Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 4, at end insert—

‘(2) Subsection (1) shall have effect and be taken always to have had effect from 3 November 1994.”

This amendment would make the repeal of sections 146(3) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 retrospective to the date they came into operation.

I hope that the amendment will find favour with the House and with the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), whom I congratulate on having taken the Bill so far.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is a passionate democrat. Does he not agree that there is something profoundly undemocratic about seeking to make a retrospective change to the law?

[Mr Chope]

I would not use the term undemocratic. If this democracy decides to make some retrospective legislation, that is an act of democracy, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that retrospective legislation must be very much the exception. In my brief remarks, I will try to spell out why I think that the Bill deals with a special situation. We know that Alan Turing, who had been convicted of a criminal offence, was pardoned by means of a retrospective Act. Subsequent legislation enabled other people who were similarly convicted to apply for their convictions to be effectively quashed.

There are other examples of retrospective legislation, but the interesting thing about the Bill is that it deals with a situation that is almost nugatory anyway. The overview of the Bill in the explanatory notes states:

“Whilst the sections are no longer of any legal effect due to other legislation (primarily, the Equality Act 2010 and regulations made under it), repealing them would both be symbolic and would prevent any misunderstanding as to their current effect.”

That seems to me to put this Bill into a completely different category from the norm of Bills that one would seek to have retrospective effect. This provision no longer has any legal effect because of other legislation. If we accept that the Bill is symbolic, what better symbol could there be than to say that at all material times this provision, which was incorporated into the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 by a Back-Bench amendment, is deemed to have had no effect? It seems to me that my amendment meets the test of special circumstances—a test that, I am the first to accept, we should always apply when considering whether to countenance retrospective legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I suspect that you are right about my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, Mr Deputy Speaker; he has been leading me astray for many years now.

The serious and relevant point that I want to make is that the principles in many respects remain the same. I accept that there is the difference in terms of the criminal law that my hon. Friend outlines—and that you outline, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point I was trying to make—perhaps in a ham-fisted way—is that the principles are similar in terms of retrospective legislation and whether we should go down that route.

In conclusion, I support the Bill and am all for changing the law on this, and I still maintain today that this law that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury is rightly dealing with should never have been the law; it was an absolute outrage that it ever was the law of the land, and I am all for changing it. But I am concerned that there might be, not necessarily unintended consequences, but unintended precedents set by trying to change it retrospectively.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the essence here is that we should not be seeking to pass provisions that are retrospective unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and where our hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has failed is in explaining what is compelling about his amendment?

[Philip Davies]

My right hon. Friend sums it up perfectly. There are two ways of looking at this. One of them is the way he looks at it, which is that we should not pass retrospective legislation unless there is a compelling reason to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch appears to be taking the view that we should not pass it unless there is a good reason not to. We seem to be on opposite sides of the coin, and I am with my right hon. Friend on this: unless there is a cast-iron reason why we should pass retrospective legislation, we should avoid doing so in case it sets some dangerous precedents further down the line, and my hon. Friend has clearly not met that test. Therefore, even though I have absolute sympathy with what he is trying to do and agree with the sentiment behind his amendment, I urge Members to resist it on this occasion and leave the Bill as it is.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Seventh sitting)

Greg Knight Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Hayes]

I will deal with those points, for the sake of interest and glamour, in reverse order. I dealt with the second matter that my hon. Friend raised—perhaps rather too briefly for his taste, but none the less definitively—in my final remarks a moment ago when I said that all such matters are beyond my ken. Of course, others—no doubt including him, with his usual assiduity—will make precisely that argument to the Chancellor as he goes about his considerations.

On the first point, however, we can perhaps do more. Warrantees in these terms are important, and I have given that some consideration. People want to know that if retrofits take place, it will not detrimentally affect their vehicle or have a deleterious effect of any kind, and that the retrofit itself will be something of which they can be sure. I take the point. I will take it away and certainly want to say more about that during the passage of the Bill, perhaps between now and Report. As ever, my hon. Friend makes a helpful contribution to our considerations. I was about to conclude, but I can see my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire eyeing me, with the possibility that he is about to add further expertise to our considerations.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for noticing that I was giving him a rather quizzical look. He said he would say more about that matter between now and Report. Does he mean in today’s proceedings or is he envisaging some other get-together before Report?

[Mr Hayes]

My right hon. Friend’s urgency has coloured all he has done in his long and distinguished career in this House. If I can meet that objective, I will. I think that would be fair enough.

I ought to have said at the very outset that I committed to write all hon. Members a note following our last meeting. I have done so, in an email. I have further hard copies that could not be distributed last night, for obvious reasons. If any Committee member seeks a hard copy for their convenience, I have them available here and will happily distribute them.

With those remarks, I wish to conclude this part of our consideration. We are taking action already to increase the uptake of ultra low emission vehicles, which is an important part of our wider plans. As with new clause 3, we consider it both disproportionate and unnecessary to insert a further requirement for a strategy in primary legislation, because we are going to do what the new clause seeks in any case. I feel that the Opposition will reasonably conclude that they have encouraged, endorsed and perhaps even stimulated a new determination on the part of Government to do exactly what has been set out in this discussion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We know that the automotive industry relies on hundreds of thousands of individuals in a range of roles to support work on and to maintain vehicles, and it will continue to do so in the future, but as technology develops, so too must the skills of those working on vehicles. We have already heard that the automotive industry faces a skills gap, and as technology develops that gap could widen.

The Bill as it stands does not address that worsening skills gap. We could soon face a gaping hole in the support structures needed for ultra low emission vehicles and for connected and autonomous vehicles, including automated vehicles. The Government need to have a laser-like focus on building our skills base, as people across the automotive industry have told us time and again, not only for electric and automated vehicles but for other car technologies too. That means we need a skills base in automotive research, development and manufacturing, as well as for technicians working on vehicles, so that we can boost job prospects and personal development for the hundreds of thousands of livelihoods linked to this industry.

All that is much needed and important, but the new clause goes deeper than that. It asks whether it is not time for the proper accreditation of qualifications for maintaining and servicing this new generation of sophisticated vehicles. I think the evidence indicates that it certainly is.

I declare an interest as a fellow of the Institute of the Motor Industry. It has shown that 81% of independent garages find it difficult to recruit technicians with the skills and competences they need to undertake work on the kind of technologically advanced vehicles that we have been talking about. It thinks that of the 180,000 technicians in the UK, only about 2,000 are qualified to work on electric vehicles, all of whom are employed in manufacturer dealerships.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Does not the hon. Gentleman’s new clause have three defects—it is bureaucratic, costly and unnecessary? Does he agree that, if a licensing system of the kind he is envisaging were brought in, the customer would have to pay for it through higher bills? Why would one need a licensed, accredited mechanic if one just wanted a lightbulb or a tyre changing?

[Richard Burden]

The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions is: no, no and no. The new clause would not require a licensed technician to check the tyres or change a lightbulb. That is why it asks the Government to bring forward regulations for the kind of accreditation scheme that would be brought in. I also do not believe it would lead to a high cost—in fact, quite the reverse, for reasons I will come on to talk about.

The main thing is that there is a high risk if untrained technicians attempting to work on these kinds of vehicle. I make no bones about this: it could put lives at risk. The battery pack on an electric vehicle carries up to 600 V. If someone needs certification—it used to be called CORGI certification—to repair a gas boiler, is it too much to say that they need some kind of accreditation or qualification to work on future vehicles? Even electricians conducting electrical work in our homes have to be licensed to do so. That is for households that typically run on 240 V AC. For EVs, we are talking about 600 V, and sometimes more. This is about the safety of the vehicles themselves, the people who work on them, those who drive them and other road users around them.

The new clause’s main purpose is safety, but it is not just about that. It is also about enhancing skills, providing mobility and progression for technicians, and giving market certainty about safety standards. I think it could have a wider impact on issues such as insurance uptake and viability. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question. I think that if it is not addressed, the skills shortages could result in higher repair and insurance costs. In some ways, that is already happening. There are already concerns about the insurance costs of some electric vehicles and ultra low emission vehicles. Some insurance charges for EVs are estimated to be as much as 50% higher than their petrol and diesel equivalents. That is because of the assessment made of the nature of the technologies involved.

We believe, as do a number of stakeholders, that the Government should consider introducing an accreditation scheme for technicians who will work on those future vehicles. They have to look at the details of that and at how it can avoid the kind of unintended consequences that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. If the Government introduce a scheme, they will be promoting safety and supporting the growth of the new generation of vehicles, in the way that we all want to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I associate myself with the remarks made by colleagues on the events of the past 24 hours. It is a delight to be here going about our proper parliamentary business; we are all delighted to be getting on with that.

Automated vehicles are likely to produce huge amounts of data on such things as car location, traffic information, maps or footage of surrounding areas, details of accidents, weather information and the car’s route, as well as information about passengers or indeed parcels inside the vehicle. Information associated with the charging of electric vehicles will inform Government policy on the legislation and infrastructure needed to support and encourage the uptake of electric and automated vehicles. The data will be a valuable resource.

There are many advantages to gathering such information. For example, if a car is self-driving and makes a mistake, the information gathered by the vehicle can be used to prevent other cars on the road and future generations of cars from making the same mistake. Information about accidents can better inform how we design our roads, and information about traffic could lead us to reconfiguring our towns and cities in order to reduce congestion and improve air quality. However, there are risks as well, as some of the information gathered by the car might be sensitive. Information about a car’s history could make identifiable a person’s place of work, who their friends are and what they have been doing, which is information that people may wish to keep private and which could be damaging in the wrong hands. Therefore, it is important that the Government ensure that the gathered data are secure, private and open, if we are to best take advantage of the new technologies.

That is not going to be an easy task, and the new clause recognises that it is important that the Secretary of State consults widely on it. That is why the new clause is tabled in these terms. It would require that the Secretary of State consults appropriate persons on the collection and use of data from automated electric vehicles, that the consultation addresses who is responsible for collecting the data from such vehicles and from any associated charging or network infrastructure used by such vehicles, how the data are shared between different parties and any limitations on the use of such data. I trust that the Minister is supportive of the intention behind the new clause and I look forward to his comments on whether it is acceptable to the Government.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I can appreciate the thinking behind the new clause, because this is a very important area. I personally think that the new clause is defective, in that it does not require action but requires the Minister to consult. The Minister does need to go through with his officials the areas where it is permissible for data to be collected and those areas where it is not. For example, I think that we would all agree that where an automated vehicle has been involved in an accident, the data should quite clearly be made available to the insurance companies and, if the accident has involved personal injury, to the police as well.

I can also envisage certain circumstances in which the automated vehicle has not been involved in an accident, but where the authorities might wish to access the data and should be given the right to do so, for example where it is suspected that an automated vehicle has been used in a burglary or a crime such as that which we witnessed yesterday. There could be circumstances in which the police suspect that the vehicle has been used for a criminal offence and they wish to access the data to confirm that that is the case, and perhaps to find out where the vehicle has been on other occasions.

There are then other circumstances in which I am far from convinced that it is either desirable or necessary for the data to be shared. If an automated vehicle is used in a company situation by an employee, should the employers have the right to access the information to see where the employee has been? In the absence of the Minister taking any action in that area, what would the status of a freedom of information request be to the owner of the vehicle asking to see the data? Would that be allowed? I pose the question because I do not know the answer—as a lawyer, perhaps I should not do that, because we are taught to ask only the questions to which we know the answer. I honestly do not know whether the Freedom of Information Act would apply if the Bill remains silent on this issue.

[Andy McDonald]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether the intended target of the request is subject to the Freedom of Information Act if they are not a Government body or a manifestation of the state.

[Sir Greg Knight]

That is an interesting point, but we should have further and better particulars from the Government, who have people who are paid to definitively know the answer to that. What about a situation in which there has been a breakdown in trust between two partners in a business or perhaps between a husband and wife? Should a divorce lawyer who suspects that the wife has committed adultery be allowed to have access to information from the wife’s automated vehicle? I would be very uneasy if that was the case. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough has performed a service in tabling the new clause, because we need to focus on these issues, and I think that there are circumstances in which such information should not be made available to those who seek it.

[Drew Hendry]

Many important comments about data have already been made this morning. Clearly there is the opportunity for data to be collected to improve performance, for safety, and for reasons of tracking a potential crime. That is one set of uses for the data, but we have heard about other possible uses as well. Given the enormous amount of data that will be collated by this future technology, real thought has to go into how the data will be handled. The Minister might reflect on the fact that, in the case of mobile technology, already too much personal data are given away to companies and bodies that we might not want to have the right to have access or ownership of those data, so it is important to consider how the data will be used in future. I suggest that the Minister considers the principle of the user being the owner of the data wherever that is possible and wherever it is practical or useful for the data to be used for the purposes of safety, protection or development.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Reflecting back on the intervention I took about the Freedom of Information Act, would the Government car service be covered by such a provision?

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Fifth sitting)

Greg Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Richard Burden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That example from the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) makes the point very clearly: there is huge potential to communicate with vehicles—for people who own or rent them, but equally for people who we would not want to be able to communicate with them.

Amendment 14 relates to charge point cyber-security. Clause 12 contains a range of non-exhaustive specifications that a charge point must comply with, and it appears that that will involve a large amount of data being transmitted from the charge point. Measures are therefore needed to ensure that charge points and the data they process are protected against attempts at hacking. I think that is what the Government are getting at in subsection 2(e), but I ask the Minister to clarify whether that provision also covers cyber-security and the risk of hacking. I also invite him to clarify who the information that clause 12 refers to is to be shared with, and where.

New clause 7 is more broadly focused on the cyber-security of automated and electric vehicles themselves. The Bill does not seem to touch on that, but it will be a significant barrier that will need to be addressed if these vehicles are to be deemed safe, secure and reliable. The example that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West gave illustrates that point absolutely.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

When we talk about hacking, we tend to visualise a spotty youth on a computer in a bedroom, but it can also mean commercial hacking. The company that has provided the charging point may want the data of people who use its facility.

[Richard Burden]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The nature of hacking is that it can come from anywhere if someone knows how to do it. As he says, that can be the individual spotty youth in a bedroom, but hacking can also be done for commercial purposes, which is equally a risk. That is why manufacturers invest millions of pounds putting systems in place to protect future vehicles from being hacked.

That is welcome, but the Government must also play a role, particularly if we are seeking to encourage development and uptake of such vehicles in the UK. Cars will also be particularly vulnerable when serviced. Somebody put it to me the other day that the nature of the information systems in our vehicles are becoming such that taking them to be serviced is a little like taking a laptop to be serviced and handing it over with all its passwords. We need safeguards. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that if those safeguards are not in place, information could be uploaded to or downloaded from an electric or automated vehicle being serviced that would allow hackers to obtain information or, perhaps worse, control safety-critical elements of the vehicle’s function.

In the case of an automated vehicle, the obvious risk is when driving. In extreme scenarios, people could find themselves going somewhere they do not want to go, travelling at a speed they do not want to travel at or, in the most dangerous case, not stopping when they need to stop. I would welcome an indication from the Minister whether his Department has discussed the issue, and what the assessed risk was of those vehicles being hacked. Furthermore, in line with new clause 7, I ask him to consult the industry on what steps might need to be taken to address that risk and whether Government action will be necessary as part of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. On the issue of process and the powers that Ministers will take, I fully accept his point that they are not yet in a position to know the exact regulations for which they will want those powers. We will discuss that issue of process when we consider the next group of amendments. Nevertheless, I accept what he has said, namely that powers are necessary and that regulations cannot yet be drafted.

I am also grateful to the Minister for the commitments that he has given today, first to the publication of the principles on which cyber-security will be addressed—that is really important—and, secondly, to consultation of the kind envisaged by the amendment and new clause 7, and, thirdly, to making the laying of regulations a mandatory issue, not simply a discretionary issue.

I get the impression that the Minister feels passionately about this issue; I think we transported him back for a moment to his previous job as the Minister with responsibility for cyber-security. I have absolutely no doubt that he takes the matter seriously. On the basis of what he has said, I will not press the amendment to a vote. We will reflect on what he has said and on whether to withdraw the new clause when we come to consider it, but for now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Exceptions

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

[Sir Greg Knight]

Mr Gray, I know that you are more interested in horses than in brake horses. I always find the Minister intriguing, but I find what he is proposing in this clause particularly intriguing. In subsection (3), he is asking the Committee to agree that regulations may exempt a person or public charging point specified in the Bill. Can he give the Committee an example of the circumstances in which he envisages an exemption being applied?

[Mr Hayes]

I am always delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend on such matters. It might be helpful for me to set out the purpose of clause 14 and, in doing so, address the specific point that he made.

The purpose of the clause is, first, to provide the power to make exceptions to the obligation set out in the regulations and, secondly, to provide a safeguard against situations in which the requirements set out in the regulations flowing from the powers in the Bill have unintended consequences. These include where the regulations risk placing unreasonable requirements on businesses in order to comply, or where technological innovation advances in ways that could not have been anticipated at the time of drafting the regulations. Those are some of the reasons why the clause was drafted in this form.

The effect is to give the Secretary of State the ability to decide that the obligations contained in the regulations made under the Bill do not apply in particular or given circumstances. To ensure transparency, the Secretary of State will be required to publish any determination made using the powers. Being a veteran in all such legislative matters, my right hon. Friend will understand that the purpose of that is to ensure that the clause is used consistently and in a way that is open to scrutiny.

My right hon. Friend asked me about the types of situation in which the power might be used. They include where it would be unreasonable for a person to comply due to their particular circumstances—a good example would be a remote service station with very limited access to grid infrastructure—and where the aims of the regulation may be achieved by means that do not necessarily meet the exact requirements of the regulation—for example, where smart functionality is delivered through an innovation that could not have been anticipated at the point when the regulations were drafted.

Those are two areas where exceptions might be applied of the kind that I have described. Although, I am confident that I have satisfied my right hon. Friend with that assurance; maybe I have not, but that is for him to judge. At least, I hope that he will now understand the purpose of the clause as drafted.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Regulations

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Marris]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that technology develops. I made a caveat at the beginning of my remarks about how I was projecting a scenario 20 or 25 years down the road, but we have a responsibility as legislators to look at that, including all the uncertainties of course.

I think it was Quentin Willson who talked about people in the States using their Tesla cars as repositories of electricity and feeding it out, but said that electricity had to get into the car in the first place, so we had to be a little careful about some sort of perpetual motion machine approach. It is true that if consumers used solar panels during the day to charge their car and dumped the electricity at night when other people were charging their cars, that would be a helpful process for evening out demand. However, it is precisely the sort of thing, I hope encouraged by amendment 15, that Her Majesty’s Government would be working on with National Grid. Trying to forecast human behaviour bedevils all of us as politicians, but it behoves us all to try to do so.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that regulation is not the only way to deal with this? It can be dealt with by incentivised pricing. In the 1970s, many households were encouraged to have night storage heaters in their properties because such units took electricity when no one else wanted it and the consumer paid less for operating one.

[Rob Marris]

I entirely agree. Amendment 15 would give the Government a statutory duty to consult on such matters with National Grid. Assuming that the amendment is accepted, the result of such consultations might indeed be a market-led mechanism. I am not prejudging the outcome, but we need to face up to some facts. I am sure that the Minister will assure us that Her Majesty’s Government are not doing this, but for them simply to sit back and say that because of CO₂ emissions and so on we want lots more people to be driving electric cars—with that already public policy, incentivised in purchase prices, with rebates and so on—and to assume that there will be sufficient electricity generation without actually talking to the National Grid about it, would be very foolish.

A regulatory solution may be required, or part of the solution may be regulatory and part not, but simply hoping, as some might do, that the market will sort it out is a triumph of hope over experience, given for example the vast cost of nuclear reactors and the very long lead time in building them. Nuclear reactors are not the only source of new electricity generation, and there will be technological developments as well, but we need to take that factor into account, and to think about it now.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Fourth sitting)

Greg Knight Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 3, page 3, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations define when it is and is not appropriate for a person in charge of the vehicle to allow the vehicle to drive itself.”

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.

Our amendment would allow the Secretary of State to define by regulations when it is appropriate for a person in charge of a vehicle to allow it to drive itself, because under subsection (2), the insurer or owner

“is not liable under section 2 to the person in charge of the vehicle where the accident that it caused was wholly due to the person’s negligence in allowing the vehicle to drive itself when it was not appropriate to do so.”

We are talking about the realm of automated vehicles, so this issue warrants some discussion. It should always be appropriate to allow the vehicle to drive itself—that is the whole purpose, but perhaps we can explore it.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that if, when someone gets into an automated vehicle, a dashboard warning light said, “Software error: do not move”, and they ignored it, that would indeed be a case where they should not have proceeded to use the vehicle?

[Andy McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We will consider in what situations it would be inappropriate to continue in that mode. If he bears with me, I will come to that. A great advantage of automated vehicles is to allow people with disabilities and without capacity to enjoy the same freedoms as we do. If they are in that environment, it would be somewhat difficult, as I am sure he would concede, to impose an obligation on certain individuals to do the very thing that he is suggesting, so I would be grateful if he bears with me.

As the clause is drafted, whether or not it was appropriate for the person in charge of a vehicle to allow it to drive itself has a consequence for negligence, but the Bill does not outline when it is appropriate or not for a vehicle to be used in automated mode—it talks about it, but it does not tell us. I accept that it might 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. Perhaps a known fault with the software that manages the function might have come to people’s attention, so using it would be inappropriate. I wonder whether the true intent of subsection (2) was to focus on bi-modal vehicles, because to my mind it is a bit of a nonsense to apply it universally to fully automated vehicles.

One of the primary purposes of part 1 of the Bill 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 inappropriate. I do not propose to press the amendment to a vote at this stage, but I think the Minister has got the point I am making. We are asking for regulations to be brought forward that better define those circumstances, because we cannot afford to have any fudging or confusion. People must be clear where there obligations lie. If we are to see the growth of the industry as we all wish, we do not want to leave this issue hanging over it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

The essence of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, which reflects the exchanges that we enjoyed in the evidence sessions, in which a number of Members played their part, is to query whether the Bill is insufficient in respect of fuel types such as hydrogen. At this juncture, I perhaps ought to make it absolutely clear that the Bill is technology neutral. We recognise that a number of technologies are emerging. Given the scale and nature of the change we are enjoying, it is not yet clear which will become pre-eminent, but it is certainly true that there is investment in hydrogen. That was pointed out by a number of my hon. Friends during the evidence sessions. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire has taken a keen interest in such matters for a considerable time.

Raising the issue of extending the definition of a hydrogen refuelling station is important. The proposed redefinition away from

“a device intended for refuelling a vehicle that is capable of being propelled by electrical power derived from hydrogen”

to one that includes hydrogen-fuelled internal combustion engines, however, is more challenging. I will explain why. I recognise that there are all kinds of ways of propelling vehicles. As I have said, a number of those would have a beneficial effect on emissions, in essence producing zero tailpipe emissions, just as electric cars do. I also note what my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said about the adaptations that could be made to an internal combustion engine. I did wonder what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire would think of that, but he made no move or sign. There was no change of expression on his face, but I could not help wondering—

[Sir Greg Knight]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

Ah! I have provoked him now.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that converting a petrol engine to run on hydrogen is not that easy if the engine involved has a carburettor and is not fuel injection? That is the case for most historic vehicles.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Third sitting)

Greg Knight Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 17, in 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 themselves without having to be monitored by an individual.

(1B) The Secretary of State may not change the criteria until further consultation has taken place with vehicle manufacturers, insurers and other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

This amendment requires the Government to consult on and publish criteria for the definition of “automated vehicles” that will be used by the Secretary of State.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in this Committee, Mr Gray—although, we were together at the evidence session on Tuesday. I am delighted to speak to the Bill generally, as well as to my amendment, because we are now entering the age of automation, which has the incredible and immense potential to liberate many people who are excluded by dint of age, skill, capacity or ability. It heralds a new era of inclusivity for personal transport and can address geographical, social and economic isolation.

The economic dividends of the transformation in our personal transport arrangements, in terms of air quality and climate change, could be immense, as could the industrial and technological advances. I am thinking particularly of the potential road safety benefits, the impact on our national health service and the health dividends, and the reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads.

This is an exciting era, and the idea of us entering into a discussion about automated vehicles is terribly exciting, until we realise that part 1 of the Bill is about insurance. To some degree, we seem to be coming at the issue from the wrong end of the telescope, but we will have to put all the exciting stuff to one side for now and concentrate on the framework. [Interruption.] Yes, insurance is riveting, and it is right that the Government have sought to set out a framework to enable the sector to develop. On that logic, it is the right thing to do.

I thank the Minister at the outset for his approach to the Bill. As you rightly say, Mr Gray, we find ourselves in largely uncontested territory—not exclusively, but very largely—and a great deal is to be welcomed. I thank the Minister for his approach, his co-operation and his assistance in preparing for the sitting.

There are times when we have to be detached from our technology, as you rightly said, Mr Gray, and there are times in our daily lives when we want to be removed from it, so I was a little disappointed that an email was sent to me at 9.02 pm last night with the policy scoping notes, which I did not look at until this morning. They are enormously helpful and they speak to the amendment, but I rather wish we had them a little earlier. I just make that gentle point.

The amendment would require the Government to consult on and publish the criteria for the definition of automated vehicles that are to be used by the Secretary of State. That goes right to the heart of what an automated vehicle is. We are asking for that consultation and publication of criteria because it is crucial for manufacturers, vehicle owners and insurers to know whether they are making, buying, loaning on or insuring on an automated vehicle, and whether the scope of the legislation applies to their vehicle.

In Tuesday’s evidence session we heard that the insurance industry welcomed the Government taking on the responsibility to say what an automated vehicle is, so providing clarity, but we have concerns that the Bill as drafted leaves the Secretary of State with total discretion as to what qualifies as an automated vehicle. We have therefore tabled the amendment to provide greater clarity and to ensure that relevant persons and organisations—stakeholders, as we sometimes call them—would be sufficiently involved, allowing that to inform the Secretary of State’s list of automated vehicles.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that, on reflection, his amendment is otiose? Surely it beggars belief that the Secretary of State would not consult. Any good Secretary of State must consult in such circumstances.

[Andy McDonald]

It is also about the publication of criteria; we have to arrive there and there has to be a journey to get to the establishment of the criteria, and we could explore how we might share some consensus around that. I do not suggest for one minute that Secretaries of State will rush off and include on their list of vehicles devices that are wholly and utterly outwith the contemplated legislation, but it is useful to consult on and establish the criteria against which we judge automated vehicles. I hope that will become clear from the rest of my contribution, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

The significant production of automated vehicles is still some years away. We are preparing the ground for an environment that we know will come but does not yet exist. However, there has already been an increase in assistance systems and partial automation introduced over the years to support drivers. The Bill assumes a clear distinction between advanced driver-assistance systems and fully automated driving technology in UK policy and legislation. As such, there is a need for collaboration between the Government, manufacturers, insurers and consumers to develop a viable and practical system of classification to identify when a vehicle is deemed to be automated or autonomous.

The clause requires the Secretary of State to

“prepare, and keep up to date, a list of all motor vehicles that…are or might be used on roads or in other public places in Great Britain, and…are in the Secretary of State’s opinion designed or adapted to be capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving themselves without having to be monitored by an individual.”

By introducing a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult on the criteria used to reach that opinion, the amendment would ensure that all automated vehicles were covered by those criteria. The requirement for the criteria to be published would provide greater clarity for all concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I am certainly happy to give that assurance. We will make available to the Committee the standards that are already established. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is important that they are published. I will give a further commitment. As international and domestic standards evolve over time, at the point at which it is appropriate to do so, we will publish those, too. I want a consistent approach. If that is what he seeks, it is reasonable to do so. In the same spirit, we will consult and certainly publish as much information as possible for the Committee and beyond it.

To develop the argument—I do not want to go on exhaustively, but it is important to set out the core principles at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill—the hon. Gentleman will understand that the standards I describe form the basis of the type approval process that conventional vehicles currently follow, and that of course automated vehicles will follow, too. The same consequent process will happen. Based on those standards, and likely the vehicle’s registration document, we expect it to be very clear which vehicles can safely operate in automated mode. As I have said, that is important to reassure the public and others.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I was just coming to the exciting conclusion of my remarks, but I will happily give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Will the Minister clarify for the Committee what powers he thinks clause 1 gives him? For example, if a vehicle was designed to be driven automatically and is marketed, but then a few months after it has been on sale it is discovered that under certain weather or driving conditions it has a catastrophic failure, would he be able to delist it?

[Mr Hayes]

That is a very good question, which, before I reach the absolute apex of my exciting conclusion, I will answer, with the help of inspiration that is winging its way to me. The standards established for existing vehicles will continue to be used as a matter of principle. The Secretary of State will transpose the approved vehicles into the list to ensure that our domestic insurance framework is clear about which vehicles need which kind of insurance product, bearing in mind what I said about different products developing to suit different kinds of vehicles.

The essence of my reason for not accepting the amendment with the alacrity that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough no doubt hoped for is my assertion that it is probably an unnecessary step, given the assurances I have offered about our willingness to discuss the matters further as the technology develops, and given the absolute assurance that the Secretary of State will not act in a discretionary or capricious way. It is important to understand that the definition defines the list, not the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State publishes the list and has a function to do so, which he will be obliged to carry out as a result of the Bill, should it become an Act. However, he is not in the business of picking which manufacturers he chooses to list and which he does not; the definition does that job for him. For those reasons, further amendment of this part of the Bill would be superfluous.

I am looking for further clarification—

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Carry-over motion: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on introducing it. I also congratulate the Department for Transport team. From time to time, we have had something of a mixed bag of Ministers at the Department, but we now have one of the best teams ever. Long may they stay in office. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary historic vehicles group and the owner of a number of historic vehicles. It may seem a little odd to some that I, with an interest in historic vehicles and dedicated to preserving old vehicles and to ensuring that all are free to continue to use them on public highways, should welcome a Bill that seeks to take a step forward. However, I see nothing unusual in that because motoring has always been about pushing forward the frontiers. We can preserve the past, while embracing the future.

Only a decade or so ago, referring to driverless cars would have felt like something from a sci-fi comic to many people, but the very invention of a moving vehicle powered by a machine was revolutionary in its day, and the motor car has always had its detractors since those early days. In 1899, a Member of this House, John Douglas-Scott-Montagu bought his very first motor car—a 12 hp Daimler vehicle. He acquired the car in May, and in the summer of that year he drove it to the House of Commons for the first time, being the first parliamentarian to do so. When he got to the House of Commons, he was prevented from entering the precincts by a policeman on duty, who warned him that he thought there was a very real risk of the contraption blowing up the Palace of Westminster. So Mr Douglas-Scott-Montagu did what any good MP would and should do and appealed to the Speaker, one William Gully, who looked at the evidence, read up about this new-fangled thing—a car powered by a machine rather than a horse—and decided that the Member could bring the car into the precincts, so the very first spat between the police and a motorist was decided in the motorist’s favour.

As the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) have said, the Bill primarily but not exclusively addresses the advent of automated vehicles. Public transport is not an option for everyone, but neither is driving. Having automated vehicles on our roads will provide an opportunity to liberate people, particularly in rural areas, who are not able to use public transport and who cannot drive but who will grasp the opportunity to use an automated car. However, I will probably be one of the last people to switch to using an automated vehicle, because I enjoy driving. The most recent car I purchased has an intelligent cruise control system, and the car applies the brakes on its own if someone pulls out in front of me. I find that most infuriating because, time after time, the car applies the brakes when I can see that the motorist who pulled out in front of me is accelerating and I would not have applied the brakes. At the moment, I am not a fan of driverless cars. I cannot ever see myself owning a driverless car, but I can see that they will fill a niche in the market and that they will become invaluable to some people.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough raised concerns about insurance costs, and the Department’s figures indicate that about 97% of all road accidents are caused by driver error, not by vehicle condition. If the software is anything like competent, it should lead to a reduction in the number of accidents and, one would hope, a reduction in insurance premiums.

[Mr Baker]

My right hon. Friend says that he will never buy a driverless car, and we are of one mind. I cannot imagine buying a driverless car, and my first question would always be, “How do I turn these things off?” Does he share my concern that, as more driverless cars become available, there will be an increasing pressure on us all to drive up safety by getting a driverless car and that the great hobby of motoring, which he and I enjoy, might come under increasing pressure as the years go by?

[Sir Greg Knight]

Coming under increasing pressure, particularly from the Whips, has never bothered my hon. Friend, so I cannot see that it will be a problem in this instance.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. I think it is self-evident, but I presume that clause 1, which gives the Government power to list automated vehicles for the purpose of approved road use, also includes the right to delist any model that is shown to be unreliable or more susceptible to accidents than other models that are allowed to operate.

Clause 2 contains details on the liability of insurers where an accident is caused by an automated vehicle, but those provisions raise a number of questions. Clearly, the Government think that, if an automated vehicle in automated mode is involved in an accident due to a problem with its manufacture, the insurance policy taken out by the owner will cover the costs of any damage caused in the accident but that, at a later stage, the insurance company will be able to pursue the manufacturer. That is my understanding.

I want to know what happens when no accident is caused but the law is nevertheless broken. Let me give the House an example. I assume that if a driverless car is travelling on the M1, the software would know that the vehicle is on a road where the speed limit is 70 mph. However, some stretches of the M1 are what the Government call “smart motorways”, where a Highways England official has the authority to turn on flashing lights and lower the speed limit to a speed the official thinks appropriate for the road conditions. Let us suppose that a driver in full automated mode on the M1 comes to a stretch of smart motorway and finds that Highways England has suddenly switched the speed limit down to 50 mph. If a police car is travelling behind and the automated car is slow in responding to the reduced limit, the police may stop the automated car and issue a speeding ticket. Who would then be responsible for the speeding ticket and who, if anyone, would take the three points that normally go with a speeding offence? If the owner, who would otherwise be the driver if the vehicle was in manual mode, was relying entirely on the car, he should not be guilty of the offence of speeding and should certainly not have his licence endorsed. The Bill says nothing about this, and I hope the Minister will give us some clue about what the police would be expected to do in that scenario.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is raising some important points. I would hope that if a speed limit was changed on a stretch of motorway, signals would be sent out and would be received by the automated vehicle, automatically causing it to change speed.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I accept that completely, but the scenario I am painting is one where the software is slow to respond, although it responds eventually. The police will follow a driver who is speeding for only three-tenths of a mile, which is not very far if someone is doing 70 mph. Who would then be responsible for that offence of speeding?

In opening the debate, the Secretary of State did not mention the Motor Insurers Bureau, which plays an invaluable role in guaranteeing funds that protect victims of uninsured drivers. What will be the status of the MIB when the Bill becomes law? Will it be able to recover costs from manufacturers where it is deemed that the software was defective? Will the Minister say something about the Vnuk case, which took place in eastern Europe? It involved a farmworker being knocked off a ladder by a farmer driving a tractor and then suing the insurance company for damages. The court held in the first instance that, as the tractor was on a farm, it did not need to have insurance, but the European Court of Justice overturned that and found in favour of Mr Vnuk, with the implication now that vehicles not on the road and not being used on the road may have to carry insurance. I know that there is concern in the motor racing fraternity about whether motor vehicles taking part in a race have to have insurance. This is not mentioned in the Bill. It may well be that Ministers are planning their response to this Court judgment and will announce it at a later stage, but I would welcome hearing anything that the Minister can say about this case.

The Bill envisages data sharing—the sharing of the driving log and data of automated vehicles. Will that apply only when an automated vehicle is involved in an accident or can data be obtained even where there is no accident? For example, would an employer be able to analyse the data from a self-driving company car to see where the employee went when he was sent out on a mission? Would a divorce lawyer be able to demand to see the data log for the driverless car of a husband if it was thought he was having an affair in another part of town? Who could access the data? I can understand that the data for a driverless car would be recorded to establish who was at fault in any accident, but who would have the right to seek to access that information?

Part 2 deals with electric vehicles and charging. The Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that the Government take the view that nearly all cars and vans should be zero-emission vehicles by 2050. What does he mean by that? Does he mean that by 2050 nearly all cars and vans that are then being manufactured will be zero-emission vehicles? Will he confirm that there is to be no attempt by the Government to force vehicles with some exhaust emissions off our roads at a future point in time?

I accept that it makes sense to increase significantly the provision of the infrastructure required to support the charging of electric vehicles. The Bill will impose on the large fuel retailers a duty to provide public charging points, which is good and to be welcomed. Why are we not also going to require large fuel retailers to do other things for the benefit of all motorists? For example, why are we not going to require fuel retailers to continue to provide fuel with an ethanol content of less than 5% for those who have not updated or cannot update their vehicles?

I understand that, under the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation Order 2007, at some point in time E10 fuel —that is, fuel with 10% ethanol—will be on sale on forecourts in this country. Experiences in France and Germany have shown that E10 fuel is incompatible with vehicles manufactured before 2000. It has the potential to dissolve petrol tanks, in some cases, and certainly to dissolve gaskets; to cause vapour lock in warm weather; and to cause starting difficulties. While we encourage people to move to the new technology, it is important that we do not leave behind a class of people who for the moment cannot afford to update their vehicles and need to go about their daily lives and to go to work. There should be a guarantee that they can still buy fuel with a lower ethanol percentage.

I have no comments to make about part 3, which deals with civil aviation. As has been mentioned, part 4 deals with vehicle testing, the shining of a laser at a vehicle and speed-awareness courses. I note that an offence is committed only if

“the laser beam dazzles or distracts a person with control of the vehicle.”

Could that ever apply for someone who is being driven in an automated vehicle? Clause 22(7) anticipates that the offence would apply in the case of a pilot in a plane, even if that plane is on autopilot, because it refers to someone

“monitoring the flying of…the aircraft”.

Why is there no similar provision for the driver of an automated car who will often be monitoring the progress of his vehicle? Is there any specific reason why the Bill covers only laser beams and not other high-intensity beams?

Speed-awareness courses have been running for several years. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough asked what evidence we had that they are effective. Having spoken to constituents and friends, I have considerable anecdotal evidence that they have been effective and that it was a good day when they were introduced. There is an incentive for an erring motorist to take part in such courses, because by doing so they avoid getting points on their licence. As these courses have been running for several years, why are we only now seeking to regulate them? Are Ministers aware of some legal challenge or some bad practice that we now wish to eliminate? There seems to be an air of mystery around this matter. Why, if these courses have been working well for so long, we are now about to say that we need the law to intervene in this area?

In addition to the new technology, I hope that the Government will look at a number of other common-sense measures. I am talking about following what happens in some American states where, at non-rush-hour periods, traffic lights are switched off or are switched to shine amber in all directions, thereby preventing vehicles from having to stop when there is absolutely no traffic coming in the opposite direction or across the junction.

Reference has been made to air quality. Do Ministers know when they are likely to publish the air quality plan? Is there not a case—I say this with respect—for making local authorities take into account the congestion effects of their crusade to remove road space in favour of wider pavements and more cycle lanes? Someone said to me the other day that there are fewer cars entering central London but that pollution is going up. Well, obviously it is going up because pavements have got wider and road space is being turned over to cycle lanes. The Mayor of London cannot have it both ways. If he wishes to reduce air pollution, he and others need to take care when they are seeking to remove highway lanes.

I started by saying that I welcome the Bill, which I do, and I applaud the Government for introducing it. Clearly, it is intended to address a number of market failures thus far, and I hope that it will enable the UK safely to take advantage of and benefit from new technologies and their use. I hope that it will help consumers in the UK to be among the first in the world to reap the rewards that improved transport technology will surely bring.

Emily’s Code: Pleasure Vessel Safety

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 1st March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Emily’s Code and safety on pleasure vessels.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, and to debate Emily’s code. Today’s debate is the story of a personal and family tragedy and of how to turn something that knots together an extended family, school and other friends, and a community—a whole small world—into something positive that can reach a much wider world. It is about how the image of a young girl can make all recreational boating more responsible and maybe, just maybe, help to save lives.

This debate is particularly poignant given that Emily’s parents Clive and Debbie Gardner, her sister, Katie, her brother, Todd, and her grandparents are all in the Chamber with us today. The family scars are still raw, and emotions are never far from the surface. I hope you would agree, Mrs Main, that the sympathy of the whole House is with the Gardner family. Colleagues will be struck by the family’s determination—like that of other Gloucester families, such as the Gazzards, the Powells and the Evanses, who have recently been through the agony of a child’s death and then inquiries or even trials—that this will not overcome them and that they can do something both to honour the memory of a much-loved child and to make a difference.

Let me first explain what happened on Saturday 2 May 2015 and then what the family and the world of boating, with my support throughout, are doing with Emily’s code. Fourteen-year-old Emily Gardner went to Brixham harbour that day with friends to go out on a boat. The Gardners had been on boating and canoe trips before and Emily was not frightened either of boats or of the water. As the marine accident investigation branch stated in its report that was published in October 2015:

“At approximately 1142…an unnamed Fletcher speedboat with one adult and three teenage children on board capsized after encountering a large wave. Three of the occupants managed to swim clear of the upturned hull but one of the children”—

Emily—

“became trapped. Despite valiant attempts to free her, she was only recovered following attendance of the RNLI2 lifeboat 25 minutes later. Although medical treatment then started immediately, she never recovered consciousness.”

The investigation found that the strap of Emily’s buoyancy aid had become snagged on the speedboat’s cleat, which trapped her underneath it. Other potentially contributing factors to the accident were outlined. First, the speedboat capsized after it hit a large wave at approximately 11.42 am and a new propeller, which had recently been installed, generated more torque, causing the boat to twist to port in opposition to the propeller’s direction of rotation. It then capsized. The thrust of the boat had been exacerbated by the new propeller, by the fact that there was just a small amount of fuel in the engine and by the driver accelerating almost to full speed.

Secondly, despite some 25 years of experience and a water skiing qualification gained several years beforehand, the driver was unable to combat the contributing factors that led to the boat capsizing. Emily’s buoyancy aid was also too big, increasing the risk of it getting caught.

The report noted, thirdly, that it had been

“fortunate the accident was seen by members of the public ashore, who were able to raise the alarm. Had one of the drivers carried a waterproof VHF radio, which is recommended good practice,”

he could have contacted the coastguard directly with the most accurate information available. The report also stated:

“Even if embarking on a short trip, it is better to be fully prepared, as minor emergencies can quickly escalate.”

Fourthly, the speedboat driver had not been wearing the kill cord. Although that had not been needed in this incident, the report highlighted that it showed the need to continue raising awareness of the issue in the speedboat community.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is recounting a clearly tragic case. However, even in the absence of a wave, which appeared to trigger this accident, does he agree that when the sun is out and the waters are calm, there is a tendency for someone on a boat to be lulled into a false sense of security, and that there is therefore a case for making anyone who embarks on a boat go through a thorough process of safety procedures beforehand, rather as people who are on a plane have to? Passengers on a plane are encouraged to read a checklist; does he agree that something similar might help in cases such as this?

[Richard Graham]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, he brilliantly anticipates exactly what I will say about Emily’s code, and I am grateful to him.

Emily never regained consciousness, and it was determined that she died from drowning. I should mention one other point. The report pointed out that the speedboat was older than the recreational craft directive of 1996, which set out new guidelines for boats that could have helped the boat to float and not to sink by the stern, which was where Emily was trapped. The report concluded:

“Buyers should be cautious and aware of the potential shortcomings of leisure craft constructed before…1996, or those that might have been substantially modified.”

I cannot help wondering how many of us who have been on the sea in a recreational vessel are aware of that small but important difference in boat design, and whether all boat owners know how their boat will float in an extraordinary accident such as this.

Let me come on to the second part of this debate. When Emily’s family had absorbed the accident report, they led a call for something to be done. They started fundraising; they ran a relay from Brixham to Gloucester for Winston’s Wish and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution; and they organised Emily’s diamond charity ball in October last year. They have raised an amazing £21,000—it may be more than that now, but that is the latest figure that I have—and they wanted to use those funds in the best possible way.

I met Clive and Debbie in Gloucester and heard their urge to do something to honour their daughter Emily. I then talked to the Royal Yachting Association and the chief executive of Her Majesty’s Coastguard, Sir Alan Massey, who was extremely helpful and sympathetic. After a subsequent meeting between the Gardners and the RYA, Emily’s code began to take shape and will now be launched in two days’ time, on Saturday, with the full support of the RYA at its Suzuki dinghy show. I have copies here of what Emily’s code will look like; they are available for any colleagues who would like them.

The RYA is recognised as the national body for all forms of recreational and competitive boating. It represents all the different elements involved, and it sets and maintains an international standard for recreational and small commercial boat training. Its ethos is one of proficiency and self-sufficiency, learned through its world-class training, and its purpose is to promote and protect safe, successful and rewarding British boating. It issues an annual advisory notice and safety notices throughout the year through the boating press, members’ newsletters and social media, yet inevitably there are some people it has not reached whose safety awareness could be stronger. I hope that the very human appeal behind Emily Gardner and the code named in her honour will help the messages of the code to reach more widely.

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Greg Knight Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right. It is of paramount importance that we look after people with disabilities on our buses. An important part of that is ensuring that the right information is available and that we have the most accessible possible bus fleet. I am particularly pleased about the number of our newest buses that are manufactured in this country by some excellent firms.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm my understanding that the Bill is an enabling measure, and that there will be no compulsion on local authorities to change bus services when the arrangements between the council and the bus operators mean that a good service is already provided?

[Chris Grayling]

As I go on to talk about the Government’s approach to the Bill, I absolutely assure my right hon. Friend that it is not about forcing anybody down a route to change. No local areas should countenance asking or pushing for change unless they have a clear plan for delivering improvements for passengers. The Bill is not and should not be simply about moving deckchairs around.

Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is often the most disadvantaged communities that suffer the worst air quality. That is another reason why the issue is so important.

In May 2011, there were 57,000 ultra low emissions vehicles on our roads. Nearly five years later, that figure has increased to 87,000. The Government’s central projection of 5% of all cars in the UK being ultra low emissions vehicles by 2020 means that we need to have 1.6 million such vehicles on our roads by then. The Committee on Climate Change recommends that 9% of the cars on our roads should be ultra low emissions by 2020. That equates to 2.8 million cars. Even 9% is unambitious compared with Japan, which has a target for 20% of all its cars to be ultra low emissions vehicles by 2020. While I am very happy to give the Government due and proper credit for what they have done in this area, my purpose in holding the debate is to challenge them to lay out a much clearer road map as to how we are to get to at least 1.6 million ultra low emissions vehicles on our roads by 2020.

In response to a parliamentary question I asked recently, the Department for Transport declined to indicate how many ultra low emissions vehicles it expects to be on our roads by the end of this year, in 2018 or in 2019. I think it would be helpful to have a more detailed road map of how we will achieve the 2020 target.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the correct approach is a balanced one? Encouraging the greater use of low emissions vehicles should not mean that we should ban historic vehicles from our roads. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party group on historic vehicles.

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He has a long record of campaigning on this issue. We should help people transition to the new, cleaner vehicles that we see on our roads, and his point is well made.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Will my hon. Friend give way again?

[Andrew Selous]

If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, there are quite a few other Members who wish to speak.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I will be brief. Can I place on the record the fact that historic vehicles comprise 0.7% of all licensed vehicles, so their impact on the environment is negligible?

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He has done a service by putting that figure on the record.

Do the Government intend to influence the choice of public sector vehicles that taxpayers pay for, such as local authority school buses, police cars, ambulances and so on? Installing many more charging points, both for home charging and for charging en route, is critical to the increase in ultra low emissions vehicles. The modern transport Bill will enable the UK to make further progress. Issues that should be addressed include the standardisation of sockets and plugs for charging, and the ease of payment among different charging providers. Only last week, a Central Bedfordshire councillor who has an electric car shared his frustration with me at not being able to plug it in to charge in some locations and not being able to pay for the charge in others. The Government need to take a lead.

Electric and Hybrid Electric Cars

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

I look forward to having electric cars running all along the A303 and A30, with that road, along with the A358, completely dualled—that is an aside for the Minister, but I am sure he has already got the message.

The electric and hybrid electric car market is booming in the UK, with the number of hybrid electric cars increasing by 31% and the number of electric cars by 52% in the past year alone. Electric vehicles decrease emissions, reduce noise pollution and, critically, can help to dramatically improve air quality in our city centres.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party historic vehicles group and the owner of several historic vehicles. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not accompany the incentivising of electric vehicles with a penalty against those who seek to keep part of Britain’s motoring heritage on the road?

[Neil Parish]

If we can dramatically reduce pollution levels by using electric cars, particularly in our city centres, we should be able to allow—dare I say it?—a little pollution from older vehicles. It is a matter of balance, and I agree with my right hon. Friend. I prefer a carrot for people to move over to electric cars, rather than a stick for those who do not.

The April 2016 report on air quality by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs stated that each year there are between 40,000 and 50,000 early deaths due to air quality problems. Polluting vehicles are part of the problem, especially in our inner cities. The UK has a legal obligation under EU directives to address air quality. Of course, we can probably now have our own directives, but most people in this country would agree that it is good to set a target to reduce nitrogen dioxide levels to 40 mg per cubic metre or less and to ensure that, particularly in our inner cities, not only our cars but our vans and lorries—the vehicles that are actually polluting—are electric or hybrid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing this debate. One quite good thing about Westminster Hall debates is that they give me a chance to agree with Conservative Members, and I pretty much agreed with everything he said, including his recommendations and conclusions. He mentioned the need for continued tough regulations and targets on climate change and air quality after Brexit. I agree with that, but from a Scottish perspective I hope Scotland will remain in the EU, as the Scottish people wish.

The standard motion in a Westminster Hall debate is “That this House has considered” the topic. By default, for electric and hybrid cars, the answer is yes. The House has already considered the matter, and there have been different Government policies on it. However, those policies have changed, which is part of the reason why electric vehicle uptake is not as high as was originally predicted.

Everyone agrees that electric cars are good for the environment and they have the bonus that their running costs are estimated at 2p to 3p per mile, which is way cheaper than 16p per mile for the average family car that runs on conventional fuels. But, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton pointed out, up-front costs are a barrier to many people being able to purchase these cars, so the uptake has been way too small for us to start to make inroads in climate change targets. The Government need to take more action, and that action has to be joined up across the entire energy sector if it is to contribute to meeting climate change targets. I emphasise that I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s recommendations.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another barrier to many of us leading by example and using an electric car is the range of the vehicle? If he or I wanted to travel from our constituencies to Westminster by electric car, we could not currently do so without breaking the journey to recharge it.

[Alan Brown]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The point was made earlier that the up-front cost is one barrier, but another is the availability of charge points and the distance cars can travel. I hope to touch on that a little later.

In 2011, the coalition Government published their strategy paper for electric vehicles, which predicted that between 1% and 2% of new car registrations in 2015 would be electric. That was a very modest target, but sales for the third quarter of 2015 were less than 1%—effectively, the target was missed by 100%. Between 2010 and 2015, only 42,700 out of 3.4 million new cars registered were electric. That is only 1.3%, so there is a long way to go. A 2050 horizon for nearly every car being electric is a reasonable timeframe and an acceptable target for the Government but, if we are to achieve that, instinctively, it feels that we need a much higher uptake than we currently have. To achieve that will require more Government action. Will the Minister explain what additional steps are planned?

We heard earlier that that wee independent oil-rich country called Norway has managed to achieve a market share for electric vehicles of 18%—that is what my notes say; if it is 25%, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, that is even better—so there are clearly lessons to be learned.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing the debate and on imaginatively including the dualling of the A358, the A303 and the A30 in his speech. It is great to see the level of enthusiasm for electric vehicles. They can deliver a huge environmental benefit for our country and secure the future success of one of Great Britain’s great leading industries. That is why we are committed to positioning the UK as a world leader in electric vehicle uptake and manufacture.

As colleagues have articulated, electric vehicles deliver many benefits. We are all aware of the air quality challenges in our towns and cities. We will introduce clean air zones in five cities to urgently tackle the worst locations, encourage greener transport and introduce targeted access charges where necessary. We have already seen some changes made by the new Mayor of London, such as the ultra-low emission zone.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Jones]

I am under extreme time pressure. If I have any time, I will come right back to my right hon. Friend.

The UK is not alone in addressing the environmental impacts of road transport. Action is taking place on a global basis to compel manufacturers to bring forward an increasing choice of cleaner and more efficient vehicles, to meet growing consumer demand and expectations. Our automotive sector has a great history of innovation, and we are seeing some of that now. With the help of a strong domestic market, we are in a great position to benefit from global demand for electric vehicles as the transition takes hold in the coming years.

A number of Members have mentioned the referendum. Let me be clear that our determination on electric vehicles and standards is not in any way changed by the result of the recent referendum. The drivers of transition to zero emissions are global in nature and will continue to apply regardless of our place in Europe.

The benefits of electric vehicles include securing the manufacturing of the future and health benefits. Let me run through the actions that we are taking. In our manifesto, we committed to the goal that by 2050 nearly every car and van on our roads should be a zero-emission vehicle. That will require all new cars and vans on sale to be zero-emission by around 2040. We have in place one of the most comprehensive support packages anywhere in the world, with committed funding of more than £600 million in this spending review period. Progress to date puts us in a very encouraging position. Vehicles that used to be exotic are now considered commonplace on our streets. In total, about 28,000 ultra-low emission vehicles were sold in the UK last year, which is more than in all the years since 2010 combined. We have had more than 70,000 claims for our plug-in car and van grants. I am particularly pleased that many of those vehicles are manufactured by Nissan at its Sunderland plant, which last year produced 20% of all electric cars sold in the EU.

A number of colleagues have spoken about the importance of charge points. There is an ever-expanding network of charge points for electric vehicle drivers. We have more than 11,000 public charge points, including 850 rapid charge points—the largest network in Europe.

I note the comparisons with Norway. Norway’s record is very impressive, and we work with the Norwegians and other leading markets. Our £40 million city scheme will introduce some of the measures that have been mentioned, such as bus lane access, free parking and rapid charging hubs. It is also worth noting that Norway has very high levels of vehicle taxation, which I am not generally in favour of. Many colleagues have spoken about that today.

There are 60,000 domestic charge points, which offer the cheapest and easiest way to charge up. Latest statistics suggest the average distance to the nearest charge point is just over 4 miles in Great Britain. I want to increase that density and reduce the distance even further.

One of the most important measures in support of electric vehicles is the plug-in car grant scheme, which provides a direct discount to consumers on the cost of an eligible plug-in car or van.