Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Borwick Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments are all about road safety. Of course, it is a very important subject, which we discussed at length at Committee. Many of the comments made by noble Lords will have been reflected in what I am about to say and in what the Minister said. The Minister has some amendments and I have a couple of amendments in this grouping.

We are all struggling to come up with a definition of “road safety”—which will probably stand for many years—that will enable us to avoid the fear that automatic vehicles will by definition be less safe because they will run into more people. It is a very difficult and challenging subject. My view, and I am very grateful to Cycling UK and other groups for helping with this work, is that we need a step change in road safety. The risks of death or injury on our roads are significantly higher than for life in general, or indeed for other types of transport networks, such as rail. Particularly, pedestrians, people who cycle and other non-motorised road users bear a disproportionate brunt of this risk. I think that this will be a worry all the way through.

I was very interested to hear from Cycling UK and the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety that they tried to follow up the work the Law Commission did in this regard—and did it very well. They came up with two options for trying to improve the definition. The first defined the standard required in terms of what would be required for a human driver to pass a driving test with no faults recorded by the examiner. The second was to quantify the risk of a collision or traffic infraction, possibly per something like 1 billion kilometres travelled.

I came to the conclusion that the first one was probably better, which is what is in my Amendment 1. This says basically that the vehicle should be driven—remotely, but driven—

“in the same manner while undertaking a practical test of driving skills and behaviour in accordance with the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999, would pass that test with no faults”.

I think that is quite a good one. It would allow the Secretary of State to change it by statutory instrument if he or she thought that was a good idea.

The Minister will speak to his amendment, which I think is an improvement. It is a question of having a debate on these things. Although I do not think we will finish it today, I hope we can make some progress on the right way forward to make sure that road safety is not reduced; in other words, it needs to be improved.

There are two other amendments that go with this. First, Amendment 2 in my name relates to the types of locations or circumstances where these criteria are met. It is very different being on a motorway from being on a road in a congested town or in the countryside, and it is important that the principles that are applied should have the option of being different for each one.

Secondly, Amendment 4 says simply that we should aim for something a lot better than “better”. Whether

“significantly better for all road users”

is the right wording is something that we can debate. I think “significantly” is important, and it is really important that it applies to all road users, which includes pedestrians, cyclists, children, older people, disabled people, and so on.

With that short introduction to the road safety issue in the Bill, I beg to move.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I repeat the declarations of interest that I have made in the past.

I applaud the principles behind the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. However, there is a difficulty in coming up with new regulations that are different from elsewhere in the world, and I am afraid that “significantly” falls into that trap. It would make it a lot harder for international companies to work out exactly what was meant by these words. There is no established case law on these matters.

We all know that there are problems with existing human drivers, and we should expect that all autonomous vehicles turn out to be dramatically better than human beings. We should not look for circumstances where humans monitor computers but rather the other way around; computers will be better than humans at this. A lot of people suggest that car insurance will actually reduce when the number of autonomous vehicles increases. So I am afraid that I can only applaud the amendment produced by my noble friend the Minister and reject those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

I hope the House will forgive me, but these various amendments on safety prompt me to ask the Minister about something that has not featured much in our discussions: the issue of hacking into self-driving vehicles—SDVs. It was touched on peripherally during the debate on data protection in Committee but not really highlighted as a major safety concern, which is why I thought I would bring it up now.

I sat on the House’s Science and Technology Committee when it produced its report on automated vehicles some five or six years ago—I am afraid the doldrums of Covid blur my account of time. I remember that during that committee’s investigation, we spent some time discussing in detail the question of hacking into these vehicles, and I felt it only right that it should feature in our discussions on safety today.

We all know how easy it is for someone, or some group of someones, to hack into our computers from a distance, and it could be a criminals or, worse, an enemy state. Why should it not be the same with an SDV? I raised this subject with Waymo and others, but I have to say that I was not convinced by its assurances that it could not happen. We all know that both at Microsoft and here in Parliament it takes a team of experts, sometimes working around the clock, to keep all our devices free from hackers, and an SDV will just be another device.

I was going to bring this matter up when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is not in his place, had an excellent amendment on the obvious necessity for our emergency services to be able to talk to or even control SDVs in certain circumstances. Sadly, however, I could not be here on the 10 January. I was going to say that if it is too easy for a policeman, an ambulance driver or a fireman to get sufficient access to control an SDV, I feel sure that it will not be impossible for someone with malicious intent to get hold of whatever device or code that makes this possible. Could it be that stealing a car will become easier, and that a suicide bomber will now no longer need to commit suicide but just hack into someone else’s car or an SDV for hire and drive it into a crowd or the gates of Parliament, for example? Or maybe you could commit murder by getting control of a car and driving it into your intended victim. It is also entirely possible that no one would know who had done it, because it had been done from a considerable distance—maybe from the other side of the world.

I do not know whether any of your Lordships have seen a series called “Vigil”, one of these television thriller fictions, in which an armed remote-control drone was captured remotely and used to create death, destruction and mayhem on British soil. However, no one knew who was controlling it, which was the essence of the whodunnit plot. Incidentally, it turned out that it was being controlled all the way from the Middle East. I am afraid my thoughts leapt—rather melodramatically, I admit—from that fiction to the reality of what we are trying to achieve here with the Bill.

I am sure there are technical solutions to all these issues, and the whiz-kids on either side of the good-versus-evil divide will continuously compete with one other to win the war of control. It occurred to me, for instance, that perhaps all policemen should be issued with a zapper that brings to a dead halt any SDV that appears to be behaving dangerously. That may be too drastic a solution but, believe me, we will need some solution. My point is that we are entering a brave new world, and we need to properly think through all the problems we are going to encounter. We particularly need to ensure that SDVs become an accepted and safe reality.

I did not want our debate on the safety of these vehicles or the future to pass without a serious commitment from government to being always on the alert to controlling or at least minimising this safety problem. Therefore, by way of a question, I would like reassurance from the Minister that before companies can be licensed to produce SDVs, there will be checks, monitoring and even the holding of emergency real-life exercises with the police to test against what they would do if a dangerous hacker got control of a vehicle.

Will the Government commit to ongoing vigilance over the licensing process, the manufacturers, the operators, the car hire companies, the taxi services and the so-called Uber 2s, and so on, to minimise the dangers from malicious hackers? I realise, of course, that all this vigilance will not eradicate the danger of hacking into such self-driving devices. It is clear that we are unlikely to ever see the end of people trying to get into our other devices, our banking services and the like, but I hope that ongoing vigilance will at least minimise this particular safety risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, the only comment I will make is on Amendment 34 from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. In the event of an accident, the conventional problem the police face is competing descriptions honestly held by two different people about what actually happened: “I did this; he did that”. The thing about an autonomous vehicle accident is that there will be at least half a dozen cameras recording every factor in the accident, as there have been in the various accidents that have taken place in San Francisco. There will be far more information in the event of an accident involving an autonomous vehicle. So to suggest that it is automatically assumed that the authorised automated vehicle caused the accident unless proved otherwise is moving the burden of proof completely on to the autonomous vehicle. I think this is a very bad idea, because the press will immediately assume—backed up by this amendment —that it is the fault of the autonomous vehicle when the facts will be available on the television cameras. So I really think that it is a thoroughly dangerous new suggestion to assume the guilt of an autonomous vehicle because it is autonomous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 8, 18 to 20, and 27, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to which I have added my name. In Committee, I was struck by the powerful speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whom we have often heard in your Lordships’ House talking so powerfully about her lived experiences.

This is not a once-in-a-generation nor a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, but it is a new, unique opportunity for disabled people to be front and centre of the development of a transport system. A great friend of mine is blind and when we first met, he had a clunky old phone with Braille on it. As soon as the iPhone came out, he had a phone with perfect accessibility built in. There was nothing new there. He has the same iPhone as everybody else. It just has the features to work for him, and I think this is what we can do with automated vehicles.

Elderly or disabled people, who have never dreamed of owning a car, can now look to the near future and see that this is a possibility—but only if they are included in all stages. As a design and technology teacher, I am all over inclusive design. This is not a bolt-on. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said he wanted this bolted on to existing stuff, I want this designed from the ground up. It is a unique—and I mean unique—opportunity to give disabled people a level playing field. It must not be squandered. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, while I support the general principle of these comments—indeed, I personally made great changes to the taxi industry to get there—the particular circumstances that enabled me to do that a long time ago were very unusual.

The current situation with autonomous vehicles is that there are many manufacturers that are converting existing vehicles. They cannot change their donor vehicles to make them accessible for disabled people, however desirable that might be. Tesla, Waymo, Cruise, Wayve, Oxa and, indeed, Mercedes are all working on autonomous vehicles, but they are not likely or able to change their vehicles to make them accessible because they must be accessible from the original design. Automotive history goes back 120 or even 150 years. We are not able to change existing vehicles, however desirable that is.

What these clauses would do is stop disabled people being helped by autonomous vehicles coming along. I am thinking particularly of people disabled by a severe learning difficulty who would not be able to learn to drive, or safely drive, a normal vehicle who would not be able to drive as a passenger. I am afraid the clauses would prevent these manufacturers from coming into this market. They would rather go to a market where they could use their existing vehicles than make the changes.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for outlining the current commercial position, but there are models of vehicle currently on the market that can be used for wheelchairs. I fail to understand why, if an entire nation’s rules say that that is the model that has to be followed, manufacturers would not swiftly follow suit. There might be a transition period—does he understand that?—but all the images that we see of autonomous vehicles in the future show a completely different style from even 10 years ago, let alone 100 years ago. Would he agree with that?

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

I agree with the noble Baroness, but the question for a manufacturer is whether or not to come into the British market. That is the trouble, as I see it. Much as it would be desirable that they redesigned their vehicles, or indeed designed them from the very beginning to be accessible, the reality is that we are talking about regulating a future market based on an existing product. I find it a great shame that that is the position we are in, but that is where we are.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, frequently during the passage of the Bill we have all discussed the fact that the entire Bill is regulating for the future. It seems that it is acceptable to regulate for the future of everything —except disability access and proper accessibility.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

I find it distressing to disagree with the noble Baroness, but I am talking about the reality of the position. Even though I wish the world were different, I cannot agree that we can regulate to make it different in this one Bill.

I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his comments. I am afraid I left the London taxi business a long time ago so I am not actually responsible for the current vehicles, but still I thank him. They are better in all respects than the ones I produced, which are still in business.

It is distressing that so few taxis around the country outside London are not accessible; the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, had her own problems in Watford, as I understand it. It would be so much easier to organise that all taxis all over the country were as wheelchair accessible as the ones in London. I would find that a much more useful use of our time than making these amendments, much as I support the general principle behind them.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Lord Borwick Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I repeat my declarations of interest from previous occasions. I entirely agree with my noble friend Baroness Stowell—she is right. I worry about the House of Lords legislating for the difference between “noise” and “music”. We might be in a minority in the country overall in our distinction between the two, but this is a magnificent example of a Bill that has been changed by good points made by Back-Benchers in this House. The clause proposed by my noble friend Lord Davies is an entirely sensible move.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend on his stewardship and handling of the Bill. It is, perhaps, not the biggest, most important transport Bill to come before your Lordships but is none the less highly targeted, and we commend it. In particular, I thank my noble friend for listening to the concerns about noise that have been raised almost universally around the House. I have witnessed this when walking back from your Lordships’ House to where I often stay during the week, and I have heard this extraordinary noise coming from these vehicles.

There is a problem, and the Bill is an enabling Bill. It allows TfL to produce the regulations and regulate the operators of these vehicles. Noise is one of the most important issues the House has heard about, and I am delighted the Government have recognised it and produced their own amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the argument made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I find it very strange that, in this modern world, it seems impossible to rely on the safety of something as straightforward as a battery. We have known about battery-like things for at least 250 years. I think it was in the 18th century that the first battery was discovered.

Now we have lithium-ion batteries, which appear to be perfectly safe in one’s telephone but not if they are attached to a pedicab. We have a similar problem with e-scooters. On some occasions, the batteries have been known to blow up, which is why they are banned from every part of the London Underground network—platforms and stations as well as trains; they are a fire risk. How has this circumstance come about? I have no answer.

While I have sympathy with the noble Baroness’s argument, I am glad to hear that she is not intending to advance this to a vote. I am not entirely sure that this is the right Bill for the issue to be addressed in. There is a wider question about what the Government are doing to ensure the safety of batteries that are available for consumers to buy as part of equipment. In this case, they are allowed to buy e-scooters, but not to ride them on the public highway. That is another anomaly that perhaps we will address at some stage, when the endless trial the Government have been conducting on e-scooters is eventually brought to a conclusion and some determination is made about their future. There needs to be a measure that addressees the safety of batteries more broadly than simply in pedicabs, as this amendment would.

We will come in the next group to the question of guidance. I will simply say that if my noble friend were to say that safety issues including the safety of batteries would be included in guidance and covered by regulations, I think that would be satisfactory, without the need for the noble Baroness’s amendment. It is an issue that needs to be addressed.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend; it all makes sense. I shall give a little history: at one stage I was chairman of a lithium battery manufacturer. It is possible in the manufacturing of a lithium battery for a little strip of lithium to move from one part of the battery to another during the manufacturing process. That can later cause a fire.

The trouble with this amendment is entirely that, as my noble friend mentioned, if we got it right in pedicabs, we would be getting it right in only a tiny percentage of the total number of vehicles with large lithium batteries. It is a particularly serious problem when fires break out in big batteries in small houses. These pedicabs are not going to be recharged in people’s houses in the majority of cases; it will be done at a depot of some sort.

This is a good provision in the wrong place. I would look forward to supporting such a clause in a different place, if only there was something equivalent. The noble Baroness has grabbed the opportunity and should be applauded for doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 5 but in doing so, I welcome the Minister’s acceptance that this is very much an issue for Transport for London. My Amendment 5 is simply there to give the Minister the opportunity to provide this House with clarity on the potential scope of the Secretary of State of State’s guidance. Because we have had this complete somersault between Committee and Report over who is going to be responsible for this, it is important to get that clarification.

There is cross-party consensus that this really is an issue for Transport for London. Like my noble friend Lord Storey, I am very pleased to see the reference to safeguarding in Amendment 4. This legislation obviously applies only to London, but it would be helpful if the Government were to publicise it beyond London because, as we made clear in our discussions at the previous stage, there are pedicab regulations in other parts of the country. It would be useful to have greater awareness of issues such as the importance of safeguarding, registration, safety and so on.

My amendment is a kind of checklist of the main issues to consider: environmental benefits; safety, which is about a lot more than just battery fires; and minimising disruption, danger and disturbance to other people, as some neighbours in London have suffered from noise and inconsiderate parking for a long time. We should not be discussing the suitability of cab ranks in detail here, but it will clearly be of great importance when decisions are made by Transport for London. My final issue is that of licensing and penalties. I assume that licensing will involve identification and registration.

It is important to make it clear that we do not want regulations which are so onerous that they destroy this industry altogether. Like other noble Lords, we want just to bring it under control so that it benefits London and is an asset, not a liability, to London tourism. For the people who hire these cabs, it should be safe and fun, not risky. I press the Minister to reassure us that the Secretary of State’s guidance will not be so onerous that it enables penalties so stiff that they put people out of business.

Proposed new subsection (6) of government Amendment 4 refers to consultation, and rightly so. Can the Minister give us an assurance that there will be Secretary of State consultation with cycling organisations and the organisation representing pedicab operators in London? Its representatives were in touch with us prior to Committee, so there is clearly such an organisation, and it is the kind of organisation that, in other industries, brings a sense of coherence that raises standards, as taxi organisations do. It is important that proper consultation is done.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward this suggestion, which, as he said, was proposed by many parties. But I am still confused, in that the Member’s explanatory statement, which is very sensible, does not quite tie up with Amendment 3 itself. Amendment 3 says “leave out subsection (2)”, but why is subsection (1) still in place? That says that

“The power to make pedicab regulations is exercisable by statutory instrument”.


If the intention is that they should not be exercisable by statutory instrument, why should we leave in that phrase? Would it not be better if the amendment left out both subsection (2) and subsection (1)? I think that would improve the Bill.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Borwick Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and to agree with everything they said. In offering support to all the amendments in this group, I will make a couple of additional points.

First, to follow on from debates on previous groups today, it is obvious that, given the general state of our roads and infrastructure, if we are to see automated vehicles operating in the foreseeable future, that will be in only very limited and controlled circumstances—probably in newly constructed areas—and they are likely to be public transport. A great deal of our debates on this Bill have focused on private individuals having their own cars whizzing around, but public transport systems are most likely to be the first affected. We need to see the provision of access by design included as part of that.

Secondly, it deserves to be noted that, for the past year, the Transport Committee has been holding hearings on the accessibility of what we have now. These have exposed insufficient accessibility right across the transport sector, particularly in the need to update regulations to accommodate modern travel methods and equipment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we are starting from scratch and could get it right from the beginning, so we should absolutely aim to do so. She spoke about relying on the public sector equality duty when it is so clearly failing; we have not heard the final conclusions of the Transport Committee, but a report out last month from the disabled people’s organisation Transport for All titled Are We There Yet?—to spoil the ending, the answer is definitely “No”—surveyed more than 500 disabled people in England on the journeys they had made in 2021 and 2022.

The report found that disabled people make far fewer journeys than non-disabled people—an average of 5.84 a week, which is one-third of the national average across the community. Those disabled people said they would like to make twice as many journeys every week, but lack of accessibility was preventing them doing so and being able to fully participate in our society, in the way that they would like. Finally, the report noted that nearly half of the respondents

“thought that the accessibility of transport and streets”

would worsen in the next 10 years, while only 28% thought it would improve. Your Lordships’ House has a duty and an opportunity to show that it is possible to make things better instead of letting them continue to deteriorate.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest, as I have been involved in accessibility to modern taxis and other public transport over many years. I entirely agree with most of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Holmes. However, with their amendments, I am not sure that we are heading in the right direction. It is clear from Clause 87 that those clauses intending to make the vehicle more accessible are heading in the right direction, but the noble Baroness believes they do not go far enough.

I am not sure that adding an extra automated vehicle accessibility standards panel, as in Amendment 53, would do anything other than delay everything in practice. By the time that such a panel is formed and educated to the standard of familiarity that we all hold with the Bill—or most of us do—I am not sure that it would do anything but delay the whole Bill, when we are already behind others. Although I very much hope that we could be at the forefront both of the existence of automated vehicles and of accessibility, we are of course two years behind other countries in Europe. We have got to catch up. I hope that we can alter Clause 87 to achieve what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I would like to see, rather than add a completely new panel on top.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I very gently challenge the noble Lord on his contribution. The problem is that, if there is no chance to rethink, for example, the design of some of the vehicles or the structures that go with it—including architectural software structures in apps—it will be too late. We will end up in the position that we have now found ourselves in on the railways; five years ago, we were expecting to have level access at every single railway station in the country to remove the need for ramps. Unfortunately, because there was no work done at that time, rolling stock was bought that did not conform with other rolling stock—let alone platforms—and it was delayed until 2023. It has now been delayed until 2035.

If we do not tackle this right at the start, it will prevent disabled people using these vehicles, because they will not be involved in the process. Just like trying to get hold of wheelchair-accessible cars, it will be almost impossible to find accessibility works for disabled people in AVs.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I am very sympathetic to the whole problem of access. Secondly, I recognise it is very complex and defer to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in the detailed knowledge that they display in these two amendments.

Broadly speaking, I would like to see these amendments encapsulated in the Bill. The key question, however—which I invite both the noble Lord and noble Baroness to answer—is whether the two concepts contained in these amendments are mutually compatible or are in any way in conflict. If they are not, I support the general direction of these amendments and hope that there is recognition of the latest point made by the noble Baroness: you can expect a much more optimal solution if you adopt a clear direction on this difficult issue at the start, rather than trying to bolt it on afterwards.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Borwick Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I will quickly come in to comment on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, while first referring to my interests in the register, which I referred to in more depth at Second Reading. The comment I made, which was mentioned so generously by the noble Lord, is that his Amendment 13 talks about a “specified manufacturer”. However, there are two different ways of making an automated vehicle. One is to make it from scratch—something that Tesla does. The second is to adapt somebody else’s vehicle, as Waymo, Wayve, Oxa and other automated vehicle people do. Because the word “manufacturer” is defined in type approval legislation, I believe that those companies are not called “manufacturers” because they are adapting somebody else’s vehicle. So there is a problem in using the words “specified manufacturer” for those who are adapting other vehicles. This is all part of the immense complexity of this subject and it is not surprising that it would be easy for an amendment to fall into the wrong section if we were not very careful about it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to colleagues across the House for their contributions this afternoon and for the discussions that we have had on the Bill in recent weeks. The amendments in this first group relate to the assessments we will apply both to vehicles and the corporate entities that operate and take responsibility for them.

I will begin with Amendments 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, all tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas. I whole- heartedly agree with the points that he and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, raised about the importance of standard setting. Indeed, we are already well established in the key international fora on these issues and are funding the British Standards Institution to help develop industry best practice. However, as always, a balance must be struck between the benefits of leading the way and the risks of acting prematurely. I absolutely acknowledge what my noble friend says about the intention of these amendments. None the less, taken at face value, these amendments risk creating an inflexible system that could hamper, rather than enhance, the UK’s international influence in this industry.

I will take each amendment in turn. On Amendment 14, it is the Government’s view that the number plate remains fit for purpose and that mandating an alternative, as yet unproven, technology would be of little value without significant investment in the corresponding roadside monitoring equipment. On Amendment 15, our policy scoping notes already set out our intention to consider passenger communication as a component of operator licensing. We believe that this is the right place to specify these types of requirements. On Amendment 16, Clause 12 requires that licensed operators oversee their vehicles and respond to issues that may arise. This means that the ability to monitor location is already implicitly required. The requirement to indicate availability is confined to automated passenger services. It is therefore disproportionate to apply it to all self-driving vehicles.

Moving on, we believe that the intent of Amendment 17 is already provided for. In order to satisfy the self-driving test, Clause 1 requires that vehicles be capable of operating safely and legally. A vehicle that was able to enter self-driving mode while aware of a safety-critical fault, such as a sensor failure, would not satisfy the self-driving test and would not be authorised.

Turning to Amendment 18, self-driving vehicles must be capable of operating using the road infrastructure as it exists today. This will necessitate the ability to recognise the range of signs currently found on our roads. Adapting road signs or developing other way-markers to accommodate self-driving vehicles is therefore, in our opinion, unnecessary.

Finally, we believe that Amendment 19 is already largely addressed by the stopping powers provision in Clause 57. I hope this also addresses the point raised by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. I will finish on this section by assuring my noble friend Lord Lucas that we will get a prompt response to his email regarding the Eastbourne scheme.

I turn now to my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond’s Amendment 55C. The benefits of harmonisation must be considered carefully against the impact on innovation, costs and cybersecurity. A harmonised interoperability standard will be lengthy and complex to negotiate. Doing so quickly risks picking the wrong technologies and falling behind.

Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, risks confusing the role of the no-user-in-charge operator with that of the authorised self-driving entity or ASDE. Before a self-driving feature can be authorised, the ASDE must demonstrate the technology can deal safely with faults by executing a minimum-risk manoeuvre and bringing the vehicle to a safe stop. We would not wish to undermine this key ASDE responsibility by suggesting that a no-user-in-charge operator can compensate for inadequate design in the technology. Operators will of course be subject the ongoing requirements of their licences. We will have broad powers to ensure these are followed.

Moving on to Amendment 13, I reassure the Committee that all manufacturers will be subject to the same high expectations and robust requirements, regardless of who they are. To arbitrarily constrain the pool of manufacturers which can be authorised would risk stifling innovation. Our focus is rightly on ensuring that corporate entities meet the appropriate standards of competence, repute, financial standing and technical capability. The powers in Clauses 6 and 91 already make ample provision to set such standards. On the point the noble Lord raised about national security, such issues could be taken into account in a consideration of the good repute requirement.

On Amendment 26, Clause 10 already requires that the register of authorisations be made public. In line with standard practice for official government publications, I can confirm that this will be done online. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Turning to Amendment 43 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, we intend to explore technical solutions to ensure that automated vehicles cannot operate unless they can do so safely. For example, we could require a vehicle to check it has the latest software update before the self-driving feature can be engaged. Such provisions are possible under the powers of the Bill. Due to the technical nature of such requirements and the continued development of the technology, this is best achieved through secondary legislation. We also have the safeguard that, where an authorised-self driving entity ceases to assume responsibility for the vehicle, the vehicle’s authorisation would be withdrawn. In such a case, standard consumer protections would apply. On the specific question of responsibility for safety- critical updates, this sits with the authorised self-driving entity as the body accountable for a vehicle’s safety.

This brings me to the noble Baroness’s Amendment 22. I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also touched upon this issue. The Bill does not prevent foreign vehicles from being authorised as self-driving in the UK. However, they will naturally need to demonstrate that they are capable of operating safely and legally on our roads. Requirements to be overseen by an appropriate authorised self-driving entity and licensed operator will also apply as usual. Any non-authorised feature would be classed as driver assistance. The driver could therefore be charged with motoring offences if they divert their attention from the road. Of course, appropriate information will need to be provided at the border. We are working with international partners to develop guidelines to facilitate automated vehicles passing from one jurisdiction to another, including as part of the relevant UN expert group. In the interim, we expect other jurisdictions to apply similar safeguards as we intend to, for example, that vehicles’ systems be designed to deactivate outside of their authorised geographic area. I hope this offers the noble Baroness a sufficient explanation of the position.

On Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, the Government agree that real-world testing will play an important role in ensuring the safety of self-driving vehicles. That is why we are already funding real-world trials here in the UK. Setting requirements for real-world testing through the powers in Clauses 5 and 91 will allow these requirements to evolve alongside the standards they assess. Regarding the “substantial” amount, I would also add that it is ultimately the quality of testing that matters, rather than the quantity. This point was made very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge. For example, 100 hours of rush-hour driving is likely to be more revealing than 1,000 hours of navigating empty streets. Again, these nuances are best captured in secondary legislation.

Moving finally to the noble Baroness’s Amendments 20 and 27, the Bill leaves flexibility for financial standing to be demonstrated through insurance cover—a model we refer to in our policy scoping notes. While I believe it would be too specific to make a reference on the face of the Bill, it will be appropriate to expand on this issue as part of authorisation and licensing requirements. I will welcome the noble Baroness’s expertise if she wishes to make representations at that stage. Lastly, I can confirm the Government’s wider consultation on insurance captives is due to be published in the spring. On that basis, I hope the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Lord Borwick Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Grand Committee

When I raised this at Second Reading, I thought it might give a friendly hint to the Minister perhaps to moderate or withdraw that clause. Far from doing so, it appears to have alerted him to what he considers to be a lacuna in the Bill and he has come back with a government amendment to make the department’s grip on this process even tighter. The Government should think about this again and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, should think about the practical effects of his proposal.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I declared my interests in full at Second Reading. I declare them again, only as they are in the register.

I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. This seems a strange way of regulating the pedicab industry. I am not sure why my noble friend is regulating in this complex way. As I understand it, Transport for London will form the regulations, then the Secretary of State will turn them into statutory instruments. They will enter a new queue here to be given the time to be dealt with.

I have had problems in the past with statutory instruments from the Department for Transport. The Public Service Vehicles (Accessible Information) Regulations 2023 were debated in the Moses Room on 16 May this year. It took five years from consultation before they were promulgated here. I am not sure what was achieved in those five years, because the regulations were not changed. The only thing that happened was delay.

I think we all agree that the Bill is urgent, important and should be done immediately. As my noble friend Lord Moylan mentioned, it is good news that the Government, in their Amendment 46, use the word “immediately”:

“Transport for London must, immediately after making pedicab regulations, send the statutory instrument containing them to the Secretary of State”.


Should we not volunteer to propose the regulations as statutory instruments immediately? I understand that, even then, there would be a queue, but the word “immediately” does not seem to have produced the urgency that is truly required.

This is a very good Bill. I disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who said that the taxes are regulated by the Secretary of State. I think he will find that they used to be, a long time ago in the old and hallowed days when they were regulated through the police force—and very much better they were, too—but, in recent years, they have been regulated by Transport for London. It can change things and get new regulations through much faster than would be implied by this structure. So, not only are they closer, as my noble friend Lord Moylan mentioned; they are also altogether faster than the system, which is inevitable with a big department.

I thank noble Lords. I hope that the Bill gets through as soon as possible because these vehicles are a small but dreadful scourge on the streets of London.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I find myself, in my position speaking for the Opposition, in favour of devolution on this issue. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said; I do not know why she thought that I would disagree but I agree totally with what she said.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Borwick Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 28th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I first declare my interest as an officer of the APPG for Self-Driving Vehicles and a business lifetime spent in the vehicle industry. I am also the father of a son who has learning difficulties and could, like many disabled people, certainly benefit from these vehicles. I have also been the chairman of the Greenwich trial technical committee. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that the pedestrian schoolchildren in that trial who thought it would be useful to leap out in front of an autonomous vehicle to see whether it stopped tried it two or three times and found that it did stop. After that, they found the whole experience extremely boring and stopped taunting the vehicle in this way—so in fact it was perfectly safe.

This is an enabling Bill, to enable what I hope is a great industry. We cannot be certain about the future, of course, but we can be fairly certain about the present. The present state of cars cannot be optimum. They are driven badly by humans who get bored, smoke, chat or argue with their family, get drunk and certainly produce urban pollution by accelerating too fast and braking too hard. Computers will be better drivers because they have more varied input than humans, and much better ability to concentrate on the problems. The question of the moment is: when did you last enjoy driving? Was it when there was less traffic and when there were fewer bicycles and bus lanes? Would we enjoy driving more in an autonomous vehicle? This Bill is quite wide in its power to demand information. The danger is only that too much information is delivered. If the department gets terabytes of data following an accident, will it realistically be able to cope?

There are people working on digital commentary systems, which tell the listener what is being observed and why the vehicle is doing something. The systems are analogous to the way of teaching a young driver to improve by getting them to comment on their driving decisions. How much useful information comes out will depend on the detailed decision process, but it certainly can be considered. The alternative is that, following an accident, somebody issues terabytes of data and we are no further forward in working out how to stop other vehicles with other systems repeating the accident. That happens now, because human drivers are very fallible in remembering their own faults. In general, the sooner we can get this Bill into law, the better.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Lord Borwick Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome my noble friend to his new post. He has a task to follow our excellent and long-suffering noble friend Lady Vere.

I first declare my interests as a London taxi proprietor, owner of a plated London taxi and occasional employer of licensed London taxi drivers. I drive my London taxi to the House of Lords car park and once overhead one of our great policemen saying to another, “Well at least one Lord’s got a proper job”. In the past, I have been a manufacturer, dealer and financier of London taxis, so I have quite a comprehensive list of London taxi interests, and I thoroughly support this simple Bill to enable TfL to control pedicabs. There are an awful lot of other things wrong on the streets of London, such as electric scooters abandoned on street corners, but I am not sure that there will be room in the Long Title of the Bill to put the solutions in.

To grant Transport for London the power to sort out this small, but dodgy, market for pedicabs seems eminently sensible, even though instinctively I do not like giving more powers to government, but why has it taken so long for this Bill to be introduced? My honourable friend in another place, Nickie Aiken, who is standing at the Bar, introduced a Private Member’s Bill in 2020, three years ago. Can the Minister explain why it has taken so long for the Bill to appear as a government Bill?

More importantly, this Bill is an enabling Bill, enabling TfL to bring forward regulations. When something is planned for the future, I like to identify the criterion of failure. What would make us agree that this Bill has been a success and a worthy subject for our deep consideration? Does my noble friend agree that, after three years of thought in his department, a further year is all that is needed to draft and promulgate the regulations?

Public Service Vehicles (Accessible Information) Regulations 2023

Lord Borwick Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, these draft regulations are being made to require audible and visible announcements on local bus and coach services across Great Britain. The powers to make these regulations were conferred by the Equality Act 2010, as amended by the Bus Services Act 2017.

The Government believe that everyone should be able to use their local buses confidently, safely and independently. For many disabled people, however, this can be incredibly difficult. Despite the strides made since the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations were introduced in 2000, certain stubborn barriers continue to frustrate, deter and in some cases prevent disabled passengers travelling by bus. Not least among these is the lack of information on board some buses. Using the bus might be straightforward enough for many passengers, but if you do not know where you are or where your stop is, your experience can quickly turn into a significant challenge.

Consider visually impaired people, for example. A survey by the charity Guide Dogs found that 70% of visually impaired respondents had missed their stop because the driver forgot to tell them when to get off. Faced with having to guess where to get off or to rely on strangers, many visually impaired people are understandably deterred from using the bus. On the London Underground, London buses and trains across Great Britain, noble Lords will have seen audio-visual announcements in action. This is not new technology: on-board announcements have been required on new trains since 1998. For more than 15 years, most bus services in London have provided on-board information, and certain operators, such as Brighton and Hove Buses and Transdev Blazefield, have led the way in their own areas. However, as noble Lords will be aware, there is still much more to be done.

Despite some good work by the industry, only 25% of vehicles in England outside London have the necessary equipment installed. This figure is 22% for Scotland and 34% for Wales. It cannot be right that from one town to the next the experiences of disabled passengers can be so radically different. Buses support people to lead fuller lives, connecting them to their communities. Unlocking the benefits of buses for everyone is key to this Government’s mission to level up and spread opportunity across the country. We want everyone to travel with confidence, whether they board a bus in London or Leeds, Edinburgh or Elgin, Cardiff or Carmarthen.

This is why we have introduced these draft regulations, which will require operators of local bus and coach services in Great Britain to provide audible and visible information on board the vehicle. They specify that this must include information about the route, the next stop, route termination, diversions and hail-and-ride sections. The regulations will establish a minimum standard of information that passengers should expect across the whole country. The Government’s goal is to see audible and visible information provided on virtually every vehicle used on local services, and we want to see it used to its full potential, not turned down or switched off. With this in mind, the regulations specify minimum requirements for text size and volume.

Since Ofcom research has consistently shown smartphone ownership to be lower among disabled people than non-disabled people, the regulations also prevent operators requiring passengers to use smartphones to access information. For the most part, however, these regulations are broadly “technology neutral” and focus on the information that must be provided. Operators will be able to choose the solutions that suit their services best. The emphasis on outcomes means that the regulations will make a clear and obvious difference to passengers, regardless of the technology used. For disabled people, this will mean the ability to travel much more confidently and independently, no matter where they are in Great Britain or which operator they travel with.

I think noble Lords will agree that all passengers stand to gain from having this information on board. Under the new regulations, any passenger will no longer have to rely on the goodwill or memory of a driver or passenger to tell them whether they are on the right bus or, indeed, when to alight, particularly when they are in unfamiliar territory.

In developing the regulations, we have struck a careful balance between the benefits to passengers and the costs of compliance to operators. Our extensive consultation with representatives of passengers, the industry and the devolved Administrations since 2018 has been vital to achieving this. As a result of this dialogue during the consultation period and subsequently, we have exempted certain types of services and vehicles from the new requirements, which will help keep them on the road and serving their communities. However, these exemptions are very limited.

By October 2026, the vast majority of local buses and coaches will have to provide audio-visual information to comply with these regulations. We have prepared guidance which will help the industry to understand the new requirements and go even further in capitalising on opportunities to enhance and promote upgraded passenger experiences for everybody.

As we look to achieve the aims of the national bus strategy, onboard information will have an important part to play in attracting those with a disability, and indeed those without one, back to buses. On enforcement, we know that operators will want to do the right thing; we will give them the information they need to comply. However, bus passenger groups such as Bus Users UK and London TravelWatch will be involved from day one in arbitrating on passenger complaints and referring them to the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency where appropriate. If the DVSA identifies sustained, negligent, or intentional cases of non-compliance, the cases will be referred to the traffic commissioner. This measured, proportionate approach will empower passengers to secure and enjoy the benefits of these regulations. This will help to establish accessible information as a staple of the Great British bus user experience.

In summary, these regulations will drive significant improvements to the accessibility of local transport in this country. They will bring us closer to realising our vision of a country where local services truly work for everyone and nobody is left behind. I beg to move.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in that I have a son with learning difficulties, and have trusteeships of charities in the register and lots of past interests in the accessibility industry and public transport.

This is an excellent statutory instrument filled with good ideas that will be helpful to a range of people with many different disabilities. However, I gather that consultation for it started in June 2018. Presumably work in the department started some time before that. Can my noble friend tell us when? After consultation, how can it possibly have taken five years to bring this statutory instrument in? Surely, if the consultation confirms that the idea is good, it must become a priority for the department to achieve it.

This is not particularly original technology; as my noble friend mentioned, it is available in many different countries around the world and in London. Yet a mature plan copying the system in other countries has taken five years to bring in. Is not the pride in having done so eclipsed by the shame that it took so long? Does the department consider five years to be reasonable in this matter? Can my noble friend say how many other disability measures are now outstanding? How long does the department expect it to take for them to be brought into action?

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in support of these regulations. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the manner in which she introduced them. Were it not for her assiduity, we might still be waiting for them. Perhaps, if the regulations were a bus, we might all have chosen to walk by this stage. Having said that, the bus is such a critical part of public transport. Public transport is transport for the totality of the public. As we have already heard, seven in 10 guide-dog users say that they have missed their stop for want of the driver remembering to tell them. It should not be on the driver. This technology could have been in place years ago. Public transport should and must be inclusive.

It is more than just inclusion; it is inclusion as the golden thread to levelling up. Some 98% of buses in London have audio and visible devices, but the figure falls to less than a quarter of that in many other parts of the country. I was privileged to launch the Manchester talking buses, not this year or last year but in 2016, and in London buses had audio and visible displays before then. It cannot be that if you happen to be a person with access needs outside a major metropolitan area and you want to use the bus, it is a case of, “Good luck getting on board and getting off at the correct stop”.

Buses have the potential to connect people and places, but they must be built on inclusive design. Audio and visible displays are a critical part of that. The explanatory notes to these regulations are good—they highlight the benefits for disabled people, but would the Minister agree that these are benefits for all people? The critical point to understand about inclusive by design is that if you make a change that benefits disabled people, everybody benefits.

If you had access needs and you wanted to go to work, the shops or the pub, or to meet a mate, why would you do that if you thought the bus might not stop? You may not have any way of knowing when it is the correct stop to get off at—if you manage to get on board. All that anxiety and stress can and must be taken away by buses being inclusive by design. Audio and visible displays are critical to that.

I have a number of questions for my noble friend the Minister. First, in terms of extent, the regulations cover England, Scotland and Wales. What will the situation be for those with access needs, and indeed for people who may just not know the area, in Northern Ireland? Secondly, can she update the Grand Committee on where the proposed guidance currently is and what progress is being made on that?

Thirdly, will bus companies be able to see how they can go further, beyond the requirements of these regulations, and potentially look at opportunities to give more information to passengers, not by crowding the audio and visible displays but through other allied means, potentially giving more information on history or sites of interest to make the bus journey not only inclusive but more interesting and engaging?

Fourthly, can the Minister inform the Grand Committee what research has been undertaken on the impact of journeys moving from cars, taxis and other modes of transport to the bus? What economic analysis has been undertaken, and what does that mean when one balances those modes of transport with the hopeful increase in bus travel that these regulations will deliver?

Fifthly, the Secretary of State has an obligation to review the regulations within five years. Does the Minister agree that, particularly in that first five-year period, it would be critical to have a review far sooner than that five-year end point?

Queen’s Speech

Lord Borwick Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I will use my time today to raise the issue of guaranteed universal access to taxis for disabled people. First, I declare my interests in the taxi industry as the holder of a London taxi proprietor’s licence, the owner of a licensed London taxi and the employer of a London taxi driver. My experience of many years in the London taxi industry is as a manufacturer, distributor, financier, developer and driver.

The Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Act, which as a Private Member’s Bill I had the privilege of proposing in this House a few months ago, has made it easier to stop the discrimination that still occurs. In a previous debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned how, late at night and with an almost flat battery on her wheelchair, she once faced a rank of about 10 taxis out of which only two were accessible. Both drivers discriminated against her even though they had an accessible taxi. This is clearly unacceptable.

As a result of that Bill, which has just passed, such discrimination will be confirmed as illegal. Everybody else might have believed it already was—but never mind, it is always good to make a position clear. However, it took me back to the then Disability Discrimination Bill’s Committee stage debate in this House, in which the Minister, the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said:

“It is therefore the Government’s clear intention, as part of the package of measures covering all forms of domestic, land-based public transport, to bring before this Chamber, in the course of our deliberations on this Bill, provisions to require that, from days to be determined, taxis newly licensed must, as a condition of licence, be accessible to all disabled people, including those who use wheelchairs.”—[Official Report, 15/6/1995; col. 2035.]


The problem is that he said this would happen from a date to be determined—but the Government never determined which date. In 27 years, no Government have found the time to propose the statutory instruments required. In the intermediate time since 1995, all the political parties have had time in government, or as part of a Government. The successes and failures since that time can be shared among all, other than the Greens—although I am sure they would have helped had they had the chance.

It seems reasonable for me to ask my noble friend the Minister quite how determined Her Majesty’s Government are to fulfil the obligation announced by Lord Mackay, and over what period of time. The meter is running, so to speak—27 years is on the clock so far—and the people who have been and will be paying for this are those people who are disabled and who might reasonably have expected transport. All Governments since 1995 have achieved great things. Buses are now 100% accessible. On trains, accessibility has significantly improved. Even significant portions of the Underground have been adapted. Access to places of work and entertainment, as well as houses, has been granted. Even in this place, the Palace of Westminster, incredible strides forward have been taken. Things are not perfect, but they are notably better—although it might be said that the most striking place in the Palace of Westminster that has not been adapted is the Throne.

What makes it a shame is that UK taxis, which might have been the first accessible public transport in the world, are not yet 100% accessible. It is still a lottery as to whether the disabled person will gain the services of an accessible vehicle. The disabled person will live in an accessible house or flat and work in an accessible office or shop—but they face a matter of chance as to whether they can get there.

The subject of this debate is not just transport but levelling up and communities. The Government have said that where there are features that make London more successful, they should be duplicated in other parts of the country. Is this not a perfect example of a regulation where levelling up should be applied? I fear that if the Government do not make it mandatory that taxis need be wheelchair and disability accessible within some sort of timeframe, they are condoning a situation in which disabled people in London have more rights and opportunities than those outside London, which is the opposite of levelling up. We want to bring communities together.

My noble friend the Minister may well tell us that there is a consultation open at present on the regulation of taxis, to be considered by the Government, and she might reasonably ask for this consultation period to finish before she announces her policy. If she will forgive me, I wonder whether there is any reason for further consultation on this issue. The point is that the policy has already been announced by her great Conservative predecessors, and that policy has been supported by the other parties. The only thing that has not occurred is action. I have been told that the policy is unchanged and that taxis will eventually be accessible—but when?

Although I am very grateful to the Minister for her time recently, may I request a further meeting on this, with her advisers present this time and in person? I would really like to help bring this change about. It is very positive that the Bill—now Act—I was part of has made it illegal to discriminate against a disabled person if a taxi is able to accommodate them. However, we really must go further, as our Conservative predecessor wished to all those decades before, and make taxis

“as a condition of licence, be accessible to all disabled people, including those who use wheelchairs.”—[Official Report, 15/6/1995; col. 2035.]

We really must make this change.

Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Bill

Lord Borwick Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 1st April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I want first to declare my interests in the taxi industry as the holder of a London taxi proprietor’s licence, the owner of a licensed London taxi and the employer of a London taxi driver. My experience is of very many years in the London taxi industry, as manufacturer, distributor, financier, developer and driver. I welcome this Bill, proposed by my noble friend Lord McLoughlin. He has such experience and wisdom in politics that the only thing I would dare to challenge him on is driving and being driven in a taxi. As much of my speech and this Bill is about disability, I should declare that my son has a learning disability.

In the mid-1990s, when I led the project to produce a new, traditional London taxi that would carry wheelchairs, I never thought that 27 years after the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 it would still be necessary to do something about discrimination. Alas, it is, and this Bill will do it, where perhaps it still rarely exists. My plan was to carry wheelchairs in the taxi without the majority of passengers even being aware that the taxi was wheelchair-accessible; you cannot discriminate against wheelchair users if you do not even know the vehicle is wheelchair-accessible. That is why I argued successfully that all London taxis should be accessible. Many of my sales staff told me that we could get away with only a few of our taxis being accessible—perhaps 3% or 5%—but I wanted 100% of our production to be like that.

In her speech on 4 March, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, told a story of being refused by two taxi drivers in the rank at Watford station, but that those were the only wheelchair-accessible ones on the rank at that time. All the others refused by being designed not to take her—or to be fairer, not designed to take her wheelchair. This is the problem that a lot of taxi systems in the world have found when they try to make only a small percentage of the fleet accessible. In London, we have a great system, because 100% of the fleet is accessible—that is, 100% of taxis but only a few of the private hire vehicles or minicabs. In 1995, there was a lot of agreement with my noble friend’s department that we would move to a system of 100% accessibility in the taxi fleet countrywide. This has not yet happened, and it results in a lottery as to whether a travelling wheelchair user gets to a rank that has an accessible vehicle at the front. This is wrong in my opinion.

There are other things about the Bill that could be improved, not least Clause 3, on providing lists of wheelchair-accessible vehicles. I am still confused. Does that mean lists of vehicle types or actual vehicles? Such lists are no doubt valuable. Google has achieved great things by producing lists of the obvious and making them free. But perfecting the way that separate licensing authorities produce and, in the future, publish the same list is not a great step forward for accessibility for disabled people. We need accessible taxis, and we are being provided with lists of accessible taxis. I would like to request a meeting with my noble friend, and perhaps also with the Minister for Disabled People, to discuss how the Department for Transport, which used to be a crusading champion for practical accessibility, could renew that proud ethos.

Lastly, I would like to wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. It is not a shot at the goal of universal accessibility; it is barely a shuffle in that direction, coupled with dire warnings that we must not amend it to make it actually do something useful. But it does no harm to the cause, and therefore I welcome it.