Grahame Morris

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

The complete record

3,627 held · 3,624 searchable for Grahame Morris. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 10.

This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.

1. “They claim to protect pensions while balancing the needs of the scheme and the taxpayer but, in reality, there is no fairness or balance. The Government have taken nearly £5 billion from the pension fund without contributing a single penny since 1984. Despite challenges such as the covid-19 pandemic, the global banking crisis and the Government’s financial meltdown, the mineworkers’ pension scheme has endured, without any Government financial support. The miners I marched with yesterday are taxpayers, who were once part of thriving mining communities that had full employment and decent wages. They contributed to their pensions assuming that they would have security in retirement, yet their jobs, wages and now pensions have been taken by this Conservative Government.”

   House of Commons9 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

2. “I beg to move, That this House has considered miners and mining communities. I thank my good hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee, and the members of that Committee for granting this debate. Thirty-one Members from across the House supported the application for this debate, including the late Sir Tony Lloyd. He was a good friend, sadly missed, and a steadfast supporter of miners and mining communities. Yesterday I marched with Bert Moncur, a former Murton miner and a constituent of mine who worked underground alongside my late father and my mentor and predecessor in this place, John Cummings. Hundreds of pensioners from across our coalfield communities marched on Westminster with a clear message, “We want our money back.” We know the Government’s position.”

   House of Commons9 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

3. “The Government continue to undermine the local economy, as evidenced in the excellent report, despite the regular trumpeting of levelling-up policies. In reality, the Conservative party chooses to invest levelling-up funding in places like Richmond and Cheltenham, rather than in places like Horden, in my constituency, which is in the top 1% of the most deprived areas in the country. Levelling up offered hope, but the ready-to-go Horden masterplan for regeneration was sidelined by a Conservative- led coalition from Durham County Council that favoured a single bid from Bishop Auckland, a constituency represented by a Conservative MP and a former Minister in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The Government have ignored and neglected our most deprived mining communities.”

   House of Commons9 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

4. “I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Characteristically, he was generous in his remarks and we appreciate it. The last pit in my constituency, Easington colliery, closed in 1993, at a time when coal provided 50% of the UK’s electricity production. The decision at the time to close the British coal industry made our country dependent on imported coal, which until 2014 still accounted for 35% of energy generation. Coalfield communities have never fully recovered from de-industrialisation, as was proven in the new “State of the Coalfields 2024” report published by Sheffield Hallam University and the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. In response to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the all-party group continues to take up causes and issues, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones).”

   House of Commons9 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

5. “Despite slogans such as “big society”, “northern powerhouse”, and “levelling up”, the Conservative party has failed to deliver tangible interventions, particularly in the areas of greatest need, such as Horden, Easington, Peterlee, Murton, Blackhall, South Hetton, Haswell, Shotton, and Seaham. Residents in these communities have little hope of opportunity and change under the Conservative Government, so those on the Labour Front Bench must address this challenge by bringing investment, growth, and opportunity to these former mining communities, which are in need of a real alternative.”

   House of Commons9 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

6. “Four decades later, it is imperative that Ministers commit to uncovering the truth about the strike, particularly events in relation to Orgreave. Many convictions from the strike are unsafe, warranting the erasure of criminal records, with only a few exceptions. From Orgreave to Hillsborough, a pattern of criminal misconduct in public office emerges, with South Yorkshire police at its centre. Coalfield communities face numerous challenges in achieving justice and economic growth. We require a Government committed to levelling up, fair taxation, and justice.”

   House of Commons9 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

7. “I saw a police state on the streets of east Durham, intent on crushing miners fighting to protect their jobs and communities. The Government, courts, police and national media were part of a criminal conspiracy against working people in coalfield communities. Ray, who was imprisoned and lost his job and pension, spent the rest of his life rebuilding. He left us too early, but his legacy will live on through his family. Ray maintained his innocence and fought to exonerate himself —I am sorry, Ray, that we could not deliver justice in your lifetime. We need the truth. While Scotland has taken steps with the Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Act 2022, England and Wales lag behind. The policing of the strike was notorious, marked by perjury and fabricated evidence, which were willingly accepted in the Government’s war on the miners.”

   House of Commons9 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

8. “I urge those on my own Front Bench to provide a clear commitment on this issue at the earliest opportunity. Finally, I want to mention my constituent, Ray Patterson, who sadly passed away last year, aged just 62. He was one of the 11,291 people arrested and one of 9,000 sacked during the miners’ strike. His life was changed forever by his imprisonment on the ancient charge of unlawful assembly—a law that can trace its origins back to 1328. After the strike, the Government abolished unlawful assembly and introduced the Public Order Act 1986. Ray was innocent and at any other time he would not have been arrested, charged, or convicted. I was 24 during the miners’ strike and saw how the Conservative Government tried to starve workers and their families into submission.”

   House of Commons9 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

9. “Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who chaired the then Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy Committee, which provided a blueprint for reform. The Select Committee report on the mine- workers’ pension scheme offers a road map for retaining the Crown guarantee, releasing the £1.2 billion in the investment reserve fund, returning the surplus, and protecting the taxpayer. With key Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist), for Bristol North West, for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North likely to hold crucial positions in a future Labour Government, I am confident that we can achieve pension justice for retired miners and their widows in our coalfield communities.”

   House of Commons9 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

10. “The vast majority of retired miners and their widows continue to live in our coalfield communities. The moral case for reform was strengthened by an unfulfilled promise of a disgraced former Prime Minister. I must remind Members—particularly those on the Conservative Benches—of the promise made by Boris Johnson when addressing miners in Mansfield and Ashfield during the 2019 general election campaign. Once again, he deceived voters, failing to fulfil his promise on the surplus sharing arrangements, which remain grossly unjust. The Government and the Minister have the opportunity to put that right today. I commend my colleagues in the shadow Cabinet, especially my hon.”

    House of Commons9 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

11. “Our miners created the wealth that made this country great, with the mineworkers’ pension scheme being among the UK’s largest pension funds. However, money that should be used to provide security in retirement is being siphoned off by the Treasury, taking half of all the pension fund’s surpluses. In a parliamentary response to me in December, Ministers confirmed that they had taken £4.8 billion—billion not million, as was reported on the TV last night—out of the pension scheme. I note also that this figure has not been adjusted for inflation, so can the Minister tell me what the figure would be if it were adjusted for inflation? This money should be used to enhance pensions, not only providing extra security in retirement, but supporting our local economies, coalfield communities, employment and small businesses.”

    House of Commons9 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

12. “The Government could alleviate this, in part, by addressing past injustices and ensuring retirement security for mine- workers and their widows by reforming the mineworkers’ pension scheme, in line with the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee recommendations published April 2021. A legacy of mining is industrial disease, cutting lives short, including those of my own father and grandfather, who were both coalminers who passed away in their 50s, before reaching retirement age. My father died in the belief that his pit pension would provide security for my ageing mother, who happens to be celebrating her 88th birthday on Sunday. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] We know that some pensioners receive as little as £10 a week from the mineworkers’ pension scheme.”

    House of Commons9 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

13. “We could have a separate debate about the flawed council tax that penalises areas with relatively low property values, like mine and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Demand on social services is increased in coalfield communities because of an ageing population, many of whom have health legacies associated with working in pits and heavy industry, and generally have lower disposable incomes. Under these conditions, local economies struggle to thrive, lacking sufficient income to support vital small businesses and employment opportunities. Low wealth coincides with low wages, making my region, the north-east, the lowest paid in the country.”

    House of Commons9 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

14. “I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I was going to talk about the levelling-up bidding rounds. He and other hon. Members are well aware of the costs that were incurred by the county council—£1.2 million—in preparing bids that were not approved by the Government. We should have a means-based system; it should not be a beauty contest. Those communities, including the mining communities that are among the most deprived and urgently need regeneration, should be prioritised. Unfortunately, that is not happening. The evidence is quite clear and is laid out in the “State of the Coalfields” report. I know other hon. Members will mention that, so I will not dwell on that point. Coalfield communities undoubtedly face numerous challenges: a lack of job opportunities, limited public investment, and higher council taxes.”

    House of Commons9 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

15. “The hon. Gentleman is making really important points about the loss of life in mining disasters, a number of which occurred in my constituency too. However, there is the ongoing legacy of industrial disease. Yesterday, I spoke to some miners from the midlands, who were lobbying Parliament and pointed out the injustice of the current schemes. One of them was suffering from chest disease—chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. To qualify for compensation, the requirement was 20 years of underground work, but he had worked only 19 years, so he was excluded. There are a number of other examples like that.”

    House of Commons9 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

16. “I urge him to act with alacrity—I have looked that up; it means physical quickness, coupled with eagerness or enthusiasm —in addressing the issues that have been raised. I thank the respective Front Benchers, and I thank those on the Labour Front Bench for their commitment to mineworkers’ pensions. There is a big job of work to do. I thank everyone for their participation today.”

    House of Commons9 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

17. “Mr Deputy Speaker, may I thank you and Madam Deputy Speaker for your admirable chairing of this very good debate? I thank my co-sponsor, the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy), for his work behind the scenes to secure enough colleagues’ signatures to get the debate. More than 30 MPs supported it, and 16 made a speech or intervened. I think we had some excellent contributions, particularly from Opposition Members—obviously I am biased—although there were some very good ones from across the whole House. I thank the lobbyists who came down yesterday from the national mineworkers’ pension scheme—my constituents John Trewhitt, Bert Moncur and Ted Slavin, who made the journey and lobbied Downing Street and Parliament about the anomaly with the mineworkers’ pension surplus. I did not agree with the Minister’s analysis.”

    House of Commons9 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

18. “Job density in former coalfields is only 57 employee jobs per 100 working-age residents; that compares with a national average of 73 jobs per 100 residents, and an average in major regional cities of 88 jobs per 100 residents. There is a disparity, and a long way to go. The report from Sheffield Hallam illustrates, as clear as day, the ongoing struggle for prosperity in former coalfield communities.”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

19. “However, County Durham continues to struggle with the legacy of the loss of its coal industry, with limited skilled employment due to insufficient investment in levelling-up efforts, alongside a lack of a coherent industrial strategy under successive Conservative Governments. In 2015, Hitachi opened a plant in County Durham, bringing skilled jobs to the region and reviving the north-east’s rail manufacturing tradition after 90 years. The 750 skilled jobs at Hitachi, and about 1,500 jobs in the supply chain, are fundamental to the success of the local economy. Today, the excellent Sheffield Hallam University has released its “State of the Coalfields 2024” report, which shows evidence of a lack of jobs and businesses in the former coalfields despite recent growth.”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

20. “They warned that we could see redundancies as early as June this year if the Government continue to drag their heels on extending the contract to build further trains for the west coast main line. British railways are rooted in the north-east of England. The Stockton and Darlington railway was inaugurated in 1825 and was the world’s first passenger railway. It also linked the coalmines near Shildon in County Durham to the River Tees at Stockton, facilitating coal exports from Teesport. The Stockton and Darlington railway’s success, alongside growing demand for transport, spurred the development of a national railway network. The railways transformed Britain, enabling all social classes to travel further, and the network was developed to move coal from thriving collieries in County Durham to global markets.”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

21. “I have engaged with him on a number of occasions recently and in the Select Committee, so I am fully aware that he understands the nature of the problem. In December last year, I raised an urgent question following evidence given to the Transport Committee by Nick Crossfield, the managing director of Alstom—Alstom is based in Derby. He impressed on the Committee the need for urgent action from the Government to expedite the bidding process for new British-manufactured trains. Four months later, it is clear that the Government have been too slow to prevent potential job losses at the Derby train manufacturer. Similarly, I met workers at the Hitachi train manufacturing facility in Newton Aycliffe, next door to my constituency, who are also members of Unite the Union.”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

22. “I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of rail manufacturing. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I must declare an interest as a member of Unite the Union and chair of the Unite parliamentary group. I am also a member of the RMT and ASLEF parliamentary groups and I am on the Transport Committee. For several years, industry organisations such as the Railway Industry Association, trade unions and manufacturers have urged timely action to prevent significant job losses in rail manufacturing here in the UK. The industry employs over 30,000 people in the United Kingdom and contributes at least £1.8 billion annually in gross value added. It is currently facing a very dangerous—indeed, critical—situation. The Minister, a former Chair of the Transport Committee, is very familiar with the situation.”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

23. “I am hopeful that the Minister is going to give us some positive news, but the consequences of inaction are dire. Jobs and livelihoods are at risk, and it is time now for some decisive action. The industry requires a steady stream of orders to sustain manufacturing and maintenance bases, alongside a proactive approach to replacing retiring engineers. We must abandon costly leasing, opting for direct purchases through Government procurement to bolster UK train manufacturing, which must be central to a long-term rail and industrial strategy, driving economic growth, innovation, and meeting our future transport needs.”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

24. “Government intervention must go beyond rhetoric to provide tangible support to the industry. We are not asking for a bail-out—just a commitment to honouring existing contracts, and to establish a sensible industrial strategy for the industry. Beyond extending existing contracts, a focused industrial strategy is imperative. Research conducted by Make UK reveals that 99% of manufacturers support the need for an industrial strategy. Six in 10 cite the lack of an industrial strategy as a factor affecting growth in the manufacturing industry. Some 87% believe a strategy would provide their businesses with a better long-term vision on which to decide investment in future employment plans. To prevent another Alstom or Hitachi scenario, we must reassure the industry that the Government are prioritising its interests.”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

25. “The Rail Industry Association warned the Government that recent administrations have been a “canary in the coalmine” before the potential decimation of train manufacturing in the United Kingdom. Unite the Union warns that the industry’s performance relies heavily on Alstom Transport and Hitachi Rail, which hold 55.3% of market share. The industry’s fate is dependent on key players like Hitachi and Alstom. However, recent forecasts indicate a bleak outlook, with revenues projected to decline at a rate of 8.1% annually over the next five years. Hitachi and Alstom face challenges, as their order books require clearing past orders before they can commence construction and setting up production lines for the HS2 trains, which are currently 18 to 24 months behind schedule.”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

26. “Indeed, RMT president Alex Gordon and general secretary Mick Lynch have been vociferous, voicing concerns about leasing costs, which have risen by over 30% over the past five years while rail industry staff costs have remained static. A decade ago, leasing rolling stock accounted for about 13% of train operating companies’ costs; today, it accounts for 25% or a quarter. Does the Minister think that is fair or are the Government protecting profits when other areas of the network, including the staffing elements, are facing dramatic cuts? Clearly, there is something wrong with how we procure rolling stock in Britain. Despite needing modern, carbon-neutral and sustainable trains, the Government have ignored warnings from both Alstom and Hitachi.”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

27. “My constituents, who travel on unreliable, second-hand ScotRail Sprinter trains—no offence to my friend from Scotland, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands)—built in the 1980s, find it inconceivable that the rolling stock companies’ profits are sky high while our UK-based rail manufacturers are crying out for orders. Taxpayers are forced to travel on substandard trains purchased with Government funds, while subsidies remain at twice pre-pandemic levels. The system is inefficient and does not serve the taxpayer or the travelling public. There are needless links in the chain. The Government should streamline the system by directly purchasing trains and bypassing the ROSCOs or rolling stock companies.”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

28. “Therefore, my question to the Minister is: why are the Government not protecting British rail manufacturing, especially given the rising demand for new trains to enhance the passenger experience and to meet our net zero targets? In relation to our environmental targets, all 2,898 diesel and 912 bi-mode trains in the UK emit carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides, with nitrous oxide—N 2 O—having various health impacts and being up to 280 times more potent than CO 2 in warming the planet over a 20-year period. That is according to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report to the United Nations. To achieve net zero by 2050, a solution must be found to replace diesel trains, which are currently used by 14 operators—especially since only 38% of the network is currently electrified.”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

29. “The Minister and I have fenced about the age of the rolling stock and trains, but the UK still operates trains built before privatisation, with the average age of trains on the Chiltern line estimated to be 30 years; that was in March last year, from the Office of Rail and Road report. Additionally, nearly half all operators use trains over 22 years old. The Railway Industry Association has urged the Government to upgrade or replace approximately 2,600 vehicles by 2030, and to renew around 1,650 diesel trains that will be 35 years old after 2030. The industry-wide consensus is that our rolling stock is outdated and inefficient.”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

30. “Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the broader benefits to the economy. Indeed, the loss of rail manufacturing in County Durham or Derbyshire would devastate their respective regional economies and threaten British rail manufacturing. Alstom, Hitachi, Siemens and CAF—Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles—remain the only train manufacturers in the UK. A similar situation arose with the steel industry. To a reasonable person, it would seem illogical for the Government to permit the UK to lose its capacity to build trains, especially as our existing network is in need of modernisation.”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

31. “The hon. Member is making some excellent points. On ROSCOs, I remind hon. Members that in the current year, I believe that they are making in excess of £400 million in profit.”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

32. “I particularly thank the respective Front Benchers for their responses. Without action, we will be modernising or replacing our trains with imported units using taxpayers’ money to support thousands of jobs and apprenticeships overseas rather than in the UK. We implore the Minister to act, and to preserve the excellent jobs that we have in our existing manufacturing centres. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the future of rail manufacturing.”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

33. “Thank you, Sir Gary, for the exemplary way in which you have chaired the debate. I thank the Minister for his thoughtful and considered responses. We are all aware that he knows the solutions to the problem and we seek to push him to make the decisions that are required in the interests of retaining those jobs, directly and in the supply chain, as quickly as possible. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), as well as my colleagues and comrades from the Transport Committee, the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell).”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

34. “Mark has asked me to ask the Minister how many more years he will have to wait before he receives either an interim payment or full and fair compensation for the suffering that he has endured.”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

35. “May I also give my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for securing this urgent question? It gives me the opportunity to raise the case of my constituent Mark Fox, who contracted hepatitis C from infected blood when he was given a transfusion. He was just four years of age at the time. He was given contaminated factor VIII for his haemophilia. He was unaware of his hepatitis C diagnosis until he was 17, when he was in care. He has been living with the health consequences of this scandal for over 40 years. He lost his job, and we have mentioned the stigma. I say with all due respect to the Minister, because I know he is doing his best, that interim payments will offer a way of bringing relief to some of the survivors.”

    House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

36. “I am well aware that the Minister knows that the industry needs a steady stream of orders to sustain train manufacturing here in the UK and preserve those vital jobs in areas such as County Durham, where we do not have an abundance of skilled employment, so in all honesty I earnestly ask the Minister to use his good offices to persuade the Secretary of State to intervene urgently and ensure a bright future for this vital UK train manufacturing industry.”

    House of Commons16 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

37. “My condolences on your loss, Mr Speaker. I thank you on behalf of the workforce for granting this urgent question, because the situation is becoming critical. My union, Unite, tells me that there are over 900 people employed on temporary contracts at Hitachi in Newton Aycliffe and at Alstom in Derby whose jobs are already at risk. This is before any formal redundancies occur; Unite believes that that could happen as soon as June.”

    House of Commons16 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

38. “How many more will die before he finally comes along and implements those recommendations in full?”

    House of Commons25 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

39. “To say the Secretary of State will have disappointed the 5,000 WASPI women in my constituency and the many tens of thousands across the north-east would be an understatement. Frankly, the Minister’s response is shameful. I take issue with what he said about the complexity of the report. He said that it has only been five days since the 100-page report was published. I am not a speed reader, but I reckon that is 20 pages a day. The issues raised are not bolts out of the blue; the WASPI women have been actively campaigning for more than 10 years, highlighting the issues and the potential remedies. The response we have had will not wash with the country. The Secretary of State says that there are 200,000 fewer pensioners in poverty, but 270,000 WASPI women have died waiting for justice.”

    House of Commons25 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

40. “Gentleman say that there has not been that consultation.”

    House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

41. “Given this, we question the Government’s proposed ambition that self-driving vehicles must be as safe as a competent and careful human driver.” The Committee felt that that was “too weak and too vague” and called on the Government to “set a clearer, more stretching threshold.” I will come back to this in my contribution on clause stand part, but I just wanted to put that to the Minister and to reinforce the points made by the Opposition Front Benchers.”

    House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

42. “It was published on 15 September last year, and one of its conclusions is: “Optimistic predictions are often based on widespread self-driving vehicle usage that is decades away, or assertions about human error that ignore other risks”— for example, changing weather conditions. It continued: “Safety must remain the Government’s overriding priority as self-driving vehicles encounter real-world complexity.”

    House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

43. “I rise to ask a short question to the Minister and to support my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central. I have the pleasure and privilege of serving on the Transport Committee, along with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. To reinforce the point that my hon. Friend made, there is broad, cross-party support for the concept, but the widely held assumption that self-driving vehicles will prove safer than human drivers is not a given. Having looked at the whole issue in some detail, the Select Committee produced an excellent report, which I recommend to members of this Committee.”

    House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

44. “I am familiar with the statistics, and the Minister is absolutely correct, but I think we have to stretch our minds and think of scenarios that a competent human driver can reasonably anticipate. An example would be anticipating the movements of a blind or partially sighted person. We know that a blind person, because it is part of their training, tends to stick to the kerbs and corners. I am not convinced as yet that autonomous vehicles have the algorithms or knowledge to differentiate, so we have to set the bar—the standard—as high as possible.”

    House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

45. “I am grateful. That is quite an important point about regulation and not banning things, but can we just be cognisant of what has happened recently where we have taken a more laissez-faire attitude, such as in relation to pedicabs or the electric cycles that are littering the pavements?”

    House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

46. “Nobody wants to ban them completely, but if we had taken a harder line at the outset on the framework in which they operate, many of those problems could have been avoided. That is all that we on the Opposition Benches are saying.”

    House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

47. “That was a view shared by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which said that accidents attributable to humans are often caused by poor road and vehicle design and difficult driving conditions, such as rapidly changing weather conditions. Therefore, we cannot rely on the omittance of human error to improve the safety of our roads. We must hold AVs to a high standard of safety with a very low risk of committing a traffic infraction by supporting amendments 19 and 20. Without those amendments, there is a risk that the safety standards for AVs will not be strong enough.”

    House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

48. “I would like to add that that is a position supported by Cycling UK, as stated in the written evidence submitted to the Committee. While we accept that self-driving vehicles could potentially reduce casualties—we learned yesterday and in previous examples that the traffic management systems do not allow those vehicles to speed, so there would be less speeding than with human drivers—there are others factors to consider. During the Transport Committee inquiry which led to the “Self-driving vehicles” report, Becky Guy from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents told us that, while many collisions involve human error, there were often other contributory factors.”

    House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

49. “They define “safety” as only “to an acceptably safe standard”, while “legally” means “with an acceptably low risk of committing a traffic infraction.” The Opposition and many organisations do not believe that those provide adequate protections for drivers, passengers and pedestrians, and they are unlikely to achieve the improvement in road safety that the introduction of AV technology could deliver. I support amendments 19 and 20, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central and Labour spokespeople, which propose to “leave out ‘an acceptably safe standard’ and insert ‘a high standard of safety’”, as well as “leave out ‘an acceptably’ and insert ‘a very’”, when referring to the low level of a traffic infraction.”

    House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

50. “Part of the argument we are making with amendments 19 and 20 is to try to ensure that we have the highest possible level of public confidence and trust. As I mentioned earlier, the Transport Committee’s findings were published in its report on self-driving vehicles on 15 September. The Committee expressed concern about the assumption that self-driving vehicles will automatically be safer than human drivers. We said that that is not a given. Rigorous safety measures must be an overriding priority for self-driving vehicles as they are faced with the complexities and unpredictable nature of real-world driving. I draw the Minister’s attention to the definitions of “safety” and “legally” in clause 1(7)(a) and (b), which I have just mentioned.”

    House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →