Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]

Bill Esterson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 5th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I thank all Members who have taken part in this debate.

Self-driving vehicles offer an enormous opportunity to this country, with the potential to create a market worth £42 billion by 2035, to create 38,000 new jobs and to improve road safety and connectivity in the long term for all road users. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) said, Labour welcomes and supports the broad principles of the Bill. I pay tribute to the detailed work carried out over four years by the Law Commission to give us confidence about the framework before us.

The UK was leading the charge on self-driving technology in 2018, but since then, China, the US, France and Germany have overtaken us. The Opposition want to encourage innovation in this sector to bring economic and job opportunities to the UK, and to return the UK to its leading role in the development of this technology. Labour’s industrial strategy will do that, as part of our approach to improving the UK’s prospects.

Automated vehicles could remove transport-related obstacles for those living in remote rural communities, those living with a disability and older people by reaching those who are denied access to public transport.

Crucially, automated vehicles have the potential to improve road safety for all. Eighty-eight per cent of road collisions are a result of human error. Research by Axa suggests that 3,900 deaths and 60,000 serious road traffic collisions could be prevented between last year, when it carried out the research, and 2040 through the deployment of automated vehicles. It forecast an 85% reduction in road incidents through the introduction of AV technology, which would in turn benefit the NHS to the tune of £2.3 billion a year in reduced medical and ambulance costs. However, this all requires a proper transition and roll-out from the Government.

I mentioned the importance of safety improvements, and I am pleased that the Government have accepted the need for higher standards in the Bill. My Labour colleagues Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Liddle deserve particular credit for their work in this crucial area. The Government amendment that referred to “careful and competent” drivers sends a very clear indication to industry, and it rightly puts the highest standard of safety in the Bill. I am also glad that the Government agree that secondary legislation should be considered under the affirmative procedure. The regulations that follow from the Bill should be subject to proper scrutiny over the years as the technology is developed.

A number of concerns that were raised in the Lords remain to be addressed in Committee. The impact on the transport workforce will be crucial in any transition to automation, which is why trade unions have a key part to play. Working with industry and the unions is a key part of a successful industrial strategy, and the unions have much to offer in advising on how to find alternative employment for their members and in ensuring that the economic benefits of new technologies are available to workers, as well as to investors and consumers.

As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley, said, we have already seen what happens when this Government do not engage with union representatives. We must learn the lessons from deindustrialisation to avoid repeating its mistakes, which have contributed to growing inequality across our country.

We also want to see people with disabilities, pedestrians, cyclists, businesses, emergency services and highway authorities included in the development of this technology. My hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and for Eltham (Clive Efford) both highlighted the importance of setting up an advisory committee, and I hope they will join me in Committee to revisit this important aspect that should be added to what has already been amended in the Lords.

This brings me to accessibility. This Bill’s framework provides a unique opportunity to support people with disabilities from the outset by, for example, including consultation with disabled road users on the statement of safety principles. In 2019, the Government published their “Future of mobility: urban strategy” which highlighted that one of the potential benefits of supporting self-driving vehicles is making travel more accessible to disabled and older people. The Government know that the Bill should specifically include people with disabilities and older people. It was therefore disappointing that they did not accept Labour’s amendments in the Lords.

I said earlier that the introduction of automated vehicles brings an opportunity to improve safety for all road users, not least pedestrians and cyclists. The Transport Committee’s September 2023 report on self-driving vehicles argues that the introduction of self-driving vehicles

“should not impose new responsibilities on other road users and pedestrians”.

Will the Minister confirm whether he accepts that principle?

Speaking of areas of uncertainty in the Bill, there are other examples of a lack of clarity, which is something that the insurance industry will require. I know that much of this will be addressed in secondary legislation. Access to data is essential to ensuring that the insurance model does not break down on issues such as responsibility for software updates, on liability during transition from automated to “user in charge” and on the Motor Insurers Bureau dealing with cases of uninsured vehicles. Additionally, clarity is required for those injured by an automated vehicle, as they currently have to prove that automated features were engaged in order to claim compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham made a reasonable point about who will be responsible in the event of an incident and how this can be covered in legislation.

The Transport Committee highlighted the insurance industry’s concerns in its recent report on self-driving vehicles. Uncertainty, and the possibility of endless legal disputes if access to data is not available, risks increasing insurance costs for consumers and deterring growth in the market for automated vehicles, so I look forward to delving further into these questions with the Minister in Committee.

The Bill rightly addresses concerns about false marketing of automated vehicles that have not been authorised. The Government must work with industry to ensure there is a clear communication strategy during the transition to automated vehicles. We have seen what happens when communication is negative, through the approach in the media to the transition to electric vehicles. Whether deliberate or otherwise, the messaging from some, not just in the media, but in government, including the Prime Minister, has delayed the time at which many people will benefit from cheaper private cars, at a cost of £13 billion to drivers. I hope that Ministers will not repeat the same damaging approach in their messaging on the switch to automated vehicles.

Labour welcomes this Bill as it moves through the House. The benefits of automated vehicles are there for all to see, for our economy, through the creation of new jobs and, crucially, through improved road safety and connectivity. There is a good degree of consensus on the implementation of the legislation. If Labour is given the opportunity to serve after the election, with us in the driving seat, we will power ahead and ensure that Britain really can lead on this exciting new technology.

Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Gavin Newlands]

Thank you, Sir George. You say “in the middle”—I had barely started my remarks. [Laughter.] Thankfully, despite the rude interruption of Question Time and lunch, I have been able to add to them, including some quotes from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport. I thank my Transport Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Easington, for his help with that.

I was talking about working across borders, which undoubtedly makes good sense on issues like this, but as it stands clause 50 is not working across borders. It will mean government by diktat and by statutory instrument, rather than the democratic procedures that have been in place for nearly a quarter of a century.

I mentioned earlier that the UK Government have moved the goalposts on this issue. The policy scoping notes clearly state:

“Any future proposals to amend existing primary legislation will be subject to consultation with representative organisations before being laid before both Houses of Parliament (and/or the Senedd Cymru and Scottish Parliament, insofar as the regulations amend any act of the Senedd Cymru or the Scottish Parliament respectively).”

But the UK Government’s delegated powers memorandum states:

“The affirmative procedure will ensure that Parliament (as well as the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru, where Scottish or Welsh legislation is amended) can closely scrutinise any regulations changing or clarifying how existing primary legislation applies to the user-in-charge.”

Obviously, there is no provision for scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament in the final Bill, but, as I said, the prior commitment means that it is not the SNP or rogue Scottish Government officials pushing the envelope and insisting on consultation and consent; rather, it is the UK Government reneging on their commitment to do so.

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport made it clear at the Scottish Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee just this morning, as I have alluded to a number of times, that there are

“things that relate to offences under devolved legislation and offences that would be part of devolved areas, these are the areas that the provision would allow the UK Government to legislate on or make provision for in the future… we think it’s a genuine issue of concern.”

I would welcome the Minister addressing those concerns and committing to meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Transport at Holyrood to ensure that the broad co-operation on the rest of the Bill is continued in the wording of clause 50. When he responds, perhaps he could list the Acts that relate to transport in Scotland that might be impacted.

Amendment 9 would ensure that the term “relevant enactment” cannot apply to

“an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament”,

“an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru”

or

“an instrument made under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru”.

In doing so, it removes the Secretary of State’s power to unilaterally amend Scottish primary legislation in respect of automated vehicles. Amendment 7 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of devolved Governments before exercising the clause 50 power in relation to devolved legislation. Amendment 8 would extend the clause 50 power to Ministers of the devolved Administrations.

I will not bore the Committee by reading them out, but our amendments seek to remove this Henry VIII power entirely as it relates to Scottish or Welsh legislation, to add a requirement to seek a legislative consent motion from Holyrood or the Senedd, or to extend the same powers to the appropriate Scottish and Welsh Ministers. If this Government truly were looking to work in co-operation, they surely should not have a problem agreeing to look at this issue, but thus far they have shown no real inclination or desire to compromise on this fundamental point. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments in my name—or one of them, at least —and respect devolution and the elected Governments of Scotland and Wales and our judgment in making laws that best suit our countries.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a real delight to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir George. I rise briefly to support what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said about the important role of the devolved Administrations. He referenced the role of the Scottish Law Commission—and indeed the Law Commissions from all the nations of the United Kingdom —and its important work in producing this framework for the introduction of automated vehicles. He is quite right that the principle of consent on devolved competencies applies in this legislation, and I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington read out the relevant reference in the explanatory notes. The Government would not normally legislate on matters of devolved competence without that consent, and for that reason I think that the three amendments tabled by hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North deserve support. We will vote with him if he chooses to go for a Division.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)]

Before I come to the amendments, I want to set out some of the background of clause 50 and why we think it is significant. This is all about the user in charge, which is a new legal concept that did not exist when existing traffic laws were drafted. Those laws come in a wide variety of formats and language, from traffic regulation orders to motorway regulations. The power in clause 50 can be used to clarify what is and is not the responsibility of the user in charge in particular enactments—what the user in charge, when a vehicle is in self-driving mode, is responsible for. That is vital to support clear public understanding of the division of responsibility and to make adjustments based on experiences from real-world deployments.

Clause 50 will also allow us to respond to technological changes; as self-driving technology improves, it may become appropriate to shift greater responsibility away from the user in charge. For example, in future, vehicles may be better placed to assess their own roadworthiness than the human in the driving seat. Crucially, the clause does not provide carte blanche for the Government to alter traffic legislation generally. It can only affect the scope of the responsibility of the user in charge, and it is limited to them.

That brings me to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. I want to say at the outset that I completely respect devolution and the role of the devolved Administrations, and there is nothing in this legislation that is meant to change that balance at all. As he knows, there have been quite a lot of talks at the official level. I have had an exchange of letters with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, I am very happy to meet and discuss a way forward—hopefully there will be one.

The Government consider the user-in-charge immunity to be a reserved matter. That is because the Bill gets it authority from the Road Traffic Act 1988, and that is expressly reserved under the Scotland Act 1998. Clause 50 will predominantly affect the application of reserved traffic offences. There is a limited range of devolved legislation in this area, and the immunity will have only minor incidental impact on that legislation—it is very incidental.

More generally, public understanding and confidence will be key to realising the benefits of self-driving vehicles. It is vital that we have clarity and consistency across Great Britain about how these vehicles can be used and what individual responsibilities there are. I am interested to know the position of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and the Scottish Government on that. We think that the first recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission, and of the Law Commission for England and Wales, was that as the public would not be able to understand different and partial immunities based on distinctions between devolved and reserved laws in different parts of the country, there should be the same rules for user-in-charge immunity when crossing the border from Scotland to England, so that drivers do not unintentionally break a law as they do so.

--- Later in debate ---

My new clause would ensure that those voices have a legal right to be heard directly by the Minister, putting across their side of things. In particular, it would ensure that the devolved Administrations and their relevant agencies have that voice too—a voice that unfortunately seems to have been ignored by the UK Government in clause 50.

[Bill Esterson]

I agree with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North—or maybe it was his daughter who I was agreeing with; I was not entirely clear. I wish her a happy 14th birthday.

New clause 3, which I am speaking to, calls for the establishment of an advisory council. A Division on a very similar amendment in the Lords was narrowly lost. I accept the point made by the hon. Member about the benefits of the additional reference to the devolved Administrations in his new clause.

New clause 3 is largely about why this legislation matters so much and why it is so important that through it we are as successful as possible in predicting the impact of the new technology’s evolution. In doing that, it is essential that the benefits are enjoyed by all in society, not just by a few; the hon. Member made that point in passing. When I say all, I mean workers, those with disabilities and older people. We must minimise the risk of liability in the event of incidents that necessitate insurance claims, and we must ensure that safety is delivered as widely as possible. That is why an advisory council would be such a valuable addition to the legislation.

We saw for generations what happened with deindustrialisation in this country. That came at different times across the country, but very many people were affected and continue to be affected—their areas, their communities and their life chances were badly impacted. Prizes to be won through this legislation include avoiding the damage done by deindustrialisation while ensuring that all groups impacted by this exciting new technology benefit from it and that we gain the maximum and widest-possible economic benefits from it. Having an advisory council that has the breadth of experience to give the Government support on all those areas is highly desirable.

In the Lords, the Government said that such a council was not necessary. The Minister has reiterated today that consultation will be important to him, and I do not doubt that, but there are advantages to formalising the set-up of an advisory council so that particular interests do not come to the fore. We want innovation and enterprise; we want to attract the investment that ensures, as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimates, the creation of 342,000 jobs—I think I quoted a slightly lower figure earlier—12,250 of which will be in automotive manufacturing. We need to ensure that those jobs are delivered, that we have an upskilled workforce and that new jobs are created, not lost, through this change in industry, to replace the jobs that will go.

We need to ensure that disability groups are embedded from the start. This is an issue across the wider Transport brief. We said on Second Reading that it was regrettable that we had not seen a transport Bill to address some of these wider points. With this new clause, we have an opportunity to address some of the challenges in what is an exciting and potentially significant development over the coming years.

The stakeholders all make the point that wider statutory engagement is desirable. The TUC states that job transition is its primary concern, and that embedding the principle of creating good new jobs is really important at this stage, before we know exactly how the technology will develop. Having that principle in the Bill is very important.

Much of the detail will come out in secondary legislation, so ensuring that the trade unions have a seat at the table and a voice from the start is really important. The point about disability and accessibility is made by Guide Dogs. The point about transport more widely is made by Transport for All.

I hope that the Minister will give this point the attention it deserves in his response. He and his colleagues have noted how the technology is developing and will continue to change. I put it to him that there is no reason to limit the consultation with the trade unions or the other groups that are set out in our new clause 3, and indeed in SNP new clause 1. The Minister says he is keen to engage with the trade unions and is looking forward to an early meeting. A very good way of showing his intent would be to agree to new clause 3 this afternoon.

Nine sub-groups are listed in subsection (2) of new clause 3—consumer groups; organisations representing drivers; road safety experts; relevant businesses; vehicle insurance providers and providers of delivery and public transport services; trade unions; the police and other emergency services; highway authorities; groups representing people with disabilities; and groups representing other road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. Which of those nine sub-groups would the Minister want to leave out of consultation? If he agrees that all of them should be included, why not put it in the Bill? Why not set up an advisory council as part of primary legislation?

[Anthony Browne]

I am really glad that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North was joking about his daughter’s birthday, because I would hate to be a source of big disappointment on her birthday. I know how important 14th birthdays are. He made an interesting point. How come, in all the Bill Committees that he has been to, people agree about what they want but disagree on the actual amendments? We want as much accessibility as possible for self-driving cars as well—we share that ambition—and we want as much safety as well, but we have our own ways that we have worked out are the best ways to get that. That is what we stick to. We make amendments when we think there is something that is genuinely better.

As a newish Member to this House, I make another observation. I have only been here while my party has been in government. It has struck me how many Opposition amendments basically tell the Government what to do. I understand that that comes from a frustration that they are not in government. That can change at elections—hopefully it will not, but that does happen. If you want to tell the Government what to do, you need to win an election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

In the previous debate, the Minister was saying that the Opposition should just accept that they are not here to make legislation.

[Anthony Browne]

That was not what I was saying at all.

[Bill Esterson]

I paraphrase—that was a potential interpretation of it. I would love him to clarify that this is not what he said.

[Anthony Browne]

To clarify, in case there was any misunderstanding of what I was saying, it is clearly the role of the Opposition to try to influence and make legislation, just as it is the Government’s. My observation was merely that a lot of Opposition amendments, and this stretches across all different debates, are basically instructions to Government of what they think Government should do, as opposed to legislation for people to control behaviours outside of Government. That is born out of frustration by the fact that they are not in government, and it is completely understandable, but there is another solution to that.

[Bill Esterson]

Funny he should mention that! Call the date and we will be ready, if he can persuade the Prime Minister—2 May is still available. I was quite grateful for the answer because it showed a desire to have an early general election.

[Anthony Browne]

That wasn’t what I said!

[Bill Esterson]

Anyway, I will turn to new clause 5. In the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, there was a commitment on liability to the protection of victims and their ability to make a claim, if they are the victim of an incident with a self-driving vehicle. New clause 5 addresses the problem in the Act that, before they know whether they can prove liability, the question arises of whether they will have to prove it. If there is an incident in which somebody is hurt or killed, the question arises of whether it will automatically be accepted that an automated vehicle is designated as having been in self-driving mode. That is a potential problem if insurers insist that such proof be presented.

That point was made in 2017 by the then Transport Minister, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), on Second Reading of the 2018 Act. He referred to the potential for claims, where there is a lack of clarity on whether a vehicle was in self-driving mode, to be

“time-consuming and expensive, undermining the quick and easy access to compensation that is a cornerstone of our insurance system. Not tackling this problem risks jeopardising consumer protection and undermining the automotive industry’s competitiveness.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2017; Vol. 630, c. 73.]

I think the right hon. Gentleman made a very good point, and we share his concern that I have just reiterated, which has yet to be addressed. I would be very grateful if the Minister could respond on how potential victims will be able to make claims in a timely fashion, and overcome the risk that they will have to prove that the vehicle was in self-driving mode.

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has raised a number of circumstances where that problem could arise, and I am sure that it has raised them with the Minister as well. I would be grateful if he could address the issue of a pedestrian, who would normally be insured, being unaware of their legal situation, perhaps because they are too young or too badly injured. In section 2 of the 2018 Act, people injured by an AV when it is driving are allowed to make a claim against the driver’s insurance, but to benefit from that provision, injured people will need to know and prove that an automated feature was engaged when the incident occurred. That is the nub of the problem that the APIL has identified: it could be very difficult or downright impossible for someone to do that. That could lead to additional investigations, requiring complex legal claims and delaying the paying out of compensation, which undermines the whole point of section 2 of the 2018 Act.

Lord Liddle pointed out in the Lords that the Department does not appear to have made its mind up about how long it takes a driver to take back control in a UIC vehicle. There is also the whole issue around transition, which my hon. Friend the Member for Easington touched on in relation to one of the earlier amendments. I would be grateful if the Minister would address that issue and set out exactly how he sees the Government ensuring that there is certainty for potential victims, given the uncertainty that his predecessor, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, identified seven years ago and that the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has drawn to our attention.

[Anthony Browne]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments, because it is obviously important to make sure that there is clear liability in this area, and it is set out in the Bill.

I will just come back to the point about the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, which has been mentioned and which is the source of some of the questioning. There is a distinction between causation and fault, and in the UK people tend to claim insurance on the basis of fault, like somebody has done something wrong, and not on the basis of causation, or what actually happened.

The reason for the 2018 Act is that it was thought, quite rightly, that if somebody is in an accident with an automated vehicle, it is very difficult for them to prove whether the software and all the stuff that goes on was at fault, or that something was going wrong. Therefore, the 2018 Act created a strict liability when a vehicle is in self-driving mode. When a vehicle is not in self-driving mode and there is a human driving it, there is exactly the same liability as we have at the moment. There is no intention in any of the legislation to change that. Regarding the point that the shadow Minister makes, which was a valid one, we clearly do not want individual victims to have to try to work out whether a vehicle was in self-driving mode or not. They will claim in the normal way against the insurer of the vehicle.

If the vehicle was in self-driving mode and that was at fault, the insurer of the vehicle can claim the insurance from the authorised self-driving entity. That will be a settlement between the insurance companies; it will not affect the victim’s ability to claim. The system is designed in such a way as to make sure that the victim gets any payment due to them as quickly as possible.

That is also why we have the sharing of information, which we discussed earlier, because it is really important for the various insurance companies to know whether, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was in self-driving mode or not, in order to ascertain whether the liability should be with the ASDE or with the driver. If they do not know what mode the vehicle was in, they cannot do that.

If this new clause were added to the Bill, we would have the unusual situation whereby a car with a self-driving function that might never be used is subject to strict liability insurance claims and a car that does not have a self-driving function is subject to the normal liabilities that we have at the moment. We would have the bizarre situation that a pedestrian could be better off if they were in an accident with a car with a self-driving function that is never used than if they were in an accident with a conventionally driven car. It would be very difficult to explain that sort of discrepancy and give any rational justification for it. Again, this is one of those things where we agree with the ambition, but we think that it is already covered.

[Bill Esterson]

Two questions follow from what the Minister says. First, how does somebody prove that a vehicle was in self-driving mode where it has the option to switch between self-driving and user in charge? Secondly, what is its definition during transition? I accept that those are difficult questions, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s answers. There is a related point about data access. What are his proposals to ensure that data is available from the operator and from the vehicle, notwithstanding the fact that they are not collecting personal information and that this process is purely about data that is relevant to an incident?

[Anthony Browne]

The point I was trying to make is that the victim—the pedestrian, or whoever it is—does not have to prove whether the vehicle was in self-driving mode or not. It will be for the insurer of the car and the insurer of the ASDE to work that out. If the car was in self-driving mode, then the ASDE would be liable, and it would claim against its insurance. If the car was not in self-driving mode, it would be the normal driver’s insurance, because there is still the legal requirement for the car to be insured like it is at the moment. The victim would not need to show what mode it was in.

On the hon. Member’s point about data, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to set out regulations for data-sharing requirements, as we discussed earlier. That is for accident investigation, improvement of performance and so on, but also for insurance claims. It gives the Secretary of State the powers to specify which data should be shared with whom and under what circumstances, so long as it does not breach the data protection confidentiality of individuals. It is all covered in the Bill.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the vehicle does not have to be in self-driving mode, and that a potential victim does not have to prove whether it was. I am concerned about why we have people related to the insurance industry advising that this is yet to be cleared up. A similar point came up in the House of Lords. This remains a bit of a concern.

[Anthony Browne]

This is a complex and technical issue. As part of my extended engagement, I mentioned earlier that I have a roundtable coming up with the insurance industry about AVs and electric vehicles. I will happily write to the shadow Minister afterwards to clarify these points in black and white, and whether there are any issues resulting from that.

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on an intervention. Bill Esterson is speaking.

[Bill Esterson]

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Easington wishes to intervene.

[Grahame Morris]

I was wondering about scenarios that the Minister could seek some clarification on in his roundtable meeting next week. It is my understanding that if an uninsured driver driving a conventional vehicle was in a collision with another conventional vehicle, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau would be tasked by the Government to make the payout in respect of the uninsured driver. What would happen if an uninsured driver—I am directing this question to my hon. Friend, of course—was in a collision with an automated vehicle? Is that something the Minister might be able to answer?

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that because the Motor Insurers’ Bureau raised exactly that concern with me. I would love the Minister to answer it.

[Anthony Browne]

I am very happy to answer. This issue has indeed been raised with me and the Department, and I can confirm that the Department is in negotiations with the Motor Insurers’ Bureau about exactly this point. We have a difference of opinion with the Motor Insurers’ Bureau because it thinks this requires an amendment, and that is why it has been lobbying about this legislation. We think there are ways that we can cover this point without primary legislation, so it does not actually need an amendment. It is one of those examples, as raised by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, where we agree on the outcome—we agree that we need to close this loophole—but we think we can do it in a different way, without primary legislation.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful for those answers. I suggest that this might be something we can debate a little further on Report. The Minister will perhaps be in a slightly different position then, with some of the information he has had from the industry, as will I. That might be a good place to take this next. As he rightly says, we are setting the framework with this legislation. There are elements of it that are very difficult to pin down now, and we have to do the best we can. Report stage is a further opportunity.

With those thoughts, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[Anthony Browne]

On a point of order, Sir George. I thank everyone involved in the preparations for the Committee—the Clerks; the officials, who have been working incredibly hard; and you, Sir George—and I thank all the members of the Committee for spending their time here going through the Bill. It is delightful to have something on which there is consensus across the House on the broad direction of travel, if not on every single item.

[Bill Esterson]

Further to that point of order, Sir George. I thank you and Mr Vickers for chairing our sessions. I think this Committee is possibly unique in the history of Parliament in that the Chairs, between them, have possibly spoken for longer than Members in moving through the agenda—in a thoroughly appropriate way, I hasten to add. It is a pleasure to have my predecessor in the Chair for a Committee such as this; I took about half of my constituency from you in 2010, Sir George.

I add my thanks to the Clerks, the officials and the Law Commission for their work and for getting us to this stage. We have set the framework for an important future piece of legislation. Birthday wishes to the 14-year-old daughter of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, too. I thank all Members for their contributions today and on Second Reading, and I look forward to Report.

[Gavin Newlands]

Further to that point of order, Sir George. On behalf of my daughter and me, I thank all members of the Committee and the Minister. I look forward to engaging with him further on clause 50 as we move through this process—that is my hope, anyway. I thank all hon. Members; Mr Vickers and you, Sir George, for your chairship; the Clerks for their assistance in drafting amendments; Hansard, and the Doorkeepers. I also thank the hon. Member for Easington for allowing me to move a section of my speech on clause 50 beyond the 11.25 am barrier this morning. With that consensus and positivity, which is unusual in these quarters of the House, I will conclude.

Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Please note that the decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated, but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill are taken when we come to the relevant clause.

A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance.

Clause 1

Basic concepts

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, leave out “an acceptably safe standard” and insert—

“a high standard of safety”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 20, in clause 1, page 2, line 7, leave out “an acceptably” and insert “a very”.

This amendment is intended to probe the meaning of “acceptably” with regards to the risk of automated vehicles committing traffic infractions.

Clause stand part.

[Bill Esterson]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers, for our consideration of this Bill, which I think it is fair to say has broad, cross-party parliamentary support. It will be encouraging over the next however many hours we are in Committee to look at the potential to strengthen it.

There is huge potential for the economy in the safe transition to automated vehicles, but it is important that we recognise that this remains a largely undeveloped technology and we are trying to predict what will happen in the future. In our deliberations, it will be important that we try to set the strongest possible framework for what is likely to be needed. The detailed work of the Law Commission gives us a good start, and what we have been presented with from the Lords improves on that work.

Amendments 19 and 20 in my name relate to the critical area of safety: they seek to set in primary legislation the strongest possible safety standards. They would amend the standard of safety from “acceptably safe” to “high”, and amend the definition of “legally” to refer to “very low risk” rather than “acceptably low risk”. That is important because we are trying to anticipate what might happen and to minimise the risks and potential problems.

When similar amendments were debated in the Lords, the Government’s response was that such

“phrases…are open to…interpretation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 January 2024; Vol. 835, c. 63.]

It occurs to me to ask: if things are open to interpretation, who is going to decide? Invariably, that will mean going to the courts. We are trying to minimise the potential for that to happen.

The Government were quite happy to accept the amendment to the phrase “careful and competent driver” —we very much welcome that, which will reduce the number of things that are open to interpretation—so I wonder why they were not prepared in the Lords to accept amendments similar to these. Perhaps the Minister will answer that question in his response.

“Careful and competent” itself was only established in case law; it is not in statute. That is being left to the courts as well, and is open to further interpretation. We will return to that point with later amendments, because we are trying to minimise the risks of leaving things open to interpretation. This is a good example of where an advisory council, which was the subject of much debate in the Lords, could make recommendations to address the uncertainties that exist in legislating for the unknown, in the way that we are invariably having to do with primary legislation for technology that is yet to be developed.

I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on these points. The amendments attempt to reduce the risks of leaving things open to interpretation. We want the highest possible standards set out as early as possible to enable this technology to be developed as safely as possible.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thought it would be helpful for the Committee to start with some good news. The SNP and Scottish Government are generally supportive of the Bill and I will not seek to detain the Committee over the course of however many days we debate it with superfluous speeches, reading out explanatory notes and so on, until we get to clause 50, which I will get my teeth into—I am sure the Minister will be aware of that. However, I reserve the right to intervene in support of any of Labour’s amendments, which I am doing now, or indeed when I think the Minister is talking cobblers, which hopefully he will not be doing.

That is the good news. With that, I very much look forward to the Minister’s answer about what actually is acceptably safe.

--- Later in debate ---

The phrase “high standard of safety” and the “very low” risk of committing an infraction are problematic. How do we define “very low”? How do we define “high standard”? As the shadow Minister said, that would be open to court interpretation. The proposed wording does not give the precision that the Bill already offers in saying that safety should be acceptable, given that what is acceptable is set out in the statement of safety principles. We already have a backstop for safety in terms of ambition and the “careful and competent” standard required by the safety principles. The amendments leave far too much leeway and interpretation for the court. By being precise about what is and is not acceptable in the statement of safety principles we will be able to ensure that they are the right safety standards.

[Bill Esterson]

We have had an unexpectedly wide debate on the first group of amendments. I welcome the contributions by hon. Members. I am sure that all our debates will be similarly robust.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for explaining what we are trying to do. Red herrings were being put forward: no one is trying to ban automated vehicles by saying that we should have the highest possible safety standards. I hope that Government Members might reconsider the way in which they framed their interventions.

[Robin Millar]

rose—

[Bill Esterson]

I hope that the hon. Member for Aberconwy will agree with me that we want the highest possible safety standards.

[Robin Millar]

I am happy to clarify my remarks. The reference to banning stuff is actually a euphemism for an over-regulatory approach.

[Bill Esterson]

I am going to look up the word “ban” a bit later and see whether “euphemism” appears next to it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing that up. As I said in my opening remarks, the Government rightly accepted the phrase “careful and competent” in the Bill in the Lords. It is about putting a clear statement of intent in the regulations on the importance of safety in a so-far undeveloped technology. The comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington on the current concerns about where technology has reached were well made. What we want to do is remove the fear, risk and elements of concern.

On the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire, absolutely, we want to make the most of this technology for economic purposes. The figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders demonstrate that there will be something like 300,000 jobs between now and 2040, and £66 billion added to GDP. We very much want to make the most of those opportunities.

I suggest that having strong safety principles and the safest industry in the world is one of the ways in which we achieve exactly that goal. Having credibility, and the reputation for developing technology that is usable anywhere and is very safe, will be part of delivering the economic benefits. The expression, “careful and competent”, is not defined in statute; it is subject only to case law. The phrases “very low risk” and “a high standard of safety” are not defined. I completely accept those points. What is important is that we set out the intention in this legislation for the courts, which may well have to adjudicate at some point. That is why these amendments were important. I have listened to what the Minister said, and at this stage I do not feel that there is merit in pushing the amendments to a vote. However, I hope that he and other Members will take on board the fact that we are trying to set out our intention with as strong an opposition as possible in this framework legislation—yes, for secondary legislation, whenever that comes, but also for the courts, if they have to adjudicate. I will happily not press the two amendments in this group.

[Grahame Morris]

Forgive me, Mr Vickers—are we having the clause stand part debate now? May I contribute to that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Statement of safety principles

[Bill Esterson]

I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert

“and, if so, the locations, types of location or circumstances in which those criteria are met.

(1A) The principles must set out how the Secretary of State will assess the potential safety impacts on different types of road user when assessing the locations, types of location or circumstances in which a vehicle is capable of travelling autonomously and safely, having particular regard to the safety of those road users who might be most at risk.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, after “safety” insert

“and the safety of pedestrians”.

Amendment 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out “better” and insert

“significantly better for all road users”.

Amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) The statement must include the Government’s intended definition of “careful and competent human drivers”.”

This amendment would require the Government to publish a definition of “careful and competent human drivers” as part of the statement of safety principles.

[Bill Esterson]

We now come to the statement of safety principles. We have tabled three amendments in this group to strengthen the support that we anticipate will be beneficial when secondary legislation is introduced, and to give confidence not just to the courts, but to consumers and investors so that they can make the most of the economic opportunity. This is a similar point to the one we made in the debate on clause 1.

The Government described similar amendments tabled in the Lords as “ambiguous”—they said that the amendments to clause 1 were open to interpretation. I simply make the point that they were content to accept the change to “careful and competent” despite the fact that that is not set out in statute, so why strengthen safety in that way but not in this one?

These amendments have the backing of Cycling UK, which my hon. Friend the Member for Easington mentioned, and for similar reasons. Cycling UK says that we need

“a step-change in road safety”,

not just a marginal improvement. It continues:

“a slight improvement in overall road safety could actually mask a worsening in safety for pedestrians, cycle users and other non-motorised road users, providing this is offset…by an improvement in safety for motor vehicle occupants. We do not believe this is acceptable.”

I agree that there has to be an improvement for all road users. A similar point applies to all four amendments in this group.

We need the definition to avoid reliance on the ambiguity to which the Government themselves refer. We are trying to strengthen the definition with these amendments. Amendment 18, which requires the publication of a definition of “careful and competent human drivers” to address exactly that concern about the lack of precedent and the reliance on case law, has the support not just of the groups that I have mentioned but of the Road Safety Foundation and the SMMT, the industry body.

“Careful and competent” was first used in the Road Traffic Act 1988, but it was not defined. Currently, it can be judged only against case law, so at this stage we want to tighten up these areas, not because we want to make things more difficult, but because we are trying to anticipate as far as possible what is to come, and we want to create the strongest possible framework as we finalise the primary legislation. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these matters, and I commend the four amendments that I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield.

[Grahame Morris]

I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central. As the Minister alluded to in a previous debate, clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to lay a statement of safety principles before Parliament, having consulted the relevant autonomous vehicle manufacturers, road users and safety groups first.

I recognise that the principles will be developed following the passage of the Bill, as the Minister said, but it is apparent that clear direction is needed for those principles in the primary legislation. It is also important that the safety principles are subject to frequent review—I think the Minister said that will happen—and consultation as the technology and roll-out of AVs is expanded over the coming years. The statement of safety principles must be clear, rigorous and informed by the needs of all road users and pedestrians, especially disabled people.

--- Later in debate ---

The points raised in the amendments, such as those about assessing locations, are already included in the legislation. We share the ambition, but the amendments are not necessary.

[Bill Esterson]

I welcome the support for and analysis of the amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Easington. I wondered whether we were missing something about kangaroos in Easington.

[Grahame Morris]

They have wallabies in Derbyshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I am glad he has now clarified that. He is right that we have to anticipate perhaps not kangaroos but—

[Grahame Morris]

People who are inebriated, for example.

[Bill Esterson]

He is giving me other examples from a sedentary position. He is right to raise the concern.

The Minister said that the points are accepted by the Government, which I welcome, but if they are accepted, why are they not in the Bill? However, he has said that in Committee, so that will have to be sufficient for now.

I will come back to what he said about the definition of “careful and competent”. Given that we have case law and that the definition was first used in 1988 in the Road Traffic Act, as he says, I would think it possible to have a definition now against which future secondary legislation and decision making in the event of road traffic incidents could be judged. I do not understand why he has not made that clearer. As a result, I will not press amendments 21, 11 or 22 to a vote, but will test the opinion of the Committee on amendment 18. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) The statement must include the Government’s intended definition of ‘careful and competent human drivers’.”—(Bill Esterson.)

This amendment would require the Government to publish a definition of “careful and competent human drivers” as part of the statement of safety principles.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 1

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 4
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

[Bill Esterson]

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, after “must” insert “—

(a) hold a public consultation on a draft statement;

(b) ”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 13, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out from “consult” to end of line 22 and insert

“representatives of road user groups and other groups whose safety or other interests may be affected by the application of the principles.”

This amendment is designed to probe the consultation provisions.

Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert—

“(9A) The statement must be reviewed and subject to the same consultation as outlined in subsection (3)—

(a) after being in force for five years;

(b) every five years thereafter.”

Clause stand part.

[Bill Esterson]

With this series of amendments we are keen to probe the consultation on the development of the statement of safety principles. It is a very important part of the legislation and I am pleased that the Government accepted the principle of publishing the statement of safety principles at the outset. However, the technology will continue to evolve, so it seems clear that the statement of safety principles should be subject to review and public consultation at a decent interval. Our amendments are designed to ensure that there is a sensible, five-year timeframe for each of the reviews by Parliament and that the work is carried on in the public domain. The Government have said that that will happen informally, but we believe it important to have it confirmed in the legislation so that there is a guarantee.

The Government say they anticipate consulting a wider group than those they have previously mentioned. They said publicly in the House of Lords that that group will include members of the public, academia, trade unions and other representative bodies. We would like commitments on all those points, to which we will return with some of our other amendments. The Minister in the Lords said that

“it remains the case that this is a particularly uncertain policy area with a rapidly developing industry”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 January 2024; Vol. 835, c. 81.]

Does that not highlight the need for ongoing consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and an ongoing review of the statement of safety principles? Putting that on the face of the Bill is the way to guarantee that it happens.

[Grahame Morris]

I rise to speak in support of the amendment. May I ask questions of the Minister, and back up the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, my colleague on the Opposition Front Bench? We are talking about safety principles. In an earlier debate he mentioned the advisory committee. I know we are not debating them yet, but I have been looking at some of the new clauses. It has been suggested that on the advisory council there are: representatives from consumer groups; organisations representing drivers; road safety experts; relevant businesses, such as automobile manufacturers; vehicle insurance providers, because that is a key issue; providers of delivery and public transport services; the trade unions, because it is possible that many individuals will be displaced or that there are issues around deployment; the police and other emergency services; highway authorities, because there is the issue of the digitalisation of the data for autonomous vehicles; groups representing people with disabilities; and groups representing other road users, such as cyclists and pedestrians.

If the safety principles are to operate, it is important that we get this right. The Minister has said that it is a moveable feast, and that the Government will set the ambition but the standards would be amended—presumably improved—as time goes on. I do not want to sound like a broken record, but when the Transport Committee was looking at that aspect of the proposals we received evidence from a number of witnesses, including the motor manufacturers.

David Wong from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders had concerns, when looking at safety principles, about the definition of “competent and careful”. Many organisations are not confident that that is precise enough. David Wong stressed that his organisation agreed with the terms and the ambition. Professor Siddartha Khastgir from the University of Warwick said it would be difficult to translate the

“abstract concept into something that can be implemented by engineering”.

A number of the witnesses that the Committee heard thought that the Government’s ambition was too lax, and that a more stretching target should be set. That is quite interesting. We were talking about perception, and Ed Houghton from DG Cities told the Committee that when researching public attitudes to self-driving vehicles, he asked participants, “How much safer does it need to be for you to want to use autonomous vehicles over the long term?” People said that it needed to be twice as safe, or 10 times as safe, for them to use it. That is the level of expectation that consumers have, and we should recognise it. It has to be the best that it can be before they will be able to trust it and buy into it.

Safety has to be at the heart of the Bill if the public are to trust the technology and enable the UK to become a world leader in AV technology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

I agree totally with my hon. Friend. As somebody who is very interested in artificial intelligence and who has also gone round in the Wayve car, but around Kings Cross, I was very impressed at the way that the vehicle is learning as it goes along. I asked whether it recognised speed bumps, and it learned that itself; drivers slow down for speed bumps and the AI learned that was something it needed to do.

This is clearly going to change a lot. I have been around Government long enough—not very long, but long enough—to know that it is not good governance to bind the hand of future Governments with precise requirements to do this at this time and that at that time. When the time comes, it could be completely inappropriate. It is far better to trust whoever the future Government are that if there is a need for a review, they will conduct a review. It is unimaginable that they would not.

A monitoring duty is imposed on the Secretary of State to follow how closely the statement of safety principles is working and whether any issues arise. I really do not think we need to set out a five-year review clause that may not be appropriate.

[Bill Esterson]

Holding a review is not binding the hands of any future Government. Setting a timeframe on it is definitely not binding their hands; it is actually just putting in a sensible provision for the future. My understanding of the way that the legislature operates is that one cannot bind the hands of a future Government anyway.

[Anthony Browne]

The Government would then have to pass primary legislation in order to not do a review. If we end up in a situation where everyone is happy with the statement of safety principles—I think this will be a very long way away, I have to say—we would have officials coming to the Minister at the time, whoever that was, saying, “We have to do a review of the statement of safety principles, even though everyone’s completely happy with it, because it is in primary legislation and we’re not allowed to break the law.” Yes, absolutely, we could pass a new piece of primary legislation at some point in the future saying, “We don’t need to do a review,” but why create that work? Why bind a future Government?

[Bill Esterson]

Well, I think that a review that says, “Everything is going very well, Minister,” is not something to be worried about, but there we are.

[Anthony Browne]

Reviews do take a lot of work. They are done properly; they are not done on the back of an envelope. A whole process has to be set up. It requires a lot of work from civil servants and a lot of input from wider stakeholders. It is unimaginable that there will not be various reviews in future, because the technology will be moving on, as we have discussed, but doing a review of something where there is wide acceptance that there is no need for a review—as has happened in other areas of my responsibility—creates a lot of work for no end benefit. It is not good legislating to set down in primary legislation that a future Government must do that.

[Bill Esterson]

Well, it is an interesting view. I think “every five years” is far from onerous.

Turning to some of the other points made in the debate, we have deliberately left a wide definition in amendment 13, where we use,

“representatives of road user groups and other groups whose safety or other interests may be affected by the application of the principles.”

That is not setting in stone exactly which organisations should be part of the consultation; it is important that we all recognise that. As time goes on, the nature— the exact identity—of those groups will change, and our amendment very much reflects the realities. I was concerned that the Minister had not discussed the legislation with the trade unions, which I think he said. I hope that he rectifies that very quickly. The TUC, I am sure, will be very happy to talk to him, and Unite the union is another one.

[Anthony Browne]

In this role I have talked to unions about many different things, although not about this legislation yet. However, the Law Commission, in its three-year review of the legislation, did consult directly with the unions, and they have had input into all of this legislation that we have taken forward.

[Bill Esterson]

Okay. I hope that the Minister will rectify that apparent omission promptly. As I say, amendment 14 is not binding the hands of Government at all. Holding a review is an important part of the future process, and I hope that the Government will reflect on that. The Minister said that the Government intend to hold reviews; I just do not understand why he is not prepared to put that into the legislation. However, on this occasion I will accept the Minister’s word on that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Power to authorise

[Simon Lightwood]

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 3, page 3, line 17, at end insert—

“(1A) An automated vehicle may be authorised for use in non-road public locations under subsection (1) as long as the Secretary of State is satisfied that the authorisation will not impact the accessibility of the locations to existing users, including pedestrians.”

This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to authorise vehicles such as for use in public places other than roads (such as automated mobility scooters and delivery robots on pavements, for example) as long as the impact on accessibility has been considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

I am grateful for the contributions of Opposition Members. As the hon. Member for Wakefield said, a couple of amendments are about delivery bots. I declare an interest: Starship operates in my constituency, in the town of Cambourne. It is incredibly popular, and I love seeing the robots tootling about the pavements; they are the subject of much local interest and fascination.

[Bill Esterson]

Do they have names?

[Anthony Browne]

I do not know whether they have names. The hon. Gentleman has stumped me there, but it is a good idea.

As the hon. Member for Wakefield recognised in his comments, the legislation already covers pavements—the definition of roads or highways covers pavements, driveways and so on, including other accessible public areas. That could be used for the regulation of pavement bots, if desired.

I agree that there is a grey area, but the issue opens up many other issues outside the scope of the Bill: how we regulate the use of pavements, or what sort of vehicles we want or do not want on them. At the moment, mobility scooters or vehicles are allowed on the pavement, with a maximum speed of, I think, 4 mph. Such vehicles involve a whole range of issues to do with what pedestrians might expect or not on pavements, which should be subject to carefully thought-through legislation.

The issue with the delivery bots is that they are not regulated as road vehicles—they do not have licence plates and are not subject to any of the requirements made of road vehicles—so there is a risk that they would be caught by legislation that most people would think inappropriate. That raises so many issues, but they are outside the scope of the Bill. We will have to address them in some other way. I agree that there is a grey area, but this is not the way to deal with it.

[Bill Esterson]

The Minister points out that the bots are unregulated. What are the Government’s plans, if any, to regulate to address the anomaly? It is pretty implicit in what he says that there is a need for regulation. When and where will it happen? If not here, where?

[Anthony Browne]

I will write to the shadow Minister.

On amendment 17, the hon. Member for Wakefield mentioned the requirement for sellers of self-driving vehicles to demonstrate features to prospective buyers. The legislation includes requirements to communicate with end users. There is a requirement on ASDEs—I do not think that we have mentioned authorised self-driving entities yet. ASDEs are authorised to sell the technology for self-driving cars, and they will be required to communicate with end users.

There are multiple troubles with requiring someone selling a vehicle to demonstrate to the person buying it. One issue is that the person buying a vehicle will often not be the person using it, and what matters is the demonstration to the user. Imagine someone buying a vehicle on behalf of a car club, for example, or a private sale: someone selling their car might not be qualified to give demonstrations of the technology to someone else. It is far more appropriate for the ASDE, whose technology it is, to do that. As I said, the Bill already requires ASDEs to communicate with end users about how the technology works. That covers this issue. Amendment 17 would have too many unintended consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

Clearly, the only way we can have absolute clarity on the robot issue is to put it in the Bill and reference the inclusion of delivery vehicles specifically. There is potentially a mistake in terms of getting in the way of future investment and economic gains because of the grey area that continues to exist. We have had no clarity from the Government on when they may look at the issue further.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for his comments regarding the insurance industry. Again, the amendments were there to give that transparency and clarity to that industry and to disabled groups. I will not be pushing any of the amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Register of authorisations

[Bill Esterson]

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 10, page 7, line 21, at end insert—

“(1A) The register referred to in subsection (1) must be made available online.”

This amendment would mean that the register of automated vehicle registrations is available online.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 11 stand part.

[Bill Esterson]

Amendment 23 requires that a register of automated vehicle registrations is available online. The Government have to maintain a public register, but there is no commitment to its being online. The reason for the amendment comes from the insurance industry. As AXA puts it, the insurance industry requires clarity on the information that will be published to ensure that it is fit for purpose for insurance underwriting purposes. That matters because delays in accessing data could lead to long and expensive cases and an increase in insurance premiums.

I am sure that we are only too aware of how much motor insurance premiums have gone up in this country in the past few years; anything we could do to minimise the risk of that happening with new technology must be a good idea. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s response to the request, which comes directly from the insurance industry, to try to avoid such delays by having a register that gives them access to information as quickly as possible.

[Anthony Browne]

I confirm that we will not put the register just on bits of paper and lock them in a cupboard somewhere. It is a reasonable request that the register should be online. I confirm that, in line with the usual expectations around official Government documents, we will manage the register online, so the amendment is unnecessary.

[Bill Esterson]

I am pleased to hear that the register will be online. It is a shame; the Minister so nearly got there at the end by saying that he accepted the amendment—and then he did not. We will have to take his word for it, but it is a bit odd for him to say that it will be available online but that he is not prepared to put that in writing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a lot of very valid points based on his time on the Transport Committee. Cars that have the no-user-in-charge feature must have a licensed operator, and the form and details of the licence will depend on exactly how the vehicle operates and its use case. For a fleet of taxis of the type that Waymo has in America, the NUICO—the no-user-in-charge operator—will be responsible for the maintenance of the vehicles, including the tyre wear and the brake pads, and for ensuring they have not been tampered with.

If it is an individual driver with their own car—this is a long, long way down the line, and I do not think anyone expects this to happen in the next few years—it might be reasonable to expect them to be responsible for the tyre wear and the maintenance. If they make any modifications that nullify the action of the self-driving feature, they would have liability for that. We would not expect the no-user-in-charge operator to be responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of the car, but they would be responsible if something goes wrong when the vehicle is in no-user-in-charge mode.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 38

General monitoring duty

[Bill Esterson]

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 38, page 25, line 35, at end insert—

“(3A) A report published under subsection (3) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

This amendment would require reports containing the Secretary of State’s conclusions on the monitoring and assessment of automated vehicle performance to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 39 stand part.

Government amendment 1.

Clause 40 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

This amendment requires that the reports containing the Secretary of State’s conclusions on the monitoring and assessment of automated vehicle performance be laid before both Houses. It addresses the points about insurance and operator responsibility that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington made in relation to an earlier clause. We need a guarantee that those running automated vehicles are continuing to keep the vehicles in the state that they were in and are maintaining and updating them appropriately.

We are pleased to say that, in the Lords, the Government changed the statement of safety principles from being subject to the affirmative procedure to being subject to the negative one to improve accountability to Parliament, and we ask that something similar be done to increase parliamentary scrutiny of the monitoring and assessment of automated vehicle performance.

[Anthony Browne]

The Secretary of State commits in the clause to monitor, and to publish annually their assessment of, the application of the statement of safety principles. Everyone who is interested in it will have access to it, including parliamentarians, so, again, the amendment is unnecessary.

[Bill Esterson]

I accept the Minister’s assurance that, although he is not going to follow the affirmative principle, he is going to make the assessment available to us. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.