Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 6th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

That the Bill do now pass.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the consideration of the Bill. Your Lordships’ invaluable insights, careful consideration and scrutiny have helped guide government amendments and resulted in a Bill that is not only in excellent shape but is one which I am confident we are sending to the other place with a consensus from your Lordships’ House.

As I mentioned at Second Reading, the Government have been committed to bringing forward this legislation when parliamentary time allowed. I am pleased to have had the privilege of taking this small but very important Bill through the House, and that your Lordships have been united in supporting the principle behind the Bill—namely, addressing the legal anomaly concerning London’s pedicabs.

Before I move on to my thanks, I will first draw noble Lords’ attention to an update following Report last week. My department published guidance on 1 February relating to the safe use of batteries in e-cycles and e-scooters. This matter has been raised consistently throughout the Bill’s passage through this House.

The guidance will raise awareness for owners on how to safely purchase an e-cycle or e-scooter and ensure that these meet manufacturing requirements and are bought only from reputable sellers. Other matters covered by the guidance included safe storage and charging, the warning signs for fire risk and how to address them, and how to dispose of batteries responsibly. I hope your Lordships consider this a helpful development and, as I mentioned in my comments on Report, the Office for Product Safety & Standards, and Defra, are in the process of reviewing the position with regard to batteries.

I now commence my thanks by recognising the critical role of my honourable friend Nickie Aiken, the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster, in raising awareness of the issue of pedicab regulation in London. She has been a tireless campaigner and shown commitment and determination in ensuring the legislation be brought before Parliament.

I am also most grateful for the constructive way the Opposition Front Benches have engaged with the Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their thoughtful contributions both on the Floor of the House and outside. I thank all the other noble Lords who have contributed with such clarity; playing their part in ensuring that the Bill we send to the other place is in great shape. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, who has been a prominent supporter of my honourable friend Nickie Aiken’s campaign.

I hope noble Lords will join me in thanking all the policy officials and lawyers in both the Department for Transport and across government, whose efforts have contributed to making the Bill happen. I thank in particular the Bill team, Kenny Way, Chris and Donelle, and Adam Lawless in my private office. I also extend my gratitude to—I apologise for not having their surnames—Diggory and Douglas, the drafters in the Office for Parliamentary Counsel, who have prepared the Bill and its amendments during its passage.

Finally, I thank Transport for London for its engagement and support in bringing the Bill forward. The Bill will ensure that TfL has the tools it needs to effectively regulate pedicabs for the first time, and the Government look forward to a regulatory regime being implemented. As we send the Bill to the other place, I am confident that it will need very little, if any, amending. The Bill will make London’s roads safer and address the anti-social nuisance caused by rogue pedicabs.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the officials who have worked on this Bill and the Minister’s private office for the work they have put in. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for taking due account of the points that we made in the passage of the Bill. On the main question of how this regulation is going to be conducted, we have reached an acceptable consensus, and I thank him very much for that. I also welcome his statement today about the battery issue, which I think is a real public health and safety hazard. I am glad to see the Government recognising that and doing something about it.

This Bill, while not the most important piece of legislation we have ever seen—indeed, I think I may have remarked before that it basically affects two wards of a single London borough—is nonetheless tackling something that has been a considerable nuisance by ensuring that the pedicab sector is properly regulated and does not damage London’s reputation as an attractive tourist centre, which I think is very important. So we support the Third Reading of this Bill and look forward to its quick passage in the other place.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to those of other noble Lords. Getting this Bill through your Lordships’ House has been very interesting process. There must have been a record number of people who went to see the clerks in the Public Bill Office and said they would like to add something about scooters and batteries, how you should ride scooters and that you should not do it on the pavement. We were all told—quite rightly—go away because it was outside scope. Now, at least the Minister has said that he and his department are looking at that and will also look at batteries, which are a very important part of it. One day, perhaps with this Government or probably the next Government, we might see something about riding bikes, electric or otherwise, and scooters where they are supposed to be, which is on the road, not on the pavement.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I have nothing further to add. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

1: Clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert “(including, in particular, provision about making noise)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment spells out that provision in pedicab regulations about the conduct of drivers can include provision about making noise. Regulations might, for example, prohibit a driver from making certain kinds of noise or noise over a certain volume at some or all times or in some or all places.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for your Lordships’ continued interest in this small but important Bill. The Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords, and I reiterate what I have said in private sessions: that your Lordships’ engagement has helped the Government reflect on the Bill’s provisions.

The first group today consists of a single amendment. It will amend Clause 2(6)(i), which relates to the conduct of pedicab drivers. It will specify that pedicab regulations can include provisions about making noise. During Grand Committee, I was clear that the Bill as drafted provided sufficient scope for pedicab regulations to address the issue of noise, under Clause 2(6). Furthermore, Transport for London has provided assurance that the playing of loud music and causing disturbance would be covered in its regulations.

However, it was clear that your Lordships felt particularly strongly about this issue. This is understandable. The Government are aware of the stories of loud music being played from pedicabs during the day and long into the night, and understand the disruption this causes to residents, businesses and those going about their daily lives. The Government have therefore tabled the amendment in recognition of the importance of this issue and to support the emergence of an effective regulatory regime.

Consistent with the approach taken in the Bill, the precise manner in which noise nuisance is addressed will be for Transport for London to determine in bringing forward regulations, and, again, this will be subject to consultation as per Clause 1(3). I hope that noble Lords welcome this amendment and that it satisfactorily addresses any outstanding concerns. I beg to move.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the amendment tabled by my noble friend. I am hugely grateful to him for having listened carefully during our debates in Committee. I congratulate him on the influence he has been able to have in the department in securing the Secretary of State’s agreement to this change.

I note that my noble friend said that in the Government’s view, the Bill’s original wording was sufficient to tackle the concern about noise; none the less, it is reassuring to have noise provisions in the Bill. I should be particularly pleased if my noble friend emphasised when he winds up that the explanatory statement alongside the amendment on the Marshalled List points out that the regulations that can be made to deal with noise, and which would be subject to consultation by Transport for London, might

“prohibit a driver from making certain kinds of noise or noise over a certain volume at some or all times or in some or all places.”

As my noble friend knows, one of my concerns, and one of the reasons why I was keen to get provisions on noise in the Bill, is that there has been a tendency to talk about noise only after a certain time of day. The existing law that allows any clampdown on noise pollution very much kicks in after a certain time and, as we know, the noise made by these vehicles and their drivers can be particularly disturbing and disruptive at any time of day. That is worth us reinforcing, so that TfL knows the expectation of this House.

As this is probably the last time I will speak during the passage of the Bill, I thank my noble friend again and congratulate him on his successful stewardship of this important Bill, which people have waited a long time for in London. I congratulate him on what he has been able to achieve over the past couple of months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition, I will be very brief. We support this amendment and congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward; it demonstrates that Members of the House have been listened to. There is clearly a problem of noise created by pedicabs, and it affects people of all social classes who live in Soho, Mayfair and parts of Westminster. We are glad to see this amendment being proposed.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the acceptance of this amendment. We recognise the point made by my noble friend Lady Stowell about noise being disallowed after 9 pm. Clearly, during the winter months and dark nights it is not good to have this sort of behaviour and high levels of noise on the streets. That was very much behind the thinking in bringing this amendment forward. I am very grateful to all other noble Lords who have spoken, and I will certainly pass the thanks on to the team.

Amendment 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, we on this side of the House have enormous sympathy for the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has proposed, and I find myself, at least on this occasion, in full agreement with the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Borwick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. However, it is the Government’s decision that one of the few transport measures they were prepared to put in their programme for this Session was a pedicabs Bill which, of course, is of very limited reach and scope. In fact, you could say that its reach is two wards of a single London borough. That is a pity, given that the country has enormous transport challenges in front of it, such as a failing railway system and the need for bus regulation. I could go on.

However, one of the issues that clearly has to be addressed is the one highlighted in this amendment. Although it would be inappropriate to try to carry amendments on this question of electric batteries, I hoped that the Minister might be able—indeed, I have urged him privately to do this—to come up with a timetable for when the Government might address these wider and more important questions. I am looking forward to his speech because it seems to me that in the House we have had a lot of concern raised about electric batteries and about the experimental period, as it were, of regulation of e-scooters, and we do not know how long that is going to go on for or what the outcome is eventually going to be. I would have thought that the Government must have a plan—after all, they are, I assume, thinking they might be re-elected—so we would quite like to know what future plans the Government have on what are very important and serious matters in which lives are at stake.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for their diligence in scrutinising this Bill’s provisions. This second group of amendments is focused on electric pedicabs. My department is aware of concerns held by noble Lords surrounding batteries in e-cycles and e-scooters. Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, seeks to place a requirement on the Government to introduce independent conformity assessment processes for electrically powered pedicabs and the batteries used to power these vehicles. If I may say so, she Baroness puts her case well, and I will now seek to answer some of her points.

Noble Lords may recall my response to an amendment tabled in Committee on conformity assessments and potentially placing requirements on power-assisted pedicabs. My response to the amendment debated today will echo my previous position. The Bill is about closing the legal anomaly so that London pedicabs can be licensed for the first time. The amendment raises a much wider question about the construction of electrically assisted pedal cycles.

The UKCA, the UK conformity assessment marking, and its EU equivalent, the CE, the conformité Européene, demonstrate a manufacturer’s claim of conformity with statutory requirements. All e-cycles and e-scooters need to comply with UK product safety regulations. This includes the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008, which set out the detailed health and safety requirements for the design and construction of a product. Additionally, there is an existing requirement in these machinery regulations that responsible persons for all machinery within scope, which would include power-assisted pedicabs, must draw up a detailed technical file and a declaration of conformity. There are existing requirements to carry out appropriate conformity assessment procedures. In instances where the responsible person does not comply with existing requirements, they are in breach of the regulations.

The Government are seeking to reform the UK’s product safety framework through the product safety review. The Office for Product Safety and Standards is currently reviewing responses to its consultation on how it regulates all products on the GB market, including machinery, and where multiple regulations apply to specific products. The Government’s intention is to publish a response later this year that summarises findings and sets out its future plans.

Product regulations would not cover a scenario whereby a pedicab driver or operator adapted their power-assisted pedicab following purchase, However, Clause 2(6) provides Transport for London with the ability to make provisions relating to matters such as safety requirements, testing, speed restrictions, and the quality and roadworthiness of pedicabs. Therefore, there is sufficient scope for Transport for London to determine the expected standards for pedicabs operating on London’s roads.

Although pedicab batteries when not supplied as part of a pedicab would not be subject to a regime that requires the UK conformity assessment marking to be affixed to them, their safety would be covered by the General Product Safety Regulations. These regulations require that all consumer products placed on the market are safe. Furthermore, batteries must comply with the Batteries and Accumulators (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008, which restrict the substances used in batteries and accumulators, as well as setting out requirements for their environmentally friendly end of life.

In bringing my comments to a conclusion, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the work of the Office for Product Safety and Standards, and Defra. They are in the process of reviewing the position on batteries. This includes examining the new EU battery directive and looking into the safety of the lithium-ion batteries used in e-cycles and e-scooters. This work should conclude in 2024. Alongside this, my department is developing guidance on the safe use of batteries in e-cycles and e-scooters, and we will publish this soon. I respectfully suggest that the Bill, with its narrow focus on licensing London pedicabs, is not the place to start tackling this issue. It is best dealt with as part of the wider work being taken forward by the Office for Product Safety and Standards and by Defra.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response, although it was rather disappointing. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, makes the point that this is not the right place for these regulations, but he accepts that there is a clear danger. I simply approach it from the point of view that this might be a good place to start dealing with this danger. However, I accept that pedicabs make up a tiny percentage of the problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, says.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

3: Clause 6, page 4, line 24, leave out subsection (2)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that pedicab regulations will no longer be subject to any form of parliamentary procedure.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this final group of amendments covers the process for regulations made under the Bill. Amendment 3 places responsibility for making pedicab regulations solely with Transport for London, meaning that pedicab regulations will no longer be subject to any form of parliamentary procedure.

Noble Lords will be aware that this marks a shift in the Government’s approach. The Government have listened to, and reflected on, the points raised at Second Reading and in Grand Committee, and reached the conclusion that these powers should rest with Transport for London. The Government have reached this view for several important reasons. First, it is consistent with the position for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing in the capital, where Transport for London has demonstrable experience of operating effective licensing regimes. Secondly, the Bill’s provisions extend to Greater London only, addressing the legal anomaly that has meant that London’s pedicab industry has been unregulated. The Bill presents a solution to a London-centric issue. Thirdly and finally, the relative size of the pedicab industry in London is an important factor. Estimates suggest that pedicab numbers range from 200 up to 900 in peak season. This is a significantly smaller industry than London’s taxi and PHV industries, where there are over 100,000 licensed vehicles and over 120,000 licensed drivers. Therefore, this amendment offers a proportionate approach.

While I am confident that this amendment is supported by the majority of your Lordships, I am aware that there may be some noble Lords concerned that Transport for London would seize this opportunity to remove all pedicabs from London’s streets, or to impose draconian restrictions that all but ban these vehicles. I reiterate that I do not—

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I apologise for jumping in on this point but it is very important. The Minister said that the generation of regulations would be solely the responsibility of Transport for London, which is exactly where we seek to be. In preparing for this debate I looked through the Bill, and all the Minister’s amendment does—I say “all” but it may be enough, in which case I will be delighted—is to take a subsection out of Clause 6. Can I be assured that that subsection’s deletion effectively removes any DfT input to the creation of regulations other than the amendment that goes with it to introduce guidance?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Yes, that is my understanding of the amendment and is correct.

Although I am confident that this amendment is supported by the majority of your Lordships, as I said, I am aware that some noble Lords may be concerned that Transport for London would seize this opportunity to remove all pedicabs from London’s streets or to impose draconian restrictions. However, I reiterate that I do not understand this to be TfL’s intention and, furthermore, it is highly unlikely that pedicab regulations could be used to do this.

However, this moves me to Amendment 4, which gives the Secretary of State the option of issuing statutory guidance to Transport for London relating to how functions under pedicab regulations are exercised. The amendment specifies that statutory guidance may cover how functions are exercised so as to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm. This amendment intends to strike a balance with the removal of parliamentary procedure for secondary legislation made under the Bill. The Government remain aware this will be a newly regulated industry, and this amendment will give the Secretary of State the option of influencing the shape of the London pedicab regime.

Transport for London or any person authorised by it to carry out functions under pedicab regulations on its behalf will need to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. This provides a level of oversight which I hope provides assurance to any noble Lords with concerns. Further to this, Clause 1(3) requires TfL to conduct a consultation prior to making pedicab regulations.

I hope this demonstrates that the Government have listened, and that these amendments are viewed by your Lordships as a thoughtful way forward, one which will best enable Transport for London to commence work on bringing forward its regulatory regime. I beg to move.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, this is almost full circle for me. About six years ago I received several complaints about pedicabs, and I tabled Written Questions for the then Minister, to be told straight off, “It is nothing to do with the Government—it is a matter for Transport for London”. Therefore, it is quite good that, coming full circle, many of these issues will be taken—with guidance—by Transport for London. That is the right and proper place for some of these issues; it makes sense to me.

I am particularly pleased that notice has been taken of safeguarding issues, particularly for children, and I am sure guidance will include that, and for anybody who is in a vulnerable situation as well, whether it be children or young women. That is absolutely right and proper.

I slightly worry that the issue of identification has not taken place. For example, if a pedicab driver does something that is not correct or behaves in an outrageous way—as we have often seen happen—as I understand it, there is no way to identify who is the owner or the driver of that pedicab and therefore to take action. I hope that this issue might be raised, maybe in guidance to Transport for London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I first thank the Minister, as others have done, for the amount of time he has taken on this Bill. Our central concern was that this is a London problem, and we created TfL to look after London’s problems. Now, I am in favour of TfL—somewhat biasedly, because I helped create it—but it has lived up to our expectations and has done a good job over the 23 years of its existence. It is very much the right organisation to do this task.

I thank the Minister for his Amendment 3, which he assures me will give TfL sole responsibility for developing regulations. I do take the point about why subsections (1), (3) and (4) are being retained, but I am sure it is all right because I have faith in the wonderful drafting powers of his team. If, upon consideration, they become a concern, I am sure that a government amendment will be tabled at Third Reading to amend any conflicts between the different parts. I hope he will give that consideration, if his team do advise him that there is a conflict.

Having said that I am in favour of Transport for London doing this task, I grudgingly accept that some of the concerns about TfL getting carried away and banning everything in sight, and making people bankrupt by charging them utterly unreasonable fees et cetera, do make a case for Amendment 4. Therefore, I recognise that that is the trade-off between the important position to take throughout the parliamentary process, while making sure there is a potential for government to create guidance that TfL has to have regard to. The balance between the two amendments, from our point of view, is acceptable.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has produced Amendment 5, which is drafted very much in the terms of many of her amendments, in the sense that it is motherhood. I am actually in favour of motherhood; it helps the world go round, and it says a series of sensible things. But the problem with putting something in legislation is whether it says all the things that should be said, or whether, conversely, it contradicts things that might be wanted. I am afraid I cannot support her. I do not think it is her intention to press the amendment, but I do commend it as a questionnaire for the Minister, to clarify the Government’s position on the points raised.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I once again thank your Lordships for their careful consideration of the Bill. I have outlined the purpose of the Government’s amendments in this group, and will now address Amendment 5, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.

I first reiterate the Government’s objective in bringing forward this Bill. The purpose is to provide Transport for London with the tools it needs to regulate London’s pedicabs so that journeys and vehicles are safer and fairer. This means addressing both the safety-related and traffic-related concerns, and tackling the antisocial and nuisance behaviour of certain pedicab operators and drivers.

Amendment 5, which attempts to set objectives to which the Secretary of State must have regard when issuing statutory guidance, shares the Government’s objectives. However, this has been tabled in response to the Government’s Amendment 4, which provides the Secretary of State with the option of issuing statutory guidance to Transport for London relating to the exercise of its functions and the pedicab regulations. This provides clear parameters for the scope of any statutory guidance and therefore Amendment 5 is not necessary, as the matters it covers are addressed by provisions in the Bill. In addition, I note that prescribing in detail what the Secretary of State must consider when issuing guidance could have the effect of inadvertently excluding from the scope of the guidance matters which have not been specifically listed. For this reason, a general approach is considered preferable.

I will highlight some of the relevant provisions in the Bill. Clause 2(5) covers fares, including what fares may be charged and how passengers are notified of these. Clause 2(6) covers a wide range of issues relating to the operation of London’s pedicabs. This includes safety, the quality and roadworthiness of pedicabs, the working conditions of drivers and their conduct. Clause 2(7) gives Transport for London the power to place limitations on where and when pedicabs can operate, and Transport for London has already confirmed it will need to give proper consideration to the matter of pedicab ranks, taking into account the needs of pedicab drivers, passengers and other road users. Clause 3 sets out the enforcement mechanisms available to Transport for London and includes details of penalties.

A couple of points were raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, talked about identification of the pedicabs. That really will be a matter for Transport for London, however it intends to license them. I can think of various ways it could do it; I am sure he could as well but it will be a matter for Transport for London. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, regarding the need to consult, that is written into the Bill, most certainly, and I feel quite sure that cycling organisations will be included in that. I think that more or less covers everything apart from the point from the noble Lord, Lord Borwick. On that, we can confirm that this is solely Transport for London’s responsibility.

Amendment 3 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

4: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to Transport for London about the exercise of their functions under pedicab regulations.(2) The guidance may, in particular, include guidance about how those functions may be exercised so as to protect children, and vulnerable individuals who are 18 or over, from harm.(3) The Secretary of State may revise any guidance issued under this section.(4) The Secretary of State must arrange for any guidance issued under this section, and any revision of it, to be published.(5) Transport for London, and any person authorised by them to carry out functions under pedicab regulations on their behalf, must have regard to any guidance issued under this section when exercising their functions under the regulations.(6) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult whoever the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member's explanatory statement
This clause allows the Secretary of State to give guidance to TfL about the exercise of functions under pedicab regulations. Subsection (5) requires TfL, and those authorised by TfL to exercise functions under the regulations, to have regard to the guidance when exercising functions under the regulations.

East Coast Main Line

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with train operators about changes to the East Coast Mainline timetable in December 2024.

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

My Lords, the department holds regular discussions with its operators to ensure that they continue to respond to changes in demand, balancing capacity and reliability with value for money for taxpayers. As part of the December 2023 timetable change, the department agreed that London North Eastern Railway should provide some additional Sunday services and the Rail North Partnership agreed some reductions to TransPennine Express services to stabilise the service while it completes its driver training programme.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, Berwick-upon-Tweed station, serving the Scottish borders and north Northumberland, normally has a quite good hourly train service on the east coast main line. However, now LNER has resurrected the previous abandoned plan to slash that service by half from December, so that the trains will be only every two hours and with longer journey times. Is the Minister prepared to challenge this—or is publicly owned LNER doing what the Government have told it to do?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The industry is currently close to finalising its response to the east coast main line major timetable change consultation that was undertaken in 2021. While it will not be possible to address every concern raised, I am confident that the industry proposal is an improvement over what was offered in consultation. The Rail Minister is in regular contact with Transport for the North, having met with the chair and chief executive in recent months.

[Lord Haselhurst (Con)]

My Lords, has the Minister been able to assess the amount of spare capacity on the rail system serving both north and east of a critical place in what we call the east of England? Does he agree that there needs to be a plan for the future—maybe one that cannot be implemented immediately but that we can set our minds on to ensure that it takes place without waiting another 10 or 20 years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My noble friend will be aware that we had the Williams-Shapps review into the creation of Great British Railways but unfortunately have not had time in this Session to introduce legislation. However, I take his point, which is well made.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister explain why this government-owned railway, LNER, has apparently changed all the fare structures to remove most saver and supersaver fares—presumably with the intention of reducing the number of passengers that use it?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

At the Bradshaw address, the Secretary of State committed to expanding single-leg pricing, on most of LNER’s network, for example. This went live on 11 June 2023. In the plan for rail, we set out our intention to simplify fares and improve the passenger experience. We are determined to find innovative ways to get people back into rail.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, next year will celebrate the bicentenary of the original railway line, between Darlington and Stockton-on-Tees. Would it not be extraordinary to reduce the service from Darlington—and Northallerton—to London in what is its bicentennial year? Will the Minister use his good offices to examine the timetable which LNER is proposing for next year, to ensure that we continue to have good hourly services to these regular commuter runs?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I hear what my noble friend says. I will certainly take it back and have a look at it.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister implies that the 2024 timetable is more or less complete. That would have involved seven railway operators, Network Rail and the DfT achieving a consensus. Such a consensus would have had winners and losers. Who made the decision as to who would be the losers?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

With great respect to the noble Lord, I am not too sure that I understand his question. Perhaps we can have a look at it later.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, when there was a proposal to close railway ticket offices, we saw how essential public consultation was in revealing the true impact of a planned change. In the Minister’s response, he referred to a consultation on this LNER timetable change that took place in 2021. Three years on, things are very different. Can he assure us that there has been public consultation since then and that there was full public consultation before this changed timetable was introduced?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I assure the noble Baroness that the Government are committed to full consultation on the issue.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Transport for the North. Some of the difficult decisions that have had to be taken have been partly because of the upgrading of the trans-Pennine route, which is a huge investment as far as the Government are concerned over the next few years. Will my noble friend assure us that the planned upgrade for York station, which will allow greater capacity eventually to serve areas such as Berwick-upon-Tweed, is in the Government’s future plans?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

A lot of these changes to the trans-Pennine route are part of the Making Journeys Better plan, outlining how TransPennine Express under DfT OLR Holdings will work to make things better. Having completed an in-depth review of the business, these services are expected to be restored from December 2024. I will have to come back to my noble friend on his question about the railway station.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the problems of the east coast main line, important though they may be, pale into insignificance for those of us who have the misfortune to use the west coast main line? Given the fact that Avanti trains’ punctuality levels in the last six months of 2023 plumbed the depths of 43.5%—the worst in railway history, as far as I can ascertain—can he tell the House what those improvements outlined by the Secretary of State were before it was given another nine years of inflicting misery on the rest of us?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

As the noble Lord knows, the department awarded a new National Rail contract to First Trenitalia to continue operating the west coast partnership in September 2023. The decision to award the contract to it was contingent on the operator continuing to win back the confidence of passengers. The Rail Minister and officials have met regularly with First Group and Avanti’s senior management to understand the challenges and hold them to account for issues within their control. In fact, I understand that the Rail Minister met with them only this month.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, as I was coming in on a very pleasant journey from the beautiful city of Salisbury in the south-west on Monday, I went through the new schedule of train strikes that have been thrust at us again. I seem to remember that a couple of months ago we spent many long nights debating minimum service levels. I am confused, so could the Minister help me in my confusion?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My noble friend is right; we did spend many hours debating this. We now have the minimum services levels Act and, frankly, the department expects train operators to make use of the legislation wherever appropriate.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is the decision by the Government to award Avanti another contract not rewarding failure? Do we not need a regulator that will put passengers first and the companies second?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I take the noble Lord’s point, but the Government do put passengers first. The Government are concerned with passengers getting value for money, and we take this very seriously.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, in the last 10 years, £75.2 billion of subsidy has been handed to rail companies. In return, the public do not own a single engine, carriage or seat, and it is impossible to even get the machines at rail stations to tell you what a good route or fare is. How many more billions need to be handed to rail companies before we can get an affordable and reliable train service?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The Government have put an awful lot of money into the railways. It is about time perhaps that some of the railways delivered back for the good of the people—the taxpayer, who has put an enormous amount of money into the railways.

Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 2023

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Lords Chamber

I look to the Minister to explain, within the ORR’s own rules at the moment, how this could be justified. I hope that he is able to produce an answer, either now or in a further document, on how the department came to these conclusions.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of the Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 2023 and for the many informed points that were raised, which I will now try to answer. I do not have to declare anything, but I do have a passionate interest in heritage railways: there is nothing quite like a Santa special with the grandchildren.

These regulations are made under the powers conferred by the Transport and Works Act 1992. They address a long-standing concern by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch about the effectiveness of signs at these types of level crossings. The regulations will apply to England, Scotland and Wales. The regulations were subject to the negative procedure and came into force on 18 November 2023.

I will now provide some background information about the legislation. There are two categories of level crossing on Great Britain’s rail network, which are governed by separate legislation: crossings where the railway bisects a public right of way and crossings where the railway bisects a private right of way. These regulations cover the second category and replace the Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 1996. There are around 3,200 private crossings in Great Britain. Around 2,500 of these are on Network Rail’s tracks, around 700 are on heritage rail lines and one is on a tramway. Many of these crossings were created in the Victorian era to maintain access for local landowners, such as farmers. These crossings are the responsibility of the relevant railway operator.

In recent years, the number and diversity of private crossing users have increased. This has been due in part to the increase in the popularity of online shopping, which has led to a large increase in the number of couriers and home delivery drivers using private roads. Van travel has grown substantially over the last 25 years, increasing by 106% to 55.5 billion vehicle miles in 2019, according to the department’s own estimates. Some of these users may be unfamiliar with how to use or operate these crossings safely. In addition, rail traffic along some formerly quiet routes has increased since 1996, increasing the risks to users of private crossings.

The Rail Accident Investigation Branch undertook a comprehensive review of these crossings in 2009. It found that the signs used at these crossings are not always easy to understand and that their design does not always reflect the risk at individual crossings. The Rail Accident Investigation Branch made several recommendations, including one that the requirements for signs at private crossings should be reviewed. The report also found that the 1996 regulations contained a limited range of signs that did not reflect the full range of users of private crossings. For example, there are no symbols in the regulations for tractors, horse riders and farm trailers, all of which often use private crossings; the Rail Accident Investigation Branch reported that this can create confusion.

Since that report, there have been several serious accidents at private crossings, including at Frampton level crossing and Frognal Farm. These prompted the Rail Accident Investigation Branch to recommend that the signs themselves be redesigned; these new regulations do just that.

The department has spent several years working with sign experts to create a suite of signs that address the concerns raised by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch. This involved commissioning research, as well as consulting twice on the revised sign designs. The first consultation in 2022 ran for eight weeks and received 64 responses from rail operators, private residents and other interested parties. We worked with the Office of Rail and Road, Network Rail and the Rail Safety and Standards Board to revise the proposed signs in light of these responses. We then tested them with experts on level crossings, signage and human factors to ensure that they were clear and effective. These signs were then subject to a second consultation, which ran from 5 April to 10 May 2023. We received further responses, which we used to refine the new regulations.

I believe that that perhaps explains the background and need for these signs. I will now address the other areas raised. In answer to the points by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about implementation, I will try to explain how we expect the new regulations to be implemented. I am aware that this has caused concern among some heritage rail operators. All existing signage that complies with the 1996 regulations remains lawfully placed until it needs to be replaced. However, once a sign needs to be replaced, only a new sign may be erected. This is an important point, as it means that there is no legal requirement for operators to replace existing signs. These will remain lawfully placed until the end of their serviceable life. In practice, this could be several decades. Perhaps this will help heritage railways to replace signs over a period of time, reducing the cost.

Nevertheless, we believe it is important that the new signs are introduced as soon as possible. This is particularly important for the mainline railway, where the risks to users are greatest. We have agreed with Network Rail that, on the mainline railway, the older signs will be replaced as soon as possible, and by the end of control period 7, in 2029, at the latest.

The risks are lower at private crossings on heritage railways due to the lower speed and frequency of the trains. The department has no intention of changing the Transport and Works Act to allow the Secretary of State to mandate the early phasing out of these existing signs. None the less, we hope that the heritage rail sector recognises the improvements that the new signs bring and will make all reasonable efforts to adopt the new signage as soon as possible. My officials have written to the Heritage Railway Association and other heritage railway operators to make this point clear.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and other noble Lords raised the cost of installing new signs. We estimate that this will range from £2,000 for a simple installation to £4,000 for a more complex one. These costs include the costs of the signs themselves, staff or contractor costs, and materials. Our estimates are based on Network Rail’s own experience and have been validated by the heritage sector.

Most of the costs will be borne by public sector bodies, particularly Network Rail, which is responsible for around three-quarters of private level crossings on the rail network. We estimate that the cost to Network Rail will be between £800,000 and £1.7 million per year between now and 2029. These costs have been reflected in Network Rail’s funding settlement for 2024 to 2029.

The cost to heritage operators is estimated at between £253,000 and £506,000 per year. However, this assumes that heritage operators adopt a similar rollout of the signs to 2029. In most cases, these costs will not be additional, as the signs would have had to be replaced at the end of their serviceable life.

The share of the costs will vary between operators, depending on the number of private crossings on their estate. Some will carry a larger share, others minimal. As I mentioned previously, we hope that the heritage sector recognises the benefits that these new signs bring and looks to implement them by the end of 2029.

Heritage railways are important stakeholders for the department, and we are keen to ensure that no burdens are placed unduly on them, especially as many have been impacted financially by the pandemic. However, we are keen to see the safety benefits of the new signs across the whole of Great Britain’s rail estate. Ensuring that the messaging on the signs is consistent is essential for safety. We therefore urge the sector to look to erect the new signs as soon as it can, using a risk-based approach. Officials in the department recently wrote to the Heritage Rail Association setting this out.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the question of Explanatory Memoranda. The department continues to work hard to improve the quality of these, and I recognise that they are a vital part of the legislative process. Regular training on secondary legislation is available to all officials, with additional content targeted at those who are developing or drafting SIs and their products.

On other points raised by noble Lords, I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, about the whistle. I am sure that is something that heritage railways can take up. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on ford signs, I will have to have a look at that and write back to her.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the issue of the Welsh language. We heard from some respondents that they would like the ability to place signs in the Welsh language in Wales. Although the policy area is not devolved, we believe that this is the right thing to do and are currently working with experts to translate the signs into Welsh. These will be used where risk assessments say they would be of benefit. We expect this work to conclude later this year, but due process must apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

The essence of my point is that, superficially, this burden offends the rule that the railways claim to take through the ORR that safety improvements are not necessary if their cost is grossly disproportionate to the benefit. If it is above £5 million you would have to set that down on a piece of paper. Would the Minister mind setting out on a piece of paper, and sharing it with all who have spoken, how the department came to the conclusion that the benefits are greater than the cost and that the cost is not grossly disproportionate to the benefit? It is a simple idea that saves the railways spending lots and lots of unnecessary money. It is a very sensible idea and it is recorded; eventually you find it in their rules. The sum should have been done.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we could discuss this for ever and a day: the cost of a life. To me, one life saved, at whatever cost, is a life saved. That is particularly important.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I am sorry, but safety legislation, in virtually every area, does not take that view. We do not talk about it very much, but the ability to spend money on safety is almost infinite. There has to be a point where you say “Enough is enough”—otherwise, transport and virtually all activity involving risk would grind to a halt. You have to take a sensible, proportionate view, which British safety legislation does. The very sound Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 does not require risk to be eliminated; it requires it to be reduced to as low as reasonably practicable, and a court has ruled that that test includes cost.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on that point at this stage. I now have to conclude—

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I apologise. It seems to me that the basis of this discussion is a significant difference between the statistics used in the Explanatory Memorandum and those used by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. The Minister referred to the number of near misses. The EM says there are on average 137 per annum. It also says that there are on average two fatalities a year. That is very different from the figures the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, produced. I hope the Minister will agree to write to us to set out the statistics and clarify that the Explanatory Memorandum is based on accurate information, because it is clearly having an impact on some people’s approach to this debate.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that point. I will go back to the department, we will look at those figures, and I will write to those noble Lords concerned about this point.

To conclude, these regulations address recommendations made by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch to improve the quality of the signs to be used at private level crossings. They have been tested in a real-world environment and have been subjected to two consultations, which allowed interested parties to make their views known. As a result, we have now placed into legislation a set of signs that are fit for purpose and a vast improvement on those they replace. They will instruct users on the safe use of the crossings and improve safety outcomes for the many people who rely on them. I am sure noble Lords agree that this is the right thing to do.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this group of amendments. As has been rightly stated, it covers a serious and significant aspect of the Bill under consideration.

I will speak to my Amendment 55A, which, quite simply, goes to the question around the provision of data to establish liability in the event of an AV being involved in an accident. What we know from the whole question of automated vehicles is that they are simultaneously both extraordinary producers of, and consumers of, data. There are so many data issues, which need to be considered right through every element of the Bill in front of us.

When it comes to the swift understanding, investigation and attribution of liability in the event of an accident, it is clearly critical for all of that data to be understood by the parties who require it in the establishment of liability for the accident. Amendment 55A simply asks the Secretary of State to review the current situation and to produce guidance to bring clarity, certainty and whatever is required to avoid delay, distress and any other negative elements that would be occasioned if the wrong approach were taken in the event of an automated vehicle being involved in an accident where there was an inability to gain the right access to the data and to quickly and efficiently establish liability. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, once again I am grateful for the contributions in this group. One of the central functions of the Bill is to clarify how liability is to be handled in a world of self-driving vehicles. This is a complex area and I reiterate my thanks to the Law Commissions for their many years of work developing the approaches that we are discussing today. I am grateful also to noble Lords for their insightful contributions and scrutiny on this critical issue.

Amendment 55G, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, would require a study to be conducted on human reactions to transition demands. Before I address that proposal, I will respond to his specific point about how liability applies during the transition period. The Bill is explicit that the authorised self-driving entity remains responsible for the behaviour of the vehicle until the transition period expires. After that period, liability shifts to the driver. However, it is a misconception to imagine that manual control will simply be forced on the driver at the end of that period. Clause 7(3)(e) mandates that vehicles be capable of dealing safely with a situation in which the user-in-charge fails to assume control. In other words, although legal responsibility shifts back to the driver once the transition period expires, the vehicle is still required to bring itself to a safe stop without their intervention. A vehicle that was unable to do that would not be authorised.

On the amendment itself, there is already a considerable body of evidence on response times to transition demands, particularly using simulators. Much of that underpins the international automated lane keeping systems regulation to which I referred earlier. There are a number of additional research projects in this space already in development across the Department for Transport and its agencies. For example, one such project looks to explore what activities a user-in-charge can safely perform while their vehicle is driving itself. This is a question that will also require ongoing monitoring and evaluation over time. We will be able to mandate information sharing from authorised self-driving entities to further expand this evidence base as the technology develops.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I am not trying to be difficult, but I did not quite understand the point the Minister made about the ASDE still being liable. Let us hypothesise a simple situation. A vehicle is being driven autonomously. A warning is given so the driver takes control, but he is unable to stop the vehicle in time from crashing into a motorcyclist or whatever. The driver is in control—is it clear that he is not liable? Does the Minister see what I mean? I think you can have a situation where you are required to take control but it is too challenging a situation for you to do what is necessary, and you get involved in an accident. Are you then liable? I just do not understand. I am not clear what the position is.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing up that point. I think the Bill specifically protects the driver from being put in an impossible position by the handover, but I might go away and get proper clarification instead of standing here and—while not guessing—giving my opinion.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

That is fine with me. Perhaps, in the meeting we are going to have, we can discuss this question so that someone who actually understands it properly can explain it to us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

That will be a challenge.

I will pick up from where I left off. We will be able to mandate information sharing from authorised self-driving entities to further expand this evidence base as the technology develops. Such issues may also be considered and reviewed as part of the general monitoring duty under Clause 38. For those reasons, I believe the amendment is unnecessary.

On Amendment 55A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, he is right that swift and reliable access to vehicle data will be central to correctly apportioning liability—a point also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. As our policy scoping notes set out, we intend to develop regulatory requirements covering data recording, retention and access, in line with the Law Commissions’ recommendations. Ensuring that those are appropriate and proportionate will require careful consultation and impact assessment. The approach proposed by the amendment is unlikely to allow for that and therefore will not adequately address the issue.

Amendment 55F calls for the Government to lay a Statement on who is responsible for insuring and maintaining authorised automated vehicles. The Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence to use or permit the use of a vehicle without appropriate insurance or in a dangerous state. The offence therefore applies to the driver, and potentially to others who enable the use of the vehicle. Clause 49 is clear that the user-in-charge is to be considered a driver for all purposes other than those relating to how the vehicle behaves. The responsibility for roadworthiness and insurance therefore sits with the user-in-charge, just as it does with a conventional driver. Self-driving vehicles that do not require a user-in-charge must be overseen by a no-user-in-charge operator. These operators may own and oversee fleets of vehicles, meaning that they would be responsible for maintenance and insurance. Alternatively, they may simply offer an oversight and incident response service for privately owned vehicles. In this case, it is more appropriate that those responsibilities sit with the owner. Where the responsibilities sit will therefore depend on the business model, and that will be clarified by the Government as part of each operator’s licensing conditions as necessary.

Amendment 55H calls for a Statement on the information that will be published to support the underwriting of self-driving vehicle insurance. Under the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act, self-driving vehicles require policies where the insurer has first-instance liability when the vehicle is driving itself. The insurer is then able to recover against the person responsible, which may be the authorised self-driving entity, following an incident. The Government will establish a public register of self-driving vehicle authorisations, including a list of authorised self-driving entities. The Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency vehicle registration database will then identify which vehicles have been authorised as self-driving. That will provide clarity about which vehicles require a self-driving insurance policy. While we feel that this information will be sufficient to ensure that vehicles are fit for underwriting purposes, we recognise that further data could support the more accurate pricing of risk. My officials have begun discussions with insurers about what could be needed, and this dialogue will continue as the secondary legislation is developed. I trust that clarifies the position, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, agrees that Amendments 55F and 55H are not needed.

With Amendments 38 and 52, the noble Lord looks to remove the need for the victim of an incident to prove that an automated vehicle was driving itself in order to make a claim for compensation. There is no such need to begin with. Where a conventional driver-operated vehicle is involved in a collision, the victim has a claim against the at-fault driver. In practice, either the victim or the driver will contact the relevant insurer for the vehicle, who will then investigate the claim to establish fault and issue compensation appropriately. This approach is long-established and set out in law. It generally works well, and it is not the function of the Bill to change it. The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act assigns the insurer first-instance liability in incidents caused by an automated vehicle that is driving itself. That means the victim is able to claim compensation from the relevant insurer whether there is an at-fault driver or whether the vehicle was in self-driving mode. A claim can be made in either case. The insurer can then determine whether that claim is covered by the conventional third-party insurance or the self-driving vehicle insurance. As I have set out, we will be setting authorisation requirements mandating certain forms of data logging. This information will help the processing of claims.

On Amendment 39, it would be inappropriate to apply a presumption of liability inconsistently across different road users. That could even encourage risk-taking behaviour and ultimately compromise road safety. I recognise the wider point that the noble Lord is making about the safety of other road users. In our earlier discussion about accessibility, I referred to some of the measures we will use to avoid specific groups being placed at a disadvantage by the introduction of self-driving vehicles. For example, we will look to include principles of equality and fairness in the statement of safety principles and will take steps to prevent data biases. These will also apply to vulnerable road users.

In conclusion, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I am happy to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that we have a further conversation about it.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am happy to accommodate that.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

The noble Lord has assured us that this is a probing amendment, and I am convinced he is not expecting many answers from me. I give way to the Minister.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling these amendments and for sharing his perspectives on these issues. I will begin by briefly addressing his point about public understanding and properly communicating what he refers to as the “look and feel” of a world with self-driving vehicles.

In previous debates, I have referred to The Great Self-Driving Exploration. This ground-breaking study was specifically designed to allow people from all walks of life to understand more about self-driving vehicles and to comment on whether they felt their introduction would be beneficial. This is just one example of the work we have been doing in this space.

Amendment 63 looks to require that a statement be made on the necessary changes to highways legislation that may arise from the use of self-driving vehicles. As I set out earlier this afternoon, the Bill does not require changes to our roads, nor are changes considered necessary for the safe deployment of self-driving vehicles. The Bill already sets out the legislative changes that we believe are necessary to enable their use. Local authorities are responsible for managing their road networks, and the existing legislative framework provides them with a wide range of powers to regulate traffic. It also places duties on them to ensure that they do so effectively, for the benefit of all road users. We believe that this existing framework is sufficient to enable them to regulate traffic, including self-driving vehicles, appropriately. Highways legislation is a complex area of law, covering a wide range of powers, duties and responsibilities. For many parts of the Bill, a statement of the kind proposed in the amendment would be irrelevant and would cause unnecessary delay in implementing the new regulatory framework.

My noble friend’s Amendment 62 calls for a consultation on updating the Manual for Streets to take into account the introduction of self-driving vehicles. As I have made clear, self-driving vehicles must adapt to our roads, not the other way round. We would therefore not expect significant changes to the Manual for Streets to be necessary. As was pointed out, the manual was first published in 2007 and updated in 2010. The department is working on bringing together and updating both manuals, which will be published in due course. I will ensure that my noble friend is updated on the progress of this.

Local authorities are responsible for the design and management of their roads, and for setting their own design standards. We have long encouraged them to use the principles in the Manual for Streets in doing so. The department produces a wide range of technical advice documents on aspects of street design and traffic management, of which the manual is just one. There is no statutory consultation requirement for the Manual for Streets, so imposing such a requirement in this case would be unnecessary. However, in line with good practice, key stakeholders have been involved in its development.

Tying the commencement of the Bill to the production of the manual would appear disproportionate, considering there is relatively little overlap between the two. It would therefore cause unnecessary delay in implementing the framework for self-driving vehicles. While I recognise that I may not have been able to provide my noble friend with all the answers that he was looking for, I hope that these explanations have none the less been helpful and go so some way to allowing him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend has not actually provided the answers to any of the questions that I raised, but I am not wholly surprised by that. I shall say only that it is indeed part of the purpose of the proposals to cause delay to the implementation of the Bill while we work out what we are trying to achieve. My noble friend has acutely put his finger on that point—so we are at odds on that.

However, given the lateness of the hour and the fact that I do not think that further debate would be fruitful in eliciting helpful responses from my noble friend, I ask the Committee’s leave to withdraw the amendment.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be brief. It has been an interesting debate on this group of amendments because we have started talking about infrastructure separately from what goes on it. That is an important issue to look at because, whether in terms of the comments that I remember the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, making at Second Reading about the benefits of living in the countryside or the comments of other noble Lords who have mentioned the need for proper infrastructure, the key to this—it was in the press at the weekend, I think—is that the infrastructure mapping must be accurate. Who is going to do it?

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggesting putting it on an old railway line. The old railway line is on the maps already, but can you drive down it safely? Is it a guided bus rail, which is another form of getting around? Not only do all these things need to be kept up to date but somebody needs to be responsible for ensuring that they are up to date and for what happens if they are not. I am sure that this is all on Minister’s mind for when he responds, but there is further work to be done here.

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

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the many contributions to this interesting debate. I will try to address the issues that have been raised.

These amendments concern the integration of self-driving vehicles into the existing transport system, particularly the extent to which each may need to adapt to accommodate the other. I begin by clarifying a key point. Self-driving vehicles must be capable of operating safely and legally using the infrastructure as it exists today. There can be no expectation on the part of developers that our roads will change in some way to accommodate their vehicles. Nor do we consider such changes to be necessary for safe deployment.

Vehicles will need to be able to cope safely with issues such as wear and tear, road closures and variation in signage that are found across our road network. This also extends to digital infrastructure. Self-driving vehicles can make use of services such as data connectivity, GPS and digitised traffic regulation orders, but like humans they will need to be able to maintain safety in the event that these services are unavailable. Those which cannot do this would not be authorised.

Government and local authorities have duties to manage and maintain their road networks for the benefit of all users. Over time, local authorities may choose to adapt their networks to leverage the wider benefits from self-driving vehicles. This might include, for example, investing in information systems that can communicate directly with vehicles. However, this is a long-term view. Considering that we are still in the early stages of the deployment of this new technology, it would be premature to anticipate what such changes could look like. Our guiding principle remains that self-driving vehicles must adapt to our roads, not the other way around.

This brings me to Amendments 37 and 50, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. These probe our plans for adapting the road network to accommodate self-driving vehicles, including how this will be funded. For the reasons that I have set out, the deployment of self-driving vehicles does not require any adaptations of our physical or digital infrastructure. This means that there are no associated costs and that the noble Lord’s amendments are therefore unnecessary. It means that the infrastructure reviews proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in Amendments 23 and 24, are also unnecessary, along with consequential Amendments 58 and 60. However, in relation to the noble Baroness’s comments on the condition of the road network, I note that the Government have recently announced the biggest-ever funding uplift for local road improvements, with £8.3 billion of funding to resurface over 5,000 miles of roads across England.

Amendments 51 and 61 call for strategies to be published on the application of self- driving vehicles in rural areas. The Government have already published their comprehensive vision for the future of self-driving technology in the UK, Connected & Automated Mobility 2025. As part of that vision, the policy paper considers the opportunities for self-driving technology to improve public transport and to enhance mobility in rural areas. Furthermore, in October last year, we published the Future of Transport rural innovation guidance, providing local authorities with advice and support to embrace technologies such as self-driving vehicles in rural areas. To publish further strategies would risk duplicating this existing work. On the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, about public transport, our investment in trials such as CAVForth in Scotland and Harlander in Belfast demonstrates clearly that our commitment extends well beyond private use of self-driving vehicles.

On Amendment 48, Clause 47(4)(b) specifically states that the user-in-charge immunity does not extend to the qualifications of the driver. The requirement to hold a valid driving licence therefore continues to apply to the user-in-charge, even while the self-driving feature is active. This is necessary as they may be required to resume control of the vehicle in response to a transition demand.

In a no-user-in-charge vehicle, there is never a requirement for a qualified person to assume control. While a no-user-in-charge feature is active, any person in the vehicle is simply considered a passenger and will not need to hold a driving licence.

Driving licence categories will continue to apply to self-driving vehicles as they do to conventional ones—for example, by weight and number of seats. It would be premature to consider new categories of driving licence at this stage, but it would be possible in the future under the Road Traffic Act. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, feels that this clarifies the position sufficiently.

Amendment 44 concerns the interaction between self-driving vehicles and ChargePoint infrastructure. Self-driving vehicles are not yet on our roads and the technology for automated charging is still very much in its infancy. However, we will continue to monitor the future direction of the technology. Should developments demonstrate a need for regulation in this space, we will consider next steps on consultation. The Government are focusing our current intervention on areas where an accelerated pace of rollout is most needed, such as high-powered chargers on the strategic road network and for local street charging.

Amendments 54 and 56 refer to delivery robot vehicles and devices. It is the Government’s view that the Bill already contains the necessary legislation to regulate the safety of all self-driving road vehicles. In line with Clause 94, any mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted to be used on the road is already within the scope of the Bill.

As I have said previously, the definition of a “road” extends beyond the carriageway itself. For example, it includes the pavement. Delivery robots and devices that meet these criteria would therefore be in scope. However, to pass the self-driving test, they must drive legally and comply with all relevant regulations. This includes construction and use regulations, and restrictions on pavement use by motor vehicles. Any future changes to regulations on pavement use would need to be balanced with the need to maintain safety and accessibility for other road users. All in-scope vehicles will be subject to the monitoring, assessment and reporting requirements set out in Clause 38. This makes additional reporting requirements unnecessary.

I know that my noble friend Lord Lucas, who tabled Amendment 45, is a long-standing advocate for this particular use case. Although it sits outside the regulatory framework that we are proposing, which is concerned only with roads and other public places, I reassure him of our interest in its potential. We are one of the first countries to explore the business case for self-driving mass transit on segregated routes, with 10 feasibility studies under way backed by £1.5 million in government funding. We are already looking at how regulatory requirements could be overseen for segregated routes. Work is under way with the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to establish a firm footing for the kind of deployment that my noble friend is interested in. While the technical regulations being developed in support of the Bill may be a useful guide for these “off-road” applications, the frameworks are distinct.

I hope, as a result of what I have said, that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, sees fit to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. This has been a good debate, with some important points raised. It is a good example of us trying to think positively, outside the box, about the important issues that this new technology will raise for us all. I just pick one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, which is the potential to benefit rural areas. I fear that they will probably be the last areas to benefit, unless there is a proper plan. That is the sort of thing we should rightly be doing here at this stage of the Bill. However, having listened carefully to the Minister, I will look very carefully at Hansard, because he said some interesting but worrying things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to each of the amendments in this group, a lot of which have what I call a “motherhood” characteristic. In other words, they are self-evidently sensible things to do; the debate is whether these ideas are properly caught by the language or whether, indeed, they need to be on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I would like the Minister to try to answer in two ways: first, whether he essentially disagrees with the concept in the amendment and, secondly, if he agrees with it, why we should not have it in the Bill.

I start with Amendment 25; I believe Amendment 59 is consequential to it. This is an entirely reasonable amendment. It is difficult to believe that the standards expected and the areas considered will be identical—or even largely identical—to the present MoT regime, and therefore I think a review is entirely sensible.

Similarly, my noble friend Lord Berkeley has made a good point in Amendment 37A—and, as I read it, Amendment 57A is consequential—that the Office of Rail and Road could make a singular contribution. The ORR’s problem is that it has the responsibilities of a railway inspectorate on the one hand and, potentially, of a road inspectorate with particular reference to this area. The problem, particularly on the railways, is that there is often not enough business to keep such teams properly employed. The skills required are very similar. It could be a merger of two teams or learning from each other—there are all sorts of things that one can think of when it comes to drawing the rail and road people into the way that the various investigatory and rule-setting powers would work. As I said, Amendment 57A is consequential.

My noble friend Lord Liddle has three amendments in this group. I shall speak particularly to Amendments 40 and 41. I did not find these the easiest to read because the whole problem of taking a statement and then adapting it to a new meaning is not without its hazards. I will quote the appropriate subsections from Clause 61. Subsection (1) says:

“The main purpose of the role of inspector is that of identifying, improving understanding of, and reducing the risks of harm arising from the use of authorised automated vehicles on roads in Great Britain”.


That is then conditioned by subsection (2):

“It is no part of that purpose to establish blame or liability on the part of any person in relation to a particular incident”.


That is a no-fault environment in which many people would agree you get a better result out of the inspection of events. However, we feel that we need to take that further. Amendment 40 would add, at the end of the wording in subsection (2),

“unless the investigation concludes that a failure in the technology of an automated vehicle is at fault”.

That would give it a specific requirement to bring out and invite the inspector to say, “It was the technology that caused this accident”. We think it important that they are able to specify that the technology was at fault.

Clause 68(1) says:

“An inspector must report any findings of an investigation to the Secretary of State”.


In a sense, that implies that this is pretty routine stuff and it only needs to go to the Secretary of State. We believe that because of the complexity, and the obvious desire of the people who have looked at this at some length that parliamentarians should be involved with the evolution of this, there should be a caveat to that. Amendment 41 proposes to add

“who must lay this report before Parliament should the investigation find a technological failure of an automated vehicle to be the cause, or one of the causes, of an incident”.

So the situation would be that the Secretary of State received all reports where the technology had not been found at fault, but where the technology had been found at fault, that would be reported to Parliament.

In Amendment 55E, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has asked for a workforce strategy. This is classic. The whole of the UK, frankly, calls for a workforce strategy, and over and over again you see decisions being made without regard to the workforce capability. There is a good case for this particular role, but the Government should grasp the proper use of workforce strategies in managing our society. We think of the problems of doing something as being about physical things, such as factories, but over and over again it is the limitation of skills. Any activity is as much about the skill of the people working with it—it is particularly interesting to look at this in the military—as it is about the kit they are using to deliver it. We should be thinking more and more in these terms. I do not know whether this is one of the launch areas, but bringing it up in the Bill was a good thing.

Finally, Amendment 56A from my noble friend Lord Liddle, as stated in the explanatory statement, is

“to probe the difference between ‘automated,’ ‘autonomous,’ ‘autonomously’ and ‘self-driving’”.

There is an unwritten rule that, when writing standards, you never use synonyms. The moment you use synonyms you ask people to start trying to define the difference. If you have a good, simple concept, it should have one label in any regulation. It makes the writing very boring, because there is so much repetition, but it makes it unambiguous. I am afraid that this document is somewhat ambiguous because of the various terms that it uses for the same concept.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The amendments in this group concern the day-to-day operation of the regulatory framework.

Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, refers specifically to incidents in which the technology of a self-driving vehicle is at fault. In such a situation, it would be for the in-use regulatory scheme to determine whether regulatory sanctions were appropriate. Criminal penalties would also apply if the authorised self-driving entity had failed to disclose relevant safety information. Separately, a statutory inspector may also conduct an independent safety investigation. The statutory inspector is then responsible for publicly reporting on safety lessons and making recommendations for improvement. These reports would include the failure in vehicle technology and any other causation factors.

The amendment therefore confuses the role of a statutory inspector with that of the in-use regulatory scheme and the police. In doing so, it inadvertently contravenes a long-standing fundamental principle in incident investigation: learning, not blaming. In developing the inspector role, we have been guided by international standards, best practice and precedent, including that established by our own exceptional existing transport accident investigation branches. All three of these branches conduct no-blame investigations.

I have similar concerns that his Amendment 41 also risks departing from established precedent in safety investigation. An inspector must be able to report neutrally and factually without being influenced, directly or indirectly, by any person or organisation. Historically, this has extended even to Parliament. Indeed, none of the reports published by the existing air, maritime, and rail accident investigation branches are required to be laid before Parliament. However, I am happy to reassure the noble Lord that it is absolutely the Government’s intention to make all the inspector’s reports, findings and associated recommendations publicly available on GOV.UK, as is the case for the existing branches.

I confirm that specific testing for self-driving vehicles will be considered for inclusion in the MoT. Naturally, this will need to be an evolutionary process, developed in line with the introduction of the technology. The MoT will continue to play an important role in ensuring the ongoing maintenance and roadworthiness of the vehicle. However, we will not depend on it to ensure that self-driving vehicles drive safely. Authorisation places the obligation on the authorised self-driving entity to ensure that its vehicles continue to satisfy the self-driving test. The Bill grants powers to set requirements, secure information and issue sanctions as necessary to ensure that this is done. The review proposed in Amendments 25 and 59 could therefore unnecessarily delay the implementation of Bill.

On the noble Baroness’s specific question, in the event of an authorised self-driving entity ceasing trading, safety must be the priority. It would not be right for a vehicle to drive itself without someone taking responsibility for how it behaves. Given that this market is still emerging, there is much that we do not know about future ownership models and what consumer protections will therefore be needed. However, I can confirm that the important issue of the handling of ASDEs’ insolvency will be considered, following consultation, as part of establishing financial and good-repute requirements for authorisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am always happy to meet the noble Lord.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and thank all those who have taken part in this short debate. I want to pick out a couple of things. One is about the urgency of the reform of the MoT, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which stands in a bit of contrast to the Minister’s point. I am delighted that the Minister has acknowledged that there is a need to reform the MoT, but I believe that he used the word “evolutionary”. Evolution can move very slowly. One point that has come across from noble Lords across the Committee is that current vehicles are part of the way there and have a whole system of software that needs attention in an MoT. I hope that the Minister will take away the fact that those changes need to be worked on with some urgency and that we need changes to the MoT in the near future.

Very good points have been made about the need for skills strategies, and to make the best of innovation by having the skills that will be needed. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part and withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I suspect that between Committee and Report, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and I will discuss this in detail. We might even try to do it at the meeting with the Minister.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I once again thank noble Lords for their contributions in this group. Self-driving vehicles present an opportunity to radically improve the accessibility of transport. In particular, automated passenger services could help open up new transport links in areas where accessible services are currently limited. As colleagues rightly point out, however, it will take work to get this right. Indeed, I remind the House of the Law Commissions’ comments on this subject; they said:

“there is much that is not known about how passenger services will operate in the absence of a driver. The immediate need is to collect more evidence and gain more experience, particularly on issues such as accessibility and safeguarding”.

The Government have taken that on board. We are undertaking research to improve our understanding of the current driver duties, so that we may better design requirements to ensure journeys are accessible. Further, applicants for passenger permits will not only be required to show how they are designing services to meet the needs of older and disabled people but obliged to publish reports on how those needs are being met in practice. That is in addition to the requirements under the public sector equality duty, to which I referred in our earlier debate.

On Amendments 53 and 57, we recognise the importance of co-designing the development of self-driving vehicles with disabled people. In our policy paper Connected & Automated Mobility 2025, we committed to setting up an accessibility advisory panel before we launch the passenger permitting regime. The panel will advise on the granting of permits and assist in the development of national minimum accessibility standards. Although we have chosen to do that through non-statutory means, such a body is in line with the principle underpinning the Law Commissions’ recommendation.

The Government already have a statutory adviser on transport accessibility in the form of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The committee has an established role in providing independent advice to the department. It provided feedback as part of the Law Commissions’ review, and its expertise will be brought to bear alongside the advisory panel. Creating further statutory roles risks duplication; I do not wish to see additional complexity added at the expense of a material improvement in outcomes. By contrast, the flexibility offered by a non-statutory solution enables a tailored response that can adapt quickly to the rapid evolution of policy in this area.

I turn to the proposal for a “statement of accessibility principles” put forward by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. I absolutely recognise the points he raised and the intent of his amendment, and I reassure him that the measures in the Bill already provide scope to consider accessibility at every stage. As I said during our last debate, the Government will require anyone seeking authorisation to submit an assessment of fair outcomes. As well as considering accessibility for people with different needs, the assessments will cover data biases. Applicants will be required to include plans for how they will avoid their vehicles unfairly discriminating against particular groups, as was recommended by the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation.

My noble friend’s amendment highlights the importance of adopting a whole-journey approach when reviewing accessibility. In his very apt words, there must be a “golden thread” running from the physical vehicle design to the booking system, the integration with public transport, the support offered by operators and beyond. Indeed, the respective roles of each of those elements will likely change considerably as the technology develops and as users become more confident. That is why we look to address those important issues in Part 5 of the Bill as part of the automated passenger services provisions. These provisions allow us to set specific requirements covering the whole-passenger experience, rather than splitting them across the authorisation and operator licensing processes. As I said, accessibility is a mandatory consideration in setting those requirements.

We have already indicated in our policy scoping notes that equality and fairness are likely to be included as part of the statement of safety principles. Therefore, a second set of accessibility principles may create overlap. However, I hope that this offers my noble friend some reassurance that the intent of his amendment is already being considered.

Finally, I turn to the proposal that Clause 83 be removed. Clause 83 disapplies existing taxi, private hire and bus legislation to vehicles operating under an automated passenger services permit. The application of existing public transport legislation to self-driving vehicles is complex and uncertain. While it will remain possible for providers to be regulated under these regimes, as was the case for the CAVForth bus project in Scotland, relying on this alone could leave gaps in regulation. This in turn could lead to unintended consequences and hamper the development of the automated passenger services industry. Therefore, the Law Commissions recommended offering a separate bespoke scheme, creating a clear and lawful route for service providers to become licensed. As well as bringing clarity, this has allowed us to create a modern, flexible framework, specifically designed to help grow our understanding of how automated passenger services can best support people with disabilities. The Government want public transport to be available to all. The intention of Clause 83 has never been to undermine that goal. Its purpose is simply to avoid the ambiguity and potential overlap in how current passenger licensing laws might apply to service providers.

In conclusion, I respectfully ask my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond to withdraw his Amendment 26A. I look forward to discussing these issues further with him and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in the coming days.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response.

The reality is that the current measures on accessibility in the Bill are not specific and are insufficient. To my noble friend Lord Borwick, I say that it is entirely possible that we could add to Clause 87 to make it specific to and sufficient for that purpose; I will certainly get my drafting pen out between Committee and Report.

I look forward to the meeting with the Minister to cover these issues. It is essential that we get them right at this stage. I will give an example of what happens if we do not. For many years, and potentially still, there have been stations on our network that are described as fully accessible; they are marked as “fully accessible” stations on the overall map of the network, be it in London or nationally. Indeed, they are: if you arrive at the stations, they have wide gates; if you have access needs or are a wheelchair user, they have audio announcements; and if you happen to be visually impaired or blind, they have lifts that enable passengers to access the platform. They are fully accessible stations—but you cannot board the train when it arrives. That is why it is critical to look at the golden thread of accessibility for the end-to-end experience. Just one small step, be it even tiny, can trip up the whole process of enabling an accessible experience.

The Bill needs to be beefed up on accessibility, otherwise it will be a game of catch-up and missed opportunities. The Minister said in winding up that there is “scope” for that, but scope is not actuality. He said that there is potential and opportunity, but opportunity is not inevitability. We have the opportunity in the Bill not to slow anything down. Through the input of disabled people from the outset, we can actually speed up the process and have free consultation from them—although everybody who is part of the co-production should, rightly, be paid and supported.

More needs to be done between Committee and Report. The opportunity that accessible automated vehicles provide cannot be left to go the way of other transport developments over the previous 200 years. We will certainly return to this between Committee and Report, potentially with some specific amendments on Report, but for the moment I beg to withdraw my Amendment 26A.

Driving Licence: Young and Newly Qualified Drivers

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are planning to introduce a graduated driving licence for young and newly qualified drivers.

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

My Lords, the Department for Transport has no plans to introduce a graduated driving licence scheme for young drivers. The department commissioned the £2 million Driver2020 research project to examine interventions designed to help learner and newly qualified drivers improve their skills and safety. We look forward to receiving the findings from that project, which will feed into considerations on further measures we could take to improve road safety for young drivers.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that, in Wales, seven young men—still teenagers—lost their lives in tragic car accidents in the few weeks before Christmas. Year after year, young drivers, particularly young men, are grossly overrepresented in road casualty rates, and research shows that a combination of inexperience and incomplete brain development often features in the cause of accidents—although I obviously cannot comment on the two concerned. There is widespread support for graduated driving licences from the Association of British Insurers, the RAC, Brake, Project EDWARD and the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. Will the Minister agree to add to the work that the Government are currently doing a thorough look at their recommendations to see whether it is now time for graduated driving licences in order to save these lives?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I assure the noble Baroness that the Government take this very seriously and are always prepared to listen to what others have to say. Going back to my earlier point, our largest young driver research piece is the Driver2020 project, an evaluation of interventions to improve the safety of young, novice drivers in partnership with the Transport Research Laboratory. It started in 2019 with 28,000 learner and novice drivers taking part and was completed in summer 2022. We look forward to getting the report this year.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a qualified HGV driving instructor; I have done a lot of work with young drivers. Why does my noble friend the Minister not understand that young, novice drivers are completely ill-equipped and unable to block out distractions from youngsters in the back of the vehicle unless they have an older driver with them?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I do understand that. It is not a question of generalising; not all drivers are that bad. We must aim at making sure that the young, novice driver—who is perhaps not as experienced as others—is properly dealt with.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, while one has enormous sympathy with what is behind this Question, how can the Government get into these matters of further sophistication when there is an enormous waiting list for driving tests? The last stated figure was an 18 and a half-week wait for a driving test, which is very important to people trying to get jobs. The Government are supposed to be working towards a nine-week target. Can the Minister report progress on that, or is it just another example of a country that is not working any more?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I cannot give the noble Lord exact figures on that issue, but we will have a look at it and perhaps write to him.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, no one wants to prevent young people getting in their cars to get jobs and so forth. But with the considerable increase in the volume of traffic, particularly on motorways, and the introduction of smart motorways, is it not ludicrous that a novice driver can pass their driving test and drive straight on to a motorway or in the dark, both of which they may never have done before?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I take my noble friend’s point, but I think noble Lords should be aware that on acquiring their first full licence a new driver is on probation for two years. During that time, they are subject to a limit of six penalty points for any driving offences, including any received when in the learning stage. If six or more points are received, the driver loses their full licence and must apply again for a provisional licence, re-entering the learning stage, so it is quite stringent.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the noble Lord agree that one reason why young people sometimes drive so badly—and why so many young people are convicted of driving without insurance—is that the cost of insurance is way outside the budget of most families, even when the child in that family has learnt to drive through a driving school? Is it not time that the Government and the insurance industry got together to talk about educating young drivers to drive better and to obtain more driving experience?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. He makes a very good point, and it is something which the Government could well look at.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who will be 70 later this year. Can my noble friend explain why it is that when you are 70, you have to reapply for your driving licence? Why pick on 70?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Can I say that I agree with my noble friend? At the age of 70, drivers must renew their entitlement and, at most, every three years after that. To renew the entitlement, they must make a legal declaration that they can meet the standards required to drive and confirm that they have listed any medical condition. That is the important point: whether there are any new medical conditions.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, while I support reviewing the issue of young drivers, perhaps if the Minister is to do that, he will look at older drivers. As far as I know, there have not been any young drivers driving up motorways in the wrong direction.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Again, I would say that it is about, every three years after becoming 70, making a medical declaration to ensure that a person is of sound mind and able to continue driving on our roads.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, many Members of this House are grandparents with teenage grandchildren. I say as one of them that it is exceedingly alarming to know that a new driver who has just passed their test can take a number of youngsters out after a party or some other gathering or to a gathering. Hopefully, they are not breaking the law by drinking, but the behaviour in the car and the distraction is a genuinely serious issue and a major cause of many of the accidents about which we are concerned.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right; I cannot disagree with her. That is why the Government have commissioned the young driver research piece, the Driver 2020 project, and I hope that it will produce some suggestions as to how we may deal with this.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I want to apologise to the House. About a year ago, I got up and claimed that insurance and other details said that women drivers were substantially better drivers than men, and I wanted to argue their case. Sadly, within 24 hours of my asking that question, two female members of my family committed minor offences in motor cars. I therefore wish to ask my noble friend to try to justify my position by indicating that between young drivers—young people of both sexes—young women drivers are safer drivers for insurance purposes than young men.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am afraid I am not in a position to comment on that. What I can say, on a very serious point, is that, overall, the figures for 2022 are that one fifth of all car collisions resulting in death or serious injury involved young drivers aged between 17 and 24. In 2022, 1,365 young car drivers were killed or seriously injured. Young male car drivers aged 17 to 24 are four times as likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with all car drivers aged 25 or over.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the major factors leading to the death or serious injury of those aged between 17 and 24 is a higher incidence of drink and drugs among that cohort, which is well known by the insurance industry? Does he recognise that we have the weakest rules relating to the amount that one can drink in the whole of Europe, apart from Malta? Is it not time that, when they come to undertake the review following the evidence being presented, the Government take action and require them to stay away from drinking in the way that they do at the moment?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. I appreciate everything that he says.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower 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.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I was struck by my noble friend’s answer on Amendment 43. Is he saying that, should one of the small innovative companies we have in the UK go bust, anybody who has bought their product will immediately find it is valueless because they are no longer allowed to use it? That would seem a considerable disincentive to buy kit from small British companies.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am sorry if the noble Lord took that view of it, but that was not my intention.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his responses. At this stage, of course, everything is probing. I possibly still entertain a hope that we can have some little light-touch mentions that are not overbearing somewhere in the text. Maybe we will return to some of these issues on Report.

There are one or two things other noble Lords have said that I would like to touch on. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned connectedness. We are falling into a bit of a trap if we start talking about the connectedness of automated vehicles, because the big prize is the connectedness of all vehicles—those which are driven and those which are automated. That is where the real benefits to traffic management and the economic benefits reside. That is a much bigger scheme of interconnectedness, and we are doing ourselves a disfavour by almost sidelining the connectedness and connected car issues as if they are something small and of less importance than the big goal of automated vehicles. In the near term, connectedness is a lot more relevant and moves into what is happening with automated vehicles. We should try to think of it as more of a whole.

I am aware on the simulation aspects, which were addressed, and that we cannot have millions of hours of road driving. Simulations are important and it is an iterative process between simulated tests and road tests. I am perhaps reassured that that is what is in mind. I still do not like the vision that, sometime in the future, it might happen that there are absolutely no road tests—even small ones. Maybe it is wrong to try to insert “substantial”, implying that—this is not what I intended—it would be more than the simulated tests. I still think there should be a significant amount in there for a very long time into the future.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said that his main interest is safety. Certainty is quite fundamental to safety. There is lots more to get to, so I will not say any more now. With the notion that I might return with this in a gentler form on Report, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I dare say the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will be pleased to know that I have amendments later that relate to the need to improve things such as the quality of road surfaces for all this to work smoothly.

As several contributors have emphasised, this group points to the limitations in the narrowness of the Bill’s scope. My noble friend Lady Bowles’s amendments address the limitation to public roads and highways, rather than to the marginal areas. The problems of this limitation have been addressed by organisations representing cyclists, for example, and other more vulnerable road users, as well as organisations already engaged in the automated delivery sector. If you think about it, when you have a product delivered to your home by a drone, in most cases that drone is required at the last point to leave the highway or pavement and go on to private land.

This is important. As a nation we are very concerned about road safety and prize it very highly. Although there have not been many improvements to road safety in the past 10 or 15 years, we have previously been very proud of an improving record on safety, and public expectations remain there. If you think about the process of accidents and injuries on the roads, many injuries, and much physical damage to buildings, are caused by accidents that take place off the highway, when a swerving vehicle hits a boundary fence or a house, for example. Those who have spoken, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have referred to the high number of injuries to children. This will be at the forefront of public concern in judging automated vehicles.

My noble friend also referred to the coexistence of traditional vehicles and automated vehicles. For possibly two decades we will have a hybrid system, so any expectations have to take that into account.

I turn now to the amendments to which I added my name, which are amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Liddle. The Law Commission reports emphasised that the public have high expectations of road safety. They used the point that there is strong support among the public for criminalising those who do not drive safely, and they transferred that concept into the situation in relation to support for automated vehicles. The experience in San Francisco illustrates the dramatic impact of accidents involving automated vehicles on support for them and trust in them. There is support for the progress of these vehicles, and the concept of them, across the Chamber. Therefore, it is so important that the Bill gets the approach right.

I support several amendments in this group, all of which are aimed at raising safety standards. The definition of safety must be more ambitious than that set out in this Bill. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents gave evidence to the Transport Committee in the other place and made it absolutely clear that the expectation has to be much better than just improving on average. It must be more ambitious. It must be an improvement in safety across the board, not just an “on average” approach to it.

I am well aware that there are international definitions of safety in this context, and I am sure the Minister will explain where the Government’s definition sits within those international expectations. To my mind, an acceptable standard is just not adequate, because you could have a situation in which the average safety has improved but, when you look at the detail, all the improvement lies in the reduction in motorway accidents, and to offset that there is an increase in accidents involving cyclists, pedestrians, older people or disabled people. It could be the more vulnerable road users who are badly impacted, so I am interested in the Government’s concepts in relation to this, and how they intend to approach this issue in detail.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, as has already been mentioned, this group relates to the standard of safety to which we will hold self-driving vehicles. Clause 1 establishes the concept of the self-driving test: the basic principle that a vehicle must be capable of travelling safely and legally to be authorised as self-driving. With Clause 2, we then establish that the application of the self-driving test is to be informed by a statement of safety principles. The Government will be obliged to develop those principles in consultation with relevant stakeholders and to lay the statement before Parliament before any self-driving vehicles can be authorised. Noble Lords will recall that this approach—in which the safety standard is established in statutory guidance—was recommended by the Law Commission. I also recognise the desire to see a standard articulated in the Bill. That is the rationale behind the safety backstop in Clause 2(2), which states that the safety principles

“must be framed with a view to securing that road safety in Great Britain will be better”

due to the use of self-driving vehicles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I am not sure I heard the Minister. Did he say that, of the three tests that the Low Commission proposed, the Government’s test of “better than average” was the highest standard?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

What I said was that, naturally, I believe our ambition is the right one. As the noble Lord himself touched on, it is the highest of the three standards consulted on by the Law Commission. It gives a straightforward—

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but the Law Commission, in the next paragraphs, says that the “competent and careful driver” test is the highest standard, not the Government’s aspiration of at least on average. We can leave it for now, and the Minister can write to me with an apology, or I can write to him with an apology, if one of us is wrong.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

With respect to the noble Lord, I think there is a misunderstanding here and he thinks that we have picked the average. Perhaps we can clarify that with him at a later date.

To continue, it gives a straightforward, publicly understandable indication of the level of safety that the Government are looking to achieve through the more formal mechanisms we are establishing in the Bill. However, to incorporate this language as proposed would, once again, override the principle established by the Law Commission—in other words, that the appropriate level of safety is ultimately determined by public acceptance of the risk, and that the safety standard should be set out in statutory guidance. That then allows the standard to be evolved as necessary on the basis of consultation.

I add that the wording of the amendment would appear to require a standard even higher than that of the safety ambition. While I know that this is well-intended, we must also be mindful of the risk of stifling genuine near-term safety improvements by setting an unnecessarily stringent target early on.

Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, looks to make the statement of safety principles subject to the affirmative procedure. While we acknowledge the arguments that he puts forward, it is the Government’s view that the Highway Code remains the most salient precedent for the safety principles. It follows that a negative procedure, comparable to that applied to the Highway Code, is most appropriate in this instance.

Turning to Amendment 8, the use of the phrase “significantly better” is, again, open to interpretation and risks introducing ambiguity. More pertinently, the second part of the amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, looks to ensure that improvements in road safety apply to all road users. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, also look to explore a similar point in Amendments 6 and 7. I can confirm that, just as in the Highway Code, the current reference to road safety already applies to all road users. Similarly, it is established that “road” encompasses pavements and similar areas; road safety is therefore not strictly confined to incidents occurring on the carriageway itself.

On the specific comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, all vehicles subject to authorisation as self-driving vehicles must be intended or adapted for use on roads. Although private driveways are mostly out of scope, the authorisation can recognise use in places other than roads, as referenced in Clause 4(4). The use of vehicles on private land is covered by other legislation.

Returning to the issue of equality and fairness, I can confirm that it will of course be explicitly considered during the development of the statement of safety principles. The granting of self-driving authorisations will also be subject to the public sector equality duty, and we intend to make an assessment of fair outcomes part of the authorisation process. I believe that the remainder of Amendment 6 is already provided for by Clause 1, which specifies that the assessment of a vehicle against the self-driving test must refer to

“the location and circumstances of … intended travel”.

A further reference in Clause 2 is therefore unnecessary.

On Amendment 10, we already envisage that the statement of safety principles will reflect the simultaneous presence of both self-driving and conventional vehicles. Indeed, this is implicit in the requirement set out in Clause 1(3). However, we also wish to preserve flexibility for the principles to cover scenarios where only automated vehicles are present. The amendment would preclude that option.

On Amendment 2, in the spirit of the initial comments by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I begin by offering a brief clarification. His comments slightly confused the concepts of a no-user-in-charge vehicle and a user- in-charge vehicle. A no-user-in-charge vehicle can complete a whole journey in self-driving mode, and any human in the vehicle is merely a passenger; it will never need to hand back control. A user-in-charge vehicle can complete only part of a journey in self-driving mode, so a human will be expected to take control of the vehicle to complete the journey. The Bill requires that this person be in the vehicle and in a position to assume control; for virtually all current use cases, that will mean being in the driving seat. However, there may be some future use cases and designs—perhaps in larger vehicles, such as buses—where control could be exercised from multiple places within the vehicle.

The amendment, as drafted, would allow for human-controlled vehicles to be considered autonomous, provided that the human did not sit in the driving seat. One of the key concepts of the Bill is that liability should be transferred away from the human driver when a self-driving feature is engaged. It would clearly be inappropriate to do that in a situation where a human still exercised control over the vehicle, regardless of their physical location.

Finally, I will briefly address the question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about drivers under the influence. The Bill is clear that the user-in-charge immunity does not extend to the condition of the driver. The person acting as the user in charge in a vehicle could therefore be prosecuted for being under the influence in the same way as a conventional driver. This makes sense, considering their responsibility to resume control if directed to. As I have said, when a no-user-in-charge vehicle is driving itself, everyone in the vehicle is considered simply a passenger. Just as for passengers in conventional vehicles, there is no requirement that those individuals be in a fit state to drive. On that basis, I respectfully hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will see fit to withdraw Amendment 2.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his response. I shall read it with enormous care. Perhaps we will have to meet in order to achieve a common view. With that, all that formality requires is for me to beg leave to withdraw Amendment 2.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, to which I have added my name. I added my name because, as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and a previous member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, I am used to looking at what different departments consider to be proper consultation. This Government have a very poor record on recognising what is really inclusive consultation. I cannot think of a topic with a broader range of organisations to which the Government should be offering consultation than safety on roads. Almost everyone in our nation uses the roads in one way or another and has the right to a viewpoint and to have it considered.

It is probably a very little-known fact that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee keeps a record of the progress of individual departments on issues such as this. The Department for Transport does not have a wonderful record on consultation and reporting. Consultation cannot be only with the organisations, for example, producing the automated vehicles. It has to be with a whole range of organisations representing people who use the roads and directly with the people who use the roads themselves. I support the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, in his views.

Amendment 55, which is in my name, would require the Secretary of State from time to time to review the rules for driving tests to ensure that the public can safely drive both automated and non-automated vehicles in places where there are many automated vehicles on the road. It would also allow the Secretary of State to update the rules on driving tests. It is blindingly obvious to me that, over time, people’s driving skills will wither and die if no effort is made at keeping them refreshed.

This is an issue that the Transport Committee of the House of Commons addressed directly in paragraph 63 of its report:

“Greater automation will reduce time spent driving. Over time drivers may become less practised and therefore less skilled. Conversely, the demands on drivers will grow as they will be called upon to retake control of vehicles in challenging circumstances with little notice. The Government should set out a strategy for the future of human driving in a world of self-driving vehicles. This should include possible changes to driving tests and a plan to ensure that all drivers fully understand self-driving vehicles and both acquire and maintain the necessary skills for taking control of a vehicle in all circumstances”.


Looking at the circumstances in which you would retake control of a vehicle, it seems it would be when it has become too complex for the automated vehicle to cope. You would be sitting there, quite relaxed, and suddenly you would be in an emergency situation. That requires new and different skills and a new and different approach. It is essential that the Government look at the driving test and the issue of refreshing skills. This is going to be possibly most acute as an issue for older drivers and for young and inexperienced drivers. Skills can become stale very quickly.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has one approach to this in Amendment 47; I have a slightly more urgent approach in Amendment 55. The principle of the two amendments is the same. The issue needs to be looked at and it needs to be looked at now, so that everyone is prepared for when this situation comes into existence—which people tell us could be in the next few years.

I urge the Minister to give us a positive response on the issue of consultation and to reassure us that the Government are considering the issue of skills.

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

My Lords, the amendments in this group concern external oversight of the operation of the self-driving regulatory framework. This includes duties to report and consult.

On the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, it is a mischaracterisation to suggest that the issue of safety is simply being left to the department, and I said nothing of the sort. Indeed, it is on the face of the Bill that the statement of safety principles is to be developed in consultation with stakeholders—a point I will return to shortly—and subject to proportionate parliamentary scrutiny.

Turning to the noble Lord’s Amendments 11, 46, and 49, the Government are clear that we will consult with representative organisations on the proposed use of the Bill’s powers before they are used. Following government best practice, we anticipate this will bring in the views of the public, academia, trade unions and other representative bodies for affected groups. Notwithstanding the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, it remains the case that this is a particularly uncertain policy area with a rapidly developing industry, and any statutory list of consultees risks falling out of date rapidly. Additionally, I note the consultation that has already taken place as part of the Law Commissions’ four-year review, which included road safety groups, trade unions and businesses. Many of the concerns raised during this process have already been reflected in the Bill. Examples include the introduction of the incident investigation function and the embedding of accessibility into the automated passenger service permitting process. On Amendment 49 specifically, we also believe an external advisory council of the type proposed would risk duplicating the vital functions of the statutory inspectors conducting independent safety investigations.

On Amendment 55D, an extensive public engagement programme has already been conducted over the course of the many years spent developing this legislation. That work is not stopping. For example, in 2022 we funded an unprecedented study called The Great Self-Driving Exploration. This award-winning public engagement exercise was explicitly designed to allow people from all walks of life to understand and give their views on how self-driving vehicles might affect their lives. The learning from this research is being used to develop future engagement plans, including ones that will inform our programme of secondary legislation. We also run the AV-DRIVE group, which focuses on how we can all engage consistently about self-driving vehicles. The group brings together vehicle manufacturers, software developers, vehicle leasing representatives, insurers, road safety groups and others. Work to date has focused on education, communication and building public understanding of the technology. This will also be supported by Pave UK, a new resource hub and education group launching this spring, with government support. I hope this offers my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond sufficient reassurance.

Amendments 32 and 33 look to attach additional requirements to the general monitoring duty set out in Clause 38. This clause requires that reports be published on the performance of authorised automated vehicles, including assessments of the extent to which this performance is consistent with the statement of safety principles. Since the principles are required to be framed with a view to securing an improvement in road safety, any assessment against them is already an assessment of safety. The exact format of these reports is yet to be determined and will likely vary depending on the number and types of relevant deployments in any given year. However, I can confirm they are expected to include some fleet-level reporting on safety incidents. Finally, the existing publication requirement in subsection (3) will ensure that reports are available for all interested parties, including parliamentary colleagues. For these reasons, Amendments 32 and 33 are unnecessary.

I turn now to Amendment 30. Clause 43 specifies that authorisation and licensing fees may be determined by any costs incurred, or likely to be incurred, in connection with any function under Part 1 of the Bill. This includes the cost of controlling data collected through information notices. Part of these fees may therefore be used in relation to this function. However, to require separate reporting on these specific costs could add an additional administrative burden and therefore additional costs to the in-use regulatory scheme. It would therefore be disproportionate.

On Amendments 47 and 55, the Government recognise the importance of keeping driver skills up to date in a self-driving world. However, this needs to be done on an ongoing basis rather than to arbitrary reporting cycles. The foundations of that work are already well under way. We have commissioned research on how authorised self-driving entities can best educate those who use their vehicles, and we expect appropriate user training and support to form part of authorisation requirements. We have already updated the Highway Code to explain the difference between driver assistance and self-driving. Just as satnav use is now part of the driving test, driver training will continue to evolve with the arrival of new technology. For example, the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency is already drawing on research from the RAC which proposes the new CHAT procedure, thereby teaching users of self-driving vehicles to “Check”, “Assess” and then “Take over” control.

I hope that this goes some way to reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that these issues are at the forefront of the Government’s mind and will continue to be tackled on an ongoing basis over the coming months, years and even decades. In answer to the noble Baroness’s specific point, a user-in-charge is not expected to retake control at a moment’s notice. There are safeguards in place in the Bill to promote safe transition, including requiring multisensory alerts and sufficient time to resume control. Vehicles must also be capable of dealing safely with situations where the user-in-charge fails to resume control.

In conclusion, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, see fit to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I return to the point the noble Lord made about taking over control and not taking over at a moment’s notice. From what I have read, 10 seconds seems to be the period specified for taking over control. Is that the Government’s accepted view? What research have the Government used in order to home in on that particular period, because 10 seconds is actually a fairly short period in which to get oneself from relaxed to fully in control of emergency situation mode.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a fair point. I cannot give her an absolute answer on that one, but it is something I will certainly look into and come back to her on.

--- Later in debate ---

Thirdly, on the question of an advisory council, I take the point that you might want to have flexibility of membership, but establishing an advisory council does not preclude that. As members of an advisory council, surely you would want to have the interest groups concerned with road safety, as well as having the organisations that represent cyclists, just to cite two examples. You would not ever want to exclude them from a role in commenting on proposed regulation. So again I do not see that this is an objection in principle. It would actually help the Minister to have an advisory council on what will be, as we all accept, very difficult issues.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am grateful for the point that the noble Lord makes, but I come back to the point that the Government are very clear that we will consult representative organisations on the proposed use of the Bill’s powers before they come into force. The noble Lord seems to imply that these bodies are not onside. As I have said previously, we anticipate that we will bring in the views of academia, trade unions and other representative bodies, so I do not really accept what the noble Lord says.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 11.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, we on these Benches have no amendments in this group, largely because the area is so complex and we cannot rustle up anybody bright enough to understand it—I wish I had got a good lawyer. Hence, I would like to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Brinton and Lady Randerson, for making the subject so interesting and explicit. The closest I got to this area was trying to read the whole Bill, which I staggered through over Christmas. I kept coming across these various little phrases, including the one about such a weak defence for giving away my data. I really feel that the three Baronesses have a very strong point. I look to the Government not to dismiss it because they were told to give no points away but to take it back and discuss with the noble Baronesses how this Bill can be improved. It is a horrible precedent to see data handled so loosely and in such a cavalier manner.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, once again I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I begin with Amendments 29, 34 and 42, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. The protection of personal and commercial data is of course a critical issue and one that requires careful consideration. On Amendments 34 and 42, all information collected and shared under Clauses 42 and 88 is subject to restrictions on unauthorised use, breach of which constitutes an offence. Where personal data is collected, this is also subject to data protection legislation. This information can be disclosed or used only for the purposes specified in the regulations made under each respective clause.

As set out in our policy scoping notes, this is a novel policy area, and it is not yet known exactly how information may need to be used or shared. However, as the examples in the notes illustrate, this is likely to be for public interest purposes such as road safety or improved passenger services. On the basis that information sharing will be proportionate and in the public interest, a requirement to pay commercial compensation would be inappropriate.

To further support data protection, the Government will be considering the recommendations by the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, in its report Responsible Innovation in Self-Driving Vehicles. These include a recommendation to work with the Information Commissioner’s Office to issue guidance on how data protection obligations apply to self-driving vehicles.

On Amendment 29, all information required to be shared under Clause 14 will be subject to the requirements and safeguards of data protection legislation. The Bill does not change these protections. This information will be used for regulatory purposes to ensure the safe and legal operation of self-driving vehicles. It will also be used to determine criminal and civil liabilities associated with the use of these vehicles. Again, these purposes are proportionate and in the public interest. Businesses will be aware of the regulatory requirements for information sharing prior to seeking authorisation or licensing, and the information will be subject to these obligations from the outset. There would therefore be no expectation that it could be treated as commercially confidential information which holds a market value.

I turn to Amendment 31. The department does not notify entities when using information obtained under an investigation and used in the public interest— for example, to improve road safety. In the case of Clause 22(2), the information would be used for

“any of the investigative purposes in relation to any regulated body”.

These purposes aim to ensure the continued safe and legal operation of self-driving vehicles, and are therefore in the public interest.

The amendment would place an additional administrative burden on the Secretary of State that brought minimal benefit to the regulated body in question, as the investigative purpose would continue none the less. In the case of a regulatory issue being identified, the body would be notified by the appropriate regulatory action, such as a compliance notice. This would then allow the regulated body to challenge the use of information by representations under paragraph 5 of Schedule 1.

On Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I recognise that she made a characteristically incisive series of detailed points on these issues. I will be happy to meet with her, in addition to the separate meeting we have scheduled on accessibility, to have a fuller discussion on her questions, and I extend the same invitation to other noble Lords.

We believe it is right that the protection of personal data will be considered alongside the detailed development of authorisation requirements—it is an important issue. These requirements will be set out in secondary legislation and will be subject to consultation and impact assessment. The schemes referred to in the amendment are industry led and therefore not within the control of government. There is therefore a risk that they would not achieve the intended result.

On Amendment 35, it is the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office to regulate on data protection issues. The ICO has an existing obligation to report annually to Parliament on the commissioner’s activities. Any report by the Department for Transport would risk duplicating this work. The Department for Transport is also not the data controller for information collected by regulated bodies, which means that such reporting would be inappropriate. Further, the Secretary of State already has a duty under Article 36(4) of the UK GDPR to consult the ICO on proposals for legislative measures. Amendment 36 therefore duplicates an existing requirement.

On Amendment 55B, the Information Commissioner’s Office is the independent regulator responsible for upholding information rights in the public interest. Given its role as a whole-economy regulator, it would be unnecessary and duplicative to establish a separate third-party body, with the same expertise, to oversee the use of personal data by self-driving vehicles.

I turn to the proposal that Clause 42 be removed. Clause 42 contains provisions that constrain the use and disclosure of information obtained through the regulatory framework. The removal of these provisions would open up the possibility of personal data being processed in a much wider manner, such as for reasons of “legitimate interest”. This would amount to a weakening of the data protections in the Bill.

On the points raised about national security, whole-life cyber resilience will be tested as part of the approval processes. The UK has co-chaired the UNECE group developing standards in this area, and government is working with colleagues in the National Cyber Security Centre and the National Protective Security Authority on these issues.

Finally, on the point regarding the protection of personal data when selling a vehicle, in cases where manufacturers and supporting services store data outside the vehicle, all relevant data protections will need to be met. If a vehicle user has given access rights and connections to personal information, it is the responsibility of the user to delete the data from the vehicle. Indeed, this is the same approach as that applied to devices such as mobile phones, which contain similarly large quantities of sensitive data. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments on this.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

Can I just clarify something? I accept what the Minister says. In most cases there may be a public interest provision and there are not statutory protections on the information that the public interests can win. But where there are—I will take the statutory protection of a patent—that is essentially exerting a Crown user provision with no compensation, which would offend against international treaties.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. She raised a number of important points that I have perhaps not addressed fully, and I would be very happy to go back and write to her comprehensively on a couple of them.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

Will the Minister copy that to those who have been involved in the debate?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I omitted to say that I will copy in all those noble Lords.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all the contributors to this debate. We are delighted that others have been so supportive of our amendments, which cover a considerable range of data protection issues. I am grateful to the Minister for his response and thank him, because, yes, I think a meeting is particularly important. He said in response to my noble friend Lady Bowles’s first amendment that the Government are not yet sure how data will be used or shared. That is the reason that the ICO is so clear that there needs to be extra provision, because otherwise, if everyone just assumes that it will be the way we have always used GDPR, we—being the Government and the public—are going to come a cropper pretty quickly, not least because technology has changed, is changing and will change again so fast. I hope that, as we have our meeting and progress towards Report, the Government will seriously consider following the ICO’s advice and make very clear, designed-by-default arrangements for this sector, which will be like none that we have seen so far. With that, I withdraw my amendment.

Refurbishing Trains: Contracts

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

Alstom’s Litchurch Lane factory in Derby has provided high-skilled jobs for generations, but uncertainty over the UK rail industry and the lack of long-term strategy means that those workers are now in jeopardy. The workers are a national asset. People are one of the scarcest assets in this country; an asset that must be looked after to preserve the capability to lead to long-term growth.

Last Thursday, the Rail Minister in the other place, Huw Merriman, said:

“We will be doing everything we can to assist Alstom in keeping that plant open”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/23; col. 486.]


That is a very hard, precise commitment. Can the Minister tell us what action the Government have taken in the light of that promise?

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

My Lords, we have been actively involved in discussions with Alstom for several weeks on this matter and have held frequent meetings with the company to look at options around its production gap. We will continue to work with Alstom. A cross-departmental task force has been established and officials are meeting Alstom regularly to discuss how best to support employees at risk of redundancy.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, in the past, when a major long-standing employer such as Alstom hit a crisis, the Government used to blame the shackles of EU competition law. Well, we are not bound by that any more, so who will the Government blame now? The truth of the matter surely is that the Government need to provide certainty on the new orders required.

The managing director of Alstom, in evidence to the Transport Committee in the other place, made it clear that one of its immediate problems is uncertainty over whether the Government will pursue the £2 billion contract for all the 54 HS2 trains they have ordered. Can the Minister tell us, here and now, whether that is the case? Will the full order still be required?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. What I can say to noble Lords that manufacturers are ultimately responsible for sourcing work for their assembly plants. There are upcoming procurements in the market being run by Northern, Southeastern, TransPennine and Chiltern. It is a competition process that is open to all manufacturers to bid, including Alstom in Derby. The department is also working with the Treasury to set out a pipeline for expected rolling stock orders, to provide the sector with further clarity over the near term.

Regarding HS2, Alstom are part of a contract with Hitachi to design, build and maintain HS2 trains for phase 1 only.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, may I wish the Government all the best in ensuring a future for Alstom? Who is responsible for ensuring that the overhead electricity wires are fit for purpose? We have seen three outages in two different parts of the country, one of which lasted three days and caused absolute havoc on the east coast main line. This cannot be sustainable. Will the Minister assure us that there is a rolling programme of improvements and refurbishment of the overhead lines, particularly on the east coast main line?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Well, we have been subject to adverse weather, of course. I can, however, assure my noble friend that Network Rail is responsible for overhead lines. I will take her comments back to the department.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not think the Minister answered properly the question about HS2. It was, in my view, a disastrous decision made by the Government to cancel the Derby and Manchester links, so can he tell us how many trains were required, had those links still been about to be built, and how many trains are now required, so we can work out the deficit for ourselves? While he is about it, will he please answer a question which his department has repeatedly been unable to answer for me as a Written Question: precisely how much money has been lost—wasted—as a result of the cancellations to which I have referred?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The noble Lord asks two very fair questions. I do not have those details to hand, but I will ensure that he gets them in written form.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, last week in the other place the Department for Transport said that the contract tenders for refurbishing existing trains would be brought forward very soon. Time is short for Alstom, the only end-to-end manufacturing facility in the UK. Can the Minister give any assurances about how soon these contracts will be brought forward, because the days are now being counted down?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I cannot give any specifics in terms of days, but the department is certainly aware of this and will bring it on as soon as possible. I assure the right reverend Prelate that, if I can ascertain exactly how many days, I will write to him with the information.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, it may be my fault, but I have not actually understood whether the current HS2 contract with the company is or is not going to go forward.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The contract with HS2 and Alstom will go forward in terms of phase 1.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister says that there will be investment in the railways. We know that there is money being kept safe from the cancellation of High Speed 2; how much of that is going to be transferred to northern schemes, because it looks quite clear that the Government are transferring money intended for the north down to the south?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

If I am correct, I believe it was somewhere in the region of £30 billion to £34 billion.

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords, having had a small passion around railways and networks—in fact, the last time we ordered some new rolling stock for London, I was with the then mayor as we brought the S stock trains into London—I have looked at the timelines and supply chains, especially with manufacturers in and across the UK. Does the Department for Transport have a view on what rolling stock may be part of the ordering book when we look at network north plans, and also for plans for the London Underground, which seem to be going a bit slower than they should be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Well, the department is always talking with rail operators and manufacturers. Of course, rail manufacturers play an important role in growing the UK economy, and there is a strong pipeline for future orders for UK rail manufacturers. As I perhaps alluded to earlier, there are upcoming procurements in the market being run by Northern, Chiltern, TransPennine and Southeastern; this competition process is open to all manufacturers to bid, including Alstom. As I said earlier, the department is also working with HM Treasury to set out a pipeline for expected rolling stock orders, to provide the sector with further clarity over the near term.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, is not here for this, because he is the guilty man, as he was the Minister who privatised the railways in such a chaotic way. As well as the overhead lines and the rails being run by one company, and the actual services by other companies, the LNER reminded me recently that it does not actually own its trains—it only rents them. It is total chaos. I seem to remember that this Government—on their last legs now, but nevertheless—suggested some kind of “Great British Rail” set-up, to try to improve the position. What has happened to that?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

It has been the case for many years that train companies lease their rolling stock, and that still is the case.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, could the Minister unpack the statement he has made, which sounds so very reassuring, that the Government will abide by the contract for the purchase of trains for phase 1 of HS2? Surely, the train manufacturer invested and provided facilities for the HS2 project overall. The same trains of course would run beyond Manchester when the line was extended and, therefore, you cannot mix and match two different sets of trains. Has he looked at the economics of the decision that has been made and understood what the consequences are for the manufacturer with which he is contracted?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I say, in answer to the noble Baroness’s question, that Alstom is part of a contract with Hitachi to design, build and maintain HS2 trains for phase 1 only. Phase 1 of HS2 between Birmingham and London will continue, with a rescoped Euston station. We expect Alstom’s contractual obligations to be honoured with HS2 Ltd.