Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Moylan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 28th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness. Before I come to my main remarks, I have a question for my noble friend the Minister arising from something he said in his introduction. He referred to the scope of the Bill covering England, Scotland and Wales and said that if these vehicles crossed the border into Northern Ireland, they would not benefit from its provisions. I wanted to ask him what border he was referring to, because as far as vehicle regulation is concerned, there is, as I understand it, no border and Northern Ireland is subject to the vehicle regulations in operation in this country. Was it a slip of the tongue or an implication that autonomous vehicles if introduced into Northern Ireland would be subject to the undemocratically made laws of the European Union—undemocratic, that is, as far as their application to Northern Ireland is concerned, whose people, of course, have no say in the legislature which will be making those laws? I would be grateful for his elucidation on that. I am perfectly happy to accept that it was a slip of the tongue and that would end the whole matter, but there may be something behind it he would like to reveal.

On the Bill itself, the substance of my remarks is that this is a piece of work from the Law Commission and is, in essence, to do with warranty, liability and insurance, which is why I thought I would have very little to say which was germane to the text. However, I find that most noble Lords have had very little to say about those issues and we have wandered—I think very properly and inevitably—into a broader debate about the desirability of automated vehicles and their consequences for other road users.

I have great interest in that because during much of my life I have been involved in urban design. I am particularly interested in the urban consequences— I am less interested in what happens on motorways—and how our cities are shaped. I have to admit—I would be in the naughty corner, no doubt, for this—that I have been a great advocate for and implementer of shared spaces, which I would characterise in very different language to that used by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

Let me offer a few thoughts to add to this pile of imponderables that the Bill has given rise to this afternoon. As I say, most of them relate to the way in which cities work. First, I accept on the basis of my experience of railways that it is likely that these vehicles will be safer than those driven by a human. Anyone who doubts this would not get on a Victoria line train, for example; they would take the Piccadilly line on every occasion. The Victoria line train is driven by computers; the Piccadilly line train is driven—currently, sadly, because there is not enough money—by a human being. But which one arrives with a minute interval between each train, safely, every time? Which is the one that can carry those people because of that frequency, that huge capacity, on the Victoria line and which has a three or four-minute interval between trains because the driver cannot stop as safely as the computer-driven trains?

It is worth saying—with every possible respect to my noble friend Lord Naseby—that the comparison with aviation is not appropriate. Rail safety is based on the principle that if something is missing, if something goes wrong or if something is not quite right in the system, the train comes to a stop. The system stops. The electricity is cut off. That cannot possibly be the basis of aviation safety. If something goes missing, you cannot just stop the plane at 30,000 feet and say: “We are going to work out what has gone wrong”. Aviation safety is all about building in all the safety measures from the outset before the plane ever takes off and making sure that they are working. It is a totally different approach. I am assuming that automated vehicles would operate similarly to the rail principle; that is, if something was missing and they could not see something, they would stop. This might cause inconvenience—as indeed it causes inconvenience if a train on the Victoria line stops and people have to work out what has gone wrong—but it is at least a safety measure and a relatively reliable one.

I am very concerned about the point made about the consequences for streetscapes of jaywalking made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and to some extent referred to by my noble friend Lord Borwick. We have spent years trying to take railings out of cities and allowing people to cross streets in a more natural, human sort of way—to move away from the Le Corbusier dystopia that arose from separating vehicles and pedestrians at every level. It was a perpetual Barbican vision of our cities. We have moved away from that, and people who want to see it in operation can go to places such as Piccadilly. Only a few years ago, it was a one-way motorway with barriers all along it, and it has been returned to a calm and more attractive street running two ways without all those barriers and so forth.

As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, the very fact that you can walk in front of an automated vehicle, confident that it will stop, means that the manufacturers will quickly say, “We can’t be having that. We will have to have the barriers back. We’re going to have to have designated crossing places for pedestrians, and we will have to have laws that stop them walking out in front of the cars”. That risk balance will have changed. I do not walk out in front of cars generally when they are moving, because I worry that they may hit me, but if I know for a certainty they will stop, what is to prevent me? I will just cross the road. As my noble friend Lord Borwick said, if you are a six year-old, the fun may go out of it after three attempts, but that is not my circumstance. I am not doing it for fun, I am doing it to cross the road, and I shall do it exactly as I want. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, was right to make that point.

The next thing I want to say is about congestion and the consequences for public transport. We are talking about automated vehicles as if they are going to be private possessions. Of course, there is an alternative vision where automated vehicles are communally or corporately owned. They are pods, and they do not belong to you. You summon them like an Uber and they arrive, take you somewhere and then park, vanish or find another passenger somewhere. That is an alternative model. Let us imagine 80 of those lined up nose to tail, very safely moving along Piccadilly from Hyde Park Corner up to Piccadilly Circus, each containing an individual passenger—and bang close to each other because it will be very safe, for the reasons I explained. It will be 80 passengers moving up Piccadilly. What is the difference between that and a bus? A bus takes 80 passengers from one end of Piccadilly to another. I know noble Lords will say, “Ah, but these pods, when they get to Piccadilly Circus, they can split off and all go in different directions. They can take you to your office, the hairdresser or wherever you want to go in that vicinity”. That illustrates what automated vehicles are really addressing, which is the last-mile problem rather than the main trunk problem of transport. It is to get that last mile from the hub that you want a vehicle to be available to take you, but not necessarily all the way along the journey. Why would we be encouraged to do that, given both the effects on congestion and the possible consequence of a collapse in demand—not a total collapse—for public transport?

Finally, what will happen to traffic lights and why are we still investing in them? I think it is public knowledge—I know it to be true—that Transport for London is planning to spend a very large amount upgrading its extremely comprehensive traffic light system that it has rolled out over the years, which still depends on the SCOOT software technology that has been in use for at least 20 years and possibly longer. It is thinking of spending a large amount of money upgrading them, but why will anyone ever need traffic lights? Automated vehicles do not need them. They are there for people such as me to look at something terrestrial in front of them, and see that it is green, red, orange or whatever. If their motion is dependent on their sensing where other vehicles are, together with communication with a satellite at the same time, they will not need traffic lights. What will happen to traffic lights?

I am against traffic lights on the whole. They are a complete misery, of course—we all know that. However, they have some uses—for example, helping people to cross the roads at junctions. What are the consequences for that and for the money that we are still spending, even today, on upgrading our traffic light system if we are moving over to an automated vehicle system?

I am speaking quite late in the debate and there are one or two very interesting speakers to follow. I have a feeling that my noble friend the Minister will not be able to deal with all the questions that we have put to him. I look forward to a more detailed response in writing to some of them, although he may be able to answer the Northern Ireland one. A lot might arise in Committee that I did not expect and there may be amendments that test the scope of the Bill a little. I look forward to them.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

62: Clause 99, page 71, line 1, at end insert—
“(7) Regulations under this section may not be made until the Secretary of State has launched a public consultation for updating the Manual for Streets to take into account the consequences for streetscapes of the introduction of automated vehicles, particularly in urban areas.”

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I realise we are coming to the end of Committee, so I shall endeavour to be fairly brief, but the subject I raise by way of these two amendments is quite important. Generally, this is a good Bill at a technical level, but it assumes that automated vehicles are going ahead and will be deployed. In fact, there has been little debate with the public about what the consequences of this might be for our streetscapes and the urban landscape in which we live. There has been a failure on the Government’s part, in a sense, to sell to and explain to the public what I call the look and feel of automated vehicles, as opposed to the technical matters dealt with in the Bill.

If I may say so, it was a mistake of the Government when they published their policy document on this subject last year not to have brought it to the Floor of the House for debate at some point, so that noble Lords could have commented on what they thought the consequences might be. An illustration of that failure is the debate we had earlier on accessibility. The fact is that disabled people—and the rest of us—simply do not know what the Bill will mean for them in practice. They ask questions of my noble friend the Minister and get very exiguous answers, which do not satisfy them as to what their experience will be when these vehicles are deployed. That is true in other realms as well.

My Amendments 62 and 63 simply probe these questions. This may not be a long debate, but it is important to raise them. Amendment 62 relates specifically to the Manual for Streets, which is to do with how our streets are designed. Amendment 63 is broader and takes account of the operation of the streets, how they function and the legislation that covers that. To a certain extent, the Manual for Streets and design sit within the broader operation, but I have separated them out because there are two different questions.

It is worth saying that, when the Manual for Streets was published in 2007 and its complementary second part published in 2010, it was widely welcomed by people who were interested in this area. It has been due for an update for quite a long time, and I believe that a contract was let two or three years ago to one of the chartered institutes in order to prepare a draft. But, as far as I know—my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—it has never been republished, and we are still waiting, years on. I do not understand why. Before I go further, I ask my noble friend to give us an indication of when the revised version of the Manual for Streets might be published. Will it take account of any of the consequences for the design of streets that might arise from the introduction of automated vehicles?

I was involved in quite innovative and imaginative—I hope—streetscape design ideas for some 15 years, as the deputy leader of a London borough council and with personal responsibility for that area, as deputy chairman of Transport for London, and during the whole of that time as chairman of Urban Design London, which I helped to found nearly 20 years ago. We were trying to achieve the removal of clutter—particularly guard-rails along pavements—the scrapping of one-way highways through the centre of London, like Piccadilly, and their reversion to more natural two-way streets, and the promotion of shared space. In short, we were trying to humanise the urban experience, which is what we are trying to achieve. How will those ambitions be affected by the introduction of automated vehicles?

The Government have a clear and robust but fundamentally unconvincing response to this, saying that there will be no changes: that automated vehicles will simply have to respond to what exists and, if they do not work with that, they will not be allowed on the road. As I understand it, that is the Government’s position, but this is unconvincing. Take guard-rails as an example. We know that automated vehicles will be designed so that, as far as possible, if somebody steps out in front of them or if a cyclist goes across their path, they will automatically detect the obstruction ahead of them and stop. That exposes the entire urban network of automated vehicles to frivolous activity on the part of people who want to stop them and bring the whole thing to an end, if they choose to do that.

I cannot believe that, with the amount of money that is likely to be required as an investment from the private sector in automated vehicles, manufacturers will not, at some point, turn up at the department, saying, “This can’t go on. We can’t be putting up with all this. We’re not going to invest in a network that can be brought to a stop on this basis. We demand the reintroduction of guard-rails. Let us have designated pedestrian crossing points on the streets that everyone will have to move to”. Potentially, for the first time in England, this would criminalise jaywalking, so that people could be fined for crossing the road. That is naturally what they will ask for.

At that point, I find it difficult to believe that the Government will turn around and say, “No”. They will have taken the bait: they will have sold the idea that there are millions of green jobs—or blue jobs, or whatever we want to call them—in all of this, and that the investment is good for Britain and so forth. We will have put in place the Bill’s legislative, technical and insurance-based risk-management apparatus, much of which is sensible—I know there are detailed questions about its operation, but, fundamentally, I think everyone in the House agrees that this is a necessary component. But it puts the cart before the horse; it puts the framework in place before we know what it will look like when it is deployed. I gave that one example of guard-rails, but I could multiply this; in the interest of time, I will stop with that one example.

However, these are important questions, and I feel fundamentally dissatisfied—not with the content of the Bill and what it is trying to achieve but with the Government’s approach to it, which seems to pre-empt discussion about who benefits from this, its purpose and the attractions we will find in it, allowing us to debate that when the Bill effectively excludes it. My amendments simply open up a brief moment at the very end of Committee—I realise that people are understandably thinking of further obligations in the course of the evening and may not want to debate this at great length, but these are important questions. Any contribution would be helpful, but a response from the Minister that is a little more than what has been said before—and a little more convincing than what has been said before—would be very helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

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

Amendment 62 withdrawn.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Moylan Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a short speech, conditioned by my being a former pilot with experience of Boeing, probably the most sophisticated company in the world on unmanned aircraft. The net result so far has been that 346 people died recently, although, thankfully, nobody died in the Alaska experience. Given that situation, although this Bill is supposedly about safety on the roads, we need to take great care; I recognise that we need a framework here, but I hope my noble friend will listen to what the noble Lord suggested earlier in the debate and have the Office of Rail and Road help oversee this Bill as it is implemented in relation to vehicles on the road.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I briefly congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing this useful, modest and largely technical Bill to its completion. The Government have expressed optimism that the arrival of automated vehicles in large numbers on our roads is going to have no effect whatever on how the rest of the road system and other road users operate. It is the principle on which the Bill is based but, to me, it seems to be credible only in the somewhat artificial reality of your Lordships’ House.

My noble friend the Minister and his department still need to address a worry many of us have. He has stated that nothing will change—that facilities for pedestrians, for example, will not be affected—with the arrival of these vehicles, but it is clear that is not wholly credible. The people who have invested in automated vehicles will find that pedestrians and other road users are obstacles to the rollout of their plans, and they will then turn up at the ministry and say, “We have spent all this money, so now you have to do something to make it work for us”. At that point, officials will roll over, Ministers will wave their hands and the money will decide what the policy is. All of this will happen without a parliamentary debate considering the effect of the vehicles and what they mean for road users, especially in urban environments. I hope my noble friend the Minister will find an opportunity to allow us, and the public, a debate about what the vision of our cities is when automated vehicles are operating in large numbers as the Bill makes provision for.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, in line with the usual courtesies of the House, I thank the Minister and his team, all of whom were exceptionally helpful and willing to give their time and expertise in some useful meetings with myself and my Liberal Democrat colleagues. I also thank my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Bowles, supported by Sarah Pughe in our Whips’ office, for their work. Finally, I thank noble Lords across the House: there was exceptional co-operation in improving the Bill, and one of the outcomes was the amendment of the Minister which clarified the statement of safety principles.

The Bill was a logical progression from 2018, and I would predict that this second Bill will be followed, I am sure, by a third Bill to try and get this right. There are still unanswered questions, and I will briefly list them. There needs to be a fresh look at the legislative framework affecting delivery vehicles that are already on our streets. Those who operate them are concerned about lacunas in the legislation.

We are also particularly concerned about the issue of disabled access, which is where my noble friend Lady Brinton worked closely with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said,

“the promise of automated vehicles is accessible mobility for all”.— [Official Report, 6/2/24; col. 1585]

It is, therefore, deeply disappointing that the concept of disabled access—from the physical space of the vehicle to the software that drives it—is not to be built in from the start. It always costs more to adapt things later, and I believe this is yet another missed opportunity.

Finally, it is a great pity that the vote on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, was lost so narrowly. It was just the kind of thing an advisory council could provide a sense of direction on. I hope the Minister will reflect on the need for certainty on the future structure of appropriate bodies to provide advice and regulation.

We remain concerned, in particular, about data protection in respect of the Bill, which is predicated on a future conglomeration of personal and commercial data, and data associated with the security of the state. It will come together in an unprecedented way. It would enable a massive intrusion of personal privacy, but in its entirety would offer massive power to a malign foreign power or even to a clever, meddling, individual hacker. Although it is well intentioned, the Bill hardly starts to tackle the dangers of that accumulation of data.

Having said all that, I thank the Minister again for his co-operation, assistance and leadership on the Bill.