Pavement Parking

Debate between Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Davies of Gower

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Department for Transport received over 15,000 responses to its consultation on this matter. The Government want to take the right step for communities and ensure that local authorities have the appropriate and effective tools at their disposal. We are working through the options and the opportunities for delivering them and, as soon as those matters are certain, we will publish our formal response and announce the way forward.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, cars on the pavement force pedestrians into the carriageway. That means blind people, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs—in fact, all pedestrians—are taken off the pavement and put on a very different path: into that of oncoming traffic. In London, there has been a ban on pavement parking for years. If it is good enough for the capital, why not the rest of the country?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My noble friend makes an important point, and I cannot help but agree with him. Pavement parking is a widespread problem and a complex issue. We must ensure that whatever approach is taken works for all road users in the community. We know that our streets belong to us all and understand that parking on the pavements damages them and exposes pedestrians to risk. We have empathy for those members of our society for whom pavement parking poses particular difficulties—those who have sight and mobility impairments, wheelchair users and those with prams and buggies—but we must get this consultation right.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Davies of Gower

Report stage
Tuesday 6th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I hear what the noble Lord says and am not going to argue with him on that at this point. Where there are overlaps between safety and accessibility, for example in the training of human detection systems, these will be addressed as part of the statement of safety principles. Beyond this, accessibility provisions are best made at the service level, of which vehicle design is just one part.

That is why our approach focuses on understanding how services can best be delivered for disabled users, which can then inform standard permit requirements. As drafted, the amendment would also apply these accessibility principles to any vehicle authorised as self-driving. That would include everything from private cars to vans, HGVs and even tractors. This would be disproportionate and out of step with the way we regulate conventional vehicle designs.

While Amendments 18 and 20 focus on passenger service provision, they could impose design requirements that are simply too sweeping to be workable. Requiring that every automated passenger service vehicle be “accessible to disabled people” would likely require adaptions, including full wheelchair accessibility. Imposing this requirement on the full self-driving passenger service fleet would be disproportionate, and not something we require of conventional taxis and private hire vehicles. This would make the UK market unviable, to the detriment of all users, including those with disabilities. As colleagues have noted, the needs of disabled people are broad and diverse. I note that even vehicles that claim to be 100% wheelchair accessible frequently cannot accommodate the full range of motorised and larger chairs.

Amendment 19 looks to apply the accessibility requirements of existing taxi, private hire and public service vehicle legislation to the passenger permitting scheme. This would not have the desired effect, as these requirements are largely imposed on the human driver. Furthermore, novel automated services may not fit neatly into these traditional modal schemes. Indeed, this is the very challenge that the law commissions were looking to tackle when they recommended the approach we are now taking. Nevertheless, I recognise the points that my noble friend makes and undertake to reflect on how we can best align our standard permitting conditions with the spirit of the Equality Act. These will also reflect the Bill’s specific requirements to consider the needs of older and disabled people before any permit can be issued.

I turn now to some details of the permitting system. Amendment 22 places an unnecessarily high burden on issuing authorities to guarantee that permits enable learning and improve understanding. The Bill already requires that authorities consider the likelihood of this. A more stringent standard would be impractical and add little value. Applicants will naturally be required to provide evidence of their plans for accessibility reporting as part of their permit application. Pre-deployment reports of the kind proposed by Amendment 24 would therefore be redundant.

The reporting process is outcome focused, requiring providers to explain what they are doing to meet the needs of disabled users. Vehicle accessibility could naturally be one of the many inputs that help to do this. I contend that a separate reference, as proposed by Amendment 23, is therefore also unnecessary.

Amendment 21 would require that relevant disability groups be consulted before each permit was issued. Consultation with such groups will naturally form part of developing the national minimum standards for permits. To require separate consultation for each individual permit would be excessively onerous and there would be considerable ambiguity as to which groups would be relevant in each case. Both these issues could severely inhibit the growth of new services.

Amendment 27 would require the Government to annually commission and pay due regard to research on self-driving vehicles’ accessibility. I have already described some of the work that we are undertaking in this space, which will of course continue. However, the wording of this requirement is too general to be effectively implemented and enforced.

I wholly appreciate the strength of feeling on these issues. By explaining the position taken by the Government and the law commissions, I hope that I have been able to offer at least some assurances.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and the Minister and his officials for their engagement between Committee and Report.

I will take a couple of points that my noble friend Lord Borwick raised as I entirely understand where he is coming from. The difficulty is that, if one is talking about logic, everything that currently is in place would need to necessarily remain as it is until it ceases to be, and then we could start again in terms of accessibility and inclusion. The Palace of Westminster is not perfect, but it is pretty accessible. Changes were made and compromises had to be given—and it is a grade 1 listed palace.

I say to all the businesses currently involved in this that I see the argument that the choice of vehicle—described as a donor vehicle—has not been able to be made accessible. One would assume that all the systems, software and platforms used, as they have been built from scratch, are fully accessible to blind, learning disabled and older people—indeed all people whose needs must be catered for. If those platforms and software systems are not accessible, that tells rather a large truth about what we are considering.

It is desperately disappointing that we find ourselves in this situation, when the promise of automated vehicles is accessible mobility for all, enabled through human-led technology. It is pretty clear that we are not quite there yet. I hope there will be greater changes and much more thought and reflection, potentially between Report and Third Reading. There is so much that needs to be done on access and inclusion. It is hard for me to make this decision but, having considered this deeply, sadly I find myself in the position of withdrawing my amendment at this stage.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Davies of Gower

Committee stage
Monday 15th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Davies of Gower

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.