury involved young drivers aged between 17 and 24. In 2022, 1,365 young car drivers were killed or seriously injured. Young male car drivers aged 17 to 24 are four times as likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with all car drivers aged 25 or over.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the major factors leading to the death or serious injury of those aged between 17 and 24 is a higher incidence of drink and drugs among that cohort, which is well known by the insurance industry? Does he recognise that we have the weakest rules relating to the amount that one can drink in the whole of Europe, apart from Malta? Is it not time that, when they come to undertake the review following the evidence being presented, the Government take action and require them to stay away from drinking in the way that they do at the moment?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. I appreciate everything that he says.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, to which I have added my name. I added my name because, as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and a previous member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, I am used to looking at what different departments consider to be proper consultation. This Government have a very poor record on recognising what is really inclusive consultation. I cannot think of a topic with a broader range of organisations to which the Government should be offering consultation than safety on roads. Almost everyone in our nation uses the roads in one way or another and has the right to a viewpoint and to have it considered.

It is probably a very little-known fact that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee keeps a record of the progress of individual departments on issues such as this. The Department for Transport does not have a wonderful record on consultation and reporting. Consultation cannot be only with the organisations, for example, producing the automated vehicles. It has to be with a whole range of organisations representing people who use the roads and directly with the people who use the roads themselves. I support the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, in his views.

Amendment 55, which is in my name, would require the Secretary of State from time to time to review the rules for driving tests to ensure that the public can safely drive both automated and non-automated vehicles in places where there are many automated vehicles on the road. It would also allow the Secretary of State to update the rules on driving tests. It is blindingly obvious to me that, over time, people’s driving skills will wither and die if no effort is made at keeping them refreshed.

This is an issue that the Transport Committee of the House of Commons addressed directly in paragraph 63 of its report:

“Greater automation will reduce time spent driving. Over time drivers may become less practised and therefore less skilled. Conversely, the demands on drivers will grow as they will be called upon to retake control of vehicles in challenging circumstances with little notice. The Government should set out a strategy for the future of human driving in a world of self-driving vehicles. This should include possible changes to driving tests and a plan to ensure that all drivers fully understand self-driving vehicles and both acquire and maintain the necessary skills for taking control of a vehicle in all circumstances”.


Looking at the circumstances in which you would retake control of a vehicle, it seems it would be when it has become too complex for the automated vehicle to cope. You would be sitting there, quite relaxed, and suddenly you would be in an emergency situation. That requires new and different skills and a new and different approach. It is essential that the Government look at the driving test and the issue of refreshing skills. This is going to be possibly most acute as an issue for older drivers and for young and inexperienced drivers. Skills can become stale very quickly.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has one approach to this in Amendment 47; I have a slightly more urgent approach in Amendment 55. The principle of the two amendments is the same. The issue needs to be looked at and it needs to be looked at now, so that everyone is prepared for when this situation comes into existence—which people tell us could be in the next few years.

I urge the Minister to give us a positive response on the issue of consultation and to reassure us that the Government are considering the issue of skills.

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

My Lords, the amendments in this group concern external oversight of the operation of the self-driving regulatory framework. This includes duties to report and consult.

On the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, it is a mischaracterisation to suggest that the issue of safety is simply being left to the department, and I said nothing of the sort. Indeed, it is on the face of the Bill that the statement of safety principles is to be developed in consultation with stakeholders—a point I will return to shortly—and subject to proportionate parliamentary scrutiny.

Turning to the noble Lord’s Amendments 11, 46, and 49, the Government are clear that we will consult with representative organisations on the proposed use of the Bill’s powers before they are used. Following government best practice, we anticipate this will bring in the views of the public, academia, trade unions and other representative bodies for affected groups. Notwithstanding the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, it remains the case that this is a particularly uncertain policy area with a rapidly developing industry, and any statutory list of consultees risks falling out of date rapidly. Additionally, I note the consultation that has already taken place as part of the Law Commissions’ four-year review, which included road safety groups, trade unions and businesses. Many of the concerns raised during this process have already been reflected in the Bill. Examples include the introduction of the incident investigation function and the embedding of accessibility into the automated passenger service permitting process. On Amendment 49 specifically, we also believe an external advisory council of the type proposed would risk duplicating the vital functions of the statutory inspectors conducting independent safety investigations.

On Amendment 55D, an extensive public engagement programme has already been conducted over the course of the many years spent developing this legislation. That work is not stopping. For example, in 2022 we funded an unprecedented study called The Great Self-Driving Exploration. This award-winning public engagement exercise was explicitly designed to allow people from all walks of life to understand and give their views on how self-driving vehicles might affect their lives. The learning from this research is being used to develop future engagement plans, including ones that will inform our programme of secondary legislation. We also run the AV-DRIVE group, which focuses on how we can all engage consistently about self-driving vehicles. The group brings together vehicle manufacturers, software developers, vehicle leasing representatives, insurers, road safety groups and others. Work to date has focused on education, communication and building public understanding of the technology. This will also be supported by Pave UK, a new resource hub and education group launching this spring, with government support. I hope this offers my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond sufficient reassurance.

Amendments 32 and 33 look to attach additional requirements to the general monitoring duty set out in Clause 38. This clause requires that reports be published on the performance of authorised automated vehicles, including assessments of the extent to which this performance is consistent with the statement of safety principles. Since the principles are required to be framed with a view to securing an improvement in road safety, any assessment against them is already an assessment of safety. The exact format of these reports is yet to be determined and will likely vary depending on the number and types of relevant deployments in any given year. However, I can confirm they are expected to include some fleet-level reporting on safety incidents. Finally, the existing publication requirement in subsection (3) will ensure that reports are available for all interested parties, including parliamentary colleagues. For these reasons, Amendments 32 and 33 are unnecessary.

I turn now to Amendment 30. Clause 43 specifies that authorisation and licensing fees may be determined by any costs incurred, or likely to be incurred, in connection with any function under Part 1 of the Bill. This includes the cost of controlling data collected through information notices. Part of these fees may therefore be used in relation to this function. However, to require separate reporting on these specific costs could add an additional administrative burden and therefore additional costs to the in-use regulatory scheme. It would therefore be disproportionate.

On Amendments 47 and 55, the Government recognise the importance of keeping driver skills up to date in a self-driving world. However, this needs to be done on an ongoing basis rather than to arbitrary reporting cycles. The foundations of that work are already well under way. We have commissioned research on how authorised self-driving entities can best educate those who use their vehicles, and we expect appropriate user training and support to form part of authorisation requirements. We have already updated the Highway Code to explain the difference between driver assistance and self-driving. Just as satnav use is now part of the driving test, driver training will continue to evolve with the arrival of new technology. For example, the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency is already drawing on research from the RAC which proposes the new CHAT procedure, thereby teaching users of self-driving vehicles to “Check”, “Assess” and then “Take over” control.

I hope that this goes some way to reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that these issues are at the forefront of the Government’s mind and will continue to be tackled on an ongoing basis over the coming months, years and even decades. In answer to the noble Baroness’s specific point, a user-in-charge is not expected to retake control at a moment’s notice. There are safeguards in place in the Bill to promote safe transition, including requiring multisensory alerts and sufficient time to resume control. Vehicles must also be capable of dealing safely with situations where the user-in-charge fails to resume control.

In conclusion, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, see fit to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I return to the point the noble Lord made about taking over control and not taking over at a moment’s notice. From what I have read, 10 seconds seems to be the period specified for taking over control. Is that the Government’s accepted view? What research have the Government used in order to home in on that particular period, because 10 seconds is actually a fairly short period in which to get oneself from relaxed to fully in control of emergency situation mode.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a fair point. I cannot give her an absolute answer on that one, but it is something I will certainly look into and come back to her on.

--- Later in debate ---

Thirdly, on the question of an advisory council, I take the point that you might want to have flexibility of membership, but establishing an advisory council does not preclude that. As members of an advisory council, surely you would want to have the interest groups concerned with road safety, as well as having the organisations that represent cyclists, just to cite two examples. You would not ever want to exclude them from a role in commenting on proposed regulation. So again I do not see that this is an objection in principle. It would actually help the Minister to have an advisory council on what will be, as we all accept, very difficult issues.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am grateful for the point that the noble Lord makes, but I come back to the point that the Government are very clear that we will consult representative organisations on the proposed use of the Bill’s powers before they come into force. The noble Lord seems to imply that these bodies are not onside. As I have said previously, we anticipate that we will bring in the views of academia, trade unions and other representative bodies, so I do not really accept what the noble Lord says.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 11.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, we on these Benches have no amendments in this group, largely because the area is so complex and we cannot rustle up anybody bright enough to understand it—I wish I had got a good lawyer. Hence, I would like to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Brinton and Lady Randerson, for making the subject so interesting and explicit. The closest I got to this area was trying to read the whole Bill, which I staggered through over Christmas. I kept coming across these various little phrases, including the one about such a weak defence for giving away my data. I really feel that the three Baronesses have a very strong point. I look to the Government not to dismiss it because they were told to give no points away but to take it back and discuss with the noble Baronesses how this Bill can be improved. It is a horrible precedent to see data handled so loosely and in such a cavalier manner.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, once again I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I begin with Amendments 29, 34 and 42, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. The protection of personal and commercial data is of course a critical issue and one that requires careful consideration. On Amendments 34 and 42, all information collected and shared under Clauses 42 and 88 is subject to restrictions on unauthorised use, breach of which constitutes an offence. Where personal data is collected, this is also subject to data protection legislation. This information can be disclosed or used only for the purposes specified in the regulations made under each respective clause.

As set out in our policy scoping notes, this is a novel policy area, and it is not yet known exactly how information may need to be used or shared. However, as the examples in the notes illustrate, this is likely to be for public interest purposes such as road safety or improved passenger services. On the basis that information sharing will be proportionate and in the public interest, a requirement to pay commercial compensation would be inappropriate.

To further support data protection, the Government will be considering the recommendations by the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, in its report Responsible Innovation in Self-Driving Vehicles. These include a recommendation to work with the Information Commissioner’s Office to issue guidance on how data protection obligations apply to self-driving vehicles.

On Amendment 29, all information required to be shared under Clause 14 will be subject to the requirements and safeguards of data protection legislation. The Bill does not change these protections. This information will be used for regulatory purposes to ensure the safe and legal operation of self-driving vehicles. It will also be used to determine criminal and civil liabilities associated with the use of these vehicles. Again, these purposes are proportionate and in the public interest. Businesses will be aware of the regulatory requirements for information sharing prior to seeking authorisation or licensing, and the information will be subject to these obligations from the outset. There would therefore be no expectation that it could be treated as commercially confidential information which holds a market value.

I turn to Amendment 31. The department does not notify entities when using information obtained under an investigation and used in the public interest— for example, to improve road safety. In the case of Clause 22(2), the information would be used for

“any of the investigative purposes in relation to any regulated body”.

These purposes aim to ensure the continued safe and legal operation of self-driving vehicles, and are therefore in the public interest.

The amendment would place an additional administrative burden on the Secretary of State that brought minimal benefit to the regulated body in question, as the investigative purpose would continue none the less. In the case of a regulatory issue being identified, the body would be notified by the appropriate regulatory action, such as a compliance notice. This would then allow the regulated body to challenge the use of information by representations under paragraph 5 of Schedule 1.

On Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I recognise that she made a characteristically incisive series of detailed points on these issues. I will be happy to meet with her, in addition to the separate meeting we have scheduled on accessibility, to have a fuller discussion on her questions, and I extend the same invitation to other noble Lords.

We believe it is right that the protection of personal data will be considered alongside the detailed development of authorisation requirements—it is an important issue. These requirements will be set out in secondary legislation and will be subject to consultation and impact assessment. The schemes referred to in the amendment are industry led and therefore not within the control of government. There is therefore a risk that they would not achieve the intended result.

On Amendment 35, it is the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office to regulate on data protection issues. The ICO has an existing obligation to report annually to Parliament on the commissioner’s activities. Any report by the Department for Transport would risk duplicating this work. The Department for Transport is also not the data controller for information collected by regulated bodies, which means that such reporting would be inappropriate. Further, the Secretary of State already has a duty under Article 36(4) of the UK GDPR to consult the ICO on proposals for legislative measures. Amendment 36 therefore duplicates an existing requirement.

On Amendment 55B, the Information Commissioner’s Office is the independent regulator responsible for upholding information rights in the public interest. Given its role as a whole-economy regulator, it would be unnecessary and duplicative to establish a separate third-party body, with the same expertise, to oversee the use of personal data by self-driving vehicles.

I turn to the proposal that Clause 42 be removed. Clause 42 contains provisions that constrain the use and disclosure of information obtained through the regulatory framework. The removal of these provisions would open up the possibility of personal data being processed in a much wider manner, such as for reasons of “legitimate interest”. This would amount to a weakening of the data protections in the Bill.

On the points raised about national security, whole-life cyber resilience will be tested as part of the approval processes. The UK has co-chaired the UNECE group developing standards in this area, and government is working with colleagues in the National Cyber Security Centre and the National Protective Security Authority on these issues.

Finally, on the point regarding the protection of personal data when selling a vehicle, in cases where manufacturers and supporting services store data outside the vehicle, all relevant data protections will need to be met. If a vehicle user has given access rights and connections to personal information, it is the responsibility of the user to delete the data from the vehicle. Indeed, this is the same approach as that applied to devices such as mobile phones, which contain similarly large quantities of sensitive data. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments on this.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

Can I just clarify something? I accept what the Minister says. In most cases there may be a public interest provision and there are not statutory protections on the information that the public interests can win. But where there are—I will take the statutory protection of a patent—that is essentially exerting a Crown user provision with no compensation, which would offend against international treaties.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. She raised a number of important points that I have perhaps not addressed fully, and I would be very happy to go back and write to her comprehensively on a couple of them.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

Will the Minister copy that to those who have been involved in the debate?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I omitted to say that I will copy in all those noble Lords.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all the contributors to this debate. We are delighted that others have been so supportive of our amendments, which cover a considerable range of data protection issues. I am grateful to the Minister for his response and thank him, because, yes, I think a meeting is particularly important. He said in response to my noble friend Lady Bowles’s first amendment that the Government are not yet sure how data will be used or shared. That is the reason that the ICO is so clear that there needs to be extra provision, because otherwise, if everyone just assumes that it will be the way we have always used GDPR, we—being the Government and the public—are going to come a cropper pretty quickly, not least because technology has changed, is changing and will change again so fast. I hope that, as we have our meeting and progress towards Report, the Government will seriously consider following the ICO’s advice and make very clear, designed-by-default arrangements for this sector, which will be like none that we have seen so far. With that, I withdraw my amendment.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I will quickly come in to comment on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, while first referring to my interests in the register, which I referred to in more depth at Second Reading. The comment I made, which was mentioned so generously by the noble Lord, is that his Amendment 13 talks about a “specified manufacturer”. However, there are two different ways of making an automated vehicle. One is to make it from scratch—something that Tesla does. The second is to adapt somebody else’s vehicle, as Waymo, Wayve, Oxa and other automated vehicle people do. Because the word “manufacturer” is defined in type approval legislation, I believe that those companies are not called “manufacturers” because they are adapting somebody else’s vehicle. So there is a problem in using the words “specified manufacturer” for those who are adapting other vehicles. This is all part of the immense complexity of this subject and it is not surprising that it would be easy for an amendment to fall into the wrong section if we were not very careful about it.

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to colleagues across the House for their contributions this afternoon and for the discussions that we have had on the Bill in recent weeks. The amendments in this first group relate to the assessments we will apply both to vehicles and the corporate entities that operate and take responsibility for them.

I will begin with Amendments 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, all tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas. I whole- heartedly agree with the points that he and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, raised about the importance of standard setting. Indeed, we are already well established in the key international fora on these issues and are funding the British Standards Institution to help develop industry best practice. However, as always, a balance must be struck between the benefits of leading the way and the risks of acting prematurely. I absolutely acknowledge what my noble friend says about the intention of these amendments. None the less, taken at face value, these amendments risk creating an inflexible system that could hamper, rather than enhance, the UK’s international influence in this industry.

I will take each amendment in turn. On Amendment 14, it is the Government’s view that the number plate remains fit for purpose and that mandating an alternative, as yet unproven, technology would be of little value without significant investment in the corresponding roadside monitoring equipment. On Amendment 15, our policy scoping notes already set out our intention to consider passenger communication as a component of operator licensing. We believe that this is the right place to specify these types of requirements. On Amendment 16, Clause 12 requires that licensed operators oversee their vehicles and respond to issues that may arise. This means that the ability to monitor location is already implicitly required. The requirement to indicate availability is confined to automated passenger services. It is therefore disproportionate to apply it to all self-driving vehicles.

Moving on, we believe that the intent of Amendment 17 is already provided for. In order to satisfy the self-driving test, Clause 1 requires that vehicles be capable of operating safely and legally. A vehicle that was able to enter self-driving mode while aware of a safety-critical fault, such as a sensor failure, would not satisfy the self-driving test and would not be authorised.

Turning to Amendment 18, self-driving vehicles must be capable of operating using the road infrastructure as it exists today. This will necessitate the ability to recognise the range of signs currently found on our roads. Adapting road signs or developing other way-markers to accommodate self-driving vehicles is therefore, in our opinion, unnecessary.

Finally, we believe that Amendment 19 is already largely addressed by the stopping powers provision in Clause 57. I hope this also addresses the point raised by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. I will finish on this section by assuring my noble friend Lord Lucas that we will get a prompt response to his email regarding the Eastbourne scheme.

I turn now to my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond’s Amendment 55C. The benefits of harmonisation must be considered carefully against the impact on innovation, costs and cybersecurity. A harmonised interoperability standard will be lengthy and complex to negotiate. Doing so quickly risks picking the wrong technologies and falling behind.

Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, risks confusing the role of the no-user-in-charge operator with that of the authorised self-driving entity or ASDE. Before a self-driving feature can be authorised, the ASDE must demonstrate the technology can deal safely with faults by executing a minimum-risk manoeuvre and bringing the vehicle to a safe stop. We would not wish to undermine this key ASDE responsibility by suggesting that a no-user-in-charge operator can compensate for inadequate design in the technology. Operators will of course be subject the ongoing requirements of their licences. We will have broad powers to ensure these are followed.

Moving on to Amendment 13, I reassure the Committee that all manufacturers will be subject to the same high expectations and robust requirements, regardless of who they are. To arbitrarily constrain the pool of manufacturers which can be authorised would risk stifling innovation. Our focus is rightly on ensuring that corporate entities meet the appropriate standards of competence, repute, financial standing and technical capability. The powers in Clauses 6 and 91 already make ample provision to set such standards. On the point the noble Lord raised about national security, such issues could be taken into account in a consideration of the good repute requirement.

On Amendment 26, Clause 10 already requires that the register of authorisations be made public. In line with standard practice for official government publications, I can confirm that this will be done online. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Turning to Amendment 43 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, we intend to explore technical solutions to ensure that automated vehicles cannot operate unless they can do so safely. For example, we could require a vehicle to check it has the latest software update before the self-driving feature can be engaged. Such provisions are possible under the powers of the Bill. Due to the technical nature of such requirements and the continued development of the technology, this is best achieved through secondary legislation. We also have the safeguard that, where an authorised-self driving entity ceases to assume responsibility for the vehicle, the vehicle’s authorisation would be withdrawn. In such a case, standard consumer protections would apply. On the specific question of responsibility for safety- critical updates, this sits with the authorised self-driving entity as the body accountable for a vehicle’s safety.

This brings me to the noble Baroness’s Amendment 22. I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also touched upon this issue. The Bill does not prevent foreign vehicles from being authorised as self-driving in the UK. However, they will naturally need to demonstrate that they are capable of operating safely and legally on our roads. Requirements to be overseen by an appropriate authorised self-driving entity and licensed operator will also apply as usual. Any non-authorised feature would be classed as driver assistance. The driver could therefore be charged with motoring offences if they divert their attention from the road. Of course, appropriate information will need to be provided at the border. We are working with international partners to develop guidelines to facilitate automated vehicles passing from one jurisdiction to another, including as part of the relevant UN expert group. In the interim, we expect other jurisdictions to apply similar safeguards as we intend to, for example, that vehicles’ systems be designed to deactivate outside of their authorised geographic area. I hope this offers the noble Baroness a sufficient explanation of the position.

On Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, the Government agree that real-world testing will play an important role in ensuring the safety of self-driving vehicles. That is why we are already funding real-world trials here in the UK. Setting requirements for real-world testing through the powers in Clauses 5 and 91 will allow these requirements to evolve alongside the standards they assess. Regarding the “substantial” amount, I would also add that it is ultimately the quality of testing that matters, rather than the quantity. This point was made very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge. For example, 100 hours of rush-hour driving is likely to be more revealing than 1,000 hours of navigating empty streets. Again, these nuances are best captured in secondary legislation.

Moving finally to the noble Baroness’s Amendments 20 and 27, the Bill leaves flexibility for financial standing to be demonstrated through insurance cover—a model we refer to in our policy scoping notes. While I believe it would be too specific to make a reference on the face of the Bill, it will be appropriate to expand on this issue as part of authorisation and licensing requirements. I will welcome the noble Baroness’s expertise if she wishes to make representations at that stage. Lastly, I can confirm the Government’s wider consultation on insurance captives is due to be published in the spring. On that basis, I hope the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I was struck by my noble friend’s answer on Amendment 43. Is he saying that, should one of the small innovative companies we have in the UK go bust, anybody who has bought their product will immediately find it is valueless because they are no longer allowed to use it? That would seem a considerable disincentive to buy kit from small British companies.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am sorry if the noble Lord took that view of it, but that was not my intention.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his responses. At this stage, of course, everything is probing. I possibly still entertain a hope that we can have some little light-touch mentions that are not overbearing somewhere in the text. Maybe we will return to some of these issues on Report.

There are one or two things other noble Lords have said that I would like to touch on. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned connectedness. We are falling into a bit of a trap if we start talking about the connectedness of automated vehicles, because the big prize is the connectedness of all vehicles—those which are driven and those which are automated. That is where the real benefits to traffic management and the economic benefits reside. That is a much bigger scheme of interconnectedness, and we are doing ourselves a disfavour by almost sidelining the connectedness and connected car issues as if they are something small and of less importance than the big goal of automated vehicles. In the near term, connectedness is a lot more relevant and moves into what is happening with automated vehicles. We should try to think of it as more of a whole.

I am aware on the simulation aspects, which were addressed, and that we cannot have millions of hours of road driving. Simulations are important and it is an iterative process between simulated tests and road tests. I am perhaps reassured that that is what is in mind. I still do not like the vision that, sometime in the future, it might happen that there are absolutely no road tests—even small ones. Maybe it is wrong to try to insert “substantial”, implying that—this is not what I intended—it would be more than the simulated tests. I still think there should be a significant amount in there for a very long time into the future.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said that his main interest is safety. Certainty is quite fundamental to safety. There is lots more to get to, so I will not say any more now. With the notion that I might return with this in a gentler form on Report, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I dare say the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will be pleased to know that I have amendments later that relate to the need to improve things such as the quality of road surfaces for all this to work smoothly.

As several contributors have emphasised, this group points to the limitations in the narrowness of the Bill’s scope. My noble friend Lady Bowles’s amendments address the limitation to public roads and highways, rather than to the marginal areas. The problems of this limitation have been addressed by organisations representing cyclists, for example, and other more vulnerable road users, as well as organisations already engaged in the automated delivery sector. If you think about it, when you have a product delivered to your home by a drone, in most cases that drone is required at the last point to leave the highway or pavement and go on to private land.

This is important. As a nation we are very concerned about road safety and prize it very highly. Although there have not been many improvements to road safety in the past 10 or 15 years, we have previously been very proud of an improving record on safety, and public expectations remain there. If you think about the process of accidents and injuries on the roads, many injuries, and much physical damage to buildings, are caused by accidents that take place off the highway, when a swerving vehicle hits a boundary fence or a house, for example. Those who have spoken, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have referred to the high number of injuries to children. This will be at the forefront of public concern in judging automated vehicles.

My noble friend also referred to the coexistence of traditional vehicles and automated vehicles. For possibly two decades we will have a hybrid system, so any expectations have to take that into account.

I turn now to the amendments to which I added my name, which are amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Liddle. The Law Commission reports emphasised that the public have high expectations of road safety. They used the point that there is strong support among the public for criminalising those who do not drive safely, and they transferred that concept into the situation in relation to support for automated vehicles. The experience in San Francisco illustrates the dramatic impact of accidents involving automated vehicles on support for them and trust in them. There is support for the progress of these vehicles, and the concept of them, across the Chamber. Therefore, it is so important that the Bill gets the approach right.

I support several amendments in this group, all of which are aimed at raising safety standards. The definition of safety must be more ambitious than that set out in this Bill. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents gave evidence to the Transport Committee in the other place and made it absolutely clear that the expectation has to be much better than just improving on average. It must be more ambitious. It must be an improvement in safety across the board, not just an “on average” approach to it.

I am well aware that there are international definitions of safety in this context, and I am sure the Minister will explain where the Government’s definition sits within those international expectations. To my mind, an acceptable standard is just not adequate, because you could have a situation in which the average safety has improved but, when you look at the detail, all the improvement lies in the reduction in motorway accidents, and to offset that there is an increase in accidents involving cyclists, pedestrians, older people or disabled people. It could be the more vulnerable road users who are badly impacted, so I am interested in the Government’s concepts in relation to this, and how they intend to approach this issue in detail.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, as has already been mentioned, this group relates to the standard of safety to which we will hold self-driving vehicles. Clause 1 establishes the concept of the self-driving test: the basic principle that a vehicle must be capable of travelling safely and legally to be authorised as self-driving. With Clause 2, we then establish that the application of the self-driving test is to be informed by a statement of safety principles. The Government will be obliged to develop those principles in consultation with relevant stakeholders and to lay the statement before Parliament before any self-driving vehicles can be authorised. Noble Lords will recall that this approach—in which the safety standard is established in statutory guidance—was recommended by the Law Commission. I also recognise the desire to see a standard articulated in the Bill. That is the rationale behind the safety backstop in Clause 2(2), which states that the safety principles

“must be framed with a view to securing that road safety in Great Britain will be better”

due to the use of self-driving vehicles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I am not sure I heard the Minister. Did he say that, of the three tests that the Low Commission proposed, the Government’s test of “better than average” was the highest standard?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

What I said was that, naturally, I believe our ambition is the right one. As the noble Lord himself touched on, it is the highest of the three standards consulted on by the Law Commission. It gives a straightforward—

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but the Law Commission, in the next paragraphs, says that the “competent and careful driver” test is the highest standard, not the Government’s aspiration of at least on average. We can leave it for now, and the Minister can write to me with an apology, or I can write to him with an apology, if one of us is wrong.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

With respect to the noble Lord, I think there is a misunderstanding here and he thinks that we have picked the average. Perhaps we can clarify that with him at a later date.

To continue, it gives a straightforward, publicly understandable indication of the level of safety that the Government are looking to achieve through the more formal mechanisms we are establishing in the Bill. However, to incorporate this language as proposed would, once again, override the principle established by the Law Commission—in other words, that the appropriate level of safety is ultimately determined by public acceptance of the risk, and that the safety standard should be set out in statutory guidance. That then allows the standard to be evolved as necessary on the basis of consultation.

I add that the wording of the amendment would appear to require a standard even higher than that of the safety ambition. While I know that this is well-intended, we must also be mindful of the risk of stifling genuine near-term safety improvements by setting an unnecessarily stringent target early on.

Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, looks to make the statement of safety principles subject to the affirmative procedure. While we acknowledge the arguments that he puts forward, it is the Government’s view that the Highway Code remains the most salient precedent for the safety principles. It follows that a negative procedure, comparable to that applied to the Highway Code, is most appropriate in this instance.

Turning to Amendment 8, the use of the phrase “significantly better” is, again, open to interpretation and risks introducing ambiguity. More pertinently, the second part of the amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, looks to ensure that improvements in road safety apply to all road users. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, also look to explore a similar point in Amendments 6 and 7. I can confirm that, just as in the Highway Code, the current reference to road safety already applies to all road users. Similarly, it is established that “road” encompasses pavements and similar areas; road safety is therefore not strictly confined to incidents occurring on the carriageway itself.

On the specific comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, all vehicles subject to authorisation as self-driving vehicles must be intended or adapted for use on roads. Although private driveways are mostly out of scope, the authorisation can recognise use in places other than roads, as referenced in Clause 4(4). The use of vehicles on private land is covered by other legislation.

Returning to the issue of equality and fairness, I can confirm that it will of course be explicitly considered during the development of the statement of safety principles. The granting of self-driving authorisations will also be subject to the public sector equality duty, and we intend to make an assessment of fair outcomes part of the authorisation process. I believe that the remainder of Amendment 6 is already provided for by Clause 1, which specifies that the assessment of a vehicle against the self-driving test must refer to

“the location and circumstances of … intended travel”.

A further reference in Clause 2 is therefore unnecessary.

On Amendment 10, we already envisage that the statement of safety principles will reflect the simultaneous presence of both self-driving and conventional vehicles. Indeed, this is implicit in the requirement set out in Clause 1(3). However, we also wish to preserve flexibility for the principles to cover scenarios where only automated vehicles are present. The amendment would preclude that option.

On Amendment 2, in the spirit of the initial comments by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I begin by offering a brief clarification. His comments slightly confused the concepts of a no-user-in-charge vehicle and a user- in-charge vehicle. A no-user-in-charge vehicle can complete a whole journey in self-driving mode, and any human in the vehicle is merely a passenger; it will never need to hand back control. A user-in-charge vehicle can complete only part of a journey in self-driving mode, so a human will be expected to take control of the vehicle to complete the journey. The Bill requires that this person be in the vehicle and in a position to assume control; for virtually all current use cases, that will mean being in the driving seat. However, there may be some future use cases and designs—perhaps in larger vehicles, such as buses—where control could be exercised from multiple places within the vehicle.

The amendment, as drafted, would allow for human-controlled vehicles to be considered autonomous, provided that the human did not sit in the driving seat. One of the key concepts of the Bill is that liability should be transferred away from the human driver when a self-driving feature is engaged. It would clearly be inappropriate to do that in a situation where a human still exercised control over the vehicle, regardless of their physical location.

Finally, I will briefly address the question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about drivers under the influence. The Bill is clear that the user-in-charge immunity does not extend to the condition of the driver. The person acting as the user in charge in a vehicle could therefore be prosecuted for being under the influence in the same way as a conventional driver. This makes sense, considering their responsibility to resume control if directed to. As I have said, when a no-user-in-charge vehicle is driving itself, everyone in the vehicle is considered simply a passenger. Just as for passengers in conventional vehicles, there is no requirement that those individuals be in a fit state to drive. On that basis, I respectfully hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will see fit to withdraw Amendment 2.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his response. I shall read it with enormous care. Perhaps we will have to meet in order to achieve a common view. With that, all that formality requires is for me to beg leave to withdraw Amendment 2.

Refurbishing Trains: Contracts

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

Alstom’s Litchurch Lane factory in Derby has provided high-skilled jobs for generations, but uncertainty over the UK rail industry and the lack of long-term strategy means that those workers are now in jeopardy. The workers are a national asset. People are one of the scarcest assets in this country; an asset that must be looked after to preserve the capability to lead to long-term growth.

Last Thursday, the Rail Minister in the other place, Huw Merriman, said:

“We will be doing everything we can to assist Alstom in keeping that plant open”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/23; col. 486.]


That is a very hard, precise commitment. Can the Minister tell us what action the Government have taken in the light of that promise?

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

My Lords, we have been actively involved in discussions with Alstom for several weeks on this matter and have held frequent meetings with the company to look at options around its production gap. We will continue to work with Alstom. A cross-departmental task force has been established and officials are meeting Alstom regularly to discuss how best to support employees at risk of redundancy.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, in the past, when a major long-standing employer such as Alstom hit a crisis, the Government used to blame the shackles of EU competition law. Well, we are not bound by that any more, so who will the Government blame now? The truth of the matter surely is that the Government need to provide certainty on the new orders required.

The managing director of Alstom, in evidence to the Transport Committee in the other place, made it clear that one of its immediate problems is uncertainty over whether the Government will pursue the £2 billion contract for all the 54 HS2 trains they have ordered. Can the Minister tell us, here and now, whether that is the case? Will the full order still be required?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. What I can say to noble Lords that manufacturers are ultimately responsible for sourcing work for their assembly plants. There are upcoming procurements in the market being run by Northern, Southeastern, TransPennine and Chiltern. It is a competition process that is open to all manufacturers to bid, including Alstom in Derby. The department is also working with the Treasury to set out a pipeline for expected rolling stock orders, to provide the sector with further clarity over the near term.

Regarding HS2, Alstom are part of a contract with Hitachi to design, build and maintain HS2 trains for phase 1 only.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, may I wish the Government all the best in ensuring a future for Alstom? Who is responsible for ensuring that the overhead electricity wires are fit for purpose? We have seen three outages in two different parts of the country, one of which lasted three days and caused absolute havoc on the east coast main line. This cannot be sustainable. Will the Minister assure us that there is a rolling programme of improvements and refurbishment of the overhead lines, particularly on the east coast main line?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Well, we have been subject to adverse weather, of course. I can, however, assure my noble friend that Network Rail is responsible for overhead lines. I will take her comments back to the department.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not think the Minister answered properly the question about HS2. It was, in my view, a disastrous decision made by the Government to cancel the Derby and Manchester links, so can he tell us how many trains were required, had those links still been about to be built, and how many trains are now required, so we can work out the deficit for ourselves? While he is about it, will he please answer a question which his department has repeatedly been unable to answer for me as a Written Question: precisely how much money has been lost—wasted—as a result of the cancellations to which I have referred?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The noble Lord asks two very fair questions. I do not have those details to hand, but I will ensure that he gets them in written form.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, last week in the other place the Department for Transport said that the contract tenders for refurbishing existing trains would be brought forward very soon. Time is short for Alstom, the only end-to-end manufacturing facility in the UK. Can the Minister give any assurances about how soon these contracts will be brought forward, because the days are now being counted down?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I cannot give any specifics in terms of days, but the department is certainly aware of this and will bring it on as soon as possible. I assure the right reverend Prelate that, if I can ascertain exactly how many days, I will write to him with the information.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, it may be my fault, but I have not actually understood whether the current HS2 contract with the company is or is not going to go forward.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The contract with HS2 and Alstom will go forward in terms of phase 1.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister says that there will be investment in the railways. We know that there is money being kept safe from the cancellation of High Speed 2; how much of that is going to be transferred to northern schemes, because it looks quite clear that the Government are transferring money intended for the north down to the south?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

If I am correct, I believe it was somewhere in the region of £30 billion to £34 billion.

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords, having had a small passion around railways and networks—in fact, the last time we ordered some new rolling stock for London, I was with the then mayor as we brought the S stock trains into London—I have looked at the timelines and supply chains, especially with manufacturers in and across the UK. Does the Department for Transport have a view on what rolling stock may be part of the ordering book when we look at network north plans, and also for plans for the London Underground, which seem to be going a bit slower than they should be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Well, the department is always talking with rail operators and manufacturers. Of course, rail manufacturers play an important role in growing the UK economy, and there is a strong pipeline for future orders for UK rail manufacturers. As I perhaps alluded to earlier, there are upcoming procurements in the market being run by Northern, Chiltern, TransPennine and Southeastern; this competition process is open to all manufacturers to bid, including Alstom. As I said earlier, the department is also working with HM Treasury to set out a pipeline for expected rolling stock orders, to provide the sector with further clarity over the near term.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, is not here for this, because he is the guilty man, as he was the Minister who privatised the railways in such a chaotic way. As well as the overhead lines and the rails being run by one company, and the actual services by other companies, the LNER reminded me recently that it does not actually own its trains—it only rents them. It is total chaos. I seem to remember that this Government—on their last legs now, but nevertheless—suggested some kind of “Great British Rail” set-up, to try to improve the position. What has happened to that?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

It has been the case for many years that train companies lease their rolling stock, and that still is the case.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, could the Minister unpack the statement he has made, which sounds so very reassuring, that the Government will abide by the contract for the purchase of trains for phase 1 of HS2? Surely, the train manufacturer invested and provided facilities for the HS2 project overall. The same trains of course would run beyond Manchester when the line was extended and, therefore, you cannot mix and match two different sets of trains. Has he looked at the economics of the decision that has been made and understood what the consequences are for the manufacturer with which he is contracted?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I say, in answer to the noble Baroness’s question, that Alstom is part of a contract with Hitachi to design, build and maintain HS2 trains for phase 1 only. Phase 1 of HS2 between Birmingham and London will continue, with a rescoped Euston station. We expect Alstom’s contractual obligations to be honoured with HS2 Ltd.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

In that case, I apologise, but I agree completely with what the noble Baroness said. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Berkeley and agree with the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Borwick, on this issue. It is the responsibility of Parliament to set the framework to empower Transport for London to make these regulations, but their detail should be a matter for it and it should be given the power to do this. One of the amendments I have tabled suggests that we push ahead quickly with this and that TfL should be given the power to get on with it as quickly as possible. I suspect that the real argument one ought to have concerns whether this is a Westminster borough issue or a London-wide one, but it makes the most sense for TfL to have the legal responsibility. I am sure that the borough of Westminster will be consulted by it on this matter very thoroughly.

This is certainly an important principle. If we want speedy action in this area, it should be supported across the Committee. With great respect to civil servants in the Department for Transport, it is also ridiculous that they should spend their time monitoring these, which are, frankly, of minor significance in the overall scope of their responsibilities. I therefore urge the Government to think again on this matter, otherwise, we might have a bit of an argument on Report.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ consideration of the Bill and very much welcome the scrutiny of those here today as it continues its parliamentary passage.

This first group of amendments covers the process for secondary legislation made under the Bill. Before moving on to the amendments tabled by noble Lords, I will explain the purpose of the two government amendments that have been tabled. Amendments 44 and 46 are intended to provide clarity on the parliamentary procedure for the secondary legislation that will come forward to regulate London’s pedicabs. Let me take them in turn. Amendment 44 makes it explicit that Transport for London would have to obtain approval from the Secretary of State to make a pedicab order; this should assure the Committee that there will need to be consensus between the Government and Transport for London.

On Amendment 46, convention dictates that only Ministers may lay orders in Parliament, and Transport for London would therefore be unable to do this. Again, this amendment is intended to be explicit on this point, making it clear that Ministers would be responsible for laying a pedicab order. This is the right approach. The Bill will require that pedicab regulations be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the negative resolution procedure. This strikes an appropriate balance between conferring a discretion on Transport for London to consult and design pedicab regulations, and a scrutiny role for Parliament in their approval. The opposing amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seem to suggest that the Bill’s drafting and procedure is in the right place. As I set out, it will be subject to the negative procedure. The point raised my noble friends Lord Borwick and Lord Moylan on the immediate response by the Secretary of State has been taken on board, and we will go back and look at it.

Some noble Lords challenge this notion, pointing to Transport for London’s experience regulating London’s taxis and private hire vehicles, and the fact that London cab orders are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. However, the taxi industry is well established and the Bill marks the first legislation specifically targeted at the pedicab industry. It is right that there is a role for Parliament. Although the Government understand that Transport for London has no intention to ban pedicabs outright and is primarily committed to making the industry safer, these amendments should provide noble Lords with assurance that Transport for London will not be able to unilaterally prohibit pedicabs from operating.

That leads me to Amendments 1, 6, 10, 13, 27, 29, 30, 37 and 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. They seek to replace Transport for London with the Secretary of State, meaning that the Secretary of State would consult on and design pedicab regulations, as well as holding responsibility for matters such as setting licence fees and imposing civil penalties. I have already set out the rationale for Parliament having a role in pedicab regulations. These amendments would represent a fundamental shift in the Bill’s approach. Transport for London is best placed to consult on and design pedicab regulations that meet its needs. In recognition of what will become a newly regulated industry, the Bill provides a clear role for Parliament.

The Clause 6 stand-part notice addresses the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who has indicated an intention to probe why Parliament has a role in scrutinising pedicab regulations made by Transport for London, instead of the London Assembly. So too does Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. I hope my comments have provided clarity on this matter.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

The only real justification the Minister offered for Parliament retaining this degree of control is the possibility that the Greater London Authority and TfL might want to ban pedicabs altogether. What is his evidence that there is even the slightest possibility of this on the horizon? The present mayor has no intention of doing that—he wants them properly regulated—so is the Minister saying that the Conservative candidate for the mayoral election next year will come out for banning pedicabs altogether? What is the justification for retaining this power? Remember: all this stuff about Parliament retaining the power is nonsense. We know that we have very little control over what happens and over the content of statutory instruments, although we debate them. The power rests with the Minister and the department. Why on earth should the overworked Department for Transport want to spend its time messing around with the detail of whether pedicabs have mirrors and what the level of fines on them should be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

In the interests of efficiency, before the Minister replies, I will get in a third intervention because it is along the same lines. He said that this could be done by Parliament rather than the London Assembly because this was the first time that regulations had been produced for pedicabs, but that is not in practice the case. Local authorities across England outside London have—maybe not after long debate in the House, but certainly in practice—been given the power to regulate pedicabs. As I said, they have done so in a number of cases. I have made inquiries. The Department for Transport does not keep records of how many local authorities have these regulations in place, but it is aware of a number of places that do. They exist; they have had time to be trialled.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I can only repeat that convention dictates that only Ministers can lay orders in Parliament. Therefore, Transport for London would be unable to do so. The amendment is intended to be explicit on that point, making it clear that Ministers would be responsible for laying a pedicab order.

We do not consider that the Government would have to consult. Transport for London would have to consult prior to bringing pedicab regulations forward.

Amendments 2 and 15 in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley seek to impose a statutory requirement on Transport for London to make pedicab regulations, and would require pedicab regulations to make provisions under the matters covered by Clause 2(6). It is right that the Bill provides Transport for London with a discretion to determine how pedicab regulations are designed. Clause 2(6) provides that flexibility, and Transport for London has indicated that it will introduce regulations covering matters under that subsection. In any case, those regulations will need to be consulted on and, as I have set out, a consensus will be needed between the Government and Transport for London.

Transport for London is supportive of the Bill and the need to regulate London’s pedicabs. As such, the Government expect Transport for London to commence work to bring forward pedicab regulations following the Bill’s passage. I emphasise that Transport for London has been asking for the Bill, so we expect it to be industrious in the forming of the legislation.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken to this group of amendments. There is a big variety of opinions, from “The Department for Transport should do everything”, to “Transport for London should do everything”—I am sure that we will come to that later.

I would like the Minister to reflect on the equivalent structure that the Government might propose if and when we ever get some legislation on electric scooters, which we have all been asking for but are not allowed to talk about on this Bill, because electric scooters are used more widely than in London. However, they are a new form of transport, authorised in certain towns and cities by the Department for Transport with the local authorities’ blessing. When it comes to producing legislation on electric scooters, which anyone can buy, own and use, how does the Minister propose that it is done? Would it be by each local authority, the Department for Transport or a combination of both? What would be the quickest way to get it to work? I leave the Minister with my comments and views on that, on which I am sure he will come back at some stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, it is our earnest hope that the Government listen carefully to the common sense of the points made on these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, spoke with typical common sense. The Government need to take account of what she said and bring forward amendments to reflect her concerns. I also agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley said on that subject.

With our amendments in this group, we are trying to make sure that there is a flexible mechanism in the Bill so that the definition of a pedicab can be changed in the light of experience. That is sensible so that it can be done quickly to counter any attempts that people may make to escape the Bill’s provisions or get round them in some way. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to that concern in his reply.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this second group of amendments focuses on the definition of a pedicab. I will open my remarks by addressing the Government’s amendments first.

The Government listened carefully to the points raised at Second Reading and have tabled Amendment 50 with the purpose of expanding the definition of “trailer”, for the purposes of the Bill, to include sidecars or vehicles pushed by a pedal cycle. This will ensure that pedicab drivers and operators cannot circumvent the intent of the Bill and future regulations by transporting passengers in a separate vehicle to the side or front of a pedicab. The other government amendment in this group, Amendment 43, is consequential to this change.

These government amendments address Amendments 3 and 42, tabled by my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. The amendment tabled by my noble friend seeks to expand the definition of “pedicab” to include

“a cargo box with seating attached to the front of the pedal cycle”.

Similarly, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord seeks to add “affixed carriage” to the definition so that the Bill captures scenarios where passengers are carried to the side or in front of the driver. As I mentioned, the government amendments have, hopefully, addressed any potential loophole here.

On the amendment tabled by my noble friend, the Government completely agree that passengers sitting in a cargo box should be subject to regulation. Under the current text of the Bill, this would be the case. This is because nothing in legislation defines a cargo box or cargo bike. A cargo box fixed to a bike with seating would form part of “a pedicab”. This is not a separate wheeled vehicle like a trailer; it is a pedal cycle adapted for the carrying of passengers, as per the definition in Clause 1(2). The Government hope their amendments have effectively addressed the issues raised by both noble Lords and satisfied my noble friend that those not in business will not be affected.

I will address Amendments 4 and 5—tabled by my noble friends Lady Anelay and Lord Blencathra—together, as they relate to linked issues. My noble friend Lady Anelay’s amendment seeks to probe whether “reward” captures minor gifts and to clarify the Bill’s intention towards those carrying passengers but not operating a business. My noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendment seeks to exclude trailers designed for the carrying of babies and small children from the Bill’s scope. The Government understand that these amendments seek to achieve similar goals. To be clear, the Bill defines pedicabs in terms of being

“made available with a driver for hire or reward”.

This excludes from the scope of pedicab regulations the possibility of, for example, parents transporting their children using a pedal cycle.

The Government reflected on my noble friend Lady Anelay’s comments at Second Reading and are content that “reward”, as referenced in Clause 1(2), is unlikely to capture the giving of minor gifts. Instead, the Bill’s intent is instances where the reward is agreed in advance of a service being provided. However, the Bill’s provisions might feasibly capture instances where there is a formal agreement for an individual to transport other people’s children on a daily or regular basis in return for a pre-agreed payment. Such an individual would be providing a service, and it is not clear that this would be sufficiently different to the type of services the Bill intends to regulate to warrant exclusion from it. Ultimately, it will be for Transport for London to take a view on such matters in designing the regulations. It may choose to take certain types of pedicab usage outside of the regulations’ scope.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I am rather thrown by what the Minister said at the end of his remarks, which implied that he thought the transport of children to school would be counted as a pedicab and therefore subject to this regulation. Please can he clarify this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

For clarification, the Bill’s provision might feasibly capture instances where there is a formal agreement for an individual to transport other people’s children on a daily or regular basis in return for a pre-agreed payment. I can only repeat what I said: it is not clear that this would be sufficiently different to the type of services the Bill intends to regulate to warrant exclusion from it.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

What is wrong with the amendment suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to remove the word “reward”? If a pedicab is for hire then it is for hire; that is quite clear, but “reward” is not. Someone might pay their au pair a reward to take their kids to school in the back of such a vehicle, or they might be paid by someone else to take their kids. The thought of these wonderful parents in west London who are trying to be green and trying to work out whether they are obeying the law or have to apply to TfL for a licence is a bit worrying.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

“Hire or reward” is a recognised legal term in taxi and private hire vehicle regulations. The Bill intends the plain meaning of the word “reward”. A scenario where an individual receives a gift as a thank you is unlikely to be captured under the Bill’s provisions. The reference to a pedal cycle or power-assisted pedal cycle being made available with a driver for “hire or reward” is focused on instances where the reward has been agreed prior to the service being delivered.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported my attempt to clarify matters. Having spoken to Amendment 4 and heard colleagues speak, I think I have encouraged the Minister to be less clear rather than more—although I appreciate that he is doing his best to clarify the position on what “reward” means. The base of this is that it can mean different things in different circumstances, and we need to focus on what it means within the circumstance of the Bill.

A moment ago, my noble friend the Minister repeated his point about the activity of someone who has not made a prior agreement for payment to carry someone. For example, my neighbour might agree to carry my grandchild, if I had one, without us making a prior agreement that there will be payment or reward for it—I might be sick and just ask them to do it for me. That, to me, is an instance that should not be caught by any regulation. I know that my noble friend the Minister is doing his best to explain why it should not come within the range of the Bill, but what he has to say in order to give leeway is that it is unlikely to be captured by the provisions of the Bill.

I appreciate that drafting legislation must be a nightmare. Having seen a raft of Bills over the years from three Governments—the coalition and Conservative Governments—and having been Chief Whip for seven years, I appreciate that it is a heck of a job. Often, legislation cannot clearly prescribe rules for every instance. I am really asking my noble friend the Minister: if we end up somewhere where we cannot be clear that a good Samaritan will not be clobbered by these regulations, can we at least make it clear to them that they might be clobbered and that they need to take that into consideration? I would be grateful if the Minister might consider that between now and Report. I am not expecting that to be in the form of an amendment, but it would be helpful if we had further explanation about the relationship there will be between the Government and TfL in terms of how and when regulations are brought forward and what kind of process goes on within the Department for Transport when it considers whether to say yea or nay to those regulations. Clearly, as the Minister said, this is new territory—I know the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, does not agree with that and says there is existing territory around the country to provide for this—but we want to be sure that those who are doing a kindness to others do not find themselves having to go through Criminal Records Bureau checks. That is the old term of course; there is different terminology for those now.

In the meantime, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for trying to tease this out. It would be helpful to know from him a little more, in future, about how the Department for Transport will handle what will, to start off with, be quite a difficult interface between TfL and the department: both will want to get this right, but they may have a different definition of what “right” means. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, before I get on to the points in this group on e-scooters and e-bikes, including the clause standing part, I will deal briefly with the others. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on Amendments 7 and 9 seem sensible. I can think of no reason why something on those lines could not be incorporated in further government amendments. On Amendment 16, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and my noble friend here spoke on the need for the strict regulation of people who are licensed. Again, we strongly support that.

The main question that people have raised is about e-powered pedicabs, e-scooters and e-bikes. On this side of the Committee, we were hoping that the Government were going to live up to their promise to produce a comprehensive transport Bill, which would have covered rail and bus licensing, and all these other issues. They have completely failed to do that and decided just to go for two relatively minor issues: pedicabs and autonomous vehicles. These have merits in themselves, of course, but it is disappointing that the Government have not given us the opportunity for a comprehensive look at transport regulation.

I hope the Minister will listen to the strength of feeling that has been expressed in this Committee about the Government’s failure to come up with a credible policy on e-scooters and e-bikes. I think he must realise that this is not a party question; it is a question of public safety on which people are looking for action. Maybe this Bill has been drawn up such that it cannot offer that action but, on Report, the House is entitled to expect a full statement from the Government on their intentions to regulate in this area. I ask the Minister quite bluntly: is it his intention that he will come forward with that statement before we come to Report?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this third group of amendments has covered a range of policy matters. I will again endeavour to address the issues raised in turn, but I point out at the outset that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to the intentions of the Government to restrict. It is really not the intention of the Government to restrict the use of these pedicabs. We understand that they are enjoyed by visitors; the intention is solely to ensure that they are safe and properly licensed.

Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to place requirements on who Transport for London must consult before making pedicab regulations. The Government understand the intention behind this amendment, but it is not immediately clear that this would have a practical impact. Transport for London is fully supportive of this Bill and has a clear interest in its provisions being applied correctly through regulations. It consults frequently on a wide range of issues and is well versed in conducting public consultations of this nature. In fact, it has already indicated that a pedicab consultation would be extensively publicised and promoted to the pedicab industry, members of the public and stakeholders, including the police, London boroughs and resident and business groups. I hope this provides the noble Lord with some reassurance.

The noble Lord asked about where they can operate. It is clear that regulations may be made for the purpose of regulating pedicabs in London. Practically, pedicabs operate in Westminster and central London hotspots, and Clause 2(1) will also allow Transport for London to place conditions on their licences.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

The Minister said that they operate in London—what is the definition of London? I met some people today who were talking about pedicabs in Paris. Apparently, there is a big problem with them around Charles de Gaulle Airport. I do not know whether that is within the definition of Paris. These people may suddenly decide to sort things out at Heathrow or Gatwick, so is there a geographical limit to which these regulations will apply?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I venture to suggest to the noble Lord that this is a matter for Transport for London when it forms the regulations. It is not for me to suggest, but it might decide that they will apply within the London boroughs.

Amendment 9, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to define objectives to which Transport for London must have regard in making pedicab regulations. Transport for London has confirmed that, in establishing a licensing regime for pedicabs, public safety will be its primary concern. Beyond this, it has stated that it recognises the need for regulations to tackle issues such as noise nuisance, street and pavement congestion and excessive charging. This should offer comfort to the noble Lord about Transport for London’s intentions. These matters are likely to form part of the public consultation and continue to inform Transport for London’s thinking as regulations are developed. Furthermore, issues raised by this amendment such as safety, fare control and licensing are covered by provisions contained in the Bill. Therefore, at this stage, it is not appropriate to constrain or pre-empt the consultation or pedicab regulations by being overly prescriptive in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is seeking to probe why e-scooters and e-bikes are not covered in Clause 1, as mentioned by other noble Lords. The Bill is limited in scope and focused on addressing the legal anomaly relating to London’s pedicabs. As such, practically, it extends to Greater London only and its focus is pedal cycles used for transporting passengers for hire or reward. The inclusion of e-scooters and e-bikes would appear at odds with this scope. E-scooters and e-bikes are generally used by individuals to undertake personal travel. They are not used to transport passengers for hire or reward. Consequently, the issues that this Bill seeks to address do not appear to apply to e-scooters or e-bikes.

There is also national legislation, not limited just to Greater London as this Bill is, that applies to e-scooters and e-bikes. E-bikes are already regulated by the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983, while e-scooters are considered motor vehicles under the Road Traffic Act 1988. As such, e-scooters are illegal to use anywhere other than on private land or as part of government trials unless they meet the requirements of motor vehicles in terms of technical requirements, insurance, registration and so on.

The Government recognise that there are issues with e-scooters that we need to address, but this Bill is not the appropriate place to do so. As has been mentioned, we recently extended the e-scooter trials until 31 May 2026 to continue to gather evidence on how best to legislate for micromobility, including e-scooters, in future. Given the pressure on legislative time, that legislation will not come forward in this Session, unfortunately. Ahead of that, the Government intend to consult on the detailed approach for regulating e-scooters; I believe that that consultation and the future legislation will be the appropriate place for noble Lords’ points to be addressed.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

That being the case, is there any instruction, guidance or request that the Government can make of the police in the intervening period to enforce the law around the private use of e-scooters on public roads?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

It is a matter for the police to administer in terms of any offences that may be caused, but I take my noble friend’s point. I will take her point back to the department.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned a forthcoming consultation on e-scooters. I realise that this is a difficult issue for him, by the way; I am not trying to be difficult. Can he give us any indication of when it might take place and whether a consultation paper on this subject will be produced in the next month or two? If he cannot do so this afternoon, will he come back to us quickly on the Government’s plans for this consultation? He must recognise that there is tremendous strength of feeling on this issue and that the Government will have to do something to assuage the strong feelings in this House.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I understand the strength of feeling. I will certainly ensure that we write with any information regarding a forthcoming consultation.

I turn to Amendment 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, which seeks to require Transport for London to carry out its pedicab licensing functions with a view to promoting the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. Although the Government agree that these are important aims, the Licensing Act 2003 focuses on the licensing of the sale of alcohol and tobacco, as well as the provision of entertainment. Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing is not included in the scope of the 2003 Act. This means that these objectives do not apply to pedicabs outside London, where they are regulated as taxis. In fact, the taxi and private hire vehicle legislation that applies in England, as well as what applies in London specifically, does not explicitly state the objective of licensing as it was introduced for the protection of the public through regulation. Therefore, the approach proposed by my noble friend does not seem appropriate in this case. I instead point to the relevant statutory duties and requirements placed on Transport for London as a public body overseeing services to the public.

I turn to Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It seeks to expand Clause 2(4) so that pedicab licensing fees could be set at a level that enables investment in wider transport infrastructure in Greater London. The Government feel that this amendment would impose an unfair burden on pedicab drivers and operators—one that goes beyond the established principles on how licensing fees are set by local authorities. It would result in a different approach to pedicab licensing compared to taxis, which pedicabs are licensed as outside of London, and private hire vehicles. The Government’s intention in enabling Transport for London to regulate pedicabs is to help the emergence of a sustainable and well-regulated sector. This amendment may discourage reputable pedicab drivers and operators from continuing to ply their trade.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I apologise for forgetting to mention that amendment in my speech. What made us put it forward is the fact that there are a lot of problems with pedicab parking. They may require adjustments to roads and pavements, which can be quite expensive for local authorities; I know that as a former member of one. It seems only reasonable to us that such costs should be recoverable.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I understand where the noble Lord is coming from but I am afraid that it does not alter my response to his submission.

I move next to Amendment 16 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Storey, which I will address alongside Amendment 31, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. These amendments relate to enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks for pedicab drivers and operators. Amendment 16 would make these checks compulsory and Amendment 31 would require the Government to bring forward the necessary regulations within 90 days of this Bill receiving Royal Assent.

Amendment 16 would bring parity for London’s pedicab drivers with taxi and private hire vehicle drivers—including pedicab drivers outside London, where pedicabs are regulated as taxis. Transport for London has been clear that an effective licensing regime must be underpinned by enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks, and has raised the associated risks of bringing forward regulations without this requirement in place. This is a matter that the Government are actively looking into. We have requested that Transport for London submit evidence clearly making the case for these checks; this will be assessed in due course.

However, making pedicab drivers in London subject to enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks will, following the passage of this Bill, require changes to the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002, as amended, and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. There is no guarantee that this can be done in parallel with the Bill.

Amendments 47 and 48 have been tabled in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. They seek to add a statutory requirement for there to be consultation or a review period for pedicab regulations.

Amendment 47 proposes to add a further consultation requirement six months after the Bill comes into force. Its purpose is to assess whether pedicabs should be prohibited in London or have conditions placed on their operations based on safety concerns.

Amendment 48 proposes that a 12-month review of pedicab regulations becomes a statutory requirement, its purpose being to assess the necessity of further regulations. The Government understand that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is potentially to broaden the scope of the Bill so that e-scooters and e-bikes fall within it. As I have set out, the Government are continuing to gather evidence to support further policy development in this area, which noble Lords have already discussed. The Bill’s scope is narrow and focused on addressing the legal anomaly relating to pedicabs in London.

As regards a review, the Government agree that, as this legislation paves the way for the first regulatory regime designed specifically for pedicabs, the impact of regulations will need to be reviewed. The timescales proposed by these amendments would not allow sufficient time to assess the impact of regulation adequately, as there will no doubt be a need for regulations to bed in and sufficient time will be needed to gather evidence. However, the Government are committed to undertaking a voluntary review of the policy five years post implementation and would work with Transport for London to conduct this assessment.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

Amendment 47 has nothing to do with e-bikes or e-scooters; it is about power-assisted pedicabs. It suggests that TfL must consult

“persons as they consider to have an interest … on whether to prohibit … the use of power-assisted pedicabs in Greater London on grounds of safety”.

Many noble Lords have spoken about the safety risks, including me. This is purely about power-assisted pedicabs and whether there should be a review of the safety of the power bit—obviously—of pedicabs. It is nothing to do with e-scooters or e-bikes. I would be grateful if the Minister could either respond to it now or write to me about the grounds of safety of power-assisted pedicabs in the review.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I take the noble Lord’s point; I will have to come back to him in writing on that.

I turn to Amendment 52, the final amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It seeks to bring forward the commencement of this Bill to immediately after it receives Royal Assent. The two-month period is a standard convention for government Bills. A benefit of this approach is that it provides sufficient time for the pedicab industry, in particular reputable operators, to prepare for the introduction of licensing and a regulated industry. In this case, there appears to be no practical advantage to the Bill coming into force immediately. During the two-month period between Royal Assent and the Bill’s provisions coming into force, Transport for London will be able to undertake preparatory work such as developing its consultation.

I turn to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Foster, on batteries, which we will cover a little later on in consideration of this Bill.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, when the Minister comes to address Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—he said he would write to him about that—would he mind also addressing the point about pedicabs that are no longer powered by pedal? By what regulations are they then caught? We are seeing bicycles surreptitiously masquerading as bicycles when they are in fact motor vehicles. If he could address that point, that would be very helpful, but he does not need to do so now.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I apologise for not addressing that but I will ensure that it is addressed in letter form.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate on this group of amendments. I am sure that we all have a lot to think about. On some things, I hope that the Minister will come back to us with some answers; for others, we will probably have to wait for another Bill—under another Government, even. However, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this fourth group covers operational matters. I will now address each amendment in the group.

Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, seeks to probe why existing legislation is not sufficient to cover immigration status and right-to-work checks. The Government’s expectation is that, as in the taxi and private hire vehicle industries, the majority of pedicab drivers will be self-employed. Self-employed individuals are not subject to right-to-work checks undertaken by employers under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. The Immigration Act 2016 made immigration checks mandatory and embedded safeguards into existing licensing regimes across the UK. In London, this was achieved through amendments to the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 and the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. Clause 2(2) intends to ensure parity between a pedicab licensing regime in London and taxis and private hire vehicles. Its exclusion would create a gap, leading to the sector potentially being exploited by those who intend to work illegally.

Pedicab ranks, which were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, will be a matter for Transport for London to identify and establish. With regards to the Hammersmith Bridge issue that she mentioned, I am happy to meet but I suspect that, again, Transport for London will have to decide on that.

Amendments 17 and 18 have been tabled in the names of a number of noble Lords and relate to noise nuisance caused by pedicabs. I will therefore respond to them together, if I may. The Government are very aware of the concerns held by noble Lords and share them. The Government assure the Committee that they are taking this issue seriously and have sought assurance from Transport for London over its policy intentions. Transport for London has confirmed that pedicab regulations would cover the conduct of drivers, including playing loud music and causing disturbances.

Given Transport for London’s clear intention and the scope of Clause 2(6), which confers broad powers on to Transport for London, this would seem sufficient to address noble Lords’ concerns. However, the Government welcome the views shared in the Committee, and noble Lords will be pleased to hear that the question of whether this matter requires specific provision in the Bill remains open.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I am hugely grateful to my noble friend for what he just said and welcome it very much. In considering whether this should be added to the Bill would he share with us whether, given my concern that noise is not only out of bounds after certain times but an issue 24 hours a day, that is something the Government can also take account of?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My noble friend raises a very valid point and something that we will take into account.

Amendment 19, in the names of my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Strathcarron, Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and Amendment 21, in the names of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Foster of Bath, all relate to Clause 2(6) of the Bill, so I will address them together.

The matters listed under Clause 2(6) are intended to provide a discretion for Transport for London to determine what is most appropriate in bringing forward pedicab regulations following a consultation. This is not an exhaustive list; it rather provides flexibility for Transport for London. However, the Bill is clear that pedicab regulations could cover matters such as the quality and roadworthiness of pedicabs; safety and insurance requirements; the equipment that must be carried on pedicabs; their appearance or markings; and testing requirements. The Government consider that this gives Transport for London sufficient scope to address issues, such as those covered by these amendments in pedicab regulations.

Amendment 22, in the names of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Foster of Bath, seeks to require the batteries in power-assisted pedicabs bear the marking UK conformity assessed or the European equivalent—CE or conformité Européenne. These markings denote conformity with statutory requirements. I note that the requirement for power-assisted pedicabs to meet suitable product regulation is covered by existing law and therefore this amendment is not necessary; I will explain why this is the case.

As is the case with all e-cycles and e-scooters, power-assisted pedicabs need to comply with several product safety regulations. These include the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008. These regulations set out essential health and safety requirements for how the product must be designed and constructed.

Power-assisted pedicabs, as a whole product, are regulated under these regulations. These require manufacturers to ensure that pedicabs meet essential health and safety requirements and that the relevant conformity assessment procedure is undertaken. The manufacturer would then affix the UKCA or the CE marking before the product could be sold in the UK. To be sold lawfully on the UK market, power-assisted pedicabs must already have this marking. If they do not, they are in breach of the regulations.

Noble Lords may point to examples of pedicab drivers or operators adapting their power-assisted pedicabs after they have been purchased. Product regulations would not be relevant here; however, I again point to Clause 2(6) of the Bill, which provides scope for TfL to set out the expected standards for pedicabs through the regulations.

Pedicab batteries are not subject to a regime that requires the UKCA marking to be affixed to them, but the Office for Product Safety and Standards is in the process of reviewing the position with regard to these batteries. Once that review has taken place, my friend the Minister in the other place, Minister Hollinrake, will assess what appropriate and targeted action should be taken.

While pedicab batteries are not subject to an independent regime that requires the UKCA marking to be affixed to them, they must comply with the Batteries and Accumulators (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008. This restricts the substances used in batteries and accumulators and sets out requirements for their environmentally friendly end of life.

Amendment 23, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, seeks to allow Transport for London to place a cap on the total number of pedicabs operating in London. As the Committee is aware, the Bill will regulate the industry for the first time. The introduction of licensing is likely to see a short-term reduction in the number of pedicabs, as drivers exit the industry rather than apply for a licence. Over time, it is likely the industry will find a natural level in response to passenger demand.

The Government’s intention is to support the emergence of a safer, fairer and sustainable pedicab industry. This amendment could undermine the role of competition in that process. Competition benefits consumers by incentivising operators to give value for money to innovate and improve service standards. The existing powers in the Bill, which enable Transport for London to place limitations on pedicab operations under Clause 2(7)—including restricting the number of pedicabs operating in specified places or at specified times—are therefore considered sufficient to manage London’s pedicabs.

Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, seeks to prohibit pedicabs being driven in cycle lanes. As I have set out, Transport for London will be able to place limitations on where and when pedicabs can operate, under Clause 2(7) of the Bill. Transport for London has indicated that it will consider prohibiting pedicabs operating on major roads and tunnels, as it does already for cycles, in the interests of public safety. This will be an aspect of Transport for London’s consultation, prior to making pedicab regulations.

Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, proposes to empower the relevant traffic authorities—in this case, Transport for London and London boroughs—to designate pedicab ranks. Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, similarly relates to pedicab ranks, specifically seeking to make provision for Transport for London to designate them.

Transport for London has confirmed that it will give proper consideration to the question of dedicated road space for pedicabs, taking into account the needs of pedicab drivers, passengers and other road users. This approach draws on Transport for London’s significant experience in this area through managing taxi ranks. As I mentioned, proposals brought forward by Transport for London will be subject to a consultation and will likely require collaboration across relevant parties, including London boroughs and industry groups. Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is consequential to Amendment 25.

Excessive fares can spoil a visitor’s trip to London, leaving a sour taste and affecting London’s reputation as a global hub for tourism. That is why Clause 2(5) of the Bill has been included. It confers powers on Transport for London to determine what fares pedicabs charge, and when and how passengers are informed of fares. Transport for London has been clear that it sees pedicab regulations as a chance to address disproportionate fares, as well as other negative impacts associated with pedicabs.

Regarding fines, Clause 3 sets out the suite of enforcement tools available to Transport for London in bringing forward pedicab regulations. These have been drafted to provide flexibility in the design of an effective regulatory regime. There is also the ultimate sanction, under Clause 2(1)(b) of the Bill, of revoking a licence for rogue pedicab operators or drivers. The Government consider the scope of these enforcement powers sufficient to tackle excessive fare charging.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his detailed response. We have had plenty of detail, which we can think about between now and Report.

I want briefly to pick out a couple of points that have been made. I re-emphasise the salutary point made by my noble friend Lord Foster about comparing the level of regulation on fireworks with the treatment of lithium batteries. It is part of a pattern that we see in so many fields: you get a build-up of public concern and statistics of incidents that lead to legislation, and the social change to go along with it. I hope that the Minister will take that message back to his colleagues.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, raised an important and complex issue around cycle lanes. It emphasises why these decisions need to be made at a local level where people understand exactly the issues, such as where one cycle lane is ridiculous and another is perfectly acceptable.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for his comments, which underline the way in which this sector has been neglected over decades.

It comes to my mind that there is, of course, the London Pedicab Operators Association. Has the Minister met it and taken any of its views into account? If he has not, it is referred to in briefings that we have been given as Members of this House; the fact that it exists and that it represents the sector suggests that there is real hope that regulation will improve things and could do so more rapidly than we might think.

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I will follow up on the points about enforcement and penalties. I hear very much what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said. My remarks will focus on something specific to pedicabs and their regulation: the level of fines that could be imposed on them. My Amendments 33 and 34 are relevant to this.

It seems that there is well-attested abuse, by a minority of pedicab drivers, of vulnerable customers, who are overcharged—vast amounts of money in some cases. Yet, as I understand it—I stand to be corrected if this is not the case—the maximum fine is at level 4, which is £2,500, rather than £5,000. I put it to the Government that unscrupulous people will regard a fine of £2,500 as a business expense, thinking they can pay the fine and continue to behave as badly as they do. Therefore, I believe there should be provision for a higher level of fines to deal with unscrupulous pedicab drivers.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we come to the final group of amendments, focusing on enforcement. Amendment 28, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to probe the intention and meaning of Clause 2(10). The Bill intends to give Transport for London a level of flexibility in designing pedicab regulations that are workable and meet its needs. This will be central to shaping a robust and effective regime. In achieving this aim, Transport for London has been clear that, as with taxi and private hire vehicle enforcement, it must be able to authorise others to carry out functions under the regulations on its behalf, such as enforcement activities. Clause 2(10) provides for this.

Amendments 32, 35 and 36, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, seek to add to the Bill provision covering death or serious injury caused by the careless, inconsiderate or dangerous use of pedicabs, with accompanying penalties. Of course, any death on our roads is a tragedy. Although we have some of the safest roads in the world, the Government are committed to making our roads even safer. The Government agree that dangerous cycling puts lives at risk. This is why there are already strict laws in place for cyclists, and the police have the power to prosecute if they are broken. They include laws to prosecute cyclists who cause bodily harm under Section 35 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which carries a maximum punishment of two years’ imprisonment. They also include cycling offences under the Road Traffic Act 1991 for careless cycling, with a maximum fine of £1,000, and dangerous cycling, with a maximum fine of £2,500. Furthermore, I am sure my noble friend will welcome the Department for Transport’s response to the consultation on death or serious injury by dangerous cycling, which will be published in due course.

However, we do not consider these amendments necessary. Pedicabs will be treated in the same way as pedal cycles, and their drivers will be treated as cyclists for the purpose of dangerous cycling offences. The exception would be if a pedicab is deemed a motor vehicle, in which case it would be subject to motoring offences.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about enforcement; the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, touched on this as well. Transport for London will have its own enforcement officers who work together with the police on this. I hear what the noble Viscount had to say about enforcement—or perhaps a lack of it. It is an operational matter for police and what he said is disappointing, but I certainly hear it loud and clear. As I said, it is for the police to respond to.

On the question that my noble friend Lady McIntosh raised, the figures, fines and penalties are an issue that lie with the Home Office. As for the Deliveroo L plate drivers and whether they are legally here, again, that is a policing matter. I am not too sure whether they can remain with L plates forever; we will have to write back to her on that. Certainly, that is a point well made.

Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, seeks to increase the level of fines for offences committed under pedicab regulations from level 4 to level 5. This would mean that there would be no upper limit to the fines issued. The enforcement tools in the Bill are comprehensive, providing Transport for London with the scope to design an enforcement regime that can effectively target the rogue operators which have profited from a lack of regulation for too long. Clause 3(2), which this amendment seeks to change, is part of a suite of tools in the Bill.

Pedicab regulations will be able create offences providing for the giving of fixed-penalty notices or the imposition of penalties. These powers are supplemented by the ability to seize, immobilise, retain and dispose of pedicabs. There is also the ultimate sanction of stopping a pedicab driver or operator conducting business by revoking their license under Clause 2(1)(b). The Government expect Transport for London to take a view on how best to regulate the industry, subject to engagement with stakeholders and a public consultation. As the Committee is aware, pedicab regulations will be subject to approval by the Secretary of State. This should provide assurance to any noble Lords concerned by the scope of these powers.

Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to provide parity with civil enforcement powers applicable to contraventions committed by drivers and riders of motor vehicles. The power to impose civil penalties through pedicab regulations is explicitly tied to offences under Clause 3(1). These are not motoring offences; they relate to the provision of false or misleading information in connection with licences and the failure to comply with requirements, prohibitions and restrictions imposed by pedicab regulations. We therefore consider this amendment unnecessary.

I will address Amendments 39 and 49 together, which have again been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. These seek to place limitations on the immobilisation and seizure of pedicabs by making equivalent provisions to those relating to motor vehicles under Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002. This would amend Clause 3(6), which is intended to provide Transport for London with flexibility in designing pedicab regulations. The ability to immobilise, seize, retain and dispose of pedicabs that are illegal, or used illegally, and to target rogue operators will help establish a more sustainable and reputable pedicab industry in London. Limiting Transport for London’s powers in the manner proposed in this amendment could potentially remove the possibility of pedicabs that are not roadworthy, unsafe or are being used consistently in contravention of the regulations, being removed from London’s streets. However, the powers under Clause 3(6), are subject to safeguards in the Bill.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I hear what the Minister says about the impounding of pedicabs and things like that. It may be quite necessary and justified. Are there similar powers available now in respect of TfL and taxis? It should be proportionate, should it not?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I hear what the noble Lord says, but I am not sure that it should be proportionate. If he is concerned about the powers, I was going on to say that the powers under Clause 3(6) are subject to safeguards in the Bill. They are achieved by Clause 4(3), which provides a right to request that a decision to immobilise, seize, retain, and dispose of a pedicab is reconsidered and a right to appeal the decision at a magistrates’ court. I also note that the Bill paves the way for a separate pedicab licensing regime. The intention of this amendment to make equivalent provision to powers to immobilise and seize vehicles under another regime is therefore not likely to be the most appropriate course of action.

Amendment 49 is consequential to Amendment 39, and I have addressed that in my remarks.

I will now move to Amendment 40, the final amendment of this group and the last one that I will address in Committee. It is in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and seeks to expand the list of bodies that could exercise powers contained under Clause 3(6). As I have set out, this subsection contains an important power in the suite of enforcement tools that will be available through pedicab regulations. Transport for London has been clear that it will work with the Metropolitan Police and London boroughs to conduct enforcement. Powers contained in the Bill already allow Transport for London to confer functions on to other authorities, as it deems necessary, to support an effective enforcement regime.

That draws my remarks to a close. I thank noble Lords for taking the time to discuss the Bill today. The diligence that the Committee has shown has allowed for a thorough examination of the Bill and its purpose. I am grateful for this and look forward to continuing to discuss the Bill with noble Lords during its parliamentary passage.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I thank him for his comprehensive response, which we can examine at our leisure. The one part of it that I find unsatisfactory is the point about fines. I must say to him that, unless the Government move on this issue, we will raise this matter on Report.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I understand the noble Lord’s concern. It is something that we will discuss back in the department, but whether it will change is another matter.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this fifth group of amendments. We have had some very useful discussions and I shall read Hansard with great interest tomorrow. We will see whether we come back on this on Report or have some further meetings. I am sure that the Minister will be open to meetings—he has already said he would be. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

43: Clause 5, page 4, line 19, at end insert “(and for this purpose “trailer” has the same meaning as in the Pedicabs (London) Act 2024 (see section 7 of that Act))”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to clause 7.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

50: Clause 7, page 5, line 2, at end insert—
““trailer” , in relation to a pedal cycle, includes a sidecar or a vehicle pushed by a pedal cycle.”Member's explanatory statement
“Pedicab” is defined by clause 1 to mean a pedal cycle, or a pedal cycle in combination with a trailer, that is constructed or adapted for carrying one or more passengers etc. This amendment provides that “trailer” includes sidecars or vehicles pushed by pedal cycles.

Aviation (Consumers) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 October be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 December.

Motion agreed.

Aviation (Consumers) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Aviation (Consumers) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before this House on 16 October 2023. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to restate, using powers under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, key principles of retained EU case law relating to regulation 261/2004. This will help aviation consumers to receive the same protections they currently have when faced with flight disruptions.

Regulation 261/2004, which will become assimilated law at the end of 2023, sets out the rules on compensation and assistance for air passengers in the event of denied boarding, flight cancellation or long delay. Regulation 261/2004 has been the subject of significant amounts of litigation, and the associated case law has shaped the interpretation of this legislation. However, the retained EU law Act will also make it easier for courts to depart from EU case law after the end of 2023. This means that, without the changes made by this instrument, important principles that protect consumers in the UK would be lost.

The SI codifies four key principles needed to maintain the current protections for air passengers, by inserting them into regulation 261/2004. First, passengers will continue to be afforded the right to compensation under Article 7 of regulation 261/2004 where flight delay results in arrival at the passenger’s final destination three or more hours after the scheduled arrival time.

Secondly, the SI codifies principles that make it clear that the rights to compensation, refunds, rerouting, and care and assistance fall within the scope of regulation 261/2004—not Articles 19 or 29 of the Montreal Convention. The Montreal Convention is an international treaty governing airline liability and relates in part to delay of passengers. This is an important point of clarity that will help passengers continue to receive the rights they are currently entitled to, rather than the more limited rights under the Montreal Convention.

Thirdly, the SI clarifies that, for the purpose of regulation 261/2004, a flight comprised of more than one leg will be treated as a whole if it is booked as a single unit, and that such a flight will be considered as departing from the point of departure of the first leg of the journey. This is important because compensation under regulation 261/2004 is linked to the length of the journey and the territory or jurisdictions covered.

Finally, the SI codifies the principle of “extraordinary circumstances” into a clear definition of that term. Such circumstances may give rise to an air carrier being exempt from the requirement to pay compensation. What constitutes “extraordinary circumstances” is a highly litigated topic, so it is important to codify the EU case law in order to provide clarity. I beg to move.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his competent and helpful introduction. Complex and dense though these regulations may be, I see no reason not to support them.

To what degree do the regulations impinge on Cardiff Airport? It has often been in the news. How many airport consumers were there this year and last year? How many cancellations were there? Can the Minister give any feedback as to consumer satisfaction? Has there been any discontent? What is his general view of the future? Does the consumer in greater south Wales have any difficulty accessing Cardiff Airport? As a percentage, how many airport consumers instead make for Bristol or Heathrow airports? Perhaps the Minister will write if these questions are not to be answered in this debate.

The purchase of Cardiff Airport by the Senedd, the excellent Government in Cardiff, was controversial to some degree. Might the Minister say what the situation is now? I acknowledge the Minister’s service to Wales when he was a Member in the other place. He represented one of the finest coastlines in Europe—Langland, Oxwich and Three Cliffs come to mind, and he might know that these bays are fine for swimming; it is truly an area of natural beauty.

There is no aviation without the aerospace industry, and the Minister knows that both are vital to the economy of Wales—for example, Airbus, at Broughton, in north-east Wales, where direct employment involves some 5,000 employees. There is also, as he will know, a big aviation interest in south Wales. These two industries involve a great reservoir of national skills, and these skills in Wales are priceless. Airbus, at Broughton, is a world-class centre in wing manufacture. What links are there between Airbus UK and His Majesty’s Government? How are the interests of the consumer represented?

The Explanatory Memorandum is helpful. The regulations are, of necessity, complex, as is the Explanatory Memorandum in parts—all the pages require insight. However, it is very good to see the word consumers writ large.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations establish rules relating to compensation and passenger assistance in the event of denied boarding, cancellation or long delays. The instrument maintains the status quo and aims to offer clarity, following multiple legal challenges. We therefore do not oppose its introduction. Indeed, I thank the Government for bringing forward these regulations.

However, why are we debating these regulations today? As the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments pointed out, the instrument is within the scope of the negative procedure, so Ministers have decided that the alternative is more appropriate. Can the noble Lord elaborate on this?

Turning to the measures contained in the regulations, I note that their main purpose is to remove ambiguity rather than set new policy. Will the Minister explain which cases these clarifications relate to?

Will the Minister elaborate on the issue of extraordinary circumstances a little more? At first I thought the definition in the instrument was pretty clear, but a number of people have since commented that it is not as clear as it looks and anything that he can add will be helpful. On the drafting process, can the Minister explain what informal consultations took place to prepare this instrument? While I understand that no review clause is required as it is made under the REUL Act, will the Minister explain how the department will monitor its implementation? Given that the Minister in the House of Commons was unable to answer this point, will the Minister say whether the tariffs referenced will be subject to inflationary increases?

Somewhat at the last minute, I picked up recent rumours that some airlines have reacted to the requirement to pay this tariff by substituting vouchers—indeed, in some cases vouchers with expiry dates—instead of cash. That does not seem to be within the spirit of the regulations. Given that the essence of this instrument is to clarify the situation, I would value the Minister’s comments on this. Do the Government believe these rumours are true? If they are, does this instrument in any way help? If not, will he address the issue and go to what I think is the implied standard, which has to be pure cash? I hope the Minister can provide clarity on these points.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, in which issues that are to some extent technical have been raised.

I will start by responding to the issues about Cardiff Airport raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jones. I well remember Cardiff Airport being taken under Welsh government control. At the time, I was a member of the then National Assembly for Wales. There were sceptical views about it at the time, but the Welsh Government have taken it on and still own it. Indeed, we all wish it well, but it has gone through some difficulties and has been supported financially by the Welsh Government. In answer to his question on cancellations, consumer feedback and access to the airport, I do not have that information to hand, so I will have to come back to him in writing. The Welsh Government will be responsible for a lot of it.

The Government have strong relationships with Airbus UK, for obvious reasons, but more than that I cannot say at the moment.

I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson for his remarks. The instrument is about maintaining current consumer protection for air passengers. The Act’s powers were not considered the appropriate vehicle to undertake a full review of regulation 261/2004. However, the Department for Transport committed to consult further on compensation and payment frameworks for flight disruption in its response to the aviation consumer policy reform consultation. This is a complicated area of law, and any potential reform requires careful consideration and consultation with the European Union under Article 438 of the trade and co-operation agreement.

It was not considered necessary to codify any other EU case law principles, beyond those identified. The four principles restated in this instrument have been identified as necessary to be codified in order to maintain the status quo for consumer rights in relation to flight disruptions—that is, for denied boarding, flight cancellations and long delay. In interpreting retained consumer aviation EU law in the UK, the courts are likely to adopt a purposive approach. This means that the courts will consider the intended purpose of the regulation, rather than solely relying on the literal meaning of the words.

A question came up on consultation. The department has committed to further consultation on regulation 261. I think another question came up from one noble Lord on air traffic management. That is very fact-specific and I cannot at this moment provide specifics in respect of the legislation.

Going back to the retained EU law Act, its powers operate on assimilated law, while restatements such as those that this instrument makes are not assimilated law. Once the instrument is made, any further amendments to the regulation on these precise topics would therefore require primary legislation. It may be possible for certain retained EU law Act powers to be used to further codify assimilated EU case law, in the event that further principles, separate to those in this instrument, are identified as requiring codification. However, it is not considered necessary at this time to codify any other principles of EU case law relating to regulation 261/2004.

Noble Lords asked about informal consultations. We have had sessions with industry and consumer groups on this.

Perhaps I could just cover the consequences of not making this instrument. If it is not made, there would be a reduction in the protections available to consumers when travelling by air under UK law after the end of 2023. For example, UK courts would be more likely to find that passengers subject to long delays—that is, a delay of three hours or more in reaching their final destination—would not be entitled to compensation. Such a reduction in consumer protections would not only be an unacceptable policy but risk breaching the shared objective under Article 438 of the trade and co-operation agreement to achieve a high level of consumer protections for air travel.

I know that some other more technical questions were asked, which I will certainly look at and write on. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, brought up a couple of questions which I am not able to answer at the moment, but I will certainly look at them and write to him.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I wonder whether the noble Lord could adopt the convention that when he writes to one of us, he copies in everybody who has been part of this debate. I do not know whether he has ever tried to retrieve a document from the Library, but it is an uphill battle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Absolutely. Of course, I undertake to do that.

In closing, these regulations will help air passengers to receive the same protections they are currently entitled to if their flights are disrupted. Not only is it important for passengers to have protections in place for such instances; it is vital for improving consumer confidence in the sector, following the disruption we saw during and after the Covid-19 pandemic. I will leave it there and commend the regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 November be approved.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. The regulations will apply across Great Britain, and their purpose is to set minimum service levels for specified services that can apply during strikes affecting passenger rail services.

The minimum service levels are designed to balance the public’s need to make important journeys and the impact of rail strikes on the economy with the ability of rail workers to take strike action. Since 2019, there has not been a single day without either a strike happening on the railways or mandates for strikes outstanding. The result has been many periods of disruptive strike action, with widespread consequences for passengers and the wider economy. This Government want to see an end to this disruptive strike action, but the trade unions continuing to call for it has led to these regulations being necessary.

I acknowledge the amendments to the Motion relating to this instrument. The regret amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, references the views of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the detail of the policy in the Act, the retrospective element of the regulations, the fact that the impact assessment was not published at the time of laying, contractual concerns, and concerns for the ability for workers to take strike action. The fatal amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, references concerns around the impact of these regulations on the workforce and about safety, and raises concerns that the Act places undue obligations on trade unions.

In its 3rd Report of Session 2023-24, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that more information should have been provided to explain the policy decision in the Explanatory Memorandum. The committee also noted that the impact assessment was not published at the time of laying and mentioned the issuance of an initial review notice by the Regulatory Policy Committee. I will address the amendments to the Motion and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s remarks but will turn first to the instrument under consideration today.

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 establishes a framework for the making of regulations to set minimum service levels during strikes. The Act provides that for certain sectors, including transport, the relevant Secretary of State may specify, in regulations, the relevant services and the minimum service levels that will apply. These regulations for passenger rail specify three categories of services that minimum service levels apply to, and the associated minimum service levels.

Thecategories are: category A, train operation services; category B, infrastructure services; and category C, light rail services. For category A services, the minimum service level is specified as the

“provision of the train operation services necessary to operate the equivalent of 40% of the timetabled services operating during the strike”.

With regard to category B services, the minimum service level is specified as a list of priority routes to be operated for the specified hours of 6 am to 10 pm during strike action. The priority routes are defined in the regulations and listed in the schedule to the regulations. In addition to the listed priority routes, the minimum service level also applies to any part of the network that is within a five-mile radius of the priority routes and is a loop, siding, or a line that connects the priority routes to freight terminals, stabling facilities, or depots used for rolling stock or for plant, equipment, and machinery used in providing the other infrastructure services. This is to enable trains to travel to and from berthing areas and terminals to the priority routes.

With regard to category C services, the minimum service level is specified as the provision of the train operation services and infrastructure services necessary to operate the equivalent of 40% of the timetabled services during the period of a strike for the relevant light rail system.

I now turn back to the amendments to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the recent remarks by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to which I previously alluded. I regret that the impact assessment was not published at the time of the laying of these regulations. My department has a good track record in the quality of our impact assessments. It was the right decision to revise the impact assessment and allow the committee time to review.

Although I regret that the Regulatory Policy Committee has not yet been able to issue an opinion, it is important that noble Lords can scrutinise the impact assessment in this debate, which is why we have now published the impact assessment. The Act sets out the framework, and it was correct that these regulations set out the policy detail of passenger rail minimum service levels. Each sector being debated today has its own complexities and operates very differently. There is no one size that fits all models.

I now turn to the retrospective provisions. The disruption caused by continuous strike action puts these passenger rail regulations in a different position to other sectors. The Government have therefore taken the step of including retrospective provisions to create certainty for employers that strikes called under mandates secured before the primary legislation received Royal Assent would be in scope. This legislation is not intended to prevent workers from taking strike action. My department launched a consultation on minimum service levels for passenger rail to develop a more detailed understanding of how minimum service levels might impact on staff. This department has at every stage carefully balanced workers’ continued ability to take strike action against the needs of people to make essential journeys by rail. It will be at the discretion of individual employers whether to issue work notices to deliver minimum service levels. There are no plans to compel employers to use these regulations. There is comfort in that the Act includes the safeguard that employers should not identify more persons than are reasonably necessary to deliver the minimum service level.

Finally, I turn to the fatal amendment. Tackling strikes in transport was a 2019 manifesto commitment. As we are seeing now, when the rail trade unions choose to strike, people, including doctors, nurses and teachers, experience disruption in accessing their places of work, schools and vital medical appointments. In some cases, they are unable to travel at all. If the House supports this amendment, it will be voting against protecting passengers from the disproportionate impacts of rail strikes. I beg to move.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great honour for me to speak to this Motion. It marks my return to the Labour Front Bench, which I am delighted by.

Alas, I feel a very personal interest in this matter. My father was a Carlisle railway clerk and a long-standing member of the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association. I was so steeped in Labour and trade union history when I was a student that my thesis was on railway industrial relations.

Growing up, one of the things that I learned about industrial relations, particularly on the railways, was that the right to strike was fundamental but should be used sparingly. Despite employers and employees sharing common interests, there will be conflicts of interest. Collective bargaining to resolve those conflicts will not work unless the unions have the power to strike, even if they rarely use it. That is of fundamental importance.

That power is not absolute. As my noble friend Lord Hendy said in an earlier debate, it is not untrammelled. There must be ballots and regulations on picketing and secondary action. Labour has accepted all that. Our objection to what is being proposed for the railways is that the practical effect of these minimum service levels is to eliminate the right to strike for vast numbers of railway workers—40% by some estimates.

That is correct—you have to think about it for only a second—because if you are to run any trains on the principal parts of the network, you have to keep all the staff in place necessary to keep the network safe and running. Anyone working in a signal box has to be on duty, or in a control room; station staff have to be there, because they play a vital role in ensuring passenger safety; and the permanent way teams have to be there to do their work on maintenance of the track. If that does not happen, you will be running an unsafe railway in an incredibly short time. As my noble friend Lord Coaker said in his remarks about the border staff, this is a wholly disproportionate measure in the case of the railways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their consideration of these draft regulations. This is about achieving a balance between the rights of trade union members and the public’s expectation of being able to travel to work or, indeed, for any other social reason. At the end of the day, transport is at the heart of our nation’s success.

A number of questions have been asked, which I will try to address as briefly as I possibly can. This Government understand the difficulties imposed on the public by strikes on the passenger rail network. While it is right that workers are able to take strike action, it is a priority for the Government to protect the public and businesses from the disproportionate impact of strikes, including on people’s ability to make important journeys and on their livelihoods.

The careful design of the regulations, based on evidence from the public consultation and further consultation with stakeholders, means that minimum service levels will deliver a considerable improvement in service levels and experience during strikes. The economic damage to businesses and the wider economy would also be limited, and the industry would have the flexibility it needs to ensure that the minimum service levels are deliverable. At every stage of policy development, my department has carefully balanced workers’ ability to take strike action against the needs of people to make important journeys by rail, such as to get to work and to access vital services such as education and healthcare. Ensuring that this intervention is proportionate has been a central and continual consideration. Subject to parliamentary approval, we expect the regulations to come into force before the end of this year. In-scope employers would then be able to use minimum service levels for any strike action after they come into force, should they choose to do so.

I turn to some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. The Government firmly believe that the ability to strike is an important part of industrial relations in the UK, rightly protected by law, and understand that an element of disruption is inherent to any strike. But we also need to maintain a reasonable balance with the needs of the public and the impact of strikes on businesses and the wider economy. In cases where work notices are issued by employers, this policy will impact some rail workers’ ability to take strike action. As such, the department has, at every stage, carefully balanced workers’ ability to take strike action against the needs of people to make important journeys by rail.

Evidence provided through consultation and engagement with industry indicates that the proportion of workers needed to deliver the minimum service levels will vary by employer and job role. In critical operational roles, for example, we understand that more than 40% of staff are likely to be required to work to deliver a service level of 40% under the categories A and C of the regulations. The extent of the coverage of priority routes under category B also means that the proportion of infrastructure workers required to deliver the infrastructure minimum service level will vary by geography.

On the safety point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, passenger rail employers must comply with safety requirements on the railway. The regulations do not override any existing safety rules or obligations. Moreover, the regulations have been designed to fit within the existing safety frameworks, and the department has consulted with the Office of Rail and Road during development.

Where an employer decides to issue a work notice, the Act requires that the work notice identifies the persons required to work during the strike in order to secure that the levels of service are provided and to specify the work required to be carried out. Employers can identify only persons who are reasonably necessary to provide the minimum levels of service under the regulations in the work notice. We consider that this would include workers who are reasonably necessary to meet legal and contractual obligations relevant to the delivery of the minimum service level, including safety obligations.

It is therefore expected that services delivered on strike days under minimum service levels will be as safe as services delivered on strike days without the use of minimum service levels. Great Britain is a world leader in rail safety. Ensuring high standards of rail safety will always remain a top priority for this Government.

With respect to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, under the parent Act, trade unions must take reasonable steps to ensure that any of their members named on the work notice comply with that notice or the union will lose its legal protection from damages. Workers who take strike action despite being included on a valid work notice will lose their automatic protection from unfair dismissal. It will be for individual employers to determine whether any disciplinary action should be taken against employees for non-compliance with a work notice or legal action against a union that fails to take reasonable steps.

These regulations strike a carefully balanced and proportionate approach to mitigate the impact of strikes on the passenger rail sector for passengers and our economy. The regulations make possible a considerable improvement in the service that can be delivered during rail strikes. This will support passengers to make important journeys, including getting to work and accessing vital services, and will limit negative impacts on the economy. This is proportionately balanced with workers’ ability to take strike action, ensuring that impact is felt when a trade union goes on strike but passengers can still expect a consistent, albeit lower, level of service to be provided.

Therefore, although I am sure we all hope that strike action can be avoided, implementing these regulations will provide a means of addressing the disproportionate impacts that strikes have on the public, communities, businesses and our economy when they take place.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering our questions and for what has been the clearest, least-hedged explanation from the Government—that workers can be sacked under this legislation, which of course contradicts what was said in the other place. I am also pleased with what the Minister had to say about how safety rules override the regulations we are debating. However, I hope that the Government will make that fact very clear and publicise it to workers in the rail industry, who may face difficult situations under extreme pressure due to crowded trains and people seeking to crowd on to them, so that people are aware. I am aware of the hour so I will simply stop at this point and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Merchant Shipping (Counting and Registration of Persons on board Passenger Ships) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, often described as the lifeboat of the UK economy, the merchant shipping industry plays a pivotal role in ensuring the smooth running of people’s day-to-day lives, aiding the transition of goods and ships while supporting over 180,000 jobs in the UK, according to the Centre for Economics and Business Research. On the global scale, the industry facilitates the economy through the wider supply chain, supporting the running of 680,000 jobs.

According to the Office for National Statistics, looking solely at shipping, the sector contributed £6 billion to the economy in 2020, accounting for 19% of the transport industry. I am pleased to share my support for the merchant shipping industry and the introduction of the necessary regulations, which have been long awaited. This instrument will update and modernise the 2021 regulations, implementing corrections in the light of mistakes existing in the earlier legislation. Further, it postpones the deadline for all ships in UK waters to report data on the persons on board by two years.

Subsequently, from 2025, UK-flagged passenger ships, wherever they are located, and passenger ships within UK waters, will have to use an electronic method to report information regarding passengers on board. Search and rescue authorities will then quickly have access to essential information needed in the event of an emergency. This will reduce the loss of, and the risk to, lives at sea.

I therefore empathise with and support my noble friend’s Motion. Indeed, these highly significant regulations are welcome and long overdue. Further, I understand his concerns relating to the inadequate protection for passengers travelling on non-passenger ships. I am pleased that the House has the opportunity to discuss these protections today.

I would like the Minister to provide clarity on three central concerns. First, how did the Government learn of the mistakes in the 2021 regulations and what would be the consequences if they were not corrected? Secondly, given the postponement, how have the Government calculated that there will be no safety risk? Is the Minister not concerned that prolonging its implementation will only prolong the safety risk? Finally, given that the Explanatory Memorandum notes that the consultation on these changes received only seven responses, can the Minister explain the consultation process a little more? Is he satisfied that the results are credible, given how few responses were received?

To support the UK’s global position as a great trading nation, as well as a healthy and thriving economy, is to support the merchant shipping industry. I am positive that this instrument will play a vital role in the future of the industry by strengthening safety protections, and I therefore welcome its laying before the House.

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these regulations. I will try to respond to the specific points raised. I must confess that I find this quite a technical issue and subject matter. Where I cannot answer questions this evening, I undertake to write on specific points to noble Lords.

The Motion mentions the delay in the introduction of these regulations. They are not part of the maritime backlog and are therefore not late in that context. The regulations were made in 2021 and implemented the latest EU directive on persons data obligations, including a deadline for the electronic reporting of data, and placed additional restrictions on exemption powers. We have progressed the changes requested by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in the 2021 regulations with much urgency. However, for reasons of efficiency, we have used this legislative vehicle to also take forward some post EU exit opportunities, which do not reduce safety standards and go some way to relieving the pressures on operators—namely, a postponement on electronic reporting obligations and the addition of flexibility to the exemption provisions. This allows the Secretary of State, through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, more discretion to implement the regulations pragmatically.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised some interesting issues. He questioned why the person-counting obligations do not also apply to non-passenger vessels. Non-passenger vessels that normally carry only crew are accounted for by their operators, who hold all the necessary detail required for an emergency search-and-rescue operation. The few ships that routinely carry passengers but carry fewer than 13—and therefore are not defined as passenger ships—are generally much smaller, and the application of these obligations would be disproportionate for these small vessels. This approach is the recognised one in the international maritime community.