Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lord Liddle

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 8th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, this Bill is a technical framework, with the detail largely to follow in regulations. We on these Benches have been generally supportive throughout the passage of the Bill and will remain closely interested as the detail is fleshed out in secondary legislation. We welcome the Commons amendments as improvements—in particular to reflect the responsibilities of the devolved Administrations. In the case of Amendments 5 to 8, the Government have, on this occasion, listened to the representations from the Welsh Government to extend the powers in Clause 93 to Welsh Ministers. The Bill applies to the whole of the UK, parts of which will—indeed, already do—have slightly different approaches to traffic regulation. It is therefore important to ensure that the relevant Ministers have the right powers.

On other matters, we are disappointed that some of the issues raised when the Bill was passing through this House were not agreed in the Commons amendments either. A number of amendments were tabled to the Bill about the accessibility of public transport for disabled people, but none of these proposals was accepted by the Government. It is nevertheless still crucial that disabled people are involved in the developments from this legislation to make sure that it makes transport more accessible, not less.

Similarly, Wera Hobhouse MP continued to raise the concerns that we voiced around the protection of personal data but, sadly, those concerns were dismissed by the Minister in the other place. Thus we will be particularly keen to see how the legislation addresses all the concerns that we have raised throughout the passage of the Bill and how it ensures that the rollout of autonomous vehicles will be both inclusive and innovative. I will also watch with interest how the balance between open-source and IP rights plays out.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, from our Benches we are very pleased that the Bill was returned to this House by the Commons in reasonably good shape. It is an important Bill, setting a framework for future innovation and enterprise in a key sector. We basically agreed in the House on this framework. We, for our part, would have preferred a more inclusive approach, with some kind of council that regularly brought together all concerned interests to create a consensus on how the technology should be developed. However, we were very pleased that the Minister listened to our concerns on the safety standard and, indeed, accepted them.

On the Commons amendments, I make two small points, neither of which affects our view that the Bill should now go ahead. First, it is obviously a good idea that there is a regulatory power for the requirement that incidents affecting autonomous vehicles are properly notified to the authorities. We support that. Secondly, if autonomous vehicles are to go on the whole of our road system in due course, it is clearly necessary to have a requirement for highway and traffic authorities to notify on a digital platform where repairs are being done—although I must say, with the present state of our roads and potholes, there will be an awful lot of notifications. It is clearly necessary that there are these regulations, but can the Minister say what timetable he envisages for use of the regulation-making powers that we are agreeing to in this measure?

I end by thanking the Minister and his officials for the courtesy that they showed in explaining to us very clearly what the Bill was about and in responding very promptly to any questions and comments. I thank the Minister for taking this Bill forward in a generally consensual way.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lord Liddle

Report stage
Tuesday 6th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I have tabled four amendments which constitute this group. There are two interacting issues: public interest and commercial interest. It is clear that where safety, human lives or participation are at risk, that has to win over commercial interest. This is what we are dealing with in these amendments. I have made some suggestions because I do not really understand what the legislation is saying. Instead of a speech, and because my voice is dodgy, I am just going to read out the subsection and explain what I do not understand.

Clause 95(2) says:

“The provision does not require or authorise any disclosure, obtaining or use of information that … contravenes data protection”


or is prohibited under something to do with the Investigatory Powers Act. What does “the provision does not” mean? I have changed it to say that the provision —which would come forward from regulations—“must” not authorise things that would contravene data protection legislation. This might be similar to what we used to call a “notwithstanding” clause—notwithstanding what the provision says, it actually means something else, or it does not mean what it says. I think it would be better if it said “must”.

If it is a contravening provision—a notwithstanding type—meaning that the regulation might say one thing but that thing is not allowed because it is forbidden in another piece of legislation, at what point does this come to light in the request for information? Is the requester of the information obliged to make it clear: “Oh well, we do not need this bit”, or does the person who is requested to give the information have to plead: “Oh, I do not have to answer that”? I do not know the answer to those questions. I do not know whether this is a notwithstanding clause or whether the constraint will be clear at the point at which the evidence or information is being sought. I wait to hear what the Minister tells me it means.

Amendment 30 would add intellectual property rights to the list of legislation which must not be contravened. As Clause 95 deals quite a lot with commercial rights and the use of data and things that can be asked for under investigatory powers, why can we not put in intellectual property rights, which is another part of the family, if you like? I am still having some interesting discussions with the officials as to whether or not it is needed. I think it is, they think it is not. Maybe we can get some clarity by Third Reading. That is the basis of my second amendment.

My third amendment is to Clause 95(3), which says:

“But the provision is to be taken into account in determining whether the disclosure, obtaining or use of information would contravene the data protection legislation”.


I do not quite know what it means when a provision starts with “But”. It might be another notwithstanding—in which case this is a notwithstanding clause on a notwithstanding clause. I am not quite sure where two notwithstandings leave us.

Does this mean that the provision can have in it new things that it then deems can be taken into account? Is it without limit or does it regard a provision that is cast within an obligation there might be under some other legislation, as there is in data protection legislation —that is, you can have new reasons in the public interest as to why something might be needed? Does the constraint apply or not? From what it says here, I cannot tell. It looks to me as if a provision can be made and then taken into account when interpreting it. I just do not see how that works.

I cannot construe this any better than I have attempted to do—and I am not quite a beginner in construing legal things. I may wish to test the opinion of the House on this clause because it is really quite confusing. If it verges on that broader side, we would be better off without it. Provisions can be made in the public interest under all kinds of legislation; you can do it under data legislation and intellectual property legislation. There are times when the public interest will prevail. So I do not see why we need this clause there at all.

My final amendment simply suggests that Clause 95, which is titled “Disclosure of information: interaction with external constraints”, should be inserted into the list at the start of Clause 96, which is headed “Crown application” and says that the provisions in Sections 42, 73 and 88 “bind the Crown”. To some extent, Clause 95 is mainly relevant to Sections 42, 73 and 88; it therefore seemed logical to me that it should also be listed in Clause 96.

This is not the grand speech that I was going to make, it is just why I cannot understand what is written here. What I think about it will now depend entirely on what the Minister is able to tell me—in particular, about these clauses, which may or may not be “notwithstanding” clauses. I beg to move.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, these are important issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has raised. She has, with her characteristic acuity, asked lots of penetrating questions about what the proposed legislation actually means. For the part of the Official Opposition, we will listen carefully to what the Minister says in reply but, if we are not satisfied, we will support the noble Baroness in her testing of the opinion of the House.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lord Liddle

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 1st March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I am in favour of this group of amendments. Amendment 39, in my name, follows the position that I suggested at Second Reading. The Euratom treaty is a separate treaty and can be separately amended. It provides options for Euratom other than being part of an all-in-one main deal. There is no doubt in my mind—and I have had reason to look at quite a lot of the EU treaties—that Article 106a, which imports various aspects from the main EU treaties, nevertheless restricts it again in the second paragraph by saying that wherever the EU is mentioned it means Euratom and wherever it mentions treaties it means the Euratom treaty. So I believe that they stand alone. My point also deals later on with some of the entanglements, but some of them go in the sense that the two treaties stand alone. If we were left with any parts of the institutions, again, it would be in a very narrow focus, as has already been explained.

My amendment would not stop this Bill giving the Government the power to trigger Article 50 by way of Article 106a, if that power exists in the Bill, but would delay triggering it at least until the Government lay their final draft of the arrangements for leaving the EU before Parliament. By that stage, I hope that the Government would have settled the institutional arrangements for managing the new partnership with the EU.

It may be that at that stage Euratom could slot conveniently into those arrangements and that Euratom would be part of the deal. It could also be that a suitable transition arrangement would be to stay in Euratom a bit longer at least until the UK had substituted all its arrangements at international level. Or it could even be that a UK position outside the EU but inside Euratom could be an agreed way forward in the longer term, with a Euratom treaty change—and there are good reasons for changing that treaty, given international developments.

Noble Lords could ask why some special arrangement should be made for Euratom when there are many other compelling industry problems. One reason is simply that we have the opportunity because there is the separate treaty. The second and compelling reason already alluded to by other noble Lords is that while loss of trading arrangements in other sectors is economically damaging, it will still be possible to buy things—at a price. But outside Euratom, without a replacement agreement, international trade in fissile material and various other products would be illegal. So exiting Euratom and following up with a subsequent free trade agreement is not a viable option. Nor is crashing out without an agreement.

Presently, there are some 13 EU countries in the UK supply chain of fissile materials, and a similar number in other third countries. As we have heard, some of those will be for medical use and cancer treatments, and others for nuclear reactors with some 20% of our electricity generation being from nuclear. Then there is a whole industry of nuclear components, repairs and auxiliary products, and other more remote industries such as automobile, aeronautics, mining and petroleum, that would be affected. Euratom is a key player in research, including fusion. It is the vehicle for the UK’s participation. Keeping some kind of “same as in” arrangement is important for research both at our atomic energy establishments and at our universities.

Modification of institutional arrangements and Commission permissions will be needed whether we are in or out of Euratom because all EU countries will have to have permission in order to trade with us. Nothing should be dismissed prematurely. Euratom operates on a far more intergovernmental arrangement than the EU, which therefore makes looking for an intergovernmental solution conceivable. The role of the Parliament is smaller—for example, seeking opinion rather than requiring consent—and there are provisions for consulting national parliaments. That could provide openings for negotiating new arrangements.

Finally, not many cases have gone to the European Court on Euratom issues. I found a 2011 post-doctoral paper in the German Law Journal that had managed to unearth only 30 cases that had ever gone to the ECJ, compared with around 700 cases annually for the court. Of those 30, only 15 were Commission versus member-state cases. Most notably, in contrast to the EU treaties, expansion of competence and cross-sectoral applications have not happened under the Euratom treaty to any great extent. For example, when the Commission tried to apply civil rules to the decommissioning of UK submarine nuclear reactors and submarine repair, the court found in favour of the UK on the basis that the matter came under security and defence. The court resisted extending the judgment to civilian aspects, although they clearly existed.

We will never escape the effects of some jurisprudence that comes from the European Court because it governs interpretations that the EU will apply to our new relationship. But Euratom is one area where the court is hardly interfering and could be tolerated for longer, at least in transition. So I urge the Government to think seriously about the additional flexibility that the separate Euratom treaty offers. It would be not only the UK that wished to get some kind of regularisation of the arrangements—but in this we can give ourselves, as of right and under our control, more time, more options and more security.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I support these amendments. As a member of Cumbria County Council I have an obvious interest in the prosperity of the nuclear industry in our part of the world. I will ask the Minister a number of questions that I hope he will be able to answer.

First, what is the Government’s justification for this policy? All that I have heard so far is something like, “Well, the European Court of Justice has some jurisdiction and we therefore have to come out of Euratom”. Frankly, that is facile. The idea that one would be so ideological as to endanger a major British industry for that reason is extraordinary. What actually is the reason?

Secondly, I would like to see a strategy paper on how the Government propose to manage the new relationship if we are to withdraw from Euratom? How does it fit with the great prominence given to nuclear questions and the priority for the nuclear industry in the Government’s excellent industrial strategy paper? Where is the consistency between this destructive proposal and the priority for the nuclear industry that the Government claim is top of their concerns and work?