Category Archives: Hansard

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to introduce cross-sector legislation on artificial intelligence in 2025.

My Lords, last month I published a report making the case for cross-sector AI legislation. Is it not clear that AI is already impacting, positively and otherwise, cross-sector, cross-society and cross-economy? If we do not have a cross-sector approach through legislation, how will we enable the clarity, the certainty and the consistency of approach which will bring forward the confidence to enable innovation and investment—good for citizen, good for consumer, good for creative, good for British business and good for our country?

My Lords, will the Minister consider leading a review into the PUE measure for data centres? The power usage effectiveness measure has been around for some time now. Does he consider it to be effective and the optimal way of measuring the impact of data centres from an energy perspective?

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot and to have the opportunity to congratulate him again on being recognised as Parliamentarian of the Year for all the work that he did to represent the postmistresses and postmasters through that terrible period: one of the darkest periods in this country’s legal history.

I also congratulate and thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle for securing such an important debate. I declare my technology and financial services interests, not least as adviser to Ecospend and Trustly.

I will concentrate on connectivity, cash and community. Connectivity is the essence of being human: how we relate and how we connect with one another in real time, in the physical world. With bank branches retreating from our high streets, gaining financial services is becoming vanishingly impossible in the real world.

So, what is the solution for people who want to do their daily banking, not just for individuals but for micro and small businesses as well? The stats tell us that, whichever one chooses, you can be, in a certain percentage, a mile or three miles away from your nearest branch. But when one looks at other elements of connectivity, that is as good as being 300 miles away if you cannot get there.

I, too, will focus on the key role I believe the Post Office can play to bring forward solutions in this space. It is a brand that has been in our communities and our society for over half a millennium. There has to be a future for such a brand to deliver on the financial, digital inclusion and community cohesion challenges to connectivity.

What happens if people find themselves without a banking branch or easy access to a post office? We are told, “You can go online”. But what if you cannot? It might not be accessible or, indeed, you may not want to—and there are many reasons for that, not least the fact that we are in the midst of a fraud epidemic. The three largest economies on planet earth are, first, the United States of America, secondly, China, and thirdly, economic crime and fraud. Can the Minister say whether the Government understand why people may not choose to go online? What are they doing further to help people online and in particular, when they are in that online world, with something as personal and serious as finance?

I turn to connectivity. What happens if you have no bank branch, and the broadband and mobile coverage isn’t all that in your area? That is especially the case in rural communities, but there are also some city not-spots. You can be as financially savvy and digitally smart as you want, and you can have the best device, but with no broadband or mobile connectivity that payment will not be made. What is the Government’s plan to look at all these elements of connectivity, to enable everybody to have the financial and digital inclusion not only that they deserve and need but that is vital if the Government are to deliver on levelling up and their growth agenda? If the bank branch has gone and there is no bus and no broadband, it is difficult to see financial and digital inclusion.

A lot of good work has happened around access to cash. What is the Government’s medium-term commitment to enabling access to cash and to the very service that underpins cash and the ease of accessing it in communities across our country? Can the Minister say whether there is a continuing commitment to free access to cash at all ATMs across the country?

What is the Government’s plan for cash acceptance? To put it in terms: what currency does cash have if there is no place to spend it? As my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot said, cash is such a key underpinning for resilience, including financial resilience for individuals who do not want to go online or who want to run their household or business with cash for reasons of control. Similarly, for the broader economy, what is the Government’s view on the resilience of continuing the cash system, if and when things go wrong in the digital space?

Finally, what are the Government’s plans for further innovating around access to, and acceptance of, cash? I was fortunate to bring an amendment to the Bill that became the Financial Services Act 2021, which enabled cashback without the need for a purchase. What is the measure of its success? Most of the transactions that have occurred as a result of that service are for £20 and under, so it is really delivering financial inclusion.

The third “c” is the most important: community. Yes, we can build digital communities, and they can be incredibly effective, but ultimately it is important how and where we meet and come together, and how we relate in the physical space—the human world. Some may say “IRL”, but it is that community space where so much human potential—and economic, social and psychological good—can get done.

I have a quartet of final questions for the Minister. How many hubs should be established by the end of this year? I agree that we could be more ambitious. Will the Minister consider setting an ambitious target of 1,000 hubs by the end of this Parliament? It would take at least 2,000 hubs to properly cover the branches that have disappeared—and continue to disappear. What are the Government’s thoughts on increasing business banking services within these hubs? For people who run small and micro-businesses, this could be a lifeline. They do not have time to get into a vehicle and go five miles to another town, they want to run their businesses. What are the plans for increasing business banking facilities at the hubs?

While we are on the issue of financial inclusion, I ask the Minister: what are the Government’s views on flat-screen card payment devices? These are completely inaccessible for blind people and many other people. The worst thing about it is that it is taking away something which was previously accessible—the card payment machine, which had buttons on—and enabled independent payments. Now, because of that technological change, they are completely inaccessible. Will the Government consider looking at this and giving their view on whether this breaches equalities legislation?

Financial and digital inclusion often walk hand in hand. It is the Government’s role—it is all of our role—to play a part in bringing them about. The social, human and community possibilities that come as a result are what makes it worth being in a country such as the United Kingdom. I look forward to the Minister’s response. Ultimately, it is an issue for rural communities. It is an issue for all communities because, at its heart, finance is how we enable possibilities. That is the purpose: individual possibilities, business possibilities and community possibilities. I thank the right reverend Prelate again for giving us the opportunity to discuss these matters this evening.

My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, who brought such vivid and real lived experience to the debate, and all noble Lords who took part, in particular the Minister. I thank him for all his consideration and the time that he has put into progress on this. It is a rare and positive thing to have a Minister for Transport who not only understands but loves transport. He is surely a candidate for Secretary of State. Things would improve dramatically across the piece.

I also thank my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for all the work that he has done on this matter. Progress has been made and I am very pleased that Amendment 35A and other amendments in his name will also pass, irrespective of what may or may not happen presently. The difficulty is, for all that has been said, that too much is still voluntary and lies in guidance. It could be pinned down far more. For example, the Government could do more, particularly on not providing finance for such schemes. They could have taken a different approach—rather than guidance, they could have taken a different legislative pathway. Similarly, it is worth noting at this point that, for those local authorities that do not abide by any guidance, judicial review will be the only route of redress for an individual. In essence, for the vast majority of us, there is no route of redress whatever.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, but, to make more progress and in acting for inclusion by design, accessibility by all and public transport worthy of that title, I should like to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, it may be convenient if I inform the House that we have a number of sight-impaired visitors with us in the Gallery. To increase the inclusivity of their experience, it may be convenient for noble Lords to identify themselves when they speak. To that end, I am Lord Holmes, a Conservative. As with all moves of an inclusive nature, everybody benefits. I am sure that a number of Members are now going, “Ah, so that’s Lord Holmes”.

It is a pleasure to follow my friend the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who has been and continues to be a role model for millions, not just in the UK but around the world. He was a first-class Secretary of State and a man who has transport in his bones, right back to the excellent bus subsidy scheme that he introduced when he was running Sheffield.

I want to speak to Amendments 36 and 38, which are in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for co-signing them. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, regrets not being able to be with us for these discussions, but she was insistent that I made her support clear. She gave me a lot of evidence from her personal experience and what others had relayed to her about floating bus stops. I also thank all the organisations which have been campaigning on this matter since the inception of floating bus stops.

Perhaps it would also be to the convenience of your Lordships if I gave a brief description of what floating bus stops are. In essence, you take a bus stop and move it some way into the carriageway, at a distance from the pavement and with a cycle lane running behind it. Similarly, there are bus stop bypasses—another design. In many ways, it is the name “bus stop bypass” which gives us the greatest clue as to how these parts of our public realm came into being. For most of us, we are not bypassing the bus stop at all; we are simply barred from accessing the bus stop.

I have described floating bus stops and bus stop bypasses, but what are they in reality for blind people, wheelchair users or parents with pushchairs—any of us who do not want to take our life in our hands crossing a live cycle lane? So-called floating bus stops are dangerous, discriminatory and a disaster for inclusive design. They are dangerous by design, prima facie discriminatory by design and disastrous for inclusion by design. They are built to fail and bound to fail. Why? They are an overly simplistic solution to a relatively—I emphasise relatively—complex issue. They could have never solved the issues because they were not predicated on being inclusive by design and ignored the concept of “nothing about us without us”. They say nothing about accessibility.

On my Amendments 36 and 38, perhaps I should first say what these amendments are not. They are not anti-cycling. I am pro-cycling—pro-cycling for all those who can. But I am no more pro-cycling than I am pro-pedestrian, pro-bus passenger or pro-parent with pushchair—in short, I am pro-inclusion.

If we have a continuation of these so-called floating bus stops, we will have a continuation of a lack of public transport in this country. We will have transport for some of the people some of the time. Much more concerningly, we will have transport for some of the public none of the time.

My amendments are predicated on principles that are the keys to finding inclusive and sustainable solutions to these issues. First, it should be possible for a bus to pull up for passengers to alight and egress to the kerbside. For “kerbside”, read “edge of the carriageway”. On country roads, where there are no kerbs and the bus pulls up to the verge, so be it. All that principle says is that the bus does not pull up mid-carriageway, leaving passengers stranded on an island with a carriageway on one side, a cycle lane on the other and the safety of the pavement some way beyond that. The first principle is for buses to pull up for passengers to alight and egress to the kerbside. Secondly, no one should have to cross a live cycle lane to access that bus service.

On what should happen to potential future floating bus stop sites, we already have thousands of these laid out across the country and clearly that issue needs to be addressed. With the Government already accepting that there is an issue with these designs, surely it would make sense to have a prohibition on all new proposed, potential and pending so-called floating bus stops. Call it a prohibition, a pause or a moratorium—whichever you prefer—but it would seem sensible to take that time to not have any more of these sites laid out before we have come to a conclusion about how to make them inclusive, accessible and sustainable.

I also suggest a prohibition on any DfT funding going towards floating bus stops in their current design. How can it be that taxpayers’ money is used to lay out infrastructure and overlay that is accessible and usable for only part of our communities? It is incredibly difficult to make uninclusive buildings inclusive—things that were put up decades and centuries before anybody even considered issues around inclusion. That is difficult but doable. What is perhaps even more frustrating is where you have sites in the public realm, such as bus stops, that were for decades accessible, inclusive, safe and able to be used independently, then for want of a planning change made inaccessible and excluding for such large swathes of our population. I suggest a prohibition on new sites and a prohibition on any government funding going to such sites.

On retrofitting, it is clear that we have an issue with all the thousands of floating bus stop sites currently in existence. They have to be fitted back to the situation they were in before they were turned into floating bus stops. Alternatively, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, pointed out, there are potential solutions that are worth exploring. It is desperately disappointing that we have got to this stage with no such exploration and no such interest in those solutions coming from this Government and previous Governments.

So I suggest prohibition, retrofitting and then rewriting the LTN 1/20—the note that sets out this cycling infra- structure. Perhaps again we get a key as to why we find ourselves in this situation when we look at LTN 1/20. At the beginning of the note, it sets out its key principles —the aims. There are around eight or nine principles in that document governing these pieces of infrastructure —that is the front page. Not one of those principles talks about inclusion. It is instructive as to how we find ourselves in this situation.

The Government talk about growth—quite—but how can they enable economic growth, social inclusion and psychological well-being when huge swathes of the population are not even able to get to the shops, the restaurants, the café or the cinema because they cannot get aboard the bus? The Government talk about getting more disabled people into work—quite—but how will that work when we are not even able to board the bus to get to the interview?

I appreciate all the discussions I have had with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and his efforts in this pursuit. I will be very interested in and listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. Certainly, one of the most important amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, Amendment 35A, will stand irrespective of what happens with my amendments, as will a number of the others—and that is all to the good. But if we want to ensure that public transport is inclusive by design, accessible by all and worthy of its name, Amendments 36 and 38 would enable that. That is what those amendments are all about, and I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, who brought such vivid and real lived experience to the debate, and all noble Lords who took part, in particular the Minister. I thank him for all his consideration and the time that he has put into progress on this. It is a rare and positive thing to have a Minister for Transport who not only understands but loves transport. He is surely a candidate for Secretary of State. Things would improve dramatically across the piece.

I also thank my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for all the work that he has done on this matter. Progress has been made and I am very pleased that Amendment 35A and other amendments in his name will also pass, irrespective of what may or may not happen presently. The difficulty is, for all that has been said, that too much is still voluntary and lies in guidance. It could be pinned down far more. For example, the Government could do more, particularly on not providing finance for such schemes. They could have taken a different approach—rather than guidance, they could have taken a different legislative pathway. Similarly, it is worth noting at this point that, for those local authorities that do not abide by any guidance, judicial review will be the only route of redress for an individual. In essence, for the vast majority of us, there is no route of redress whatever.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, but, to make more progress and in acting for inclusion by design, accessibility by all and public transport worthy of that title, I should like to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, it may be convenient if I inform the House that we have a number of sight-impaired visitors with us in the Gallery. To increase the inclusivity of their experience, it may be convenient for noble Lords to identify themselves when they speak. To that end, I am Lord Holmes, a Conservative. As with all moves of an inclusive nature, everybody benefits. I am sure that a number of Members are now going, “Ah, so that’s Lord Holmes”.

It is a pleasure to follow my friend the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who has been and continues to be a role model for millions, not just in the UK but around the world. He was a first-class Secretary of State and a man who has transport in his bones, right back to the excellent bus subsidy scheme that he introduced when he was running Sheffield.

I want to speak to Amendments 36 and 38, which are in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for co-signing them. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, regrets not being able to be with us for these discussions, but she was insistent that I made her support clear. She gave me a lot of evidence from her personal experience and what others had relayed to her about floating bus stops. I also thank all the organisations which have been campaigning on this matter since the inception of floating bus stops.

Perhaps it would also be to the convenience of your Lordships if I gave a brief description of what floating bus stops are. In essence, you take a bus stop and move it some way into the carriageway, at a distance from the pavement and with a cycle lane running behind it. Similarly, there are bus stop bypasses—another design. In many ways, it is the name “bus stop bypass” which gives us the greatest clue as to how these parts of our public realm came into being. For most of us, we are not bypassing the bus stop at all; we are simply barred from accessing the bus stop.

I have described floating bus stops and bus stop bypasses, but what are they in reality for blind people, wheelchair users or parents with pushchairs—any of us who do not want to take our life in our hands crossing a live cycle lane? So-called floating bus stops are dangerous, discriminatory and a disaster for inclusive design. They are dangerous by design, prima facie discriminatory by design and disastrous for inclusion by design. They are built to fail and bound to fail. Why? They are an overly simplistic solution to a relatively—I emphasise relatively—complex issue. They could have never solved the issues because they were not predicated on being inclusive by design and ignored the concept of “nothing about us without us”. They say nothing about accessibility.

On my Amendments 36 and 38, perhaps I should first say what these amendments are not. They are not anti-cycling. I am pro-cycling—pro-cycling for all those who can. But I am no more pro-cycling than I am pro-pedestrian, pro-bus passenger or pro-parent with pushchair—in short, I am pro-inclusion.

If we have a continuation of these so-called floating bus stops, we will have a continuation of a lack of public transport in this country. We will have transport for some of the people some of the time. Much more concerningly, we will have transport for some of the public none of the time.

My amendments are predicated on principles that are the keys to finding inclusive and sustainable solutions to these issues. First, it should be possible for a bus to pull up for passengers to alight and egress to the kerbside. For “kerbside”, read “edge of the carriageway”. On country roads, where there are no kerbs and the bus pulls up to the verge, so be it. All that principle says is that the bus does not pull up mid-carriageway, leaving passengers stranded on an island with a carriageway on one side, a cycle lane on the other and the safety of the pavement some way beyond that. The first principle is for buses to pull up for passengers to alight and egress to the kerbside. Secondly, no one should have to cross a live cycle lane to access that bus service.

On what should happen to potential future floating bus stop sites, we already have thousands of these laid out across the country and clearly that issue needs to be addressed. With the Government already accepting that there is an issue with these designs, surely it would make sense to have a prohibition on all new proposed, potential and pending so-called floating bus stops. Call it a prohibition, a pause or a moratorium—whichever you prefer—but it would seem sensible to take that time to not have any more of these sites laid out before we have come to a conclusion about how to make them inclusive, accessible and sustainable.

I also suggest a prohibition on any DfT funding going towards floating bus stops in their current design. How can it be that taxpayers’ money is used to lay out infrastructure and overlay that is accessible and usable for only part of our communities? It is incredibly difficult to make uninclusive buildings inclusive—things that were put up decades and centuries before anybody even considered issues around inclusion. That is difficult but doable. What is perhaps even more frustrating is where you have sites in the public realm, such as bus stops, that were for decades accessible, inclusive, safe and able to be used independently, then for want of a planning change made inaccessible and excluding for such large swathes of our population. I suggest a prohibition on new sites and a prohibition on any government funding going to such sites.

On retrofitting, it is clear that we have an issue with all the thousands of floating bus stop sites currently in existence. They have to be fitted back to the situation they were in before they were turned into floating bus stops. Alternatively, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, pointed out, there are potential solutions that are worth exploring. It is desperately disappointing that we have got to this stage with no such exploration and no such interest in those solutions coming from this Government and previous Governments.

So I suggest prohibition, retrofitting and then rewriting the LTN 1/20—the note that sets out this cycling infra- structure. Perhaps again we get a key as to why we find ourselves in this situation when we look at LTN 1/20. At the beginning of the note, it sets out its key principles —the aims. There are around eight or nine principles in that document governing these pieces of infrastructure —that is the front page. Not one of those principles talks about inclusion. It is instructive as to how we find ourselves in this situation.

The Government talk about growth—quite—but how can they enable economic growth, social inclusion and psychological well-being when huge swathes of the population are not even able to get to the shops, the restaurants, the café or the cinema because they cannot get aboard the bus? The Government talk about getting more disabled people into work—quite—but how will that work when we are not even able to board the bus to get to the interview?

I appreciate all the discussions I have had with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and his efforts in this pursuit. I will be very interested in and listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. Certainly, one of the most important amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, Amendment 35A, will stand irrespective of what happens with my amendments, as will a number of the others—and that is all to the good. But if we want to ensure that public transport is inclusive by design, accessible by all and worthy of its name, Amendments 36 and 38 would enable that. That is what those amendments are all about, and I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

I declare my technology interests as set out in the register, not least as adviser to Socially Recruited.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Holmes of Richmond, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

My Lords, I declare my technology interests set out in the register. What steps are the Government are taking to promote the benefits of the Electronic Trade Documents Act, to both current exporters and exporters, and to get nations around the world to pass similar legislation so that the whole world can benefit from electronic trade documents? These cut the time it takes to trade from days to minutes, delivering economic, environmental and social benefits for all.