Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) I beg to move, That this House has
considered e-petition 600954, relating to vehicle tampering
offences. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir
George. This petition was created by Gareth James, whom I had the
pleasure of meeting last week. It is a response to proposed new
offences that would cover any individual who tampers with a vehicle
that is to be used on the road where the principal effect is “to
bypass,...Request free trial
(Don Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 600954, relating to
vehicle tampering offences.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George.
This petition was created by Gareth James, whom I had the
pleasure of meeting last week. It is a response to proposed new
offences that would cover any individual who tampers with a
vehicle that is to be used on the road where the principal effect
is
“to bypass, defeat, reduce the effectiveness of or render
inoperative a system, part or component”.
I am grateful to be on the Petitions Committee; not always, but
very often, it allows me to be made aware of aspects of our
society that I might not always see. It allows me to meet the
great British public, and to seek the right thing from the
Government. This is one of those times. Doing the right thing for
the right reasons is a principle I seek to live by, as an
individual and as a Member of Parliament. This petition has force
behind it, and it needs to be listened to.
I have spoken with many stakeholders during my time on the
Petitions Committee, and one concern is that these new offences
may affect cars that are used solely on the racetrack. That is a
legitimate concern, as that would adversely affect motorsports
throughout the country. I believe that is not the case, but I ask
the Minister to clarify and confirm that point in her
response.
That leads me to the issue of vehicles that will be
affected—road-going vehicles that are altered just to be more
individual, as well as those that are driven to a track in order
to race and/or be shown. Earlier this month, I had the pleasure
of going to Santa Pod Raceway and meeting stakeholders in the
industry, including Dan Melrose, who spent his time showing me
around the event, and Santa Pod’s chief executive officer, Keith
Bartlett, plus members of the national street rod and street
eliminator associations, to name just a few. They told me about
not just the economic value of this industry to the country, but
the education and joy that it brings to so many people, including
many young people—I do remember being young.
The day I attended Santa Pod was apparently a quiet day, as the
industry, like many, is still recovering from the covid
pandemic—or so I was told. It did not seem very quiet to me.
Thousands upon thousands of people were enjoying their day off,
getting together and having fun at nobody else’s expense. Many
were there closely examining the vehicles on show and comparing
myriad improvements to their own vehicles. Every car was unique
in its own way, the result of many pounds and many hours spent
perfecting it and making it exactly how its owner wanted it to
be. It was literally a labour of love.
Like most things in life, we only ever see the end product; we do
not see the hours spent in the freezing cold garage in a dimly
lit area, taking a car to pieces and successfully putting it back
together again. The engineers in this industry probably all
started their journey in their garage at home, keeping busy and
out of trouble, gaining skills for the future, not hurting
anybody and doing what they love. More than anything else, that
is what I want to protect; indeed, all of us in this House must
protect the freedom to do what we enjoy that hurts nobody. The
freedom to do something that causes no harm to others should
never be proscribed. I agree that the Government have a duty to
keep us safe, but they should do so only in a way that is
carefully thought through. If the Government are not careful in
this instance, they may just fail to do that.
Gareth, who started this petition, started working on cars in his
late teens; a friend’s dad worked for Vauxhall, and they worked
on cars together. Many of our engineers started with similar
hobbies, which are of paramount importance if the UK is to
continue to be the innovative country that it is. This is not a
hobby like football or Formula 1 that appears to be pumped full
of money at every opportunity; in fact, it is usually the lack of
money that gets people started in the first place, fixing cars
for themselves rather than taking them to a garage. We must be
able to let this industry continue, as to let it fail would be a
crying shame and cost us dearly over the coming years. It can
never have been the Government’s intention, when drafting these
proposals, to cause the demise of the motorsport and classic car
industries.
I spoke recently to Motorsport UK, which informed me that the
industry is worth £9 billion, with 4,500 companies actively
involved and 87% exporting their products and services. It also
informed me that the classic car industry supports 113,000 jobs.
Those are huge numbers, but the industry understands that we
cannot have cars on the road that have been altered to a poor
standard and are not fit for purpose. However, it points out that
many of the alterations improve the car’s safety, especially in
the classic car market. It has asked the Government to look at
excluding vehicles involved in motorsport and all classic
vehicles. It would like a passport system, under which
modifications could be done only by members of accredited
organisations, and which would allow vehicles to drive to and
from events on a limited number of days each year. That seems
fairly sensible to me. Transporting a vehicle on the back of a
heavy goods vehicle is expensive and hardly good for the
environment.
There are still many people who enjoy improving their vehicles
but do not want to race or show them, so joining an association
would be a further cost, with what they might think has no
benefit at all. I spoke to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and
Traders, which generally agrees with what the Government are
trying to do, but it also understands the aftermarket industry’s
value, so it believes that a blanket ban might not be the best
way forward. We have to ask ourselves what can be done.
We need clarification of what is classed as tampering. Good
tampering should not be made an offence. I am a believer in
climate change and that we must act to mitigate its worst
effects. I therefore start from the premise that tampering with
any part of the system that can increase the original vehicle’s
emissions is wrong and should be discouraged. That may include
the mapping of cars, which can dump fuel to create popping from
the exhaust. If a system creates just a little more noise than
first intended but does not break current noise regulations, that
is fine, but we must have regard to climate change and look after
our planet.
Then there are areas that are mainly cosmetic: wheels, spoilers,
decals and so on. I see no harm in those, so I hope that that
form of tampering continues to be allowed. It hurts nobody and
there seems to be no reason why it should be proscribed. Then
there are modifications that make the car safer for the track but
do not affect any of the main mechanicals that keep the car on
the road—items such as roll cages, seating, electrical cut-outs
and fire extinguishers. Again, those should be allowed. They hurt
nobody and there is no reason why they should be proscribed.
I understand that works on suspension, brakes and the main engine
and gearbox ought to be carried out by a trained professional
using good aftermarket parts. I know many will disagree with me,
but the Government have a duty to keep all road users safe, and a
braking system that is not installed correctly, for example,
could cause serious harm. A way forward is to make sure that all
vehicle manufacturers support the aftermarket industry with
specifications for all parts that could be replaced or uprated at
a later date so that there are no monopolies on servicing. If the
Government insist on stopping tampering, perhaps a compromise
could be that any altered vehicle is tested again after each
major improvement. The SMMT thought that an extension of the
individual vehicle approval scheme might also be a way forward,
so I ask the Minister whether that could be explored further.
One final point is the fact that the concerns of the 30,000-plus
independent workshops that support UK consumers’ competitive
choice and affordable mobility are not explicitly included in the
proposals. The UK Alliance for the Freedom of Car Repair
stated:
“Great care is needed to avoid discriminating against the
aftermarket.”
This is an extremely complex subject. I reiterate that I
understand what the Government are trying to achieve, but I also
understand the industry’s concerns. A consultation has taken
place, and I hope that the Government can now offer the
clarification that the industry needs as the legislation moves
forward.
I hope that the Government, the industry and the petitioners can
see that I have tried to take a pragmatic approach to the
subject, and I hope that I have understood the issues in the time
I have had to learn what this industry means to so many. It has
been wonderful to meet so many enthusiastic people and learn so
much, and I thank them all for three things that they have
allowed me to see—their obvious joy in what they do, their
professionalism, and their understanding when speaking to a
layman like me.
4.40pm
(Bracknell) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I
commend my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley () for bringing the petition
to the House. This is a really important debate, and it is
important that I get my views on the record.
In 2021, the Department for Transport started a consultation on
modernising vehicle standards and sought views
“on areas of vehicle standards regulation that are outdated, a
barrier to innovation or not designed with new technologies and
business models in mind.”
Understandably, many people, including classic car enthusiasts
who restore old vehicles, have raised concerns about that, hence
the petition we are discussing today. There is also great concern
that the Government’s proposals could impact cars that have been
adapted for racing in motorsport events. As chair of the
all-party parliamentary group for motorsport, that is of great
concern to me and those I represent here in Westminster.
There are some facts worth raising. In 2020—noting the
pandemic—approximately 56,000 people participated in motorsport
events across the UK. Today, there are 720 registered motorsport
clubs in the UK and approximately 5,000 motorsport events are
held across the UK annually. There are millions of car owners in
the UK and millions of motorsport fans, aside from those who
directly compete in and support these events.
What is the Government’s position right now? The consultation
proposes the creation of a number of new offences for
“tampering with a system, part or component of a vehicle intended
or adapted to be used on a road.”
The Government say that such measures would enable them
“to address existing gaps in legislation, ensuring cleaner and
safer vehicles.”
Of course, that is fine in principle. Reassuringly, the Minister
assured the House last year that
“Department for Transport officials have been instructed to
ensure that proposals do not prevent activities such as
restoration, repairs or legitimate improvements to classic cars,
or do any damage to the motor sports businesses involved in these
activities.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2021; Vol. 702, c.
1047.]
We heard earlier just how much money is involved and how many
jobs and livelihoods are at stake; the sector is really important
to the UK and to our economy.
We know that modified vehicles used on the roads are currently
subject to the same MOT testing as any other road vehicles, and
therefore adequate safeguards are in place to ensure that these
vehicles are roadworthy. That includes emissions testing, which
importantly ensures that modified cars do not breach emissions
standards. However, my view is: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix
it.
(Pontypridd) (Lab)
I appreciate the points that the hon. Member is making, but part
of the problem in my constituency of Pontypridd and Taff Ely is
illegal modifications to cars done by boy racers, who are not
motorsport professionals but drag race up and down our dual
carriageways, with exhausts going off, sounding like shotguns,
causing real antisocial behaviour and nuisance. Those exhausts
are removed before the MOT and then put back on, so, sadly, they
are missed. Does the hon. Member agree that more needs to be done
to try to tackle that problem?
It is really important that we do this in the right way. In my
constituency of Bracknell, we have a problem with boy racers,
noisy exhausts and antisocial driving; that is a real issue in my
part of the world as well. The devil is in the detail, and I will
come on to what I think needs to be done to reconcile the two
apparently opposing poles.
My point is that we need clarification from the Government of how
these new rules would be implemented. What modifications are
classed as legitimate? We should also be acutely aware that these
rules must not impact in any way the legitimate classic car and
motorsport sectors, which we have spoken about.
The Historic and Classic Vehicles Alliance recently found that
the classic vehicles sector alone is worth £18.3 billion to the
UK economy. The HCVA contends that cars belong to their owners
and the owners have a right to repair them. We know that; it goes
for all vehicles of all ages, classic and modern. The proposals
may limit access to hardware and software required to maintain
and repair these vehicles. Of course, the cars of today cannot
become classics in the future if they are forced to rely on
services from individual manufacturers that may be withdrawn.
The industry for maintaining historic vehicles and motorsport
vehicles is large and globally renowned, employing highly skilled
professionals—over 100,000 people, as we have heard. Much of that
work, such as engine maintenance, alterations to exhaust systems
and changes to engine control units, would cross over into the
current definition of tampering. The proposed definition of
tampering is far too broad and needs to be nailed down. It could
include changing wheels and tyres, altering the body of a car,
limiting access to period panels or enhancing safety. It might
include lightening a car for period-correct performance or racing
improvements. It might involve newer classic cars requiring
changes to ECUs as fuel standards change. The definition is
really broad. Ultimately, we need to ensure that new cars today
that become classics in the future are still maintainable and
serviceable.
So what? Having admired the problem for the last few minutes,
what do we need to do, and what do I advise the Government? If
the Department is determined to go ahead with this kind of
anti-tamper legislation, we request, as a minimum, specific
exemptions for historic and classic vehicles, as described. The
legislation needs to include legal protections for owners of
classic vehicles who make modifications to their cars, and for
garages, engineers and those involved in the historic and classic
industry who do likewise. We need to ensure that owners,
engineers and the historic and classic industry have access to
the tools they require in perpetuity to maintain roadworthy
historic and classic vehicles. The legislation needs to include
protections for classic vehicles that have been modified, so that
they can still be sold, with protections for dealers,
auctioneers, agents and all those involved in the sale of the
cars. It must also include protections for individuals and firms
who transport and deliver vehicles that have been modified.
To refer to an earlier question, how do we draw the distinction
between legitimate activities and those activities that result in
antisocial driving? I do not have the answer. I suspect that this
may be a wicked problem where lines are difficult to define.
Where is the boundary between the two poles that we have
discussed? I do not know. It may be that the Department decides
to drop these plans altogether. These are really difficult
proposals, and they will upset many people—legitimate owners of
cars who are proud of what they have in their garage.
Alternatively, it may be that the Department works with
Motorsport UK, the Historic and Classic Vehicles Alliance, motor
manufacturers, those with specialist expertise across the UK, and
the all-party parliamentary group for motorsport, to ensure that
we do not self-harm. I urge the Minister to make sure that we do
not do ourselves real damage.
4.48pm
(Wycombe) (Con)
I want to begin with a confession that, these days, is
increasingly socially unacceptable: I enjoy driving. I enjoy
riding a motorcycle. I love petrol engine vehicles. I have three
reasons for being interested in this debate: a Yamaha MT-10, a
KTM 950 Supermoto and a ratty old runabout Vauxhall Corsa that I
would get rid of if I had the opportunity to drive properly. I
would buy a decent car, but there is no point while I am an MP. A
long time ago, before I became an MP, I put some effort into
becoming a decent driver, although I would not like to make any
particular claims about the quality of my driving, but I did put
the effort in. I enjoy my driving and I love vehicles. I like to
get in a car, such as a classic 911 Club Sport that I once drove,
where I could actually feel what the tyres were doing on the
road, because it had mechanical steering.
As we go forward in this life, there seems to be a systematic
effort to ruin motoring—to make motorcycles and cars more boring
and more of a black box. We now have endless cars with electric
steering, and it is impossible to feel a thing that is going on
on the road. Somehow, we are losing something about what it is to
be a human being who takes responsibility and cares about their
relationship with a vehicle. It is an old-fashioned and
increasingly unpopular point of view, but I think there is joy to
be found in driving a vehicle that does not have an anti-lock
braking system or traction control and has carburettors not fuel
injection, but has, as is the case with the KTM, very sharp
brakes. It is a great joy and pleasure to be united with a
vehicle and care about how it is working on the road.
That is why I object to the idea of anti-tampering legislation.
It is not because I have a problem with safety. I used to be a
professional air-worthiness engineer, so I like safety; I do not
like hospital food. I want to be safe and for everybody to be
safe. There is no going back if someone injures another person
with a vehicle. That is why I want responsible motorists and
motorcyclists—people who care about how they operate their
vehicle and care about what kind of vehicle they are in. The
problem with this so-called anti-tampering legislation is that it
will increasingly turn vehicles into black boxes, where we do not
have to care. Indeed, it will be so anodyne and boring to drive
the thing, and the driver will be so disconnected from the
mechanics and the experience, that they will be positively
discouraged from caring about the vehicle because there is no
point.
In contrast to my amazing KTM 950, with its absence of electronic
devices, I recently hired a car in Norway—a Volkswagen ID4. It
was a lovely car in many ways. It was all electric and had cruise
control and a stupid speed limiter that knows where the car is
and so starts to reduce the cruise control as it gets into town.
The car steers itself. When I was positioning the car on the
road, it decided that it did not want to be there and suddenly
jerked the steering wheel in my hand. It cannot be switched off
permanently; every time I switched it off it was switched back on
when I next got in the car. I would like to switch that nonsense
off because I want to drive the car. I do not want the car
deciding I should be two feet to the left on the road. I was once
in a Tesla—with somebody else driving—that nearly put us in a
hedge because it decided it wanted to be two feet to the left.
The Volkswagen ID4 was not quite self-driving, but it is clear
where we are going here—cars that decide how fast they go and
where they are going to be on the road. I do not mind people
having self-driving cars. I would not mind having a car that
drove itself if it meant that I did not have to drive when it was
boring—for example, when commuting to this place—but when I want
to drive the car, I want to drive the car.
I am extremely concerned that this future involves a wide range
of practical and philosophical problems. I do not want to trust a
car to decide where it is. I remember doing 70 mph down the
motorway in a Golf that had its lane assistance turned on. I went
through a shadow of a tree and the car swerved because it decided
it wanted to be in a different place. I was until recently a
chartered aerospace engineer—I have just declined to renew my
subscription—so I am not a technophobe; aeroplanes often fly
themselves. However, I would like not to have to put up with the
nonsense of the car deciding it wants to go at a different speed
or be in a different place.
I have possibly laboured my point, but I want the Minister, who
is listening carefully, to at least see one keen and passionate
driver—sorry, guys—who wants to have personal responsibility as a
free man. I will say it: I want to be a free man, personally in
charge of what the vehicle does. I am offended by the name
anti-tampering. I do not doubt that there are some irresponsible
people who want to tamper with safety systems, but the point I am
trying to put on the record is that even some safety systems can
be dangerous—for example, when that Volkswagen Golf swerved
across the road because it did not like the shadow on the dual
carriageway.
We have talked about racing and custom vehicles. When it comes to
minor modifications, I like to think that I do not modify my
vehicles, but my MT10 has a different screen, hand guards, and
luggage as well as a charging lead that I put on myself to ensure
that it is trickle charged. It is modified; it has got a
Scottoiler on it, so I can commute without having to constantly
lubricate the chain. Many of those accessories were fitted by the
dealer because he would do it at no cost, but what if I had
decided to fit them? Is that tampering? Surely not—all I have
done is convert one kind of Yamaha MT10 into another. People like
me are afraid that we are moving into this anodyne world where we
cannot even change the screen on our BMW R1200GS—as I did. We do
not want to have to check the rules to see whether we can. With
great respect, I am not interested in the Minister’s view about
what size screen I should have on my motorcycle. I do not want to
have to go and check the rules to see whether I can change it—I
am now labouring the point.
As Conservatives, we should be wanting to live in a society of
free and responsible individuals. We will not create or
perpetuate a society of free and responsible individuals if we
keep taking away from them, at every chance, the opportunity to
exercise freedom responsibly and to enjoy themselves while doing
that, because we make life miserable if we say to people, “Before
you can fit heated grips on your motorbike, you have to go and
check whether you’re allowed to.” It is too boring—it is too
boring. We sit in here all the time, doing this technocratic
nonsense and going up to the Committee Rooms to pass statutory
instruments that most of us in this House do not even read. That
is another bugbear of mine on which I have laboured another
point. We are taking away people’s freedoms by using statutory
instruments that we do not even read and almost never speak to.
This is not where we should be going as Conservatives; we should
be letting people be free. If they want to have stupid
self-driving cars that steer themselves when they should not, let
them, but I want to switch that off, and if the manufacturer
provided it to me and I was unable to switch it off, I would like
to be able to change the software so that I could switch it off
and drive the car myself. I rest my case.
4.56pm
(Wythenshawe and Sale East)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I
congratulate Gareth James on securing 112,000—is that
right?—signatures on the petition in order to get this debate.
That is no mean feat in itself, so my congratulations go to him,
and to the hon. Member for Don Valley (), who I think looks very
young indeed; he should not disparage himself. In fact, I might
check out after the debate what moisturiser he uses. I
congratulate him on bringing the petition to us in Parliament
today. My congratulations go also to the hon. Member for
Bracknell () on a very elegant
speech. I thank him for all he does for the APPG for
motorsport.
We then heard a passionate speech from the hon. Member for
Wycombe (Mr Baker). I am a big fan of the hon. Member, as he
knows. We are both big Cobden fans, for different reasons
possibly, but I would never describe the hon. Member as being 2
feet to the left in any situation at all, and perhaps
particularly in a car. He made a great defence. As somebody who
cycled here today on a Brompton—Brompton is a proud British
manufacturer—I may have some different views about how sometimes
I am close passed and the possibility that my life may be
prolonged by speed limiters. As I canvassed yesterday in a tight
marginal seat between Labour and the Conservatives in Brooklands,
Trafford, I was sickened by seeing exactly what my hon. Friend
the Member for Pontypridd () pointed out—adjusted
cars doing 60 to 80 mph down a road with a 30-mph limit and with
modified exhausts banging out. The antisocial behaviour that that
brings to our estates is appalling. I remember the Secretary of
State going on the record about how he does not like that type of
thing, either.
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and
for his compliments. I was once very nearly run down in High
Wycombe by somebody doing just what he has suggested: they were
in a modified car and going far too fast in town. Such people
need prosecuting. In the case raised by the hon. Gentleman, if
they are doing 80 mph where there is a 30 mph limit, they should
be going to prison. I am very clear about that. I just wanted to
ensure that we all understood one another.
I am grateful to the hon. Member. I love motorsport as well, and
I love classic cars. There is nothing better than jumping up on
my NorthRoad cycle—those bikes are produced in my
constituency—cycling the 10 miles to Tatton Park, the Cheshire
County Council and National Trust park, watching a traditional
car show there and seeing the pride that people have in those
cars. We do not want to see anything that would stop that.
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his very eloquent and pragmatic
speech; it is resonating with me. Does he agree that when it
comes to the cars themselves, the issue is not necessarily the
cars; it is the way in which they are driven? Therefore, what we
need to do is to go after those who are driving irresponsibly,
making noise, breaking the law and breaking the rules, rather
than going after legitimate vehicle owners, who just want to look
after their vehicles.
We should not be going after legitimate car owners, who take
great pride in their cars, but with 40 million vehicle licences
on UK roads, this plague of antisocial behaviour with these
modified cars is absolutely sickening. With tens of thousands of
police cut in this country, and a decimation of community
policing, we now cannot police these hooligans driving their cars
in the way they do. There is a philosophical debate to be had,
but something needs to be done. We need to be tough on these
people who are plaguing our communities.
Last year, the Government consulted on modernising vehicle
standards, specifically looking at new measures to tackle
tampering with vehicles. This petition came about almost
immediately, with 112,000 signatures, and it managed to unite
motorcyclists, classic car owners and motor racing aficionados
with one voice. Despite the DFT stating that it did not intend
the proposals to prevent motorsport or people repairing classic
cars or motorbikes, it is keen to ensure that no businesses
engaged in those pursuits are negatively affected.
The proposals seem to be a broadly positive move from Government
to tackle tampering, which we know has impacts on safety and the
environment. Of course, we support ensuring that emission
standards are met and cannot be worked around. However, we also
know that some modifications can negatively affect the safety and
health of the vehicle owner, its occupants, other road users and
the wider population, and that some tampering activities that
prevent a vehicle’s emission system from operating correctly,
such as the removal of the diesel particulate filter from a
vehicle’s exhaust, can significantly increase harmful pollutant
emissions, and sometimes be used as a weapon as these hooligans
pass cyclists and let out a load of smoke—gassing, I think it is
known as.
However, we know that the motorsport community have concerns
about restoration, repairs and legitimate improvements, and their
voices must be heard. The Government have said that it is not
their intention to target these legitimate improvements, yet
there has been no detail about how they would ensure that that
will not happen. We know the consultation ended in November
2021—over six months ago—and we have not heard since that time
what the Government intend to do.
I have a few questions for the Minister. When will the
consultation response be published? When will the Government
think about bringing legislation forward? Collectors and
businesses in the aftermarket industry are being left in the
dark, and we need to shed some light for them. Will changes apply
retrospectively? What sort of alterations will be considered
tampering? Will it just be ones that impact emissions and noise,
or are wider proposals on the cards? How will they work with the
motorsport and restoration industry? What steps are the
Government taking to engage with stakeholders who have legitimate
concerns over the changes? I would welcome answers from the
Minister on this important debate.
5.03pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport ()
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George, in
a debate on a subject for which I have a great deal of personal
adoration. This is certainly not the first time I have debated it
with my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (), who is co-chair of the
all-party parliamentary group for motorsport. I pay particular
thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (), who started the whole
thing off but was unable to speak in today’s debate and, most
importantly, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (). I hope I can reassure hon.
Members following what we have heard. I have been pleased to
listen to the incredibly valuable and thorough contributions that
have been made. It is a privilege to be closing the debate.
Of course, the UK has a very long and proud history of companies
and individuals dedicated to the modification and improvement of
vehicles, whether in motorsports, professional customisation or
enthusiastic owners enjoying their hobby and improving their
pride and joy. That was me when I was 18 and purchased my second
car, moving up from a Ford Escort 1.3L to a Peugeot 309 GTI,
complete with skirts and low-profile tyres. I was partial to a
whale tail, but I did not go that far.
I was able to do that because my dad helped me. He was a great
engineer and I am quite sure that he learned his craft by
starting out with a push-bike, moving up to a BSA Bantam and
transitioning through various vehicles to a 1972 Porsche 911T,
moving, I believe, from left-hand to right-hand drive. I most
definitely grew up with this and I understand that many engineers
hone their craft in their garage or, when it comes to
motorcycles, their living room.
I agree with a lot of what I have heard today, including on the
importance of ensuring that we allow for that continued healthy
aftermarket for vehicle modification, and that our plans do not
negatively impact on our thriving motorsports. I pay tribute to
the Wigton Motor Club in my own area—I was delighted to open its
new facility at Moota—and to the Rotating Wheels car show in West
Lakeland. I will be adjudicating at that vintage and classic car
show again this summer.
The intention behind our proposals is to prevent tampering that
can have serious consequences for health and the environment. We
have, however, issued a clarification that we do not intend our
proposals to prevent legitimate motorsport activities,
restoration, repairs or legitimate improvements to vehicles such
as classic cars and motorbikes. We also do not intend our
proposals to impact negatively on businesses involved in such
activities.
The consultation received 7,891 responses—a large number. Their
particular focus was on concerns that the proposals, as set out
in the regulatory review, are too broad and would restrict any
modification of vehicles, which would negatively impact on the
motorsports industry, the restoration and customisation industry,
classic car enthusiasts and motorcycles. We have yet to publish
our response to the consultation—I will speak about that in a
moment—but Members can absolutely be reassured that the proposals
will not prevent all forms of vehicle modification. That is not
the intention—it is certainly not my intention. We are carefully
considering the scope of the policy, to ensure that it does not
prevent legitimate alterations or modification, including repair
work.
As the Minister with responsibility for the future of transport,
my role is to ensure that we have a regulatory regime that is fit
for the future and that will achieve our vision of a better,
greener UK. To achieve that, we are conducting a series of
regulatory reviews to consider how transport regulations need to
change, to make journeys faster, safer, easier and more secure.
However, I absolutely take the point made by my hon. Friend the
Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). I love driving. I have been
driving for 28 years, and I hope to drive for the rest of my safe
and capable life. I absolutely understand the desire to be in
control of a motor vehicle.
Certain modifications, however, can negatively affect the safety
and health of drivers or riders, passengers, other road users and
the wider population. One such example is the modification or
removal of part of the emissions system. As my hon. Friend the
Member for Don Valley said, that can have significant
consequences. If it is done because the vehicle’s performance has
failed—the system can fail to boost the vehicle’s performance—it
can be really serious. Removing a diesel particulate filter from
a vehicle’s exhaust can increase harmful pollutant emissions by
up to 1,000 times.
The risks associated with air and noise pollution, including from
modified exhausts, cannot be understated. In England alone, the
annual social cost of urban road noise was estimated to be
between £7 billion and £10 billion in 2010.
I am grateful to the Minister for mentioning road noise. I have
annoyed fellow motorcyclists by telling them that they must have
lawful end-cans and exhaust systems, because nothing prejudices
people against motorcycling more than noisy motorcycles with
illegal cans. The problem with noisy motorcycles today is not
that the lawful equipment is too noisy, but that people break the
law and the law is not enforced. I hope that my hon. Friend will
not mind me saying that we have to enforce the law on some of
these things, instead of constantly tightening up regulations and
hoping that compliance will follow, because it does not. We must
have reasonable regulations that people want to comply with. That
is a very old principle.
The Department is looking right now at understanding how we can
better monitor the noise and make it easier for the transport
police in particular to do so.
That is an important point. As I have previously mentioned, my
constituency has been blighted by vehicles with illegally
modified exhausts speeding through our communities. Last summer,
after discussions with South Wales Police it
launched Operation Buena, and in just one night in Llantrisant,
it issued 12 motorists with speeding fines and 10 with
prohibition notices. That is completely unsustainable, and the
police clearly need more resources to get on top of the matter.
What conversations has the Minister had with her Home Office
colleagues on giving them further resources to deal with the
issue?
I refer to my earlier comment on detection and how we use and
improve sound-monitoring devices—noise cameras, as they are being
called—to monitor those motorists who are, without a doubt,
breaking the law. We recognise the health and environmental
impacts of noise. They include the risk of heart attacks, strokes
and dementia, and while air quality has improved since 2010, air
pollution remains the top environmental risk to human health in
the UK.
As vehicles increasingly become automated, new safety and
security risks will be associated with making alterations to a
vehicle’s integral software and sensing technologies. Already,
many new vehicles offer advanced driver-assistance systems—I
recognise, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe
will choose not to use those—which partially automate some of the
driving tasks.
With the advent of self-driving vehicles, which will allow the
driver to hand over the driving task to the system, if desired,
the problem becomes even more acute. These highly sophisticated
systems will have taken years to develop. Even a minor
modification could significantly affect an automated vehicle’s
operation and, if done badly, would have the potential to kill
its occupants and other road users.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell referred to the MOT test.
The challenge is that we cannot rely on that alone. The MOT test
is an important part of ensuring that vehicles on our roads are
safe and roadworthy, but there are inevitably limitations to what
can be assessed through a relatively simple static inspection of
a vehicle. When it comes to automation and self-driving
technologies, it becomes even more challenging for sufficient
checks to be carried out to guard against dangerous or illegal
modifications. I trust that Members can see that it is essential
that we have the powers to respond to advances in vehicle
construction and operation, to target and prevent dangerous and
inappropriate tampering, which could put people’s lives at
risk.
As we know, the devil is in the detail. When are we likely to see
the Bill and the wording that will come with it?
I will write to my hon. Friend with more specific details of the
timeframe. I can certainly say that we will publish our response
to the consultation this summer—it will be a matter of a few
months, rather than having to wait any longer. In answer to
another of his questions, the changes will not be retrospectively
applied.
We have listened carefully to the concerns raised by the
e-petition through our consultation on the subject. We recognise
the importance of striking an appropriate balance between
allowing for legitimate modifications and ensuring that we have
the powers to tackle those that are dangerous and inappropriate.
We are absolutely not proposing that all modifications be
prevented. We recognise that vehicle owners and businesses may
have many legitimate reasons to modify a vehicle, and our
intention is to ensure that we maintain a thriving aftermarket
including motorsports, restoration, repairs and other legitimate
improvements and alterations to vehicles.
We are considering all the responses received during the
consultation. As I say, we will publish a consultation response,
in which we will summarise those responses and set out our next
steps, in the summer.
Over the past 60 years, cleaner, safer and more accessible
transport has transformed people’s lives for the better. The
Government are committed to maximising the benefits and
minimising the risks of new technological advances. The broad
programme of work we have launched will help us to ensure that
our regulatory framework is flexible and forward-looking so that
we can foster innovation, safeguard the public and bring the most
benefit to transport users and society, while recognising our
rich cultural and industrial heritage in motor vehicles, which
dates back to the late 1800s. It has been a pleasure to speak in
this debate.
5.16pm
Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir George. I thank the
Minister for her response, as well as everybody who has actively
contributed today. It has been an extremely good debate. I thank
the petitioner, Gareth, for starting the petition, as well as the
112,000 people who signed it and the 7,891 people who responded
to the consultation.
From the Minister’s response, it seems that the Government have
actually listened to the petitioners. It is a win for the
Petitions Committee and the petitioner, but also for the entire
industry and all the people at home who love tampering with cars,
as we have called it. It has been a great debate and I thank
everyone who has been involved.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 600954, relating to
vehicle tampering offences.
|
