Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Lee Rowley Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. As many have outlined, the Bill has two parts, and, in the hope of brevity, I will contribute only on the automation side.

I welcome the Bill and its limited nature, which has been debated at length for the past few hours. We have a decision to make as a country. Automation is coming. The decision is whether we allow it to happen with us or to us. This has been a very constructive debate—I particularly welcomed the comments from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who speaks for the Opposition—but I worry that some of the contributions tended towards trying to solve problems that we might not fully understand at this stage in the development of automation, when legislation is not always the immediate answer. One would naturally expect me, as a Conservative, to work from the basic principle that we should legislate and regulate only where necessary, rather than always trying to create a framework that aims to solve every problem that might arise. That is essentially my point today.

The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and I were on a panel together in the summer, away from this place, when we debated this extensively. Although he has made many important points that definitely need to be debated within and without this place, I think there is a clear and consistent argument for limiting the activities in the Bill and how we regulate automation in order to allow people to innovate. Before he spoke, I was going to say I welcomed the fact that no one had used the B word in this debate, but obviously he referred to it. As important as Brexit is, and as important as it is to my constituents that it is delivered, there is a danger within the political discourse in this country that we are losing the capability and bandwidth to talk about much bigger and equally as existential issues, such as this one. Brexit will influence us for the next 18 months and beyond, but the likes of driverless vehicles and automated vehicle technology have the potential to influence our society for 18 years, or 36 years, or 54 years. We have been allocated time to talk about this issue, but the wider political discussion tends to be incredibly breathless about Brexit and, perhaps, to reduce the amount of time that we have to discuss such issues. So, in order to avoid falling into the trap that I have suggested others have fallen into, I will move on from Brexit immediately.

I welcome the Government’s approach to a rolling regulatory reform. While I entirely understand why Opposition Members such as the hon. Members for Eltham (Clive Efford) and for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine)—neither is present now—outlined the need for a vision and an expansive understanding of this issue, we are at an early stage in the development of automated vehicles, and regulation should accord with that. We must accept that we are currently seeking to guide a nascent industry from some very small-scale trials in semi-pedestrianised areas, often involving speed limits of just a few miles an hour, into a more large-scale set of trials. It is important for regulation to move, although not necessarily to expand in every area, but that needs to be done in a measured and controlled way.

We will arrive at the stage of early adoption relatively soon, and I think it appropriate to think about regulation again in the future. If the technology is successful, it will hopefully be adopted on a large scale, and will subsequently become the majority. Eventually, we will be dealing with the long tail with which we must always deal when deciding how to ensure that the adoption of technology is ubiquitous. The regulation at each of those stages will necessarily differ, and we should not seek to complicate the current position by trying to answer all the questions that are being asked now about developments that may not take place for a number of years. I welcome what the Government are doing in that connection.

I am pleased that the Government are doing some tidying up, and ensuring that the insurance framework around automated vehicles is appropriate. Clause 2, for instance, will ensure that there is clarity about what happens in the insurance market when the machine, rather than the driver, is in control of a vehicle. I also welcome clause 4, which makes some clear statements about the difference between product liability and the continuation of pooled insurance.

There may be a case—which we can debate both here and elsewhere—for saying that the point about pooled insurance versus product liability will be appropriate in the future, but product manufacturer liability will be appropriate only when nearly all drivers are in automated vehicles. Until that point, we must ensure that the framework is appropriate, which is why a pooled insurance system is itself appropriate. There will never be a silver bullet—there will never be a way in which to resolve all the conceptual and philosophical discussions about how pooled insurance can be applied to this kind of market, particularly in a transitional form—but I think that what the Government are trying to do here is very welcome.

Many Members have mentioned our wish to become a world leader in technology of this kind, and I support what they have said. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) spoke of the importance of putting money behind activities such as this, and I agree with him to an extent, but I also think it important to establish the right regulatory framework. Places like Silicon Valley are streets ahead of many parts of the world when it comes to automated vehicle technology, but it should be noted that only a handful of American states have taken up the opportunities that it has provided. We heard earlier about companies in China, such as Geely and Baidu, which are proceeding apace with automatic technology, and about Chinese-owned companies such as Volvo, which is doing the same on our own continent, but the country has a real opportunity, as an early adopter, to provide the frameworks that will allow such companies to innovate and thrive. That is why we should be careful about the regulatory framework, as the Government are being here.

I wish to make one final point, on which I concur with the hon. Member for Bristol North West. Discussions on these kinds of issues prompt important existential questions around how we as a society should adopt such technologies in the future. Change comes in three parts: technological change, regulatory and legal change, and cultural change. The technological change is coming forward, which is why we are talking about it tonight. We are also talking about the regulatory and legal framework that will be necessary, but cultural change is the responsibility not just of Members of this House, as it must be debated by wider society, and it will take many years to come forward.

We have talked about safety. As a politician, I am interested in polls, and a YouGov poll of a few months ago found that approximately 50% of drivers do not think driverless technology is safe at this point, and only 33% said they do think it is safe. We should beware of just one poll, as we have all learned in this place over the past year or so, but that poll is important in that it highlights that many people are unconvinced by this technology. However, if we do not take the opportunities that it presents, which have been outlined in the debate, we will be doing a disservice to the country.

I also accept the points of the hon. Members for Bristol North West and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who is no longer in his place, about the disruption and dislocation this technology might bring in the very long term, but we must not get too far ahead ourselves.

I am now perhaps addressing far too existential questions for 9 o’clock on a Monday evening in this place. However, I welcome what the Government are doing here, and the deliberately limited nature of the Bill. I also welcome the opportunity to ask the wider questions it opens for society, which is why I am happy to support the Bill this evening.