(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered connected and automated vehicles.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Yesterday, I jumped in a car with a couple of other people near King’s Cross station. It was a pretty normal journey. We watched the world go by, chatted and got stuck in a bit of traffic. The journey was completely ordinary, except for one thing: the car was driving itself. That 20-minute journey represents the future of what our roads could look like, which is why I am pleased to be leading today’s debate. I originally applied for this debate for reasons related to road safety. I have met too many families in my constituency who have lost a husband or a mother through other people’s dangerous driving. I am fascinated by how automation and technology could help us to eradicate road danger and death, but getting deeper into this topic, my speech will focus on not only safety but accessibility and economic growth.
Turning first to safety, in the UK, 30,000 people are killed or seriously injured on our roads each year. If we speak to the police, they will say that most deadly crashes are caused by the “fatal five”—speeding, drink and drug driving, mobile phone use, antisocial driving, and not wearing a seatbelt. I do not need to be a machine learning expert to know that automated vehicles, trained by safe, expert drivers and programmed to comply with the strict rules of the road, could avoid all five of those issues and the needless death they cause. A self-driving car is not going to be drunk, high or scrolling through TikTok. During the passage of the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, the last Government rightly put safety at the heart of the regulation, stating that a self-driving vehicle should be at least as safe as a competent and careful driver. There are still some questions about what exactly that means.
In the US, where the roll-out of autonomous vehicles and robotaxis is far ahead of here, the safety statistics on automated versus human-driven vehicles look impressive. Waymo, the Google-owned company that runs self-driving taxis there, claims that its vehicles have 80% fewer injury-causing crashes compared with the average human driver, but within the human average there will be drivers who are neither careful nor competent, so these figures are quite hard to compare. What progress has the Minister made on expanding the safety expectations for automated and connected vehicles, and what is the timeline on the remaining regulations that need to be set out? Furthermore, what do the Government hope the safety gains from automated vehicles could be?
Proving the reliability and safety of automated vehicles is essential for public acceptance of this new technology. Lots of people might feel reticent to get in a self-driving car because they do not feel safe, but I found my own experience yesterday in a Wayve autonomous vehicle reassuring. During the journey, we had cyclists jumping red lights, pedestrians walking out on to the road and other drivers cutting across our right of way. The car dealt with it all. The whole journey felt safe and smooth the whole time. Some critics say that these cars cannot handle British roundabouts because they were made for American grid cities. I can confirm that the Wayve car handled the roundabouts with ease. We had a safety driver sat ready to take the wheel if any issues arose, but none did.
Other areas of safety are important to mention too. In a world where cyber-attacks are becoming more common and more devastating, there is a fear that fully connected and autonomous vehicles could be hacked. Could the Minister say more about that and the protections that are being put in place? Another key element is data sharing, particularly in the event of a collision involving cars that are either fully automated or have advanced autopilot systems. The latter is where a vehicle can steer itself, but drivers must keep their eyes on the road, ready to assume control if needed.
Many of these driver-assist functions are important safety enhancers, and these functions, including things such as lane assist, should not be so easily turned off. However, in other countries, there have been examples of cars in self-driving modes where collisions have occurred, and companies have refused to share all the data with families and authorities. Is the Minister confident that we will not have the same issue here?
My personal campaign this year has been to address the wild west that is the British number plate regulation system. The traditional number plate, as the public identifier or passport of a vehicle, has been mandatory since the Motor Car Act 1903, but they are still as important as ever—even more so for determining ownership in the era of driverless cars. Can the Minister, who is in charge of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, reassure me that he is looking at the gaping holes in regulation of number plates and the sale of vast numbers of illegal ghost and cloned plates?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for looking into this subject. It is something we all have to learn a lot about. The University of York has the Institute for Safe Autonomy, which is really interested in how the Government will monitor the initial pilots of this scheme, and how lessons will be learned and then, of course, fed into the regulator. Does she believe that we need to have a proper framework for how we do that data collection before the roll-out of such a programme?
Sarah Coombes
Definitely. Safety has to be paramount. Britain is a leader in universities and institutes such as the Institute for Safe Autonomy, to ensure that as this new technology rolls out, it is safe and has public confidence.
On accessibility, 30% of my constituents in West Bromwich do not have a car; they rely on buses, bikes, trams, trains, taxis, lifts and legs. We also have bad congestion problems. We do not want to see that made worse by a massive increase in vehicles on our roads. The dream is that autonomous vehicles could help us on both counts if we shape the future right. The Royal National Institute of Blind People has welcomed Waymo coming to London, saying that it will give those with visual impairments more scope for independent and spontaneous travel. Transport for West Midlands is interested in how we could integrate autonomous technology with our public transport system. How could we use driverless cars to fill in the gaps that buses and trains do not reach?
I keep thinking about the possibilities of an automated dial-a-ride service—larger, disabled-accessible autonomous vehicles that can be ordered easily and work out optimum routes to drop off passengers. The staff on existing services offer valuable support and care to passengers with additional needs. This is not about replacing them; it is about adding extra capacity.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
The success of automated and autonomous vehicles will depend on infrastructure—not just roads but connectivity, data and mapping systems—but if the infrastructure is upgraded only in big cities, we will have a two-tier system and leave behind towns such as Weston-super-Mare. Does my hon. Friend agree that this should be a national project that supports innovation and, importantly, accessibility across the whole country, with a special focus on coastal communities and city centres?
Sarah Coombes
I absolutely agree that the infrastructure needs to be in place and the benefits of autonomous vehicles need to be felt across the whole country—in coastal areas, but also in urban areas and towns, such as those that I represent.
Car clubs have never reached their full potential in the UK—I think that is because of the cost and lack of density of vehicles—but if people could order an AV to their home and it was cost-effective, safe and reliable, I can see a world in which families do not necessarily need a second car, or perhaps a car at all. What plans do the Government have to harness the power of autonomous vehicles to complement, rather than replace, public transport and how could we use it to fill in the gaps?
The main issue that I want to talk about is growth and the potential benefits that technology and automation on our roads could bring to the UK economy. The Government estimate that the automated car industry could add £42 billion to the UK economy by 2035, not least through 38,000 new jobs. This is a difficult topic because I know that many people who drive for a living are worried about potentially losing their jobs as a result of self-driving vehicles.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Even though my hon. Friend’s constituency and mine are very different, the car industry is also critical to the livelihoods of constituents in Hampstead and Highgate. Recently I have had a huge number of emails from local cab drivers who are facing severe delays when it comes to renewing their driving licence, which obviously impacts their financial security. Could my hon. Friend comment on the fact that it is of course important to create the jobs of tomorrow, but it is also important to protect the jobs of today?
Sarah Coombes
Absolutely. I represent many professional drivers myself, so I completely agree about the importance of the current systems working for them, as well as future systems working. I want to be clear about this. Given that full vehicle automation is decades away, I hope that we can provide reassurance that mass redundancy of drivers is not around the corner. People who drive for a living do much more than an automated vehicle could do, whether that is by supporting vulnerable passengers, protecting freight as a heavy goods vehicle driver or managing antisocial behaviour on bus services.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Many moons ago, I was listening to a futurologist on the radio, a job that seems to involve mainly sitting on beanbags. He was talking about autonomous vehicles and was asked, “Is there anything that you think people should be thinking about on autonomous vehicles?” He said, “We’ve got to get used to the idea that grandma is going to turn up dead, because right now when you have a medical emergency, whether it be in a taxi or in a car, you’ll crash the car and get some kind of medical intervention as a result of that, but with autonomous vehicles, grandma will unfortunately arrive back at the house.” When we talk about the importance of cab drivers or vehicle-led driving, we also need to think about the unintended consequences of automated vehicles.
Sarah Coombes
It is absolutely about creating a safe system for the future. If AVs are involved in an incident, will they be able to get to hospital? All those questions have to be talked about, as we begin to see fully driverless vehicles on our roads.
One person who has benefited from new employment in the AV industry is our safety driver at Wayve yesterday. He told me how thrilled he was to have secured a job there. He spends at least six hours a day training and testing their cars around the streets of London, having formerly worked as a delivery driver.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Northamptonshire has the skills, location and ambition to play a massive part, with our logistic sector being right next to Milton Keynes, which is already testing these vehicles. Does she agree that we are perfectly placed to be part of the growth she talks about?
Sarah Coombes
I agree that exciting pilots are going on. I am sure Kettering and many other parts of the country could benefit. Wayve is an example of a company leading the way in helping the UK to become a global leader in this technology. Although the company was founded out of the University of Cambridge and is now based in King’s Cross, there is an unmissable opportunity for industry up and down the country. My own region of the west midlands is an automotive manufacturing heartland. Jaguar Land Rover produces the Jaguar I-PACE, the vehicle used by Waymo robotaxis. Some of the factories in my constituency make parts for Nissan, which has announced a partnership with Wayve for new AI driver software.
Dan Aldridge
As my hon. Friend mentioned JLR, it is important to reflect on the necessity for cyber-resilience. Do she and the Minister agree that we cannot progress with such technologies without a national push towards cyber-resilience?
Sarah Coombes
It was very important that the Government intervened after JLR suffered a cyber-attack and went into full shutdown, because many businesses in my area rely on JLR. I agree that cyber-resilience has to be at the heart of this.
I want the west midlands to feel the benefit of manufacturing the hardware and the vehicles that will be the self-driving cars of the future. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade about how to ensure that the west midlands and the whole UK realise the benefits of the autonomous vehicle boom? So far, the regulatory environment in Britain is very attractive to companies in this space because it is safe and sensible. The UN is responsible for much of the international vehicle safety regulations. Will the Minister reassure us that Britain will not diverge, putting us at a disadvantage, and that the remaining regulations being consulted on will not be delayed and hold us back?
In San Francisco, robotaxis, as they are called, are a tourist draw. People travel from all over to see the future in action. Waymo has announced that the vehicles are coming to London but I would love Birmingham and the Black Country to be an early adopter of driverless taxi pilots too. Birmingham is the youngest city in Europe, full of innovation and entrepreneurship. Previous automotive revolutions have started there. Frederick Lanchester built what is considered to have been Britain’s first four-wheel petrol car in Birmingham in 1895. There is a reason why Birmingham is often called the workshop of the world. There have already been driverless cars zipping up the M6 through my constituency, training the vehicles on highway driving. I would love local people to experience that at first hand.
I will finish, as I know others want to speak. Yesterday, I experienced the future of driving. As the automated steering wheel turned itself and we manoeuvred deftly and safely around packed and unpredictable London streets, it felt as if that future was being built on firm ground. As with any new technology, there are risks that must be managed, but the safety, accessibility and economic benefits could be huge. The UK Government have been leading the way. I know the Minister is certainly not in auto-pilot mode as we continue to shape the self-driving century that is upon us.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is as always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. It is nice to see you again and catch up. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for leading today’s debate and I congratulate her for doing well. I am not a petrolhead but I love a gear stick—I love going through the gears, one to six. I love the smell of the car and the roar of a diesel engine.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich is right to bring this matter to the House for consideration, but I am afraid I will never get an electric car. That is just me. A driverless car? I like to be in charge of the steering wheel. I am not sure I could sit in a car like the one Arnold Schwarzenegger sits in in that film, where a wee model thing, with a head that spins round, tells him where he is going. I do not think I could ever do that, but the hon. Lady is right to bring this to us for consideration.
There is a need for technology and a need to move forward. My son, who has an electric car and is not afraid of the future—unlike his dad, perhaps—is willing to consider the technology that there will be. Someday there will be driverless cars; I am sure of that. One thing that I would love to see in the future—this is not about cars—is something like the device in “Star Trek” where they say, “Beam me up, Scotty.” The day they do that will be the day I would be convinced that is the right way to go, because I could be in my office at 9 o’clock on a Tuesday morning, and then be over here at five past 9—
Jim Shannon
Now, will that ever happen? Who knows? But we are talking about driverless cars.
I want to refer to Northern Ireland, of course. First, the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 does not apply to Northern Ireland and, furthermore, there is as of yet no comprehensive legislative framework in Northern Ireland for automated vehicles. I believe it will come, because technology is moving on, the future is moving on, and people will want to be part of that.
That situation means that there is some confusion about the use of a self-driving vehicle authorised under the GB regime in Northern Ireland; the hon. Member for West Bromwich is right about that. There would also be implications for those coming across the border from the Republic of Ireland, as the vehicle would be operating without clear legal responsibility. It is always a joy to see the Minister in his place, and we look forward to some clarification on what it would mean if a self-driving vehicle from the mainland or the Republic of Ireland came to Northern Ireland, where we do not have any legislation in place. If it works, it has to work everywhere, so my question to the Minister would be about how that might happen.
Some pilot schemes are emerging back home. For example, there was an eight-seater Harlander shuttle bus operating in the Titanic quarter in Belfast. There was always a safety operator, of course, but it did give a little taste of the future of driverless vehicles in Northern Ireland. Sometimes it is a step into the unknown that people are a wee bit concerned about. A recent survey carried out by CompareNI highlighted that out of 800 motorists, some 75% would not feel safe travelling in a driverless vehicle—I am probably one of that 75%. I am in the majority, by the way; at least in Northern Ireland. The lack of public trust must be looked at. If this is the future, more must be done to instil public trust as that could be a barrier to progression.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the question of trust in automated vehicles, does my hon. Friend agree that one issue that people will be concerned about is the cost of car insurance? When we are consulted and approached by constituents and we write to insurance companies, we usually hear that the number of accidents occurring is increasing insurance costs. Does he agree that it would be right to be somewhat sceptical? If there is going to be a significant reduction in accidents—I think there will be—we would like to see a significant reduction in the cost of car insurance, but I will not hold my breath.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend always brings pertinent points to the debate. Insurance in Northern Ireland is more expensive than it is anywhere else in the United Kingdom, so we would love to see those advantages.
The big question that many people have about insurance is who would be liable in the case of a crash or a road traffic accident? Would it be the driver, manufacturer or software provider? One of the three has to be accountable. On the other hand, human error causes a large percentage of road traffic accidents. Although I have said I like to be in charge of the steering wheel, if there is driver error or something goes wrong, it is the driver at the wheel who is to blame, and perhaps with a driverless car, the chances of an accident will be reduced dramatically. I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) was referring to that, and the stats probably do as well. However, there is just the unknown question of where we are moving to. Whether it is about ill-judgment, drink driving, fatigue or distraction, there is perhaps an argument for the introduction of driverless cars on the grounds that it will be safer but, personally, I think it is the loss of control that worries people. How do we instil confidence into those who, like me, want to ensure that it is completely safe to drive a car?
There have also been reports that the introduction of driverless cars will be pivotal in transforming mobility for elderly people and the disabled. That is obviously a plus factor as well. It could give people who have been prohibited from driving manually, or are unable to obtain a driving licence because of their disability, the independence, flexibility and opportunity to have a life outside of the home. I see the advantages of that, and I hope the Minister will reply on that point. It will be interesting to see how this progresses over time, and whether we can do more to support it.
As Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom look to the future of transport, driverless vehicles present both a challenge and an opportunity. It is only fair for me to give my opinion, but there is an opportunity—and I am not against opportunity or technology moving forward. It may not be what I want to do, but the opportunity has to be there for everyone else.
We do not yet have a dedicated legal framework for automated vehicles, which is the big question for the Minister. I asked him at the beginning, but I will ask him again: will the Minister ensure that when we move forward, all the regions come together? There are implications for drivers from the Republic of Ireland coming across the border, so will the Minister ensure that we are all on the same page? Although it could create uncertainty, it also gives us the chance to design a system that reflects our needs. The hon. Member for West Bromwich passionately put that case forward. I look forward to engaging on this issue further in the future, and I hope that the views of the general public can also be taken into consideration. Once again, I say well done to the hon. Member for West Bromwich.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this timely and insightful debate.
The advent of automated passenger services as a new pillar of our transport infrastructure is a huge opportunity to transform the lives of disabled people. Turning travel from an exhausting gauntlet into a predictable door-to-door experience would be transformational. For too many people right now, travel is a lottery. A ramp that does not arrive, or a lift that is out of order: when supporting my wife, who lives with sight loss, I see at first hand what that means to her. The stress is in not just the journey but the uncertainty. APS can flip that around on its head, and provide reliable, bookable and predictable journeys with accessibility built in rather than just being bolted on.
If we design the vehicles, the pick-up points and the booking systems around real lives, APS can deliver something really quite remarkable but simple and profound, which most of us take for granted: the confidence for someone to get where they want to go every single time. Designing it around real lives means universal design as standard: kerb-level boarding; audio, haptic and visual cues; secure wheelchair spaces; induction loops; seats that can be reserved; and booking systems, in-app and by phone, that work for blind and partially sighted people.
Rosie Wrighting
I lost my driving licence because I was having seizures when I was 19 years old. Will my hon. Friend also talk about the fact that this would help people who cannot drive due to seizures?
Lee Pitcher
I 100% agree with my hon. Friend. My wife was born with full sight, but over the years her degenerative condition has meant that she had to lose her licence. I know that it was almost like ripping her heart out; the independence she lost was huge. Anybody who experiences that independence—having the ability to go where they want, when they want—will know that it is so difficult to lose. APS should help many more people who experience that.
We have the chance, for the first time in history, to develop a system with the needs of disabled people entrenched from the beginning; not as an afterthought or adaptation, but built for the right purpose from day one. That means co-development, not just consultation, for although disabled people are poised to benefit most from the technology, they are also the most vulnerable if we get it wrong. Co-development means having disabled people in the room with engineers, coders and operators from the first day. It means trials where users co-write the test plan, safety cases published in plain English and feedback loops that actually change the service.
Trust is the prerequisite for adoption. We will not win it with glossy brochures. We will win it by working with disabled people to design safeguards and standards that resonate with them. That is how you build a service that people can have confidence in. Clear rules and accountability must back that up with independent safety audits, black box-style incident logging, a human in loop for edge cases, and transparent performance data for on-time pick-ups, successful ramp deployments, and complaint resolutions, published route by route. APS should knit together the network, not replace accessible buses and trains. Think real-time handovers, shared tickets and guaranteed connections, with compensation when the system fails.
New technology can mean a new lease of life for tens of thousands of people by giving them independence, dignity and the confidence to get where they want to go every single time. We have a genuine once-in-a-generation chance to get this right. I call on the Minister to enshrine the principles of accessibility by design from the very start and ensure service user co-creation from this point on. If we do not do that, we will spend years playing catch up, and the opportunities missed by those who stood to benefit the most will never come again.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this important debate. To the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I say: automated vehicles—
“It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it”.
Connected and automated vehicles offer the prospect of a safer, more efficient and more sustainable public transport system. They hold particular potential for areas such as my constituency, Surrey Heath, where public transport remains inadequate, with slow, disconnected bus routes, poor rail links to London and limited options for those without a private vehicle. If implemented effectively and securely, this technology could transform mobility by giving greater independence to older residents and—as the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) said—to those with disabilities or medical conditions. That would reduce isolation and improve access to essential services. It could also help us to meet our net zero goals by cutting reliance on private cars and encouraging cleaner, shared modes of travel, while improving road safety for all users, including cyclists and pedestrians. In semi-rural areas, connected and automated vehicles could link villages where bus services are unreliable, while easing congestion. Congestion is a major issue in Surrey Heath, which has the second-highest car dependency rate of any in the country, with 1.64 cars per household.
However, the transition will only succeed if the public’s trust in the digital infrastructure that underpins it is enhanced. Connectivity must go hand in hand with security. Our vehicle identification systems—our number plates—cannot be the weak link in an otherwise forward-looking transport agenda. In the past, I have raised concerns about the fragility of automated number plate recognition technology. In an age of connected technology and digital identifiers, it is troubling that we still rely on what is largely an analogue process for our security on the roads. Number plates should be the cornerstone of road safety, yet they have become a point of vulnerability: easily cloned, exploited and poorly protected.
When ANPR fails or is undermined by cloning or ghosting, that is not a minor inconvenience but a failure of public protection. One Surrey Heath resident was fined thousands of pounds after criminals cloned her number plate. She faced bailiff threats and months of stress with little support. Another resident received 42 penalty notices for the same reason. Both spent many hundreds of pounds replacing their number plates, not because of any wrongdoing on their part but because the system meant to protect them failed. Those are not isolated cases. A recent parliamentary written question revealed that in 2024 the DVLA received over 10,000 reports from people across the country disputing responsibility for private vehicles that they did not recognise when they were challenged—a 42% increase since 2020.
To realise the potential benefits of connected and automated vehicles, our security infrastructure and legislation must evolve in lockstep with advancing technologies. The Government should legislate for tighter registration controls, stronger supply verification and a digital audit trail to prevent tracing and cloning. Transport innovation must not outpace regulation; as vehicles become smarter, the systems that identify them must become smarter, too. Only then can we protect motorists, build and maintain public confidence, and ensure that connected and automated vehicles deliver safer roads, lower emissions and greater mobility for all.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this important debate.
I have no doubt that one day autonomous vehicles will be the norm on our buses, and I am perfectly okay with that, because I am fairly sure that any robot would be better at driving a bus than I would be. I am keen to hear from the Minister whether he has a timescale for the publication of the automated passenger services permitting scheme consultation.
Technology has moved at pace over the last two decades; LiDAR—light detection and ranging—tech, radar and cameras all working together so that autonomous buses can handle junctions and roundabouts, and keep pace with the general traffic. I thank Ian Pulford, who has recently been telling me about the self-driving shuttles in Milton Keynes that have transported thousands of passengers without incident. I also thank a pair of Dans—Dan and Dan—who talked me through the Connector project. When I travelled on that, I found that it worked rather well, albeit that it had perhaps been programmed to be a little too cautious; it felt a bit like the 21st-century equivalent of having a man with a red flag walking along in front of the bus. Particularly when we sat waiting to turn left into oncoming traffic, I felt that basically we needed braver autonomous buses.
I think that passengers will be just fine with AV buses. After all, people travel happily on the driverless docklands light railway or airport shuttles without a second thought. Indeed, research from the University of the West of England has found that in the main passengers’ desire for a safety driver is not so much about the technology within the vehicle, but more about other aspects of safety, for instance personal security.
However, there is still some way to go. The Oxfordshire Mi-Link team freely admit that they had not fully anticipated quite how tightly controlled roadside vegetation has to be for their autonomous buses to work, and sometimes on windy days the buses get confused by moving branches, which they regard as hazards. The Connector team also told me that rain sometimes disrupted the sensors on their buses—while tech might be changing rapidly, I do not think that British weather is going to. Also, if potholes frustrate people today, imagine the outcry if the faded white lines along the side of the road stopped buses altogether. Council maintenance regimes would have to change radically; indeed, they would require a complete overhaul.
Then there is the question of the highway code. The current one was obviously written for human beings, for our reaction times and our capacity to make judgments in complex situations. I am sure there will have to be an update of the highway code and that it will have to be more than just a basic legal update; there will need to be an entirely conceptual update. Does the Minister envisage that we will need two sets of rules, one for human drivers, and one for the robo-buses of the future?
Finally, I turn to cost. Large-scale commercial deployment will mainly rest on cost. The main cost saving with autonomous vehicles is on driver hours, although a human being must still be present under current legislation, of course. I note that the Scottish trial between Edinburgh and Fife’s park-and-ride system seems to have met many of its technical goals. The problem was that, as with many other kinds of buses, the buses in this trial did not attract enough passengers. As we all know, buses outside London have bit of an image problem and many people who could use buses do not use them, not because of the service itself, but because of the perception.
As the Minister knows, it has always been my mission to get more fare-paying and probably middle-class passengers on to buses, because increased farebox revenue is the key to sustainable services. However, I wonder whether we need to think more about what autonomous buses of the future will look like, because we seem to be going down two different paths. The ones being deployed in places such as Edinburgh, Oxford and Cambridge look and feel much more like a regular bus or minibus: they have a steering wheel that is moving, albeit no one has to turn it. The Milton Keynes example, which is also being used in Suffolk and in Birmingham at the National Exhibition Centre, has no steering wheel; it is a little shuttle thing that feels a bit more futuristic.
Is this the moment that we could be using to grow passenger numbers? We could attract people who might never in a million years think about catching the bus. It may be that we cannot persuade them to catch a bus, but if it were billed as exciting, technological and futuristic, they might happily get aboard a “zog-pod” or something like that.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) not only on securing this debate, but on her positive and optimistic vision of the future, which I really like.
I think many of us have long had a vision of autonomous vehicles based on science fiction. Reality is not quite there yet, but it is moving fast towards it. We have seen the progress on autonomous cars, and the various pilot sites in the USA—and closer to home, as we have heard.
Fully autonomous cars in Newton Abbot are, I suspect, quite some way off. Drivers who have not grown up with our Devon lanes find them hard enough, and we can only dream of having white lines on the edge of the road. In well-defined urban environments, it is quite another matter, largely dependent on the legal and insurance issues that we heard about earlier. We could easily see AVs soon beyond the trial stages that we have today. However, we have some issues in running trials of uncrewed maritime and air connected and autonomous vehicles.
I recently met with a retired navy air traffic controller, who told me of his latest work using aerial drones to deliver test samples from Scottish islands to mainland hospital labs, Project CAELUS, which had excellent success. We could use that sort of technology to get samples between our hospitals in Devon, which would be good—it would avoid the summer traffic. However, it took eight months to get the flight path agreed and approved, and it required a special use airspace application for beyond visual line of sight uncrewed air system operations under civil air publication 1616. I ask the Minister, or perhaps his colleagues, to seek speed from the Civil Aviation Authority in reforming CAP1616, including a more proportionate approach to BVLOS airspace, to improve clarity, efficiency and transparency while maintaining safety.
Additionally, a couple of weeks ago, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, we visited the Royal Navy in Portsmouth and saw a connected uncrewed boat doing tests in the harbour. It was being controlled by a team on land—essentially, it is a standard 5-metre rigid inflatable boat with a remote skipper. Following it was a crewed Navy boat, which is required by maritime regulations to constantly escort uncrewed 5-metre RIBs. The Navy fleet of the future described in the strategic defence review is highly dependent on the use of uncrewed vessels to supplement and complement the existing Navy ships. We must be able to develop them and test them in a more effective way, as we are doing with cars on land.
I urge the Minister, or perhaps his team, to see what exemptions and exceptions may be made. Marine guidance note 705(M) exemptions are limited to boats less than 4.5 metres and at 6 knots or slower. That does not cover what the Navy needs to do. Unless we can find a way to rapidly and safely regulate, and not prevent, tests of remote air and marine craft, we will struggle to get to where we need to be. The Chair of the Ukrainian Parliament, on his recent visit, stated that their drone technology lasted about three months, by which time they had developed a whole new set-up. We need to speed up.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this debate. In this debate, I want to talk about place and the role of connected autonomous vehicles within it—but before I do, I want to follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), who talked movingly and importantly about the role of accessibility. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the campaign for civil rights by disabled people, which culminated in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and a key part of that campaign was for accessible public transport. Thirty years on, as we look to the future, we must think about how we can have accessible transport with all these technological changes.
I am thinking about what Bournemouth’s future roads will look like. Will we see self-driving cars going anywhere anytime soon? By what date this side of 2050 might a majority of driving miles in Bournemouth be completed by machines and not humans? At what point in the future might the Minister’s car become a museum piece? When we talk about technology, we think about novelty in the future. Bournemouth has not just lived a sense that technology is advancing faster than society can keep up; it has even helped to engineer the feeling. Bournemouth University has published important research into topics such as cyber-security and connected autonomous vehicles. We are a town with remarkable scientific minds and technological innovators, and we want to contribute towards that new future.
Indeed, the future is usually with us for a long time before society sees the recognisable breakthrough of a certain technology. With the onset of motorisation, early cars were referred to as horseless carriages and many shared features with horse-drawn predecessors, while others used technology from the bicycle industry. With the onset of electrification in the early 20th century, the petrol-powered car was briefly less common than either steam or electric-powered ones. The electric car disappeared by the 1930s, reappeared in the 60s, slipped back and then reappeared with gusto in the last decade.
Thinking of autonomous vehicles, General Motors sponsored Norman Geddes to design the Futurama exhibition at the New York World’s Fair in 1939, where he depicted the first driverless car. In the 1960s, the Slough-built Citroën DS19 was trialled in the UK as an autonomous vehicle. This issue has been with us for a while and we politicians have a duty to think about what that means. We have a duty to make choices before the disruptions that such technologies cause reverberate throughout our daily lives—the good, the bad and the ugly.
Issues such as how we get around will affect our lives and the future prosperity of the communities that we represent—and we are often behind the curve: it was only compulsory for rear view mirrors to be fitted to cars from 1 January 1932; driving tests were only introduced under the Road Traffic Act 1934 and were made mandatory in January 1935; driving licences were introduced by the Motor Car Act 1903, yet cars have been around since 1895. Are we keeping pace with change?
We must also think about some of the negative side effects. In 1894, The Times estimated that by 1950, every street in every British city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure because of the horse’s dominance of transport. That did not quite turn out to be the case, but it brings me to the point with which I want to close in a couple of minutes: are the Government looking properly at how technology is changing? Where in Government are we thinking about those changes? How are we developing laws and policies that are as smart as the cars that are going to be on our roads? Do we have a Parliament filled with people who have the knowledge, the experience, the expertise, the access and the contacts to shape the laws that will ensure that our prosperity is secured and that our roads are being cared for?
When we look at polls, on balance, British citizens tend to lack trust in autonomous vehicles—partly because they have a lack of knowledge. That is unsurprising, given that AVs are theoretical and elusive; only a small number of self-driving vehicles are on our roads today, mostly test vehicles unavailable to the riding public. As AVs become more commonplace, they could become more popular as people become more educated. As MPs, we clearly have a role in helping to achieve that.
I will close by considering a few ways that we must think about AVs, because of the impact they will have on how we use our streets. Pedestrians will discover that AVs can halt when they detect human movement, and many may feel confident to cross the street anywhere. What might that mean for the smoothest flow of traffic through our streets? I recently discovered that, because of people’s tendency to look at their phones at traffic lights, some places are installing silent light-emitting diode strips on the ground so that people can see when a traffic light is being indicated, because they are often not paying attention to the noise.
Technology is already changing. How do we think about that with AVs? An AV can drop a person off, circle around Bournemouth, then come to pick them up wherever they want. If people think that Bournemouth’s roads and streets are choking on congestion—and they are—just wait until somebody goes to a meeting in the town centre, tells their AV to drive around continually and then calls for it to come and pick them up.
AV use will free up space currently reserved for parking for entirely new purposes, which will prompt local authorities to think about how they will generate income from the parking they provide. What do we do with the space that is made available? Do we turn that into housing, playgrounds or green space? How does that change our urban landscape? Wider use of AVs could risk increasing traffic congestion by drawing people out of other types of transport and into private car use. What does it mean for cycling, which we know helps people to get around their towns and cities and enhances their physical health? What will it mean for bus travel? Pool shuttles might become more important in order to avoid single-passenger AVs congesting our roads and fixed-schedule services could become a harder thing to sustain. There may be a move to on-demand services. Park and rides will become more important, because AVs could arrive at the outskirts of towns or cities and people could disembark to board shuttles that will take them to work. Indeed, AVs could communicate with park and rides or even public shuttles, relegating waiting around to the history books and ensuring non-stop journeys. Just as we relied on a mix of horses, trams, bikes, buses and cars during the first half of the last century, we could see a similar rivalry again during the first half of this century—a rivalry between human-controlled cars, semi and fully automated vehicles, bikes and buses.
What is the new hierarchy of transport? How society draws the balance will be critical. The Government and Parliament have a critical role to play because we cannot leave it to councils, even though councils cover geographies larger than our constituencies. We need national laws and frameworks that provide consistency across all the places we represent. We need foresight and we need to pre-empt potential future disruption. We must continue to improve the machinery of Government so that it can look to the future and make changes in response to technology. If we maximise the benefits, we minimise the costs and when our grandchildren look back on our decisions they will be able to believe that we made them with future generations in mind.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for bringing up this very important topic, which as a species we have been grappling with for a couple of decades, so that we can talk about how to deal with it in the UK. It was interesting to hear of her experience of using Wayve in London and her finding it miraculous. She made an interesting point about the potential for autonomous vehicles to act as a form of demand-responsive transport—a point also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton). They may be interested in the discussions of demand-responsive transport in the recent Transport Committee inquiry report called “Buses connecting communities”, the response to which we eagerly anticipate from the Government.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked of his great enthusiasm for diesel fumes and gear sticks. Hon. Members will be surprised to learn that he has not already encountered the transporter room in “Star Trek”, as it appears to many of us that he has already been subject to an accident using said technology; that would explain his ability to appear in multiple places in Parliament at once.
The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) correctly highlighted the need to get regulation and monitoring right—more on that shortly. The hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) once again showed her knowledge and passion for all forms of buses in the widest sense of the term. She highlighted some existing examples of driverless transport, including the docklands light railway, although all DLR trains have a member of staff on board precisely to address the issue that she rightly highlighted: needing to ensure that people still have a strong sense of personal safety and security in such vehicles.
The hon. Lady was also quite right to highlight the challenges of vegetation and white lines management. White lines are a major issue for today, let alone for autonomous vehicles—it is a major issue even for those of us who use the very primitive form of transport known as a bicycle. The presence of a white line makes cycling on unlit roads enormously easier compared with roads without white lines—we seem to have a completely arbitrary mix of the two. That has relevance for tomorrow’s debate on headlight dazzle, because drivers can lock their eyes on white lines when they are suffering from that. I make that point only to show that sometimes historical solutions are applicable to new problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) also talked about the importance of white lines, and quite rightly suggested that the challenges of introducing autonomous and connected vehicles are going to be rather different for rural roads than for urban roads. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) took us through the history of transport and what we consider normal. He rightly made the point that it is important for local authorities and all of us to have knowledge of these things. I am a complete luddite about artificial intelligence, and that is certainly one of the challenge of our jobs: we are expected to know everything about everything, whereas really the key challenge is to know enough about the key topics.
The Liberal Democrats were pleased to support the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Automated vehicles represent the next step towards safer and more sustainable transport.
In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, I was pleased to see Milton Park trialling an autonomous bus—not just within the park estate, which is a reasonably contained business-park environment, but covering the couple of miles between Milton Park and Didcot Parkway railway station. The United Kingdom has a strong tech sector and a real opportunity to lead the development of self-driving vehicle technology, which is an opportunity to attract the investment and innovation that we all know our country needs.
Autonomous vehicles have the potential to play a major role in improving road safety, given that the majority of traffic accidents are caused by human error. They also have the potential to help move us towards net zero by reducing the need for individual car ownership and promoting the more efficient use of vehicles. However, public confidence is essential for the success of automated transport.
As one who worked in rail before coming to this place, it is a mystery to me that there is relatively little driverless and automated technology in the sector, despite it being a self-contained, heavily regulated environment that in theory ought to be the more promising place to try it. It is true that Paris has automated some metro lines, but in a job I did before coming to this place, UK rail experts—believe it or not—were dispatched to Canada to help work on a new automated metro system in Montréal, known as the Réseau express métropolitain, which was entirely driverless. It all seemed to work perfectly in trials, but at peak times, during large-scale operations and at times of major computer failure, the whole system, lacking staff, completely collapsed. We were sent there to suggest how they could come up with ways of managing such major disruption better. That is one of my points of scepticism.
I am sure that the hon. Member for West Bromwich is right that Wayve cars operating in London have anticipated all the normal difficulties, such as pedestrians, cyclists, whether or not they go through red lights and so on, but we do not know whether, if every car were autonomous, they would be quite so resilient. We can only find out by doing more trials and research, looking at that data and exploring it with great care. Safety for all road users, especially cyclists and pedestrians, must continue to be a top priority.
Early international trials, such as those in San Francisco, show encouraging signs of safety improvements, but any single serious incident could damage public trust. As is so often the case with these things, one very bad thing will negate nine very good things. It is the same with customer service in a restaurant or a hotel. Clear communication about the purpose and limits of trials is vital, and the interaction between human control and automation must be carefully managed.
Issues seen in overseas trials, such as autonomous vehicles blocking emergency vehicles or stopping in cycle lanes, must be addressed to ensure public confidence in UK deployments. A strong and transparent safety network is needed to govern how automated vehicles are tested and introduced on public roads. Automated vehicles should meet or exceed the safety standards of careful and competent human drivers.
The shift provides an opportunity to not just maintain but significantly improve the overall safety and accessibility of road networks. The success of AVs will depend on adequate infrastructure. Poor road conditions, including pot holes, could affect vehicle performance and public safety. Therefore, minimum road-quality standards and sufficient resources for local authorities will be essential to support their introduction.
As hon. Members have already said, accessibility must remain at the heart of automation. Older and disabled people often rely on drivers for assistance, including in terms of boarding the vehicle. That is one area where we need to think carefully before designating this as the solution to some of the accessibility challenges. Automated taxis or public transport must continue to provide appropriate support for vulnerable users. Ensuring inclusivity will be key to public acceptance.
The real challenge is that, once autonomous vehicles become owned on a large scale in the same way that cars are now, what sounds like a great opportunity will also come with some risks. Presumably, they would not initially be cheap, just as electric vehicles are not cheap now. Something that has the potential to erode public transport ridership could also erode public transport viability, which is likely to still be essential for those who would not necessarily be able to afford to own such a vehicle. The cost aspect needs to be carefully considered.
Data protection and privacy are also critical concerns. We need to consider how processing large amounts of data, including potentially sensitive personal information, will be handled, and the strong safeguards needed to prevent the misuse or monetisation of personal data. Insurance arrangements must also be clear and fair, and cyclists and pedestrians involved in incidents must have access to fair and timely compensation, particularly as many of those will not hold personal insurance.
In conclusion, although there is a huge opportunity for automated vehicles to make travel safer, more efficient and more accessible, we need to adequately consider the risks. Some of those have been well covered in this debate, but others may not have been—for example, the potential for job losses, the need to manage cyber-security carefully and the potential health impacts. I do not mean health impacts from the vehicles themselves, but we are already struggling to encourage walking and cycling in this country; were these developments to further erode those activities, our current issues with obesity and other health inequalities might worsen.
The UK can lead in this field if it embraces innovation responsibly and brings the public with it. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how we can do just that.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is lovely to appear before you today, Ms Vaz. I join everyone in congratulating the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) on securing this interesting and important debate. She rightly focused on the three main issues, one of which, of course, is safety—a potential enormous benefit of the developing technology. Another is accessibility, which I will talk about in my comments. She also spoke of the potential for significant economic growth, while accepting that through any economic and technological transition, there are losers as well as winners. A responsible Government ought to take proper account of that.
The only other contributor who I will reference specifically is the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has never missed an opportunity to contribute to a debate. I have never heard a more heartfelt elegy for the diesel motorcar than his. I say it was elegiac, because there is, I think, a fin de siècle element to this technology, as we move towards more fuel-efficient cars, then ultimately to self-driving cars. It is so unlike the hon. Gentleman to be hesitant about boldly going where no passengers have been before. I am sure he will catch up when he gets the opportunity—as the hon. Member for West Bromwich has done, having already had the experience of going in a driverless car. I look forward to the opportunity myself.
The last Conservative Government took a clear decision to support the introduction of autonomous vehicles on our roads, and to pass the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 to establish the regulatory framework to allow AV technology to flourish in the United Kingdom. The Act defined the legal framework for the authorisation of AV use on our roads through the creation of the concept of the statement of safety principles, as well as subsequent legal responsibility that would be used to govern AV actions—for example, the imposition of a legal liability on a corporate entity, the provider of the technology, as opposed to it being on the driver of a car. That is a novel legal concept on our roads that will clearly be necessary for autonomous vehicles, because who is in command? Who is in control? It is no longer the driver, and that has a knock-on impact on insured risk. The Act also sought to deal with that because it included appropriate sanctions for situations in which a vehicle fails to drive either legally or safely.
The Act set out the ability for the Government to set regulations—secondary legislation—requiring organisations to report certain safety-related data to the authorisation authority, of which it anticipates the creation, and the in-use regulator. It sought to protect customers by prohibiting misleading marketing: only vehicles that meet the safety threshold can be marketed in the future as “self-driving”. Finally, it set out the approach to the policing and seizure of non-compliant AVs.
As far as they went, the last Government did a great job. They brought forward practical, legislative proposals, which generated confidence in the sector, and they set out the structure that allowed the sector to grow and invest in this country. Modelling put forward by the Government suggests that there is the potential to create 38,000 jobs in the sector in the next nine years, generating value of £42 billion—I always have a healthy degree of scepticism when we are told that future industries will be enormously valuable, and I slightly wonder how people come up with such figures. Nevertheless, that optimism is shared by serious organisations such as Goldman Sachs, which has predicted significant increases in ridership, particularly in the US, following considerable growth over the last few years. It is therefore right that the UK, at the very least, does not block such technological advances and supports its tech sector as it seeks to develop AVs and the software behind them.
The Opposition recognise that these developments go well beyond merely economics, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich said. Automated systems can help improve driving quality, reduce congestion, increase the more efficient use of fuel and help with elements of accessibility. Rural pensioners may not have to move into a town when they are too old or infirm to drive. Vehicles as a service can reduce costs for lower-income families. Efficient fuel use and lane discipline can reduce congestion and the environmental impact of driving. On safety, we are told that 88% of all road accidents are contributed to by human error. If AVs can improve that statistic, the societal benefits of this technology could be profound.
Waymo, the market leader in the US, claims that compared with the figures for the average human driver over the same distance in its operating cities, the reduction in crashes resulted in 91% fewer serious injuries, with 80% fewer injury-causing crashes of any description. Those are startling statistics. Even though we are at an early stage, those assertions, backed by millions of miles of AV driving—albeit in US conditions—do create cause for optimism. We want to see this technology benefit the British people by making our lives on the road both easier and safer.
So far, so good—we all agree—but this is where the consensus is at risk of ending. When technological development is at stake, time is the issue. The 2024 Act was enabling—it anticipated a host of secondary legislation to put meat on the statutory bones—but we are yet to see concrete action from this Government. Where is the secondary legislation around data sharing for insurance purposes? Does the Minister have a timeframe for the introduction of that regulation?
While the Minister is looking through his notes to see if he has the answer to that question, where is the legislation on cyber-security? We only have to look at the recent experience at JLR to realise that this is not a theoretical threat—it could be absolutely central to the viability of this technology and its adoption in this country. Where is the secondary legislation on data integrity and resilience against hacking or system failure? That is anticipated in the 2024 Act, and the Government need to take the next step. They have not yet.
I do not want to throw too many bricks—well, I do really, but I will restrain myself and ask the Minister for an update: where is the detailed definition of the statement of safety principles? Where are the regulations allowing for competition within the sector, while still maintaining robust safety standards? That is not going to happen by itself; it requires the Government to act. We need an update from the Minster.
We have the Government’s industrial strategy, which was published in June. It commits to making AVs commercially viable in the UK, but it did not say when. Perhaps the Minister can provide that answer. The Government are supposed to be seeking to harmonise international regulations on self-driving, and enabling pilots of self-driving vehicles by the spring of 2026. We have some movement on that, but can the Minister update the House on his progress?
We all agree that AVs represent a big opportunity for society and business. I welcome the Government’s wholesale adoption of the Conservative approach to this sector. The issue is not party political; we all appear to agree on the same objectives. But there needs to be a sense of urgency from this Administration, and I look forward to the Minister’s response demonstrating that urgency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) on raising this important issue. What a fascinating and thought-provoking debate this has been.
Establishing our new regulatory framework for automated vehicles provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to harness the transformative impact that artificial intelligence could have on our roads. Not only will the framework strengthen our position as a global AI superpower, but automated vehicles can also be a key enabler of our plan for change. They can make transport safer, more convenient and more accessible. They could increase choice for non-drivers, including disabled people and older people. Self-driving vehicles that are zero emission can support cleaner, more efficient transport, particularly when paired with the transition to electric, helping us on our way to our net zero goals. By better enabling freight to be transported outside peak hours, they may also reduce congestion, making journeys to work easier and quicker. In doing that, automated vehicles could improve the lives of millions of people.
Although the UK’s roads are safe by global standards, every road death and injury is a tragedy for the families involved. In 2023, collisions cost medical and ambulance services an estimated £2.2 billion. Every collision prevented will improve the safety of our communities and support our NHS to get on a more sustainable footing. As many hon. Members have referenced, 88% of collisions involve human driver error as a contributing factor, and automated vehicles can be a major player in tackling that challenge. They have a faster reaction time and the ability to learn from vast amounts of driving data, and so could help reduce those numbers. Unlike human drivers, automated vehicles do not get tired, get distracted or drive under the influence. That gives them strong potential to improve road safety.
Although vehicle technologies have already provided significant advances in road safety and will continue to do so, technology is not foolproof. The UK has a heritage of world-leading intelligent regulation. Our new framework must uphold that standard and capture the opportunities while safeguarding against new risks that may arise. We have already made big achievements in this space, with the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 establishing one of the most comprehensive legal frameworks of its kind in the world.
We also play a leading rule in harmonising international rules on safety and assurance at the UN, ensuring that consistent approaches are adopted globally. That has involved close working throughout, and I am grateful for the expertise shared by industry, road safety groups, accessibility advocates, trade unions and academia to develop our thinking.
Passenger safety remains vital, and the Government intend that any organisation wishing to deploy a self-driving passenger service must have robust policies to ensure that their passengers are kept safe throughout their journey. We will continue to learn from best practice internationally, including from world-leading autonomous ride-hailing companies, to help us to achieve our safety mission.
The future of self-driving vehicles will be shaped by the public’s level of trust in their safety. Trust depends on transparency, regulation and performance. That is why the Government recently consulted on protecting marketing terms associated with automated vehicles to ensure that only genuinely self-driving vehicles can be marketed as such. In 2026, we will also consult on safety principles to ensure that all automated vehicles meet or exceed human driving standards. The Government have backed the setting-up of Partners for Automated Vehicle Education United Kingdom. PAVE UK brings together industry, academia and non-profits to provide clear and accurate information to the public on automated vehicles.
Ensuring the security of UK data is a priority for the Government. The UK has strong safeguards to ensure that data is collected and handled responsibly and securely. Companies registered in the UK are subject to our legal framework and regulatory jurisdiction. Personal data transfers abroad are subject to a high level of legal protection. We actively monitor threats to UK data and will not hesitate to take the necessary action to protect our national security.
We want to harness this sector’s huge potential to kick-start economic growth by providing the right conditions to unlock an industry that will be worth £42 billion by 2035 and will create up to 38,000 new skilled jobs. These services can also open up new opportunities in fields such as software, safety assurance, vehicle engineering, logistics and customer service.
Self-driving vehicles are not about replacing current forms of transport, but about complementing and improving them. Traditional driving roles will remain vital, and some people will continue to have a preference and choose to use human-driven services. This is about growing and improving transport options, not revolutionising things overnight.
The automated passenger services permitting scheme—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) went into this—can help to facilitate pilots of commercial self-driving passenger services with no safety driver. Following our recent consultation, we are analysing responses and intend to implement the scheme from spring 2026. At present, no changes to the highway code are anticipated, although we will keep that under review.
We are delighted that Waymo has signalled its intention to bring automated passenger services to London next year under our proposed piloting scheme—subject to meeting vital safety and local authority consent requirements. Cutting-edge investment such as that is helping to deliver our mission to be a world leader in new technology and spearhead national renewal that delivers real change in our communities. Waymo’s announcement, and the previously announced ambition of other companies such as Uber with UK start-up Wayve, are evidence of the impact of the UK’s leading role in self-driving-vehicle regulation. Following the recent closure of the consultation on our permitting scheme, we will announce next steps soon.
I will touch on ghost vehicle registration plates; I know that tackling those is a passion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich. The safety of all road users is a top priority for the Government. As part of the development of our road safety strategy, we are considering a range of policies relating to motoring offences, and we will set out our next steps for the strategy in due course. Officials are also considering options to ensure we have a more robust, auditable register of number plate suppliers process, which would enable tighter checks on number plate suppliers. On-road enforcement for offences relating to the display of plates is of course a matter for the police.
I have time to touch on a few other points raised by Members. In terms of this being a complementary form of public transport, self-driving vehicles are not about replacing current forms of transport, but about complementing and improving. There was some concern about potential job losses and impact on the taxi industry. I think the initial deployments under the pilots are likely to be pretty small in scale. Where a taxi or private hire-like service is proposed, local licensing authorities will need to give consent to the permitting of those services. That may include consideration of the right mix of automated and other services in their area.
We have touched on cyber-security, which is at the heart of the Government’s priorities for the roll-out of self-driving vehicles. The Automated Vehicles Act allows for obligations to be placed on the authorised self-driving entity—the entity for ensuring that the vehicle continues to drive safely and legally—to maintain vehicle software and ensure that appropriate cyber-security measures are in place throughout the vehicle’s life.
Very importantly, coming back to accessibility, we recently closed the consultation on the proposed automated passenger services permitting scheme. That provided an opportunity for accessibility advocates to provide their views on the proposed approach. Just before I came to this debate, I chaired a roundtable with representatives from across the accessibility community to enhance our understanding and grow awareness of the risks and benefits that this new mode of transport can offer. We are continuing to review the need for further research, which includes consideration of how older and disabled people in particular can be involved. Examples of previous research include work undertaken to understand the extent of driver roles in supporting people to make journeys and the implications in emergency situations. We are considering developing guidance on accessibility for APS and are working to establish a group of accessibility experts to support its creation and ensure meaningful learnings from the pilot deployments. We obviously want to see the benefits realised across the country. The pilots are a decision of developers, as it stands, in collaboration with local transport authorities.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised some interesting points. Let me first cling on to the bit about “Star Trek”. [Hon. Members: “No!”] I spent at least 30 minutes thinking of that—no, not really. I am quite relieved that I am not responsible for transport at this time, although who knows in the future? We do not legislate for Northern Ireland in this area, rightly respecting Northern Ireland’s role in legislating for its road traffic laws. Northern Ireland has not sought to replicate the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 within its legislation, so an authorised EV under a GB scheme could be driven only as a conventional vehicle in Northern Ireland.
Very briefly, because I have to wrap up, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard touched on autonomous buses. The automated passenger services permitting scheme facilitates the piloting of bus-like services. For example, the Government have supported the trialling of self-driving bus-like services currently under way on the outskirts of Cambridge. If the operators believe that the vehicle is capable of meeting the threshold that we will set for self-driving capability, the permitting scheme will be available for it. The larger scale of buses may make these things more challenging, but through our funded trials we hope to provide a route to building the required capacity while remaining safe.
The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) mentioned autonomous aviation and maritime. I am afraid I can only reassure him that the applicable Minister, the Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Decarbonisation, will have heard his point on that loud and clear. The same applies to the Minister for Rail and the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), on rail.
I once again thank hon. Members for the wide range of comments. I hope they will be reassured that the Government are committed to realising the very real benefits of self-driving vehicles, particularly where they can catalyse our road safety ambitions, open up travel for many and support our national renewal efforts.
Sarah Coombes
We have heard about all the different parts of this issue today: sharing the benefits of the future autonomous revolution UK-wide; the importance of public trust and uptake; accessibility and independence; and security and safety. We need the benefits to be shared nationwide—in Strangford, Weston-super-Mare, Kettering and beyond.
The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) made the good point that we need to look at regulation for autonomous vehicles beyond just that for road-based ones. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made important comments about his university’s contribution in this space and the fact that we are often behind the curve on many of these things.
On public trust and uptake, although I do not agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about how nice the roar of a diesel engine is, I absolutely agree that people are unsure about this development in the future. We need to address public trust issues and bring people with us on this journey. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) made a very good point about making buses sexy for the public, and this issue is definitely part of that, and a way to increase uptake.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), talked about demand-responsive transport, which is very interesting in the area of autonomous vehicles. On accessibility, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) spoke movingly about his wife and the experience of sight loss, about how autonomous vehicles can improve independence and be transformational and about how APS will knit together the network for the future.
On security and safety, I am glad to have found a kindred spirit in the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who spoke about the importance of the humble number plate in this country and all the deficiencies of the system. The 10,000 cloning incidents he mentioned show how much we need change in the system.
On insurance, the point was made that, ideally, if safety went up, costs and insurance premiums would go down. The Motor Insurers’ Bureau thinks that connected vehicles, which would mean that we could have a new system to detect whether cars are insured, could be helpful on that. There is also the issue of the number of cars with no registered keeper on our roads shooting up. That is driving up all our insurance premiums, because no one can work out who owes the money.
In summation, I appreciate the Minister’s comments and the hope and opportunity we have in front of us. The Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), is right that the previous Government laid good groundwork here. We need to build on it. We need to fix ghost plates and things like that in the current system. The UK is a leader in AI. We have always been leaders in automotive. Let’s embrace that, bring the two together and lead in the self-driving future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered connected and automated vehicles.