New Cars: Sales

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree that 2040 is unambitious. As the noble Baroness points out, the industry is setting its own targets, which is a great thing to see; everyone is working together to deliver this. On the international point, the UK was the first major economy in the world to set out a challenging ambition to end the sale of new conventional petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040. We are also the second largest market in Europe for ultralow emission vehicles, and for their development and manufacture. One in eight electric cars sold in Europe was made in the UK, and we are ranked sixth globally and second in Europe in that regard, which is a position we should be proud of—but I entirely agree that there is more that we can do.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government’s silver bullet on this seems to be the Road to Zero document. Could she tell us a bit more about it? When did work on it start, and how did its existence become known? I could find only one reference in government documentation, which is to Defra owning it. Why has there been no public consultation, when will it be published and what questions will it answer?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, we have been working hard on the Road to Zero document and are in the final stages of pulling it together, having welcomed the input of many stakeholders. It will be published shortly. I wish that I could give noble Lords an exact date, but I am afraid that I cannot at this point. We are working closely with departments across government on that issue. It forms part of all our efforts to reduce emissions following the Clean Air Strategy consultation, which was recently published. We set out our aim and ambitions in the manifesto, and the two strategies taken together—the Road to Zero strategy and the Clean Air Strategy—will help to deliver those goals.

Rail Timetabling

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the national railway is a public service for two reasons. First, most passengers have no choice and, secondly, a vast amount of its expenses are paid for by the taxpayer. One has to ask: who is responsible for this public service? It is very clear: it is just one person, the Secretary of State. He owns Network Rail, he hires and fires the directors, he determines their pay, he can give them directions, he decides what funding they get. He commissions the train operating companies and the various, appropriately complex, conditions on their contracts. He is personally responsible for the mess.

My colleague in the House of Commons said that the Secretary of State should resign. I would not be nearly so presumptuous, but an apology would be a step in the right direction. There is not a word of apology in the Statement. I share his sorrow, and I wish that he would take personal responsibility for the sorrow that he has caused. He failed fully to understand the operation; he did not assure himself that he had sufficient skilled resources to understand the risk. Furthermore, he carries on trying to make the present structure work. The present franchise system does not work. You need much more skill than the Secretary of State has so far displayed to get a profit-maximising organisation with virtually no real competition to maximise the concept of public service. His favoured solution for getting the railway right is a partnership, as he set out in his east coast Statement, but Northern was managed by a partnership and it failed; GTR had a partnership and it failed. Why did it fail? It failed because a publicly owned Network Rail and a profit-maximising train operator do not make natural partners.

The Secretary of State fails to understand the basic financial pressures on the train operating companies. They go on about increases in passenger numbers, but this is much more dependent on external forces such as the economy than anything that the train operating company can do. Revenue is largely outside their control; the road to shareholder value is by cutting costs.

Finally, the Secretary of State’s plan to get us out of this mess, a programme of incremental introduction, is likely to go as wrong as the current mess. I have run a railway in the public sector. It is a complex system, and any change to any part has an effect on the whole system. Change needs to be modelled and tested by high-quality research staff, which takes time and effort and long lead times to recruit and train staff, particularly drivers. Does the Secretary of State have access to such staff? If he has, are they recommending incremental introduction?

To summarise, does the Secretary of State accept personal responsibility for this mess? Will he apologise, and has he got sufficient skilled resources to manage the situation? Is he still convinced that a partnership really can work? Given the continuous failure of the present franchise structure, does he not agree that the train operating companies should be taken into public ownership?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord I am horrified by the tone of this Statement. The passengers, who bear the brunt of all this, have absolutely had enough, and the lack of any shadow of an apology in that Statement from the Secretary of State is going to anger them even further. The Secretary of State lurches from catastrophe to chaos, and I believe that he thinks that he is Teflon man.

I differ from the noble Lord in that I do not believe that nationalisation is the answer. Indeed, when you look at the ability of the Department for Transport to manage things effectively, one shudders to think of what it would do if it was in charge of the whole lot. I do not subscribe to the kneejerk approach to politics that heaps all blame on Ministers; I realise that government is difficult and that Ministers cannot be expected to micromanage. But I have been a Minister in two Governments and I recognise the point where a Minister has to take direct responsibility when something goes wrong. The Secretary of State has reached that point, and he needs to take that responsibility for his part in this debacle. You cannot claim the credit for something if you are not prepared to shoulder the blame when things go wrong. The latter part of this Statement trumpets the wonderful things that are still going to happen in future; the Secretary of State has trumpeted all this in the past and therefore takes responsibility for it.

Why were basic precautions not taken to ensure that a big change like this ran smoothly? It is the coward’s way to blame the staff and managers involved. Transport Focus warned of potential problems with the new timetables last autumn. Why were its warnings not heeded? What meetings took place with Transport Focus, and between it and the train operating companies, to deal with the concerns which it voiced? For how long has this change been planned? Was there any element of speeding it up to get it done by a particular time, which might have been a factor in why it went wrong? Has Network Rail, or the train operating companies involved, ever raised any concerns about either the scale of change or the timescale for it? The Statement says that there were meetings recently and no concerns were raised then. Were they raising concerns some months back? Why were these changes introduced on such a grand scale, involving several train lines? Would a pilot project not have been a good idea? Given the delays to the Bolton electrification project, why go ahead at all with changes on Northern at this time?

The Statement refers to compensation, but it is not precise. Can we please have exact details about compensation to long-suffering passengers? Finally, the Statement referred to the ORR undertaking an inquiry. Will this be entirely independent? Will it analyse the roles and responsibility of Government, as well as of Network Rail and the train operating companies, so that Government can learn the lessons from this and ensure that it never happens again?

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I will intervene briefly to make what I can only describe as a very trivial point. The Industry and Parliament Trust wrote to me and a number of my colleagues in the last few weeks telling us that there would be a breakfast meeting in the House on 1 May. I do not think that it realises that some of us simply cannot turn up for breakfast meetings on this extremely important issue. I raise this in the Chamber because it is important that it realises that these are problems for some Members. I would have attended because it is a fascinating area of development.

In particular, my interest is in the possibility of applying this kind of technology to lorries, which is what has happened in America. There have been tests. In so far as commercial vehicles are the major polluters, we should be doing everything possible to ensure that they are in the front line of the shift to this technology. As I said, I hope that the Industry and Parliament Trust has that in mind when it arranges these meetings in the future, because it means that some of us are denied the opportunity of the very excellent work that it does on many issues that come before Parliament.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I did go to that breakfast, so I have heard the hydrogen manifesto, as it were. I also attended a dinner last night arranged by ChargePoint and witnessed my first outbreak of range anxiety among electric car owners, who explained at some length and some volume that 120 miles with the lights on meant about 50 miles. The battery electric formula has still a long way to go. There are many areas where hydrogen might be used, the classic example being buses in London. Hydrogen needs greater emphasis in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to bring forward amendments to produce a little more balance in the Bill so that it does not so blatantly presume a battery solution.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)]

My Lords, as I stated at Second Reading, it is this Government’s ambition that every car and van will be zero-emission by 2050. The Government are using a range of tools, including tax incentives and grant schemes alongside regulation and legislation. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, on the narrow scope of the Bill. The Bill focuses specifically on areas that we have identified as needing the regulatory tools available to intervene in the market so that we might ensure that the UK’s charging infrastructure is easy to use for consumers and that charging is “smart” to reduce impacts to the grid. I agree that we need a much wider strategy. That is exactly what we are working on—although, I am afraid, not in this Bill.

The Government’s upcoming strategy will set out their approach to the transition to zero-emission road transport and drive down emissions from conventional vehicles during the transition. It will include hydrogen vehicles. I apologise that the strategy has not yet been published. We are working hard with other departments and the industry to ensure that the strategy is as strong and ambitious as possible.

Our commitment to zero-emission vehicles is technology neutral. This means that we want to drive forward the development and deployment of any technologies that can deliver a zero-emissions future. At the moment, that capability is limited to battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles, although we do not want to rule out other innovations.

The level of support provided to these technologies is dictated by the maturity of their respective markets. There are very few hydrogen fuel cell vehicles currently being manufactured globally—I believe that some 6,500 such vehicles were sold last year.

As noble Lords have said, refuelling infrastructure availability is a key potential barrier to rollout of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles, which is why they are included in the Bill. Despite that, the UK has secured the position as one of the world-leading, but still embryonic, markets. We believe that hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles are an important technology, alongside battery electric vehicles, for decarbonising road transport.

This is why, since 2014, we have provided £5 million to fund 12 new hydrogen refuelling stations and £2 million for public and private sector fleets to become early adopters of the vehicles—as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said, commercial vehicles can contribute disproportionately highly to pollution, so that is something we are working on. It is also why we announced an additional £23 million in March last year to leverage a ramp-up in investments from industry in refuelling infrastructure and vehicle deployment out to 2020.

It has always been the intent of the Bill to include both hydrogen fuel cell and battery electric vehicles. That is explained in Clause 8(1)(c), which makes it clear that hydrogen refuelling points are included in the definition of “public charging point”, but I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on charging versus refuelling.

The powers relating to infrastructure provision in motorway service areas and large fuel retailers in Clauses 9, 10 and 11 therefore cover the provision of hydrogen refuelling points. As we have said, the infrastructure around hydrogen will be incredibly important. Having points at those key positions is one thing we will act on. Draft regulations will include hydrogen refuelling points as well as electric battery charging points.

On Amendment 39 and the definitions of “electric vehicle” and “zero-emission vehicle”, as we have said, this part of the Bill is focused on charging or refuelling infrastructure for vehicles. Such infrastructure is defined by reference to its capacity to recharge either battery or hydrogen-propelled vehicles. We think that the Bill includes the relevant definitions necessary in relation to refuelling points. In addition, there is a definition of “electric vehicle” in legislation already, as the definition contained in the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulations made last year mirrors the definition proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. Given that the definitions in the Bill already work as intended, we do not think there is a need to duplicate the definition of “electric vehicle” within the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in the group to which I have lent my name. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has eloquently explained what it is like to be an electric car user in Britain today. It is certainly not always a pleasurable experience, and a number of serious issues need to be addressed—not least that of faulty charging points.

One of the reasons why we have a problem is that the demand for electric vehicles is not being met by the manufacturers, so there are lengthy queues and waiting lists, but people are hoping that this will be a big market. They are therefore fitting charging infrastructure, but it is operating at a loss: there is no financial benefit for anyone fitting charging points at the moment, because there are insufficient users, as insufficient numbers of cars are sold. That means that expensive infrastructure is put in—sometimes subsidised, sometimes not—and then there is no incentive to keep it operating.

This morning my assistant and I did a spot check on Zap-Map—one of the multiple apps you need on your phone to know where charging points are. Within a three-mile radius of here there are around 100 charging points, but of those, 13 are non-operational. That is just not good enough. What is the point of putting in all this effort to create a network, only for those expensive pieces of kit not to be maintained? If the Bill has any purpose, it is to ensure that at least we can get rid of that irritant. It causes people considerable harm and anxiety not to know, when they turn up in their car with the charge running down, that they are guaranteed to be able to recharge it. That is a big impediment to people taking up this technology.

The Minister said that we might see some regulations under Clause 13 some time soon, so let us also say that we will definitely, and quickly, see some regulations under Clause 9. This is not new technology; there is no risk of it becoming outdated. The charging points are there. People are putting them in, but they are not making money because there are insufficient users, and the points are not being maintained. This is no way to set about meeting the goal that the Government put in their manifesto—that nearly all cars will be zero-emission by 2050. Let us think more about what is happening today, and use this legislative opportunity to sort out the problems that people are experiencing now. I fully support the amendments in the group, particularly the one about a requirement to maintain standards and to take steps to repair faulty charging points.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I do not want to be too repetitive, but I have been persuaded by the speakers in the debate so far—and, of course, at last night’s notorious dinner. Again, I hope that the Minister will be able not only to give us warm words but to see whether she can make some progress in tabling amendments that at least partly support the general direction of the debate.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I am very sorry that my noble friend and I missed that wonderful dinner, to which I think all noble Lords were invited last night; our invitations must have been lost in the post. The Government’s aim is to develop our infrastructure so that current and future drivers of electric vehicles can locate charging infrastructure that is affordable, efficient, reliable and easily accessible. The amendments, understandably, seek to improve availability and reliability.

Most government-funded charge points started out as being free to access, but payments have been gradually introduced over the years. Taking a payment in exchange for charging is a crucial step in the development of a long-term sustainable business model for charge point operators that will in turn lead to greater choice and improved future reliability of the network. Of course I agree that reliability is a critical issue, but we think that the market is developing to meet consumer expectations about charge point reliability. We welcome the fact that a number of charge point owners currently report on their level of reliability. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned Zap-Map.com, which incorporates a real-time feed that drivers can use to report on their recent charging experiences and report out-of-action charge points. As this market continues to develop, it is clear that operators will want their charge points to be functioning and accessible to attract customers, and indeed to receive payment.

Some operators are already providing information voluntarily, and as the market develops all may do so. However, should the Government need to intervene in this area, powers can be introduced under Clause 11. As currently proposed, this could require charge point operators to make reliability information available in open-source formats, which could be used to improve the consumer experience. Clause 11 also specifically mentions,

“whether the point is in working order”,

and making this information available will help to incentivise charge point operators to maintain working charge points and to ensure that they can be held to account by customers. I agree with the noble Baroness that for the infrastructure to work, the charge points have to work, and people need to feel confident that they will be able to charge their car—so I agree with the intent behind the amendments.

The noble Baroness also proposes an amendment on contactless card payments. Again, we absolutely recognise the importance of having easily available payment options to encourage the uptake of these vehicles. We have seen progress in this area. Since 2017 regulations have been in place for new charge points to ensure that they are available without the need for any form of membership. This applies to all new charge points from last November, and all existing charge points will need to meet that requirement by November this year. In the policy scoping notes contactless payment is one of a number of potential access or payment solutions, but we are not sure about mandating for this in primary legislation, which could risk forcing charge point operators to overhaul their entire network for a specific access method that may not be the preferred solution by drivers or industry, and may well be succeeded by another form of access. We want to consult on that. In advance of introducing any secondary legislation we will consult drivers and operators before proposing a minimum defined access method. If the preferred option is through contactless payment—which, I acknowledge, it may well be, so that people can easily pay for charging—that would be included in the regulations.

Amendment 50, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, rightly seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State has regard to innovation, customer choice and competition when bringing forward regulations under this clause. Those three things should always be at the heart of the Government’s policy-making, and will underpin any regulations brought forward under this, and indeed any other, clause.

As I have said, I agree with the intent behind all the amendments, and I will consider them further.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Thursday 17th May 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

52: Clause 9, page 6, line 22, at end insert—
“( ) Before making regulations under subsection (1)(b), the Secretary of State must consult charge point operators and vehicle manufacturers on the prescribed requirements for connecting components.”

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 52 I shall speak also to three other amendments in this group. The Bill as currently drafted gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations in relation to the components of charging points. What the Bill does not do is define what criteria will be used or who the Government will consult when making this decision.

The Bill presents a significant opportunity for the United Kingdom to lead globally on encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles. Making the most of that opportunity will require action in a number of areas, one of which is availability and interoperability of charging points. There is some concern about differing design standards for charging points. It is important to avoid a situation in which vehicles have a wide range of different connecting components, because they will have to be reflected on forecourts; such a range will be impractical and create confusion on forecourts. The amendment would require the Government to consult charge operators and vehicle manufacturers on these vital infrastructure decisions. The amendment’s purpose is to ensure that the Government consult properly and widely, specifically with recharge point operators, on the final form and implementation of those connecting components.

Amendment 67 would require the Secretary of State to consult on and publish the criteria to be used for the definition of “large fuel retailers” and “service area operators”. This will make clear to the industry which companies are covered by the regulations.

Amendment 87 focuses on the collection and use of data from electric charging points. As with the data collected by automated vehicles, charging points and electric vehicles will also hold important and useful information which, if it were to fall into the wrong hands, could be damaging. It is important that we get this side of the legislation right because, as the technology advances, it is likely that more information will be held. Some of this information will be personal and sensitive, which is why it is important that the Government ensure that the gathered data is secure and private. It is important that the legislation addresses who is responsible for collecting this data, how the data is then shared between different parties and any limitations on such data. In the amendment, we ask Ministers to properly consult with the relevant stakeholders in this area and make sure that the correct safeguards are put in place.

Finally, Amendment 102 would require the Government to consult widely before regulations were implemented. One significant area that our proposals would deal with is the impact that the expansion of charging points may have on the national grid, which the Bill barely addresses. There is a fear that sudden huge spikes in demand could easily damage the network and, in extreme cases, lead to power outages. For it to work, this policy requires serious planning and consultation between the Government, the grid and charge point operators. I appreciate that the Government are trying to address some of that with smart charging, but the risk is still there, particularly if rapid charging is used at charge points during peak rush hour times. Those concerns need to be considered carefully and the impact must be monitored in the rollout of the infrastructure changes. The Government will have to consider a great many things that they do not know yet, such as what regulations they want to bring in, who they will affect and how they will be affected. That underlines why it is important that the Government consult stakeholders, as this amendment asks them to do.

I am not opposed to the use of secondary legislation because it will be necessary to future-proof the Bill, but it is important that the Minister comes back to Parliament with more detail and specific proposals for regulations—particularly for something that, as it stands, is not included in much detail. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend is absolutely right. Some fuel retailers may be in remote locations where the necessary electricity supply is not immediately available. Therefore, it would not make sense to oblige them to have charge points if they could not get the power. We have taken that on board. When we consult, we will look specifically at the availability of power supply before deciding whether to make progress.

Clause 16(4) would require the Secretary of State to lay the draft regulations in Parliament and their approval by each House before they are made. I understand the intent of the amendment: to ensure there is enough time for stakeholders to consider and comment, and make their views known to parliamentarians, before the regulations are discussed in the House. However we believe that, given the commitment to full consultation and the use of the affirmative procedure, it is not necessary or proportionate to publish the regulations six months before they are made. There will be many opportunities to comment on what should be included in the regulations throughout the consultation, and a delay of six months from the final draft to a vote in Parliament could adversely affect the delivery of the policy. Regarding Amendment 68, I hope this also reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, of our commitment to consult fuel retailers about the appropriateness of regulations before they are introduced.

I turn to Amendment 87 and the important issue of data. The collection and use of data from charge points is increasingly important to those who help manage the electricity system. We will need carefully to consider how that data is used and how to ensure data privacy. We are already statutorily obliged to consult on the regulations through Clause 16(3). The consultation will cover the issues referred to in the amendments: who is responsible for collecting the data, how the data is shared, and any limitations on the use of such data. Therefore, we do not believe that a specific amendment on data is necessary. Data security and privacy are essential. Data would be anonymised and aggregated and it could be handled in a similar way to how smart meter data is treated. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggested that one of the prescribed persons might be the Treasury, so that it could get this information in order to charge motorists. I do not think that is the intention, but I will take advice before I commit myself on it. It is an ingenious thought, which the Treasury may follow up now that the noble Lord has mentioned it.

Amendment 95 is proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. She must have a very small carbon footprint if she generates through solar panels the power for her car. The amendment would require night-shift workers and households with solar panels to be taken into account for regulations under Clause 13, about smart charge points. I would hope that night-shift workers might be able to charge at work and therefore benefit from the lower rates, but off-peak is not only at night; lowest demand can now be in the afternoon because of solar power, so it could be the new off-peak—I understand that this happened for the first time in the UK in 2017. We will of course look to ensure that the introduction of smart charge points does not have adverse effects on any groups of consumers. However, we do not believe it is appropriate to specify, and implicitly prioritise, a small selection of people, however important, as the noble Baroness’s amendment seeks. I understand that it is important to take into account different groups of consumers, but as the clause is about the requirements for smart charge points rather than the pricing structures, I am not sure that it is the right place.

On smart charging pricing structures, I hope noble Lords will be reassured that the regulator for the electricity system, Ofgem, has an explicit responsibility to make the system fair for all energy consumers. Amendment 102 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, would extend the consulting requirement for this part of the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State included the National Grid, large fuel retailers and service area operators. I agree that it is important to consult widely and of course that includes such stakeholders, but we do not think it appropriate to specify in the Bill a small proportion of the organisations that should be consulted.

Amendment 103 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is about requiring draft regulations in this part to be approved in both Houses of Parliament every time they provide or amend a definition in this Act. Clause 16(4) already requires the Secretary of State to do this for the first time regulations are laid, with exceptions for technical regulations under Clause 9(3) and Clause 13. This is a rapidly evolving market and may require the Government to act quickly. The initial regulations will be subject, quite rightly, to the affirmative procedure, but it may not be appropriate to extend this to every provision or amendment of a definition.

I am grateful to noble Lords for raising important issues. I hope they are reassured that we intend to fulfil existing duties in respect of secondary legislation, that we will consult widely and thoroughly before any regulations are brought forward, and that the statutory obligation to consultation in Clause 16(3) will ensure that we do so. I recognise the importance of proper parliamentary scrutiny when defining terms used in the Bill, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee noted in its report. My noble friend is considering its recommendations and will respond to the committee before Report and copy this response to all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord might withdraw his amendment at this stage.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I shall not delay the Committee unnecessarily. I will study the response with some care. I suspect that we will bring forward an amendment on Report unless the Minister does so for us, because there is something rather special about the timescales. The standard consultation is 12 weeks. The six months that we propose recognises the considerable work that will be required if a fuel retailer or service operator is caught unawares. Either such a provision is needed or the regulations have to be sensitive about time. I hope for a perhaps more in-depth response—I do not want to be rude—which recognises these timescales. Perhaps we can put that on record on Report, even if the Minister is unable to suggest some useful words to add to the Bill.

Before I withdraw the amendment, can I assume that when Amendment 53 is called, we will commence discussion on the original group without Amendment 51? I see nodding from the Whips; therefore, we are all on the same page. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 52 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, we must recognise, first, that there is a resource problem for TfL, boroughs and everyone in the public sector. That is possibly the greatest inhibition to rapid implementation. I must say that, in my experience, giving permitted development rights to TfL, while it would be intended to speed things up, would in practice have exactly the opposite effect, because it simply cannot have—this is not a criticism but a statement—detailed local knowledge. I could cite the example of proposing to put a charging point in a parking bay reserved for hearses for the local church—but we can get into too much detail here.

My key point is that the way in which to make rapid progress with rapid charging and all the rest of the infrastructure is not to set up something strongly opposed by the London boroughs, which is going to lead inevitably, sadly, to more conflict and disagreement, more objections and less public support—because that is where the objections will come from. That is not the way to go: the way to go is to give a kick-start, or whatever word the noble Baroness used, and say that we want to see greater active co-operation between TfL and the London boroughs. What we would like to see in particular is not an agreement to pursue permitted development rights for TfL but a requirement—or not a requirement, because we cannot require, but a request—that TfL and the London boroughs and councils, if possible, come back to us for Report, which I know is only a few weeks away, with an agreed amendment, if that is necessary, to achieve the objective that we all share. I think that that is a much more positive approach, and one that is far more likely to succeed in achieving the objective, which I think that I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and everyone else, than the one now, which is being opposed by the people who will actually have to do most of the implementation.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, as a generality I support the thrust of these amendments, but I worry about whether this is the right place for them. Clearly, there is a case for some overall strategic planning, and there is a need for it to happen everywhere. There is also a possibility that that may require some powers to be provided for TfL. But we are trespassing into dangerous waters, because we are getting into sovereignty—and there is no more delicate area in a sovereignty debate than between an area or regional authority and constituent members. I worry whether this Bill is the place to make such a profound move.

I am genuinely open-minded about whether we should press in this direction, but I join the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in urging the department to do all that it can between now and Report to get a negotiated settlement between the boroughs and TfL that, if necessary, we can put into the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)]

My Lords, this is a wide-ranging group of amendments and I shall aim to address all the points raised, so I am afraid that I shall have quite a bit to say.

On permitted development rights and expansion, as the noble Baroness noted, it is already allowed through town and country planning, which allows permitted development rights for one electric vehicle charging point per parking space, public or private. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, mentioned specific restrictions on that, which were introduced into the permitted development right to protect the environmental amenity of an area—hence the planning permission is needed. However, there is no height limit for charge points installed by or on behalf of local authorities, which are able to consider the impact of a charge point at a particular location, as well as on the safety of road users and pedestrians, and any other local considerations. That is what we want to bear in mind.

In general, the intention of these amendments is an important consideration. Given the change in technologies, it is important that the Government ensure the existing flexibilities and terms of permitted development rights and that they remain fit for purpose—and certainly deregulate where we should. So I shall take the issue away and consider it further with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government before Report.

On permitted development rights in London and TfL, my noble friend Lord Borwick raised the proposal to give TfL or the Mayor of London permitted development rights to install rapid charge points. Again, we agree with the intention behind aspects of this amendment; the installation of charging provision in London is crucial to help to ensure that air quality and climate change targets are met and, despite some excellent progress by local boroughs, many more charge points will be needed. While we recognise TfL’s frustration at not being able to make quick improvements to a road network that it may be responsible for, it is right and proper that it works collaboratively with local boroughs to consider the local democratic process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington]

I shall speak to the amendments in this group which stand in my name. I fully support the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has made. We have had to crowbar in amendments to enable us to discuss the more strategic need for the Bill. We have probably all sat down with a clerk and argued quite forcefully that the Bill is too narrow and that we need to expand it, but we have singularly failed. Despite its Short Title, it is a very narrow Bill. It seems that electric vehicles are not the purpose—it is all about charging infrastructure—and as we discussed at the start of the debate, zero-emissions vehicles are certainly not what it is about.

My Amendment 98 requires a reporting clause that tries to draw out the reasons behind the Bill, which must relate back to an increase in the use of zero-emissions vehicles. It cannot be a goal in itself to have a lot of charge points dotted around the country—that would be completely ridiculous. We must learn how we have done transition in other sectors. We should take a leaf out of the power sector book, where the Government took the reverse approach to this. We had lots of incentives for new generators of different types of power, but what lagged was the infrastructure of the grid. Here, we have the exact opposite: we are pushing out the infrastructure but have no incentives for the actual vehicles that would make use of it. We felt that the very least we needed to do was have a debate on that other aspect of this. We have to see these things moving in tandem. You need infrastructure and you need cars: infrastructure without cars equals a lot of fine kit but loss-leading, not profit-making enterprises, and companies would come in and there would be a boom and then a bust. That is not what we want or need in this sector. Therefore, a report is needed to require the Government to look back at what they have achieved and at what is happening as a result of this Bill. I suspect we could probably predict the answers, but we would like to require a report on the effectiveness of the Act and its regulations.

The report should include the number of electric vehicles on the road and that have been sold. Essentially, that is an integral part of why you want a charging infrastructure in the first place. There is a great need to ensure that we have the right ratio of charge points to drivers, so the Government’s reporting back on that seems perfectly reasonable.

In proposed new subsection (2)(b), we have asked for a report on the effectiveness of the Act in ensuring that 90% of electric vehicle drivers are within 50 miles of a rapid charger. This comes back to the point that rapid charging needs to be looked at as a strategic infrastructure question. I know that National Grid has published a plan—I suspect we will have to debate how it is paid for—to show that by using the transmission network, which nicely marries up to the motorway network, you can get to the target with strategic investment in transmission-connected chargers. That would be a class of chargers well beyond rapid chargers—super-rapid charging—and would put us at the forefront of this technology, not simply limping along following in China’s wake. A much wider approach must be taken by the Government.

You just have to look at other countries to see examples. We have mentioned China a lot but we should also look to California. It has introduced a successive series of policies to support the shift to zero-emissions vehicles. In October 2017, 340,000 zero-emissions vehicles were sold with a 4.5% market share, compared to the 0.5% market share in the UK at the moment. When California started its policy of a zero-emissions mandate, only one model was on sale; now, there are 25 models, offered by 14 manufacturers. These vehicles are actively available and on the market, not simply seen once in a showroom and then never sold. There are examples out there of how countries and regions have delivered this transition, kicked the car manufacturing sector into action and ensured that the latent demand and support from citizens for this type of vehicle is met by available and affordable vehicles.

So much more needs to be done and there is so little in this Bill. We feel that there should at least be some reporting requirements included that can flag the paucity of the Bill in its attempts to reach the goals that it says it has. I hope that something along these lines will be included.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, our Amendment 104 is in this group. This group is about reporting, and different ways been suggested. I hope that when she responds after my speech the Minister will offer to bring them together in the best possible mix and agree to a reporting procedure.

The proposed new clause would require the Government to lay a report before Parliament each year to consider how the regulations are working, and, specifically, the impact they are having on charge point operators, fuel retailers, the National Grid and the overall uptake of electric vehicles. The Government are intending the Bill to enable and encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, and they are right to do so. It would therefore make sense for them to review regularly whether it is actually happening and whether things need to be changed down the line. Involving Parliament in this issue would not only be beneficial for the Government but would enable them to regularly reassess their work. I am sure that the Minister would be saying that to us if our seating arrangements were reversed. We must keep the matter constantly under review and be prepared to revisit it if the circumstances require.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I very much agree that it is important that the Government take a strategic approach to encouraging and supporting the uptake of electric vehicles and the infrastructure that they rely on, that we monitor our progress against our air quality and carbon targets and that we review the effectiveness of any regulations brought forward under this Bill. I know that there is frustration about the narrow scope of the Bill, but I am afraid that it is just about electric vehicle infrastructure. It is not the extent of the Government’s work in this area.

In 2013, the Government published a strategy entitled Driving the Future Today, which set out the path towards achieving our zero-emission vehicle aims. Of course, much has changed since then—10 times as many ultra-low emission vehicles were registered in the UK last year as in 2013. While the aims of that strategy remain relevant, we are rightly considering how our approach needs to change in light of developments in the automotive sector and beyond.

As noble Lords are already aware, the Government will shortly publish a new strategy for promoting the uptake, manufacture and use of zero-emission vehicles, which will set out the Government’s vision and support for the provision of charging infrastructure for both battery electric and hydrogen cell electric vehicles to help facilitate this transition.

The strategy will go wider than just zero-emission vehicles. We recognise that it is also important to drive down emissions from the conventional vehicles that currently dominate our roads if we are to meet our ambitious climate change and air quality commitments. That includes considering air quality and carbon impacts in parallel and setting out the Government’s view on the role of different fuels in the coming decades.

With regard to Amendment 55, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, to review the effectiveness and uptake of the Government’s incentive schemes, the department already keeps under review its existing schemes supporting the rollout of infrastructure and will take the necessary steps to encourage the installation of charge points where they are needed. Further steps will be identified on that in the forthcoming strategy.

I thank the noble Baroness for her suggestions in Amendment 70. We are also looking at the potential of lamp posts. She is quite right to say that not all of us have driveways or garages and so we need to make sure that we get on-street parking right, too. We have an on-street residential charging scheme and we are funding several local authorities to help them to install lamp-post charge points—450 this year. That is something that we are looking to develop.

On the important point of reporting against our air quality and carbon targets, which noble Lords have addressed in Amendments 98 and 99, there are already legal obligations to report and make public data on ambient air quality and emissions of a range of damaging air quality pollutants. In some cases, these obligations implement international level commitments. Of course, the national air quality plan and the clean growth strategy also set out how the Government plan to meet the UK’s air quality and climate change obligations. In addition, we are also already required to report to Parliament on progress against our obligations under the Climate Change Act 2008, of which of course the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, was a lead author. Our ambitions to achieve a greater uptake of zero-emission vehicles is central to delivering the transport sector’s contribution to those obligations and will therefore form part of the reporting requirement.

As I have explained, the introduction of regulations will depend on the precise circumstances at the relevant time, so we are concerned that we may not be in a position to report on the impact of these regulations within the 12-month reporting period set out. The policy scoping notes set out the approximate timings for when we expect the regulations to be brought forward. I will probably follow that up in writing rather than go through the different clauses in detail now because the question of when we envisage the regulations coming in has been raised a number of times in today’s debate.

Our wider strategy for electric vehicles as well as the infrastructure to which the Bill specifically relates will be published shortly. I have mentioned the existing requirements to report against our air quality and carbon targets. We want to ensure that a requirement for reporting on this quickly moving area of technology is not disproportionate and unnecessary, but following the debate today, I will reflect on the points made ahead of Report and consider an amendment on this point. Given that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

Listening to the debate I find it really interesting, but I certainly would not claim to be an expert. I can easily imagine circumstances in which we end up with many diverse charging points across the country, and not enough people buying cars to use them. I have seen many examples in other areas of government doing things and pushing forward proposals, but with disconnects on the ground.

Having a 17 year-old, one thing that I have discovered recently is the cost of insurance for that age group. We need some joined-up thinking in that respect. We live in a rural area and my son has quite an old petrol car, but the insurance for him is £1,857—a great deal of money. If we are to get the next generation of young people buying electric cars and helping us to move this agenda forward, we may need some joined-up thinking between that amount of money being invested in insurance companies and the need to trigger more purchases of electric cars, with incentives to that generation to own a better, cleaner car, which would work for them and also begin to trigger the economy. I suspect that there are opportunities in all this, amid the problems that the younger generation face—but we need more joined-up thinking to ensure that we do not have lots of power points that are not used.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 66, in my name. It would provide exemptions for operators with limited forecourt space who could not accommodate public charging points without an expansion of land, and ensure that retailers and operators did not incur disproportionate costs for complying with regulations. The general thrust of the Bill is to make more charging points available, but we must ensure that there are no unreasonable unintended consequences. I do not think the wording of the amendment is particularly good, but I would like the Minister to consider that general approach. There are a lot of powers in the Bill, and if we are not careful we may find some pockets of unreasonableness.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I acknowledge this as a particularly excellent group of amendments. These points are all key priorities that will need to be consulted on before any regulations are brought forward. As proposed in Amendments 63 and 64, it is important that the Government can specify the type of charge points being installed in large fuel retailers or service areas. It is already the Government’s intention, as is made clear in the policy scoping notes, that any regulations under Clause 10 would include details of what provision of electric vehicle infrastructure will be required to ensure that the needs of users are met, and to deliver a quick and hassle-free charging experience, similar to refuelling conventional cars today.

This would include: specifying the level of charging infrastructure, most likely to be measured by number of charge points or hydrogen refuelling points; the specification for that infrastructure, such as the minimum power outputs and the connectors of charge points—I entirely agree that we want to avoid multiple chargers, and another VHS/Betamax situation—and any other operational requirements, such as the opening hours of the charge point. Decisions on those will not be taken by the market; they will be set by regulations—but they will be informed by consultation both with the market and with users of vehicles, to ensure that we get it right.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to see that we have, after several weeks’ delay, reached the Committee stage of this Bill. As I said in the previous debate, I welcome it. I was reminded, however, of its very narrow scope when I tried to devise some amendments which seemed to me useful and straightforward but seemed to the clerks, quite rightly, to be out of the scope of the Bill.

I understand the Government’s desire to deal with insurance as the low-hanging fruit of automated vehicles first of all. As we are told, however, that these vehicles will be on our roads in two to three years—and indeed as they are widely being trialled across the world and in parts of Britain—the Government, I fear, are going to have to run very fast to catch up on this issue given the pace of development of technology. I know that the Law Commission is looking at other aspects beyond insurance, at such matters as criminal responsibility and the wider issue of pedestrian and driver behaviour, but there is a serious danger of being overtaken by events. In moving Amendment 1, I want to concentrate our minds on the issue of vehicles manufactured and purchased or simply manufactured outside Britain and the importance of their being properly and fully reflected on the Secretary of State’s list.

The amendment’s intention is to ensure that this list is fully robust. Up to now, our insurance system has coped with imported cars simply because a car is a car. Whether a car is manufactured abroad and imported here prior to sale or manufactured and sold abroad and then imported into this country for use, either temporarily or permanently, this list has to be clear and comprehensive. How do the Government intend to ensure that the list is truly comprehensive? The world is a very big place, and we have a large number of people living in this country with links to other countries who might choose to import cars from abroad. There are also many hundreds of thousands of cars—indeed, millions—being driven on our roads that were manufactured abroad.

Amendment 2 stresses the importance of the Secretary of State’s list being aligned with definitions used in other countries—indeed, that goes for the whole Bill. The insurance industry has produced what it calls the 10 commandments, or 10 points, that a vehicle needs to adhere to in order to be considered automated. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, or UNECE, deals with global transport issues in relation to safety and is currently discussing international definitions of automation. I am told that the Department for Transport is taking a leading role in this.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is concerned that the Secretary of State’s list should follow the internationally accepted criteria as spelled by UNECE and should not be just a UK-specific definition. For this reason, it is keen that this legislation should use the internationally accepted levels used across the world within the industry. These standards were established by the Society of Automotive Engineers International and are apparently used everywhere across the world.

The Government intend the Bill to apply to levels 4 and 5, but, as written, it could apply to some vehicles at level 3. I want to draw attention to a recent court case in which a man was prosecuted for driving a Tesla S down the M1 near Hemel Hempstead while sitting in the passenger seat—there was no passenger in the driver’s seat. He was on autopilot. That is described by Tesla as a suite of driver assistance features including traffic-aware cruise control, which assists with acceleration and deceleration, and auto-steer. Although the reports I read did not specify it, I imagine that the vehicle also has automated emergency braking, because that is quite common in a range of cars. That is level 3, but it meets the definition in the Bill at Clause 1(1)(b), that vehicles are,

“capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving themselves”.

Clearly, the argument here is whether that was safe, but I fear that the Government might find themselves involved in a great deal of protracted court procedure on the definition of “safe” After all, level 3 cars are certainly on our roads.

If I go into a little detail about the difference between the levels, the Committee will see how narrow that difference is and how the Government’s definition in the Bill could be misleading. In level 3, the vehicle controls all monitoring of the environment. The driver’s attention is still needed, but can disengage from safety-critical functions such as braking. Many level 3 cars currently available require no human attention to the road at lower speeds. At level 4, a vehicle tells its driver when it is safe to be automated and when not. The vehicle is capable of steering, braking, accelerating, monitoring other vehicles and the road, and responding to traffic. It can determine when to change lanes and signal but it cannot cope with traffic jams. That is sometimes referred to as the, “mind off” level. At level 5, a steering wheel is optional—there is no need for a steering wheel—no human intervention is required and you do not need brakes or pedals. It is a totally new design of car.

I have gone into that in some detail because I fear that the Government’s definition of automated vehicles as being,

“capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving themselves”,

is oversimplified. They need instead to rely on internationally accepted definitions. The reason the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is concerned is that the levels are so well established and widely used across the world and within the industry that even if technology advances further, as it probably will, all they will do is add a level 6. It is rather inconsistent of the Government. I understand that they want some all-embracing definition that is not subject to change, but in the second part of the Bill, for example, which relates to electric vehicles, the Government are happy to refer to “fast and rapid charging”. That is the same kind of technological term currently in use—the current jargon.

I believe, and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders also suggests, that this could lead to a blurring of definitions. It could lead to legal challenge and the Government could spend a lot of time defining what is safe. Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also deals with the definition of safe driving. I welcome it especially because it touches on the crucial issue of hacking: I am sure we will come back to that in later debates. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 33 and comment briefly on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The debate today will cover several areas, but one of them will be safety and I shall speak more about that later. My amendment covers safety, and lights particularly upon hacking. This is not a controversial Bill as I see it: virtually all the amendments are probing amendments and I hate to say it to the Minister but I think the speaking part on this occasion will be principally hers rather than mine.

Clause 7 sets out the terms for when a car is deemed to be driving itself, or in automated mode. However, it makes no mention of what happens if the vehicle is designed or manufactured faultily, or if it is hacked due to a failure by the manufacturer to install adequate software safeguards. While we all welcome the opportunities that this new technology will bring, we also have to recognise that it will bring new risks. A lot of these risks will be around the software used and therefore may be harder to pick up than in a conventional vehicle. This is a good opportunity to put in safeguards to give protection around this area now, rather than later down the line.

The amendment tightens up this area of the Bill by setting out when an automated vehicle is capable of driving itself safely. This would give the driver protection with regard to liability if it was proven that there was a manufacturer’s fault or the vehicle had been hacked. The purpose of the amendment is to get a general debate started in relation to this area, particularly on the hacking element.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

As the noble Lord rightly says, for level 3 partially automated cars there is a training system in place before the vehicle is used. For levels 4 and 5 that is something we are working on. We have not seen these vehicles yet, but I agree it will be essential to ensure that people who use these vehicles are able to use them safely. That is part of what we will be looking at, as we put together the regulations.

We think that we need to maintain flexibility to ensure that all the vehicles relevant to Clause 1 can be identified and included in the list, so that we can give insurers the clarity over which vehicles require insurance.

On hacking, we are working with the UK security agencies, including the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, and the new National Cyber Security Centre, to engage directly with industry, raising awareness and promoting best practice. Cybersecurity, including for automated vehicles, has been identified as a top priority in the national security strategy. Of course, it is essential that all parties involved in the manufacturing supply chain, from designers and engineers to retailers and executives, are provided with a consistent set of guidelines that support the industry. As part of this work, we developed, consulted with industry, and published in August last year the Principles of Cyber Security for Connected and Automated Vehicles, a guidance document for the automotive industry on good cybersecurity. Those principles are now informing the work that we do at UNECE level on the taskforce on cybersecurity, which is developing standards, practices, directives, and regulations concerning cybersecurity and their applicability to the automotive industry. We have also set up an automotive information exchange to promote sharing of intelligence and best practice for effective cybersecurity.

I very much agree with the intention of the amendment, but we think that both the safety and cybersecurity requirements of automated vehicles will be covered in future regulations, once agreed at this international level. I hope that, given those arguments, the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

The Minister made a very important statement at the beginning, so I want to make sure that I heard it correctly. I think that she said that the responsibility of the Secretary of State would be to list the vehicles that could safely be driven automatically or would safely drive themselves automatically on the roads. Does that mean that the Secretary of State will effectively be certificating these vehicles as being safe?

[Baroness Sugg]

The vehicles will be certified through the type approval process, following what has been agreed at international levels. That is what will decide whether or not those vehicles are safe. Once that type of approval process has happened, those vehicles will then go on the Secretary of State’s list, which is purely for insurance purposes, so that insurance companies and purchasers of vehicles can understand whether those vehicles require automated vehicle insurance. So it will be a separate process to the list on exactly how those vehicles are certified, which is what is subject to ongoing conversations at international level. We do not yet have those standards, but we are working towards getting them, which will certify whether a vehicle is safe. Given that, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, removing the two words “or adapted” would mean that the Secretary of State’s list would not include vehicles manufactured for conventional driving and adapted for autonomous mode. Those involved in the motor industry regard the concept of adapting vehicles as extremely dangerous. The technology companies—the people who write and design the software for cars—also regard it as very dangerous. The point they make is that their software is specifically tailored to individual car design. The fact that their technology works safely in one car does not mean that it can be shoe-horned into another model, even a similar model.

The clause as written would include individual adaptations by enthusiasts, which would be a very uncertain path to go down. Indeed, if a car manufacturer decided to adapt a current level 3 model—for example, the Tesla S, to which I referred earlier—to a level 4 car, I am absolutely sure that Tesla, in line with standard motor industry practice, would call it the “Tesla S Elite” or something similar. It would be a different model and therefore it would not be an adaptation in the meaning set out in relation to the Secretary of State’s list. What I am really pointing out here is that the concept of “adapted” vehicles would narrowly include those adapted on a one-off basis by individual enthusiasts, and therefore it would not seem reasonable to expect the Secretary of State and the Department for Transport to have the expertise to know whether that was safe.

I want to refer briefly to Amendment 29, which is in this group and stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. A big section of it is very similar to the amendment tabled by Labour in the Commons to the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord on having managed to get this amendment accepted. I could not think of a way of doing it, but he has done very well.

Amendment 29 addresses crucial issues associated with the proper repair and maintenance of automated vehicles. In particular, it goes into detail on the need to establish properly accredited training schemes for those who repair and maintain them. Rather like the repair of electric vehicles, the process is totally different from traditional vehicle repair. I spoke at Second Reading about the need for a process similar to the old CORGI gas safety scheme. That was a highly respected, universally acknowledged scheme and came about as a result of the Government working with the industry. We need the Government to work with industry in the same way on automated vehicles, and I am very grateful that the noble Lord has raised it in his amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 29 in my name. I accept the noble Baroness’s congratulations on behalf of my staff—which is one quarter of a very able lady—who managed to get this past the Public Bill Office. The proposed new clause would protect insurers against accidents caused by vehicles repaired by unauthorised technicians. It would also require the Government to establish a scheme for the authorised inspection, repair and maintenance of automated vehicles by licensed and accredited technicians.

The automotive industry already relies on hundreds of thousands of individuals who support work on and maintain vehicles. As the technology develops, so too must the skills of those working on them. We are already aware of an existing skills gap in the industry. As the technology develops, that gap may well worsen but, as it stands, the Bill does not address a worsening skills gap. If we do not start planning for this now, we will be left with a huge hole in the support structures for these new vehicles.

I am of the generation where I was privileged at the age of 17 to buy a car for seven pounds and 10 shillings. The car was seven years older than me. It tended to go only about 10 miles before having to have its plugs cleaned and so on—which made courting my wife a bit difficult at times. But we were of a generation when the skill of looking after automotive technology was very straightforward, and widely understood by a large section of the population. Now I drive a Prius, and I would not dare touch anything on it. Not only is it unduly complex, but it could be very dangerous, with the very high voltages involved and so on. There is nothing I could do to that car that would do anything other than worsen its performance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I will first address Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, regarding the removal of “or adapted” from Clause 1(1). It may be that in the future vehicles could be adapted to be capable of driving themselves safely. It could also be the case that some future vehicles are designed to be ready for full automation at some point after their sale but not yet fully capable.

I do understand the concern around this, as we have not yet seen such vehicles in the marketplace, but, given that we cannot predict how these vehicles will evolve, it is important to ensure that we do not prematurely preclude such technology—or, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, put it, slam the door on potential innovation. Happily, it would not be up to the Secretary of State or, indeed, the Department for Transport, to decide whether an adapted vehicle was safe. Whether it was a vehicle adapted by an enthusiast in their back yard, or with a software update from Tesla, it would be subject to the same type of approval process before it could be legally used on our roads. So I can reassure noble Lords that a vehicle with any such adaptation would be on the Clause 1 list—and therefore have insurance, and be on our roads legally—only if the adaptation was considered safe.

On Amendment 29, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is of course absolutely right to be concerned that automated vehicles meet appropriate safety standards and that the inspection, repair and maintenance of an automated vehicle is done in an authorised way. Motorists with these new vehicles will clearly expect the same level of knowledge and customer service they have come to expect for conventional vehicles. However, we believe that at this stage it is too early to develop a full training, licensing, and accreditation scheme for automated vehicles, or to legislate on how automated vehicles are inspected, maintained and repaired.

As I have said, the Bill is focused on ensuring a sensible insurance regime, and we do not believe that it is the right time to legislate further on maintenance in the manner outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, given that the UNECE harmonised technical safety standards have not yet been agreed for these vehicles. As I said in debate on previous groups, these conversations around safety standards are ongoing, with the UK actively participating in these important discussions.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

Might the noble Baroness meet us half way by giving us an assurance that at an appropriate time such a scheme will be developed?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

8: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must consult on and publish the criteria that they will use to determine whether, in their opinion, a motor vehicle is designed or adapted to be capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving itself without having to be monitored by an individual.(1B) The Secretary of State may not change the criteria under subsection (1A) until they have consulted vehicle manufacturers, insurers and other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, before moving Amendment 8, I would like to reflect on the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that this backwater of transport gets a Bill only every two or three years. I think the Minister and I are locked in our fourth transport Bill in as many months. If you extrapolate from that, we will be here for ever.

Amendment 8 improves the Bill because it requires the Government to consult on and publish criteria for the definition of “automated vehicles” that will be used by the Secretary of State. The current drafting of Clause 1 puts the onus on the Secretary of State to define, in his or her opinion, what constitutes an automated vehicle without having to consult the sector. The Bill will be vastly improved if there is a requirement to consult and publish the criteria by which an automated vehicle is defined. It would also prevent the Secretary of State changing the criteria without consulting vehicle manufacturers, insurers and other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

It is crucial for manufacturers, vehicle owners and insurers to know whether they are making, buying, loaning on or insuring an automated vehicle, and whether the scope of the legislation applies to their vehicle. There are concerns that the Bill, as currently drafted, leaves the Secretary of State with total discretion as to what is an automated vehicle. The amendment therefore provides greater clarity and will help the Government by ensuring that relevant persons and organisations would be sufficiently involved, allowing that to inform the Secretary of State’s list of automated vehicles. The additional clarity provided by the amendment would help create a more reassuring environment which encourages the development and uptake of automated vehicles.

I will just touch on the whole area of safety. I have spent a life in safety-critical environments. The first thing that does is give one an aversion to the word “safe” because it is used in a binary sense: things are either safe or unsafe. In practice, nothing is absolutely safe. In my experience, most regimes are developed by one of two routes. One is the “crash and regulate” route, which has served aviation quite well. Hundreds of aeroplanes crashed in the early days, and we have now got to a situation where regulation refined by those experiences has produced the safest aviation environment in history. The motor industry has also essentially been a “crash and regulate” environment. Crashes have occurred, other incidents have occurred, regulations have been developed and safety has generally improved decade on decade. But in other areas the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 criteria have been used; that is, pursuing the objective of reducing risk to as low as is reasonably practical. That is a much more philosophical approach.

I hope that in developing these criteria the department, in its participation in international discussions, looks at both approaches, particularly the philosophical, proportional approach. When we move into this automated phase, it will be like the beginning of motoring all over again. We will be in an entirely different environment. For decades, we have relied on eyes and ears to be our interface senses; in this situation, we will be trusting a whole new series of senses, and the possibility of multiple interface failures has to be very high. I hope the department will take this seriously and actively develop its skills in looking at this whole safety environment so that we can play an important role in getting the right regulatory regime for automated vehicles. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, before the noble Lord deals with his amendment, may I say that I am sad that I was right that the Government are determined to keep the Bill within its current scope? They are missing considerable opportunities in regard to my noble friend’s description of what the Bill would do: enable the insurance industry to develop new products, and enable us in this aspect to be ahead of the game and part of the international conversation. She talks about the advantage of legislating now, but the Government will not legislate now in other areas where they could simply and where I think the House would be inclined to give them quite wide powers to get on in this area. I am disappointed that the Government are taking this action. If I find opportunities beyond today to do something about it, I look forward to taking them.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I shall study the Minister’s response with great care, and I look forward to possible contacts between now and Report, and will decide whether to table further amendments then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Borwick]

My Lords, Amendment 19 addresses the problem at the back-end of subsection (2), where it says,

“allowing the vehicle to begin driving itself when it was not appropriate to do so”.

The problem may be that it might have been right for the vehicle to start off on a nice sunny day in London, and it then drives to Scotland, where it is snowing, and it is no longer appropriate. However, it was appropriate at the start of the journey, and it would certainly be right for the driver to allow the vehicle to begin driving itself at that time—but not right for him to allow it to continue to drive. That would be a simple change in the wording, which I have put in Amendment 19.

In Amendment 20, I address the question of what “not appropriate” means, when we could use the phrase “avoidable and unreasonable”, which I think is much more in keeping with legal custom than the word “appropriate”, because it can be argued as to what it means. Those are my two amendments in this group, and I leave to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, Amendment 21. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 21 in this group. The Bill as currently drafted means that the insurer or owner of an automated vehicle is not liable where the event was caused by a person allowing the vehicle to drive itself where it was not appropriate to do so. However, it does not define when it is or is not appropriate to do so. This amendment requires the Government to provide regulatory guidance for when it is and is not appropriate for a person to allow an automated vehicle to drive itself.

It would clearly not be appropriate in some circumstances for vehicles to drive themselves: for example, early automated vehicles might be deemed safe to use only on motorways and not on some urban roads. Another example would be that a software issue might arise so that using the automated function at that point would be inappropriate. Clause 3(2) is not clear enough in its intentions. Does it even apply to fully automated vehicles or bimodal vehicles? We need more clarity on this.

One of the primary purposes of Part 1 is to provide a framework to give insurers, manufacturers and potential users greater clarity, providing confidence and encouraging progress on automated vehicles. However, it is still not clear from the Bill what the Government have in mind about when their use would be appropriate. We are asking for regulations to be brought forward to better define those circumstances, because we cannot afford to have confusion here. People must be clear about where their obligations lie. If we are to see the growth in the industry we all wish for, we do not want to leave this issue hanging over it.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I will make what I hope is a helpful suggestion to my noble friend in connection with Amendment 21. The most appropriate authority to make these regulations would be the Office of Rail and Road. It is responsible for safety on the railway; it should be responsible for road safety, but we have not got there yet. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would support me on that one. However, I hope that is a helpful suggestion.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, as we deal with a set of amendments dealing with handover, it is perhaps appropriate to give my noble friend a break, and I move over from the passenger seat. However, I assure the Committee that my noble friend remains in control.

The transferring of control of an automated vehicle between a human driver and the automated vehicle’s system will be an important factor in ascertaining how a vehicle safely and appropriately operates on UK roads. Straightaway I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who spoke to his Amendment 21, that of course we recognise the need to put in place a proper regulatory framework to ensure both the safe deployment and safe use of automated vehicles—I will say a bit more about that in a moment.

It is likely that the first automated vehicles to reach the market will be able to be used in automated mode only in specific circumstances or situations, with vehicles capable of full automation arriving further into the future. My noble friend Lady Sugg said a little more about that when we debated Amendment 4. For example, she said that these circumstances could refer to vehicles that have been geo-fenced—able to operate only in a very specific, defined area—or to systems that would operate only on motorways and other high-speed roads. It is likely that these vehicles will be designed to allow handover only in these very specific circumstances: for example, from the driver to the vehicle when the vehicle enters that geo-fenced area, and from the vehicle to the driver when it leaves, in a safe manner and when appropriate to do so.

It is anticipated that the relevant international regulations at UNECE level will reflect these limited use cases and handover process. It is possible that these regulations will contain requirements for the vehicle to be able to detect where it is so that the system cannot be used in other situations. These standards and regulations will be likely to form the basis of the type approval process which automated vehicles, like conventional vehicles today, must pass to be sold for safe use on UK roads or in other public places. They would then be covered by Clause 1.

At the moment, the powers we have are sufficient. We can use existing powers in the Road Traffic Act 1988 to revise existing, or create new, road vehicle construction and use regulations to transpose or reinforce new iterations of the global regulations as they appear. However—I repeat what we have said before during this debate—global regulations for automated vehicles have not yet been decided, and so it is not clear what changes in our domestic framework would be needed at the present time. It would be premature to ask for primary powers in a Bill that is just about automated vehicle insurance without more detailed knowledge of the ultimate design standards to which these vehicles will be held, or without knowing the outcome of the Law Commission review of the existing legal framework —which, again, my noble friend mentioned.

As regards handover of the driving to an automated vehicle, my noble friend Lord Borwick has proposed a different test from that in the Bill: that the handover must not be “avoidable and unreasonable”. These two words would be applied conjunctively by the courts, and the result would be that a person could be found to be negligent only provided “avoidability” and “unreasonableness” were both shown to be present. The Bill’s test makes for a lower threshold on the insurer by placing a stricter burden on the driver not to hand over in situations when it would be inappropriate to do so. While the technological and wider regulatory framework here is still very new and developing, it would be prudent to set a strict standard and relax it if appropriate once more is known. Therefore, in the Government’s view, the original text of the Bill should stand.

To insert “or continue” into Clause 3, as proposed in Amendment 19, would in effect legislate for the possibility of the user having some residual role in the driving task after the handover to self-driving mode is completed. When a vehicle leaves a geo-fenced area or comes off the motorway, it is anticipated that there will be a safe handover back to the driver, and the details of this will be covered by international safety standards. However, my noble friend’s amendment does not fit with the Bill’s definition of an automated vehicle, because this requires no monitoring while the vehicle is driving itself. I hope this explanation reassures him that his amendment is not necessary.

While, as I have already said, I am sympathetic to the intent of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in Amendment 21, we think that we do not need these powers, as the definition of when it is appropriate for the vehicle to drive itself will be covered elsewhere in regulations. I hope that, given that assurance, the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

Can the Minister expand on where else in regulations these powers will be available?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I think I said when I was speaking to the amendments that at the moment the powers we have are sufficient. We can use existing powers in the Road Traffic Act 1988 to revise existing, or create new, road vehicle construction and use regulations to transpose or reinforce new iterations of the global regulations as they appear. However, as has been the case with other regulations we have debated, on safety and other issues the Government will bring forward the appropriate legislative framework in due course if we do not already have powers under existing primary legislation.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, as we go through this Bill, it is remarkable how many amendments overlap each other. It was not necessarily apparent at Second Reading, but we have all from our different directions come out with the same answers. One of them is in the update of safety-critical software.

This Bill seems to have taken some time to go through another place and then to arrive here. Since we first heard about it, it has changed its name on various occasions. It has had aviation included and then taken out. During this period—which I have variously heard has been two or five years—things have changed. The Bill is written as if it is the job of the insured person to update the software. That might have been true five years ago, but nowadays the software is updated automatically. We are, after all, talking about an automated vehicle—the software should be updated automatically.

I believe that the drafting, as we have it, of Clause 4(1)(b) should be changed to the wording in Amendment 23. It is perfectly easy to programme the software so that the vehicle will demand itself to be updated and will not move unless it is done. Given that this is safety-critical software, we ought to make certain that this vehicle itself has enough ability to know whether it is up to date. It can easily do that with modern software systems. So making certain that the vehicle updates itself before it moves from wherever it is in a parked and deactivated position will be perfectly easy. Nowadays, with the design of the Tesla vehicle, all the updating is done automatically—sometimes without the knowledge of the owner or driver. It is easy for the manufacturers to do and a much more modern way of looking at it than the drafted wording in this Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 25 in my name and—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

The noble Lord should speak to the amendments.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

You are quite right. I am a pedant as well, and proud of it. I shall start again.

I rise to speak to Amendments 25 and 28 in my name. The first concerns insurance, which is what the Bill is supposed to be about. As the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, has said, because of the time this Bill has been in gestation, the language is not perhaps as we should like. It has effectively defeated me. If you look at Clause 4, for instance, we have:

“an insured person … an insured person who is not the holder of the policy …someone who is not insured under the policy in question”,

and then we have, simply, “that person”. I got lost working my way through it.

What this amendment tries to do is to protect the innocent party. What we need from this Bill is that, when an innocent party is injured or their property is damaged by an automated vehicle, they get the money without quibble and all the legal battles take place between the insurance company and whomever may be responsible for the event. It may be that the Bill, as drafted, achieves this. I shall be happy if the Minister tells me that, provided she accompanies it with a plain language explanation as to how the clauses and subsections get us to that point. I do not think this Bill is going to win a crystal mark for clear English.

The purpose of this amendment is to protect the victim or damaged party. We must be clear that the insurance system put in place for automated vehicles is designed in such a way that it does not cause any delay or question over the payment of compensation to the victim, if there is any dispute between the insured person and the insurance company over responsibility for the accident. As the technology becomes more complex, so too could the decision about who is to be held responsible. I understand that this Bill aims to set out the liability of insurers for automated vehicles. So I am seeking clarity from the Minister on this point to ensure that the victim of any potential accident is at the front of our minds when we are discussing these issues.

I shall now speak to Amendment 28. Under the current drafting of the Bill, people would be able to drive their automated vehicle on the roads without having the latest updated software, which could lead to safety risks. The clause would require the Government to introduce regulations requiring automated vehicles to be up to date in order for their automated functions to be used. If a vehicle had a serious mechanical fault that could endanger the driver and others, we would not allow it on our roads. It makes sense that an automated vehicle would similarly present an increased safety risk if its operating system were not updated.

Without the new clause, people would be able to take an un-updated vehicle on to our roads, either by accident or on purpose. Insurance companies could surely factor the increased risk into premiums, which would be higher as a consequence. Most people with smartphones or computers are likely to have software that prevents them from being used until it is updated. There does not seem to be any reason why a similar mechanism could not be included in automated vehicles. By preventing un-updated vehicles from being used, we would achieve safer roads and cheaper insurance.

The primary benefit of AVs is that they reduce the likelihood of human error, yet one of the few areas where scope for human error remains—the responsibility for ensuring that software is updated—would not be addressed even though it would not be difficult to do so. The new clause would address that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

Perhaps the Minister could help me a little here. If a vehicle is not insured today, and a pedestrian is harmed, say, who had no responsibility at all, my understanding is that they will get an instant payout from some sort of collective fund. Is that correct? If it is, is it the intention of the Bill to have a similar situation, including possibly defective software?

[Baroness Sugg]

I am pleased that the noble Lord has allowed me to address this point, because it goes to defective software. As the noble Lord said, it would be a legal requirement that all automated vehicles must be insured, but there will be instances when vehicles are driven illegally, as we see today. I will take this opportunity to clarify that the Motor Insurers’ Bureau will continue to play the same role as it does now with uninsured and untraced drivers, so that victims involved in collisions with uninsured automated vehicles will have quick and fair access to compensation, in line with conventional insurance practice. This arrangement is not currently covered in legislation nor included in this legislation; it is covered through an agreement between the Secretary of State and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. We are discussing what changes are needed to that agreement to sufficiently and appropriately incorporate automated vehicles within the existing process.

On software updates, Clause 4 anticipates that vehicle manufacturers will want to ensure that their vehicle systems are as safe as possible for consumers. As my noble friend Lord Borwick said, we expect that most updates will be done automatically and will be the responsibility of manufacturers. This is something that manufacturers acknowledge. Vehicle safety standards, which include software, as I have mentioned before, are still being discussed at the UNECE level. The requirements for system updates form part of the international discussions on the standards that will ultimately form the basis of the type-approval process that the vehicles must pass before they are sold in the UK.

There will be robust standards in place before these vehicles arrive to market, which will include the updating of safety-critical software. I can reassure noble Lords that vehicles will have to meet these standards before they are made available on the market. I fully appreciate the noble Lords’ intention to ensure that automated vehicles’ software is up to date, so that they are functioning safely—but, as with our previous debate on standards, we do not think it is right to act unilaterally at this time.

All noble Lords, including myself, are in the same place on this. We expect that vehicles will not be deemed safe to use, and therefore will not be placed on the list and covered by insurance, unless the safety-critical software is in place. It is a complex issue; we still do not know exactly how the software is going to work. We see some good examples from Tesla and Apple, but this is part of extensive conversations at an international level, with manufacturers and other countries, to understand how best to deal with this.

Amendment 25, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, requires the insurer to pay out first and then recover from the liable party. I hope that I can say this in plain English. Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 4 already work with Clause 2, where the insurer has a first-instance liability to pay the injured party. I believe that Clause 2 is clear on that, and where the liabilities of insurers are when the accident is caused by an automated vehicle. I think that the current wording fulfils the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

36: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of Part 1
(1) By September 2019, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament assessing the effectiveness of the system for defining and insuring automated vehicles introduced by Part 1 of this Act.(2) The report must consider—(a) the impact on the insurance industry,(b) the impact on the cost of insurance premiums for automated vehicles,(c) the impact on the uptake of automated vehicles, and(d) the levels of disagreement between manufacturers and insurers on liability.”

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, we all agree that in the future automated vehicles have the potential to improve personal transport arrangements as well as air quality, which is crucial given the dire state of the environment and its impact on health. Solving questions of how automated vehicles can be insured is essential and we welcome the fact that the Government are setting out how to do that. However, it is important to assess how measures work in practice, not only in legislation. It is particularly important that the Government should ensure that regulations are working as intended and should monitor unexpected impacts, which are always there, before attitudes and practices become entrenched and before automated vehicles become common on our roads.

Although the list in the amendment is not exhaustive, given the focus of Part 1 of the Bill it makes sense for a report to consider the impact that measures have on the insurance industry, on the cost of premiums for policyholders, on the uptake of automated vehicles and on disagreements between insurers and manufacturers on liability. This will be a fast-moving area and—who knows?—we may have to revisit areas of this Bill in the future as advances in technology take place and the advances impact on how these vehicles are insured.

It is important that Parliament is kept informed of the effectiveness and impact of the legislation to make sure that we keep it up to date as new technologies in this area are developed. I beg to move.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, the Government are taking a step-by-step approach to our regulatory programme in relation to automated vehicles. Where the evidence base exists for regulatory change, we will act so that the UK public and businesses can benefit from innovative new vehicle technologies as soon as they arrive to market. As we noted when we initially consulted with the public and industry in 2016, each of these steps, taken through either primary legislation, secondary legislation or guidance, will be subject to a process of scrutiny and ongoing review.

On the automated vehicle insurance measures, as part of this regulatory programme we will continue to engage with the DVLA and other motoring agencies, the insurance industry and other relevant stakeholders to make sure that the system works effectively as the new insurance framework is implemented, and that we are still meeting our intended policy objectives to provide a compulsory insurance framework for automated vehicles.

As noble Lords will be aware, we have produced a detailed impact assessment looking at the potential direct economic effect on the insurance industry from introducing these measures. As my noble friend has just explained, the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles has asked the Law Commission to undertake a far-reaching review of the UK’s legal framework for automated vehicles. This may consider a wide variety of areas of law, including the liability and the insurance provisions set out in the Bill.

Unlike with many other amendments we have discussed today, I will not be arguing that the Bill is the wrong place for this amendment. However, it asks for a report by September 2019, which would be too early to consider whether the scheme is effective. It is not anticipated that there will be many—or even any—vehicles to which the insurance provisions apply. However, I understand and share the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that the system that is in place is working effectively, and ahead of Report I will consider whether there is anything further we can do in this area. With that in mind, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment at this stage.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. There is a wider point, which perhaps I should have made before—though I think she is erring towards agreeing with me—which is that it seems possible that the first fully automated vehicles could be ferrying children to school in, say, five, 10 or 15 years’ time, without this issue coming back to this House at all, by virtue of the wide powers that many of the road traffic and other Acts have to do things by order, for example. Therefore I hope that we will be able to find some sort of reporting compromise that ensures that this House and, ideally, Parliament in general are kept informed of developments in this exciting and innovative area. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 36 withdrawn.

Airports: Passenger Assistance

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

I am afraid I must disagree with the noble Baroness. I have already explained some of the measures that Heathrow is putting into place in order to improve its service, and I look forward to the debates in the coming months on its expansion.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, surely this is just a lot of good words. To fix this problem you do not need innovative solutions or great essays full of good words: you need resources. This is Heathrow penny pinching. What are the Government going to do to force Heathrow to put the right resources in?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, we highlighted accessibility as a key issue to address in our aviation strategy. I do think that there has been progress, but I absolutely agree that there is more to be done. Since becoming Aviation Minister I have held many meetings with campaign and disability groups, as well as airlines and airports, to discuss what steps we can take, and I will continue to do so. This is something I feel very strongly about. It is an area in which we can and will make real improvements, and I am confident that all passengers will see the positive outcomes of our work.

Transport Levying Bodies (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. The regulations come after a period when there has been, not surprisingly, a lot of local discussion and debate about the formation of the combined authority. Having been through a period of change in local council formation in Wales about 20 years ago, I still bear the scars; it is never an easy or happy situation. As I knew that there had been debate about this matter and some discussion about the plans for transport in the area, I took a look at the mayor’s transport delivery plan. There are local concerns about an overemphasis in that plan on Cambridge city and on roads.

I applaud the ambition of the mayor, because his ideas include a Cambridge underground—the Cambridge autonomous metro with underground electric buses. It is ground breaking stuff and a very good idea in many ways, because Cambridge as an historic city with a dense population has a huge traffic problem to solve. However, undergrounds involve tunnelling, which is very expensive. It is therefore not surprising that the amount of money that would be sucked into the Cambridge area has alarmed people in Peterborough, who believe—I think quite rightly, being familiar with Peterborough—that much needs to be done to improve their bus network, such as the introduction of bus lanes and encouragement of ultra-low emission buses, as well as to improve cycling and walking infrastructure and the uptake of rail. Those are much less expensive options.

Then there is a wider picture, because Peterborough and Cambridge are two cities in the midst of a large rural area. I strongly welcome devolution of powers over railways, but, in that wider area, people are campaigning for the reopening of Wisbech station, which was a casualty of the Beeching era, and of the line from there to March. They are isolated communities that desperately need investment. People are also campaigning for the electrification of the Peterborough to Ely and Cambridge line to encourage freight from the east coast ports to the Midlands on to the rail. Of course, there are always demands for better rural bus services, with people emphasising the importance of sustainability and tackling congestion and air quality problems. I am simply trying to set the issues that have been put forward in this debate in the context of these regulations, and I have some questions for the Minister.

First, taking devolution fully into account, infrastructure development is of course an essential part of co-ordinated transport planning. So how does the Department for Transport monitor the way that levying bodies, not just this one but others as well, spend the money they raise? How does the department ensure that transport plans treat the whole area affected by this fairly? How does it ensure that there is co-operation and co-ordination—this is a key point—from one local authority area to another? Because there are certain aspects of transport provision, such as local buses, which are rightly an issue for that area alone, but when you are looking at railways you are almost always linking from one local authority area to another, and the same with road provision. So you have a transport plan from here to somewhere; you cannot just stop it at the border. I am interested in how the Government can ensure that the levy, which is after all a levy on the people of that area, is spent wisely.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I can set the Minister’s mind at rest that we are not going to have a constitutional crisis: this will be one of the thousands of affirmative instruments that will go through without a Division. Nevertheless, I have some mild misgivings.

The draft regulations give authority to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority to levy the upper-tier authorities, as far as I can see without constraint. They give this authority to set a levy in respect of transport. I did not know until I heard the speech of the noble Baroness that they were considering digging holes underground. My experience of digging holes underground is that they cost about £250 million per kilometre and they have a dreadful habit of not coming out at anything like the figure you thought they should. Therefore, this levy, if there is overambition, could be a very significant drag on the upper-tier authorities.

I cannot see in the legislation how that is limited. I saw some words about having regard for the ability of the upper-tier authority to pay, but that seemed to be all, so my first question is: are the upper-tier authorities consulted on the level of this levy? There is a general principle that there should be no taxation without representation. There should surely be some process with proper checks and balances in it.

In researching this order, I went back to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Order 2017, which says on page 5, at paragraph 7.13:

“To give effect to the contents of the deal to devolve powers to the proposed Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, the Order confers local authority functions for public transport on the proposed CPCA, to be exercised by the Mayor. It also enables the Mayor to produce and publish a Local Transport Plan for the CPCA area”.


My second question, therefore, is: has the mayor produced a local transport plan? Has he costed it? Has he explained the criteria for how the decisions on expenditure are made? Surely this transport plan should create a budget which the upper-tier authorities are able to have sight of and have some say about whether or not they are getting value for money for their levy.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)]

My Lords, in moving that the Bill do now pass, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed during its passage. Following our debates and the report of the DPRRC, I am pleased that we have been able to introduce government amendments to improve parliamentary scrutiny, consulting and reporting. We will consider further in the other place the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on trailer safety. The Government agree that trailer safety is an important issue, and as I have set out, my department will produce a report on it. I should like to thank the Bill team, which worked for many months on the detail of this legislation and will continue to do so as it progresses through the other place and regulations are drafted. This Bill will enable the Government to make important and responsible contingency plans for the haulage industry following our exit from the European Union. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I will briefly comment on the Bill. This is the third transport Bill that the Minister and I have worked on together. They have been conducted very efficiently by virtue of the efforts of the Minister and the Bill team. Virtually all issues have been settled by debate and consensus. I also thank my Bill team, which is half of one person, Katherine Johnson, especially for the brilliance of the amendment she crafted, which was supported in this House because of the care of the wording. I am sorry that we have that amendment between us, but I am very pleased with the way things have gone. I wish us both luck with the next transport Bill, which we are about to start.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Lords opposite said and there is very little that I take issue with. They made very good points indeed. But my position is that we are sending Her Majesty’s Government in to negotiate the Brexit deal. The last thing that we want to do is unnecessarily to tie the hands of our negotiators and perhaps find out at the last moment that that hand-tying exercise has compromised our negotiating position. I sympathise with the points that noble Lords made, but I do not have sympathy with the amendments and I hope that my noble friend will advise the House not to accept them.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

The groaning silence means it must be my turn. With the words of the Government Chief Whip ringing in my ears, I will try to be as brief as possible. My noble friend Lord Berkeley covered the issue with faint praise, and I join him in that. The Government are ahead of the game in this area, but it is a game that we do not really want to be in. He was right to emphasise the inspections, checks and so on. I hope that, as with the coat-hanger Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the point on reciprocity is noted.

The main amendment in the group was addressed by the overall comments of my noble friend Lord Whitty. It is almost impossible to appreciate the sheer volume of the road haulage business. I do not know about other noble Lords, but because of this Bill, I have been forced to learn quite a lot about the industry. I see that the Minister nods her head; so has she, clearly. What I am more familiar with is the queuing effect of delays. It happens in the railway environment where a nicely worked out procedure can be subject to a delay of only a matter of seconds, but if the queue is long enough, chaos will ensue. I am particularly cautious about wonderful computer systems. Most people will sympathise when I say that big computer systems in the public sector are rarely delivered on time and on budget. The truth is that such systems rarely are, and we hear about that in the public sector. They are very difficult to deliver, and in many ways this computer age of ours is still in its infancy in terms of the difficulty of using these machines for large-scale practical applications.

The chaos that could arise from the systems at a port not working properly could lead to what at least we rather soft westerners would think of as “starvation” where having only vegetables in their season might start to become a reality instead of a gimmick in a fancy restaurant. The transport of food stocks which are time critical could become awfully difficult. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give us extremely strong assurances that the intent of Amendment 1 is in fact the Government’s intent. I hope my noble friend will not press the House to divide on this issue, but to convince him not to do so, she will have to give us strong assurances that it is recognised that the best possible outcome is a system as close as reasonably practicable to what we have. It is almost a schoolboy statement, but I really would like a pledge signed in her blood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

Well, maybe that will change someday.

To speak briefly to Amendment 4, I think the noble Baroness has tried hard to interpret the long debate we had in Committee about the method of allocation and we will have to see how it goes: I think we cannot go much further on it. However, I support my noble friend Lord Whitty’s Amendment 5 on these criteria, which Unite has quite rightly been proposing for the operators. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned, though, it is going to get even more unfair if foreign lorries coming here do not have to comply with the same criteria. We risk losing more traffic to foreign lorries: it is massively out of balance at the moment and will get worse. I am not sure how we do it, because the Minister said about a previous part of the Bill that we cannot legislate about anything to do with foreign lorries coming here. I hope she will reflect on the need not only to take into account my noble friend’s amendment but how to apply that to lorries that come to this country so that there is a fair balance.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I too welcome the movement that the Minister has shown in the redrafting of Amendment 4. The essence seems to me that there will be a series of criteria to determine who should get permits and that the use, particularly, of random selection will emerge only where the differentiation by the criteria shows candidates to be equal. In other words, the objective will be to have objective criteria that can do the differentiation process, and only when bids of equal merit are placed in front of the selection would we stoop, sadly, to random selection. Let us hope we never get there—let us hope that there are enough permits anyway.

The Minister met many of the aspirations of Amendment 5 and I hope she will repeat them in her summing up. I hope she will give some warmth to repute as a concept for selection. There is the idea of a single criterion—safe, environmentally okay, et cetera—but it is crucial to recognise that it is more complex than that. We need to look at an operator’s track record: do they consistently work to a high standard? Are they consistently a good representative of that industry?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments on this group. I absolutely appreciate the intention behind the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and agree that we should expect our hauliers to operate to high standards. While we could include conditions on permits to cover the areas he raised, as my noble friend Lord Attlee points out, the operator licensing regime already requires this of operators and is quite an effective means of achieving this. We do not need to apply conditions to the use of a permit with a view to achieving exactly the same thing. That is not to say that we would not grant permits subject to conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has raised areas that we would absolutely consider within these conditions. The Bill as drafted gives the Secretary of State the discretion to make regulations authorising the grant of a permit subject to conditions, but we do not want the regulations to impose such conditions; that would make the permit regime more complicated for hauliers if those conditions are already covered elsewhere.

I absolutely understand the query about why some parts of the criteria and not others are in the Bill: believe me, it is something I spent much time discussing with the Bill team. Having considered the public law principles relating to the exercise of discretion and the need, for example, to take relevant factors into account and not to take irrelevant factors into account, we have taken the view that it is preferable to include in the Bill the specific references to first come, first served and random selection, to make it absolutely clear that when considering the scope of the enabling power the Secretary of State has the power to include these methods in the regulations.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that we want vehicles coming into the UK to meet the high standards that we expect of our own operators— even more so if we are using that as a criterion to allocate permits. However, Clause 2 enables regulations to be made only about permits issued to our operators, not permits for access to the UK by foreign hauliers, as the noble Lord acknowledged. The international agreements we set up with other countries will usually mean that a permit will be given only to a haulier who has that country’s equivalent of the operator’s licence. In a permit scheme with the EU, should we have one, all hauliers will have the operator’s licence governed by the same EU rules as we have at the moment. The best way to raise international standards is to continue to work with our partners to improve those standards.

I am happy to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that we will indeed consult carefully with industry on the criteria used. She made a very interesting suggestion on good repute and that is certainly something we will consider warmly. Sadly, I have not seen the briefing from Unite. Perhaps the noble Lord will be kind enough to forward it to me so that we can consider its suggestions, but I confirm that we will include trade unions in our consultation. We meet Unite regularly but we will ensure that we meet it when we discuss the criteria. If we are in the unfortunate situation of having to have a criterion, we should certainly use it to do what we can to improve the haulage industry.

I hope noble Lords will support the government amendment with the intention of trying to make the clause clearer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

I entirely accept the point. The amendment is carefully drafted but it would still have the undesirable effect.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, we generally support the sentiment of both these amendments and hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances in both areas.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, as I said in Committee—I am keen to reiterate it now—our aim is to set fees on a cost-recovery basis and keep them as low as possible. We will look to minimise the costs to hauliers in using any permit scheme, should we need one. We are well aware of the tight margins that many hauliers operate within and will do all we can to reduce the cost of any permit scheme.

The Bill allows us to charge fees for permits and we propose to charge those fees, if needed, for the recovery of only the costs of providing these permits. The Treasury‘s guidelines, Managing Public Money, set out how such fees should be set and what elements can and cannot be included in that calculation. The Government believe that those using this service should meet the costs of it, rather than the costs being passed on to taxpayers more generally or going on the operator’s licence.

We will follow these guidelines in setting our fees, which means hauliers will not pay any more than they need to to meet the costs of the service. The best way to minimise permit costs for hauliers is to ensure that our systems are as efficient and effective as possible. I acknowledge the points made earlier by noble Lords about IT systems. For these permits, we are exploring how we can use our existing systems with a view to users having a single system for all our permit schemes. We hope that will simplify the process, and there is significant investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, this is another interesting amendment. I have a query for the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about drafting. The amendment refers to “UK registered hauliers”. What does that mean? Does it mean that the company is registered in the UK or that the operator’s licence is held here? You could have a company which is registered on the continent, or in Ireland, whose operator’s licence is actually held in the UK. There is some lack of clarity there. I do not know whether the noble Lord has thought of it.

My worry about the amendment is: if the operator is not going to pay, who is? The noble Lord also made a very important point about competition in the road haulage industry being acute. He is absolutely right: it has been so for a long time. The reason for that is that the cost of operation in road haulage is well understood. Modern vehicles are extremely efficient; you can get maintenance contracts which take out all the risks. You know the costs of the fuel—it is very high, because it is heavily taxed—the costs of the driver, and the cost of other taxes and any necessary permits. If there is a cost to the permits, the market will take account of that. Although the noble Lord is right that it is a horribly competitive market, the prices will actually just rise very slightly to take account of the cost of permits. I do not think that the noble Lord’s concerns about absorbing the costs hold good.

I hope that the Minister will provide reassurance on Amendments 10 and 11. It seems that, in road haulage legislation, the driver is responsible for everything but has little actual power to do anything about it. I hope my noble friend can give some reassurance on that.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I support the amendments and will build on the points made. Amendment 11 is particularly important. The generality of placing responsibility on the driver is becoming increasingly out of date with the complexities of the real, modern world. In other transport environments, it is recognised that the wider responsibility lies with the operator, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances on that.

Amendment 10 is also sensible and goes in the right general direction. We are moving into a wholly digital age—even I have an iPhone.

Amendment 9 deals with a very serious issue. The industry will feel aggrieved if there are additional charges. It would argue, accurately, that it is an enormously efficient industry, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out, and we respect that. The industry works to very small margins and it is therefore inevitable that these charges will be passed on to customers. I hope that there will be full consultation before any charges are considered and that everything is done to make them as low as possible. I think the Minister has already said this, but it cannot be repeated often enough. In the previous group there was some talk about considerations of other factors such as what other people were charging, and so on. I hope that those will not be the considerations; the simple consideration should be that the Government pay all the capital and the set-up costs, and everything else is driven down to a low level.

I hope that the intention of this amendment, to outline and emphasise just how important this is to the industry, is accepted by the Government and that the Minister will be able to repeat herself by saying reassuring words.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I will first address enforcement and Amendments 10 and 11. The sections on enforcement use the model of enforcement powers that are already in place in the context of operator licensing, Community licences and permits. Under current arrangements, the Community licence is the paper document that hauliers are required to carry in the vehicle and show to inspectors on request, so a switch to paper copy permits, should they be needed, will not fundamentally change this process.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is right to highlight the benefits of digital documents. We want to see the haulage sector moving in this direction and are working towards that, but unfortunately we are not there yet. The Bill already provides the flexibility to move to that digital system in the future. Clause 1 provides that the permit,

“may be in any form the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.

That would enable the Secretary of State to specify the form of permits as digital once we have all the processes in place for that and once the industry is ready for it. Some of our existing permit agreements with other countries require a paper permit to be carried, and indeed all our existing permit schemes are currently paper-based, so it would be slightly counterproductive to insist on a digital permit at this stage. However, I can reassure the noble Lord that we are working towards that and that the current drafting allows us to move to that as and when we are ready to do so.

On the noble Lord’s amendment to Clause 8, the offence in Clause 8(2) relates to the conduct of a driver when a requirement is made of him or her by an examiner. Clause 6(2)(a) requires a driver to produce any permit carried on the vehicle to an examiner, and failing to do so without reasonable excuse would be an offence under Clause 8(2). That offence is relevant where a driver is frustrating enforcement activity, and mirrors similar offences for failing to produce documents carried on the vehicle, such as drivers’ hours records under Section 99 of the Transport Act 1968.

I absolutely understand the noble Lord’s point that if a driver has been sent on a journey by an operator without the necessary permit, the driver should not be punished for that. I agree, and to avoid this we included the wording,

“that is carried on the vehicle”,

in Clause 6(2)(a). Therefore, the driver will be prosecuted for failing to show a permit only if there is one on the vehicle which has been provided by the operator. If that is the case, that would be an offence under Clause 8(1), and that offence applies to the operator, so the driver would not be prosecuted for failing to produce a permit if they had never had such a permit in the first place. I hope this clarifies the scope of these offences to the extent that the noble Lord feels able not to press those amendments.

On the cost element of this group, the amendment proposes that fees should not be charged for five years. I have already outlined, and am happy to do so again, that our aim is to set fees, should they be needed, on a cost recovery basis and to minimise those costs to hauliers using any permit scheme. If we were to exempt hauliers from any permit fees for five years, these costs would have to be borne by another party. That would either be the taxpayer or it would need to be done via the cost of the operator licence, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out, which would mean that all freight operators would pay for it. The latter would be more in accord with the principles in Managing Public Money which we are trying to stick to.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is right to predict that I will use the argument that the costs of issuing Community licences are covered by operator licensing fees, which also operate on cost recovery. The issuing of Community licences is a small part of the costs of the operator licensing regime, and these fees are kept under review. If we no longer have to issue the Community licences and this reduces the cost to be covered by the fees, of course we will consider that when the fees are reviewed.

However, overall we think it is fairer that those who benefit from a service cover its running costs, rather than have all hauliers or all taxpayers paying for a benefit that only a small number get. Earlier, I confirmed that the fees will cover only the day-to-day running costs, with the Government covering the set-up costs of the scheme, which is being funded as part of our grant from the Treasury. Again, I am happy to confirm that we will do all we can to keep those fees low.

I hope that this discussion and the fact that the fees, should they be needed, will cover only the running costs will reassure the noble Lord that the fees charged to hauliers will be proportionate and stop an additional burden being imposed on the taxpayer. I can also reassure noble Lords that, should the government amendments be accepted, these fees, should they ever be needed, will be subject to three further measures: a statutory consultation with the industry; an affirmative procedure to allow proper parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations; and a report following their introduction to examine the impact on the haulage industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has again suggested that we might benefit from further discussion on this. However, as with Amendment 1, I feel that I have been clear about the Government’s position on the Bill and the Government have nowhere further to go. Therefore, if the noble Lord wants to push the matter further, he will have to test the opinion of the House today. However, I hope that with these reassurances and the government amendments that we will come to later, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I welcome this amendment, as far as it goes. Again, we debated this in Committee. The noble Baroness has tabled the amendment after Clause 8 and explained very clearly its purpose. However, when I read it, I said to myself, “What are ‘relevant restrictions’?” It is not included in the definitions and, although she has explained it, in the cool light of day when the Bill becomes an Act, I would read it and say, “Whatever is that?” Could she look again at that and either clarify it or come back with a definition at some stage?

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 12, I will speak also to Amendments 13 and 14 in my name. In the real world, you have to realise when you are not going to get any further. The noble Baroness has, in effect, accepted the thrust of our concern that there should be proper reporting. I think our amendments are much better but I know that she will not agree with me, and so I will settle for what I have got.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ contributions to this group and pleased that they welcome the broad aim of the amendment. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I hope that I have spelled out clearly exactly what the restrictions will be—and we will continue to do so. Again, that is something that we will consult the industry on and details can be included in regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

16: Clause 12, page 8, line 36, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must collate comprehensive data on the number and nature of trailer-related road accidents in the United Kingdom, and the Secretary of State must include the findings in a report.(2B) Such a report must include a recommendation regarding the necessity or not for the compulsory registration of trailers weighing more than 750kg kept or used on roads, regardless of whether the trailer is being used internationally or only in the United Kingdom, in a register to be kept by the Secretary of State.(2C) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.”

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 17 in my name.

The National Trailer and Towing Association has long campaigned for the periodic inspection and testing of light trailers. One of the main barriers to that is the lack of a trailer registration scheme that covers category O1 and O2 trailers. Noble Lords are aware of the tragic case of Donna and Scott Hussey’s very young son, Freddie, who was killed in 2014 when he was hit by a two-tonne trailer that had come loose from a Land Rover. The family and their MP, Karin Smyth, have been campaigning ever since for better trailer safety to try to prevent further serious injury and deaths. What is needed—and what Amendments 16 and 17 provide for—is the creation of clear evidence based around weights and categories of trailers in relation to their safety and the number and nature of trailer-related road accidents in the UK.

The Government need to take action on this, rather than making vague promises to consider this in the future. There is a strong argument for looking specifically at the safety of trailers in the O2 category, weighing between 750 kilograms and 3.5 tonnes. With a genuine data collection exercise and assessment of evidence, the Government would be in a position to make an informed and responsible decision, befitting Her Majesty’s Government, on whether trailers in that category should be registered and subject to stringent safety testing. The data presented in the Minister’s letter mostly conflates that of trailers below 3.5 tonnes and large—category O3 or O4—trailers above that weight. This is misleading because the data referring to these large trailers is irrelevant to the central issue. We are not questioning the safety of large trailers of this nature because, as has been highlighted, they are already subject to robust safety procedures and checks and subsequently have high pass rates. Those figures, and comparisons with non-GB countries, relate only to large tested vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, not the lower categories of trailer with which we are at present most concerned.

Crucially, any analysis of the Department for Transport data on the safety of trailers below 3.5 tonnes shows some major gaps in reported data. This makes it impossible to describe the best attempt of Ministers to argue on the Government’s behalf that we have a representative assessment of how safe or unsafe domestic users of trailers are on our roads.

The statistics presented in the letter on incidents involving light trailers do not represent all such incidents, but only those reported and recorded by police. Road traffic incidents reported to the police include only those involving a personal injury and that occur on public roads. The DfT therefore clearly states in its annual report on road casualties:

“These figures … do not represent the full range of all accidents or casualties”,


in Great Britain, and goes on to include details of other sources of statistics with vastly higher recorded accidents and road traffic injuries.

We would also like to draw a distinction between the current method of capturing data on trailer safety after an injury has occurred in an incident, and the DfT’s failure to lead any kind of initiative to collect data on the roadworthiness of smaller trailers using stop-and-search-type testing to prevent such accidents occurring in the first place. This has been highlighted by Avon and Somerset Police as an urgent priority. It argues that its own evidence of checks shows the unsafe condition of the majority of domestic trailers, which, despite being overwhelming, is still ignored.

The evidence presented by the National Trailer and Towing Association and others shows the shocking safety standards of many untested trailers under 3.5 tonnes. According to it, a large proportion of such trailers would fail any roadworthiness test. When the Secretary of State undertakes a data-collection exercise and collates comprehensive data on the number and nature of trailer-related road accidents in the United Kingdom, it is vital that this includes data gathered specifically on the safety of trailers in the O2 category.

The logic of the concept that trailers should be registered and tested seems at first sight overwhelming: 750 kilograms of trailer traveling at 70 mph out of control can do as much damage as a small car travelling at 70 mph. Clearly, the solution is that they should be registered and inspected. The Minister will tell us that this is unnecessarily bureaucratic, too complex and disproportionate. Indeed, that was exactly the position that I took in 1960, when I was told that I had to have an MOT test for my car, which, being seven years older than me, seemed to have shown through time that it would manage. We are a long way on from then, and we now accept the MOT test as part of our lives. In fact, MOT testing is one area where our requirements are significantly ahead of the EU’s. We are going to tighten the MOT test at, I think, the end of this month, which will have a significant impact on many car owners. We are willing to be quite brave in imposing this testing regime on vehicles, particularly private motor vehicles, and to some extent we have been rewarded in recent years through a reduction in the number of tragedies.

This is about people dying, and it is about Freddie. But, as I said, the Minister will argue that it is disproportionate. That is why our two amendments are so stunningly reasonable. I will go through them briefly. Amendment 16 would require the Secretary of State to do three things: to collate data, to then take a view of registration and say when they should be presented in a report. The key words are in proposed new subsection (2B): “or not”. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to collate data and make a decision based on them whether to register trailers. Amendment 17 is similar. It would require the report to decide whether it is necessary “or not”—this is at the discretion of the Secretary of State—to introduce a mandatory safety standards testing scheme. The last part of the amendment would enable and empower the Secretary of State to make regulations to introduce such a scheme.

While we believe that registration and examination will be a key improvement in safety and would have saved this little boy’s life and those of other people who die in events relating to trailers, we accept the charge of proportionality. Somebody must take an analytical approach to it and make a judgment on whether this would be grossly disproportionate to the benefits gained. That is why both amendments would allow the Secretary of State to make decisions based on evidence. We are insisting not on registration or a testing scheme in the amendments, but that the Secretary of State goes through an orderly, analytical process and comes to a decision. I beg to move.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I spoke at length in Committee on this matter. I do not intend to do so today. This is a very good compromise arrangement. The Government would ultimately take the decision. We would simply establish a framework on which basis a Government can take the decision. I hope the Government will accept the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, safety is of course very important and warrants due care and consideration whenever we are legislating. Under the proposals in the Bill, around 80,000 commercial trailers, and a negligible number of non-commercial trailers, would fall within the mandatory scope of the scheme. It would not affect the 1.7 million trailer users who solely use their trailer domestically. We believe that this approach balances the need to offer clarity to UK operators and enable them to continue to operate internationally, without placing undue costs and administrative requirements on businesses and non-commercial users.

It may be helpful to explain the existing regimes in place to ensure high standards of safety and roadworthiness of trailers. This includes an annual testing regime for larger trailers and an approvals regime for new trailers. The current annual testing regime applies to almost all trailers weighing over 3.5 tonnes, with very limited exceptions. Certain other categories are also included, such as those weighing over 1,020 kilograms with powered braking systems. This regime covered the testing of almost a quarter of a million trailers in 2016-17. The pass rate at first test last year was 88%. The separate approvals regime is very similar to that which is in place for motor vehicles and covers new trailers ahead of their entry into service. This means that almost all new trailers are approved either by model or on an individual basis ahead of taking to the roads.

The amendment seeks the collating of a report on the number and nature of accidents involving trailers. I confirm to noble Lords that this data is already recorded in the annual Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain report published by the department every September, which I am happy to share with noble Lords; there is also a copy in the Library. It contains extensive details of all vehicles and persons involved in accidents reported to the police that occurred on a public highway, involving at least one motor vehicle and where at least one person was injured. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pointed out the limitation that those are the only figures included. The report recorded statistics for more than 136,000 accidents resulting in injuries and has informed the department’s ongoing work on road safety, for which my honourable friend Jesse Norman is the Minister responsible. The number of recorded accidents involving a trailer in 2016 was 4,352, which accounted for 3.2% of the total number of accidents in 2016. The total number of accidents involving trailers has decreased by 21% in the last 10 years—a significant improvement.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, spoke of the tragic death of Freddie Hussey. I pay tribute to the campaign of his family and his local MP. Following this incident, the department and its agencies have undertaken significant work as part of our continuing commitment to improve towing safety standards. Highways England has launched the national towing working group, which brings together a range of stakeholders. The DVSA published further guidance regarding safe towing practices.

Noble Lords will appreciate that towing, by the fact of involving two vehicles, is more complex than driving a motor vehicle alone. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, highlighted some of the issues that can be faced. It requires not only the safety of the vehicles involved but knowledge of and education on driving and towing safely. Alongside effective enforcement of existing provisions, the department believes that education is integral to continuing to reduce the number of accidents related to towing.

My honourable friend the Roads Minister has been particularly engaged on the issue of trailer safety and has met Karin Smyth, the local MP for the Hussey family. He will be attending the trailer safety summit later this month alongside a range of industry stakeholders to take stock of the progress that has been made and decide what more can be done. I absolutely echo the sentiment of noble Lords that each death that occurs on the roads is a tragedy and we must do all we can do avoid them, but I hope noble Lords will agree that these figures and the work I have spoken of underline the fact that the trailers on our roads exhibit good standards of safety and our current approach is seeing steady improvements.

We remain of the view that it is not appropriate to include these amendments in the Bill, but the debate they have raised has been valuable. We will continue to review safety regimes on an ongoing basis, but I appreciate the wish of noble Lords for the department to look further at this issue of trailer safety, and I have discussed this in detail with my honourable friend the Roads Minister. We have asked officials to review what further steps could be taken on trailer safety and the reporting measures that are in place.

Although we remain of the view that trailer registration and indeed a trailer safety check are not integral to improving these standards, it is of course appropriate that we continually look for opportunities to consider data collection, review our conclusions on registration and testing, and raise standards of safety on the roads. As such, I am pleased to be able to commit the department to producing a dedicated report on trailer safety. This report will ensure that our existing reporting on trailers accurately covers the complexity involved in accidents involving towing where issues may arise from a vehicle, trailer or indeed the capability of the driver of the towing vehicle. After looking at the reported road casualties document, I agree that we could and should look at the way that we report trailer safety. It can definitely be improved. The report will also consider the role that registration and testing may play in continuing to improve trailer safety standards. We will certainly discuss this with the Caravan Council and other industry representatives.

As my noble friend Lord Attlee said, following our previous session I have arranged for him to meet the Roads Minister to further discuss trailer safety. On behalf of my honourable friend the Minister, I would like to extend this invitation to all noble Lords with an interest in the subject. The contents of this report I have committed to can be discussed there in more detail. I hope noble Lords are reassured by the statistics I have outlined and by the approach that the department is taking more generally. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for suggesting a report in his amendment and I am pleased to be able to agree to such a report.

As I have throughout debate on the Bill, I have attempted to take on board the views of all noble Lords. I fully agree that the department should consider this issue further but, with my commitment to such a report, I do not think it is necessary to seek to include the amendment in the Bill by dividing the House. With the agreement to a report and the offer of a meeting with my honourable friend the Roads Minister to discuss the contents of such a report, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response and her department for the steps already made, but she used the argument which is always used in these circumstances: “Not in this Bill”. The problem is that the Bill is here and this is an opportunity. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out, this is a hole in our legislation, and it is a hole that we believe should be filled.

It is a matter of life or death. I have been involved in the life-or-death industry for many years. In that, you have to worry about not simply the safety; you have to be reasonable and proportionate. That is why these two amendments are framed in this way. They would require the collection of data; the Minister has said that that is going ahead anyway. They would then require the Secretary of State to analyse that data and to make some decisions. Finally, they would enable the Secretary of State to introduce appropriate schemes. It seems that, from what has been said, most of what is in these amendments is acceptable to the Government anyway. The key additional part is the requirement for decision-making and the enabling of that decision-making to result in an appropriate scheme, if that is what the analysis reveals. Accordingly, I am not willing to withdraw this amendment and I beg to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

17: Clause 13, page 9, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) The report referred to in section 12(2A) must include a recommendation regarding the necessity or not for a periodic mandatory safety standards testing scheme for all trailers weighing more than 750kg.(2B) Subject to subsection (2A), regulations may make provision for a periodic mandatory safety standards testing scheme which must apply to all trailers weighing more than 750kg kept or used on roads, whether the trailer is being used internationally or only in the United Kingdom, with inspections of such trailers to be undertaken on an annual basis.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, in Committee, I argued that we are too keen on debating affirmative orders; I am not convinced it is necessary. With the negative procedure, if we have adverse briefing from industry and lobby groups, we can flag a negative order up for debate and debate it just as thoroughly as an affirmative order. I welcome the government amendment to provide for the affirmative procedure for the first such order as a sensible compromise. There is a danger with going for the affirmative procedure for subsequent orders. Suppose a small problem with secondary legislation is detected but you need an affirmative order to correct it. Officials’ advice will be that it is not worth going for an affirmative order just to correct this small problem, whereas if we were using the negative procedure, it could be corrected and there would be no controversy with outside bodies. I suggest, therefore, that we are cautious about the use of affirmative orders.

As for the noble Baroness’s sunset clause, noble Lords will recall that I have been very active on Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, where we have a sunset problem because the Government chose not to commence a piece of legislation, so I have sympathy for sunset clauses. I think there is a slight defect in the noble Baroness’s amendment and in Committee I suggested considering my alternative amendment. The defect is that the Secretary of State can go for an affirmative order to extend the period but that just extends it once for 15 years, whereas my amendment would have given only a small extension each time. I will share my amendment with the noble Baroness.

I am also in discussion with the Cabinet Office and had a meeting with Cabinet Office officials, attended by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, to explore this very issue, because I am at one with the noble Baroness that we should not have legislation hanging around that has not been commenced. Perhaps the noble Baroness will agree with the Minister on the amendment.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for moving from what was an entirely untenable position in the original Bill. I wish she had moved further—I find many of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, sensible—but I cannot at this stage see a position that moves further but not all the way, for want of a better way of putting it. Therefore, I reluctantly accept the Government’s compromise.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to the debate and, as it is the last group today, I am grateful for contributions throughout the passage of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has moved an amendment to provide a sunset clause for some aspects of permanent schemes introduced under the legislation, and the DPRRC report also recommended the insertion of sunset provisions. I agree that the Bill should not provide powers that may never be used, but use of the regulation-making powers set out in the Bill does not depend on the outcome of our negotiations with the EU, as we have discussed. The powers will be used in any event for applications outside the EU context—for applications pursuant to our bilateral agreements with non-EU countries, for example—so a sunset provision would constrain our ability to manage permit applications for those bilateral agreements.

I agree with the noble Baroness’s intention to ensure that unnecessary and unused legislation does not languish on the statute book but, as I said, that would not be the case. The effect of the amendment, even with the Secretary of State’s ability to extend it, would be to commit both government and Parliament to an unnecessary procedure. We would always need to extend the clause, as we would be using the regulations. For that reason, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

I tabled the government amendment to apply the affirmative procedure to the first regulations made and those first regulations only. I have taken account of the views of the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee—I am grateful for their work in scrutinising the Bill—and the concerns raised in Committee and agree that there should be further scrutiny of regulations in this case as they are likely to have an impact on the haulage sector. We believe that it is appropriate for the first regulations only; the same scrutiny is not required for subsequent regulations. The noble Baroness mentioned offences in particular. Again, we are following precedent by moving offences to affirmative first. In recent regulations, such as those under the Childcare Act, those offences are only affirmative first, and that is what we followed.

We want to ensure that scrutiny of the regulations in this area is proportionate, and we spent some time in Grand Committee debating the merits of the affirmative and negative procedures. We are using powers that will replicate many aspects of existing schemes such as those under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act, and those regulations are subject to the negative procedure but, given that these regulations will introduce an entirely new scheme, it is absolutely appropriate that they are affirmative in the first instance.

I hope noble Lords will agree that the government amendments allow proper and proportionate scrutiny, and I commend them.