Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 5th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and remain impressed that he has something to say on this issue, as on so many others. It will of course remain the case that should people wish to drive their cars, they will be free and able to do so. I think it will be a long time—indeed, the industry has predicted it will be several decades—before the number of automated vehicles outstrips the number of vehicles with drivers on our roads.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) mentioned, there is one major area that the Bill does not address, and which we have not considered in any meaningful capacity, which is the potential impact on jobs from automated vehicles. As a South Yorkshire MP, I am all too familiar with the economic impacts of deindustrialisation. Far too many towns and cities across the north have already suffered enough from lost livelihoods, with the social fabric of their communities ripped apart as a new economic model left them behind. We simply cannot afford to make those same mistakes again.

That is why Labour has been clear that artificial intelligence and automation must be harnessed as a public good—one that delivers social benefits, grows the economy and supports jobs rather than destroying them. That is why, during its passage through the other place, my Labour colleagues attempted to amend the Bill to establish an advisory council that would ensure the Government consult on the introduction of these vehicles with not only industry representatives and road safety experts, but trade unions. The Government opposed that amendment. From the way this Government have politicised the ongoing industrial dispute on our railways and Ministers’ failure to even sit down with union representatives, we have already seen just how important it is to have proper engagement with workforce representatives, as well as just how far this Government will go to avoid doing it.

I would welcome an explanation from the Secretary of State as to why he is so opposed to the idea of speaking to experts and trade union representatives about the introduction of such sensitive and consequential technology. Will he also say what steps he will take to ensure this technology creates jobs, rather than destroying them, especially in the areas of the country where low-paid work dominates? It is in exactly those areas, which still feel the ravages of deindustrialisation, that jobs in driving, warehousing and logistics dominate—all jobs that face the highest risks from automation. Unless the Government are prepared to play an active role in how we transition our economy, it is exactly those areas, like my constituency in South Yorkshire, that will be hit all over again.

I have talked a lot about what the Bill is, Mr Deputy Speaker, but allow me a minute to talk about what it is not. As the Secretary of State well knows, his Government have promised us all sorts of transport legislation over the years that they have failed to make parliamentary time for. This Bill is not his long-promised rail reform. It is not legislation to properly regulate e-scooters, e-bikes or drones, to set minimum standards for taxis, to extend franchising for buses, or to strengthen the powers of the Civil Aviation Authority—legislation that has been promised time and again by this Government, without any intention of actually delivering it.

I will close by pointing out the irony that the one major piece of transport legislation in this parliamentary Session is a Bill on driverless cars brought forward by a driverless Government who are running out of road.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chairman of the Transport Committee.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be able to contribute to this debate. I should flag that the Transport Committee conducted an extensive inquiry on self-driving vehicles and published our report on the subject last year. Our principal recommendation was to bring forward legislation to give the industry and investors the certainty to continue their work. We are very pleased indeed that the Government have taken on board our central recommendation and brought forward this Bill. We commend the Law Commission for the background work it did to provide the legal underpinning.

Hopefully there will be sufficient time for the Bill to reach the statute book before we get to the general election. Had it not been brought forward, there was a real danger of a missed opportunity. The UK has been a leading player in the development of this global technology, but there is no certainty that that would continue. One message we heard loud and clear from the sector was that it needs the regulatory framework and that certainty to allow further investment to take place, so we are, as I say, very pleased that that is happening. To give some idea of the scale, figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimate that by 2040, the annual economic impact to the country will be £66 billion. My fellow Select Committee member, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), raised legitimate concerns about the risk to jobs from this new technology, but there is an upside: 12,000 new direct jobs in automotive manufacturing, and more than 300,000 additional jobs in the wider economy, again using SMMT figures. There are economic opportunities —job opportunities—provided by this new technology.

It is always difficult to adjust to change in the economy. I often use the analogy that a few decades ago, lots of people were employed in manufacturing typewriters; now there is hardly anyone in that industry, but other job opportunities arose. That will also be the case in this sector. He is not in his place now, but I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) that the city of Milton Keynes has been at the forefront of the research and development and the testing of this technology in the UK, and long may that continue.

As other speakers have said, the advantages are not just economic; this technology also widens the accessibility of transport for many people who are, for various reasons, inhibited at the moment. That wider social value may be more difficult to quantify in monetary terms, but will be increasingly valuable. More generally, this technology will widen the transport choices available. Self-driving vehicles will replace some journeys made purely by car, but will also be part of an integral transport system where a self-driving vehicle may pick up people from a railway station, bus station or airport to complete their journeys. There are many, many upsides to this legislation.

I want to highlight a few other concerns we had during our inquiry, some of which the Government have already addressed. The first is on safety. We very much welcome the amendments put forward by the Government in the other place to introduce a more certain and wider definition of safety; we set out concerns in our report that the broad definition of a self-driving vehicle as being as safe as a

“competent and careful human driver”

was just a bit too vague and weak. The amendments that have been brought forward in the Lords to ensure proper consultation not just with the industry, but more widely with road safety stakeholders, are very welcome, while the change in the parliamentary procedure from a negative to an affirmative resolution will give it greater clarity. We very much welcome that.

I will raise two particular safety issues. One, which I mentioned in my intervention on the Secretary of State, is the need to ensure that drivers have the relevant level of skill and experience to intervene when the technology requires them to do so. As I said, those instances will obviously be immediate and often in challenging conditions, and will require skills over and above the general driving competencies and knowledge as to what a driver ought to do in those circumstances. I do not think it is necessarily something to include in the Bill, but, as the Government look at the consultation on safety, I strongly urge them to look at what changes to the driving test may be appropriate, and even at wider encouragement for everyone to have refresher courses. I think most drivers—me included—would be terrified at the prospect of resitting our driving test, as we have probably built up many bad habits over the years. There is, perhaps, a wider point about ensuring that drivers remain competent, but this new technology does introduce specific new circumstances that need to considered.

The second safety-related issue is about ensuring that MOT tests are up to date so that they properly capture all safety-critical technology. In the future, cameras, sensors, software and other technology will be as safety-critical as tyres, brakes and other mechanical parts that are currently assessed. Again, I urge the Government to look ahead and perhaps redefine what is encapsulated by the MOT.

Related to that is a concern raised with me by smaller garages about ensuring that they still have a fair chance of carrying out MOTs. As the technology becomes ever more sophisticated, there is a risk that the original equipment manufacturers will have a monopoly on maintaining software and related equipment and that only their garages will be able to carry out such work. There a wider point—this is not just about self-driving vehicles—about ensuring that the full spectrum of operators in the car repair and maintenance sector has fair access to doing that work.

I will also raise two points related to insurance. My friend and colleague from the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Easington—he is no longer in his place—mentioned data sharing. I welcome the fact that data sharing is referenced in the Bill and that its scope will be set out in secondary legislation. It is important for the insurance industry to be able to capture the full picture of driver behaviour and the behaviour of vehicles in this new world. That will not be limited to collisions, where the insurers will need to know what happened; there will be other injuries for which data must be available—say, a self-driving vehicle may brake suddenly, which results in a whiplash injury or related concerns. As a probing suggestion, is there a case for putting in the Bill a requirement for consultation with the insurance industry on the concept of data sharing, similar to the one that Government have set out for the setting of safety parameters? I will leave that with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to consider.

The second insurance concern was raised by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau about where we have what might be called a “black swan” event, with a significant co-ordinated cyber-attack that instructs many vehicles simultaneously to behave in a way that could cause mass public injury. The instruction might be to drive at high speed and turn sharp right into a crowded pedestrian area. The concern is that, as things stand, the absence of a mutualisation of risk could lead to such a level of claims that it would bankrupt the car insurance sector.

In property, there is an equivalent backstop to cover the event of such terrorist activity. Some thought needs to be given to that. Again, it probably goes wider than purely self-driving vehicles, because, as the Secretary of State mentioned, the technology is often already embedded in cars and could be hacked by a malevolent actor. The insurance industry is concerned about that, and I urge the Government to consider that perhaps not necessarily in the Bill but as part of wider reform.

Notwithstanding those concerns and questions, this is a welcome Bill with huge upsides economically and socially. As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) put it succinctly, it is an exciting new world, but for many people it is a scary new world, and we have a duty to bring the public with us.

There are many areas where transport is already automated and people accept it and are quite relaxed about it. They will get on a get on a docklands light railway train, which is automated, and aircraft flights are now 95% automated. In Milton Keynes, we have delivery robots going along the pavement and no one bats an eyelid about them. But as we see with smart motorways, if the public are not convinced about the safety of new technology, they will not accept it.

We all have a duty to make sure that the regulations ensure the safety of the drivers and the passengers as well as the wider roads-using and pavement-using public. The upsides are enormous, but we must bring people with us. I commend the Government for bringing forward the Bill, which is incredibly important, and I look forward to seeing it on the statute book.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

Scrutiny of accidents is going to be important, because we will learn a lot. We can improve safety with this technology—there is no question about that. The question is about the moral argument when accidents do happen and how we choose how vehicles should behave in those circumstances.

A constituent has come to me about a tragic case of a child being killed at a bus stop. A lorry lost control and swerved into the bus stop, and the child could not escape the vehicle and was crushed. It is an absolutely tragic story. My constituent came to see me about designing bus stops to make them safer for people standing at the roadside. Having lost her child in such tragic circumstances, I commend her for her consideration in wanting to improve the situation for others. As it is rolled out, this technology could prevent vehicles from colliding with roadside structures such as bus stops, so I accept that it can improve safety. This is an example of where we might be able to meet my constituent’s desire to improve safety in such circumstances.

This technology will need a great deal of scrutiny. We will learn a lot from the application of this legislation as more and more automated vehicles enter our road network, and an advisory council to consider all aspects of the technology is absolutely necessary.

Clause 2 says that the Secretary of State must consult, but the list is very limited and puts businesses, including those that design the vehicles and draw up the algorithms, in prime position above road user representatives and other concerned individuals. The list needs to be much wider, and there needs to be a statutory body to provide oversight. We are on a steep learning curve and we will learn as we go. I accept that we cannot stand in the way of progress, but we must accept that there are serious safety questions that require answers. An advisory council of the kind that has been recommended is absolutely necessary.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]

Roger Gale Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Opposition parties for their broadly positive approach throughout Second Reading and Committee. There is clear consensus across the House that we should embrace this new technology, given all the opportunities set out by the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). I also thank my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). As has been mentioned, he helped steer the legislation through this place, and clearly still has great interest in the Bill, which I welcome.

I will be brief. All the new clauses and amendments apart from one were raised in identical form in Committee, and my comments will not change much from what I said then. By and large, we agree with their various objectives, but we do not think they are necessary, and in a couple of cases we think they are inappropriate. On new clauses 1, 2, 5 and 8, data protection is clearly very important, and the Government support it, but the new clauses largely duplicate measures that are already in the Bill, or in other legislation.

This Government take protection of personal data very seriously. It is an important issue and requires careful consideration. The Bill does not seek to replace or change personal data protection legislation, nor does it enable that legislation to be contravened. It is not a Bill about data protection. Any changes to data protection legislation are beyond the scope of the Bill. It is the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office to regulate data protection issues. The ICO has an obligation to report annually to Parliament on the commissioner’s activities. Any report by the Department for Transport, such as that required by new clause 1, would risk duplicating that work. Also, the Department for Transport is not the data controller of information collected by regulated bodies, which means that reporting would be inappropriate.

The purpose of the Bill is to create a comprehensive and effective safety framework for self-driving vehicles. Information may need to be shared to achieve that; public safety and security must come first. Any regulations made under the powers in the Bill that permit further sharing or use of information would be developed in discussion with stakeholders and subject to consultation, and would be laid before the House before coming into force. That provides multiple opportunities for input into and scrutiny of proposals. Regulations will also be subject to a data protection impact assessment. The Secretary of State already has a duty under article 36(4) of the General Data Protection Regulation to consult the ICO on proposals for legislative measures. New clause 2 therefore duplicates a requirement already in law.

New clause 5 is unnecessary because all information-related regulations made under the powers in the Bill will already be subject to consultation under the requirements of clause 97. Clause 14 specifically requires that regulations that require information to be shared by an authorised self-driving entity or licensed operator must specify the purpose for which that data is to be shared. It would be unnecessary and onerous to duplicate those publication and consultation requirements.

Turning to amendment 8, the protection of personal data will be considered alongside the detailed development of authorisation requirements. These requirements will be set out in secondary legislation and will be subject to consultation and impact assessment. The amendment would place an additional burden on industry over and above what is required under existing data protection legislation, such as the legislation that covers the data in our mobile phones. At present, a certificate of compliance is not mandatory under GDPR. In addition, the schemes referred to in the amendment are industry-led and therefore not within the control of Government, so there is a risk that they would not achieve the intended result.

On new clause 3, the hon. Member for Sefton Central talked at length about the inadequacies of Government consultation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire said, there has been incredibly extensive consultation throughout this process. I have counted five different ways in which we will ensure consultation and engagement. The Law Commissions of England, Wales and Scotland have been looking at the issue for four years, and have been consulting throughout. The Secretary of State for Transport, who has joined us in the Chamber, and I held a roundtable with a whole range of road user groups, including groups representing disabled people, about the impact of the legislation. I will also meet disabled groups once the legislation moves through this House to consider some of the issues. We recognise that engagement with all groups, including the devolved Administrations, is incredibly important. The Bill will provide new powers relating to technical safety requirements, which will be set out in statutory guidance and secondary regulation. There will be consultation on those requirements with stakeholders, including but not limited to the stakeholders identified clause 2(4).

Following the passage of the Bill through the House of Lords, we have included a statutory requirement to consult the three groups with the most direct interest when developing the statement of safety principles: road safety groups, road user groups and the self-driving vehicle industry. That is not a comprehensive list of those likely to be consulted, but it shows the breadth of the consultation. Once in place, the safety requirements for authorisation, licensing and in-use regulation will be monitored and enforced by the Department for Transport and its motoring agencies, on behalf of the Secretary of State. In line with all public bodies, the Department and its agencies will be subject to scrutiny.

In addition, there is an expert advisory panel on the Department’s self-driving vehicle safety assurance work, which has been consulted. It provides advice and challenge. The panel includes representatives from industry, academia and road safety groups. We have given a non-statutory commitment to setting up an accessibility advisory panel. The Bill establishes a new independent no-blame incident investigation capability, which will ensure that we learn effectively from incidents that involve self-driving vehicles. Finally, the hon. Member for Sefton Central will be reassured to learn that clause 38 already creates a general monitoring duty that requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the performance of self-driving vehicles. I hope that all those engagements that I have made demonstrate that the Government share the hon. Member’s view that scrutiny of implementation and learning from experience are vital. All those future engagements are there, which is why new clause 3 is not necessary.

On new clause 4, accessibility is an incredibly important issue. I have made it clear, as has the Secretary of State, that accessibility is one of the strong arguments for legislating for self-driving cars. For many disabled people, particularly partially sighted or blind people, self-driving cars could have an incredible impact on their quality of life. I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central for the new clause, but it replicates powers held by the Secretary of State on the provision of accessible travel information about buses to automated passenger services. Automated passenger services provide a great opportunity to make travel more accessible and inclusive. Under the Bill, we already have the power to mandate that information be provided to users in accessible formats, through the permit conditions. That is more flexible tool than the regulations. Conditions attached to individual permits can be adapted to fit a wide variety of services. Some services may have alternatives to the provision of accessible-format information; for example, there may be a member of staff in a vehicle who can focus entirely on helping passengers and providing that information. In addition, the Bill expressly requires the appropriate national authority to consider accessibility in decisions to grant permits. That ensures that accessibility considerations are built into services from the start. It enables innovation to come forward in this nascent sector, and operators to consider the best way for their services to be accessible and inclusive. Finally, licensing and franchising authorities will also be able to steer requirements about accessible information formats. They can champion local needs through their role in providing consent for granting permits. As a result, we do not think that new clause 4 is necessary.

New clause 6 extends insurer first-instance liability for incidents involving automated vehicles to all circumstances, even when an individual is driving. The compulsory insurance regime in the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 was created to ensure that victims of incidents caused by automated vehicles receive prompt compensation. The Bill amends the 2018 Act to ensure it applies to authorised automated vehicles. However, there is no change to the principle that insurer first-instance liability applies only when the self-driving feature is switched on. New clause 6 would create an unnecessary discrepancy in insurer liabilities for manual driving, depending on whether the vehicle has a self-driving feature or not. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Sefton Central to withdraw new clause 6.

On the SNP amendments relating to clause 50, we consider that the user-in-charge immunity is a reserved matter. Indeed, the immunity will predominantly affect the application of reserved traffic offences, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) recognised. There is a limited range of devolved legislation in this area and immunity will have only a minor incidental impact on the Bill. We did meet to talk about it and we discussed it in Committee, but just to make it absolutely clear, this is not about what the traffic regulations are in Scotland—what the speed limit is, whether it is an offence to break the speed limit or drive in a bus lane. It is about whether liability rests on the driver or on the software company ASDE in a self-driving car. It therefore has no impact on direct legislation in Scotland.

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 individuals’ responsibilities are. This was the first recommendation by the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission of England and Wales in their joint report. They stated that they did not think the public would be able to understand different or partial immunities based on distinctions between devolved and reserved laws. The power in clause 50 is necessary to ensure clarity and consistency in the immunity’s application.

As the hon. Member acknowledged, I met him and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport in the Scottish Government to talk about that. I sent a letter of assurance afterwards and I repeat what I mentioned in that letter. I assure him that where we propose to use the regulation-making power in clause 50, we will always consult with the Scottish Government and with other devolved Administrations.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I understand that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) wishes to withdraw new clause 1. Is that correct?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43

Fees

Amendments made: 1, page 29, line 19, after “State” insert “or by a traffic commissioner”.

This amendment corrects a drafting omission, by allowing no-user-in-charge operator licensing functions conferred on traffic commissioners to be taken into account in setting fees under Part 1.

Amendment 2, page 29, line 22, at end insert—

“(3) Money received by a traffic commissioner as a result of regulations under section 13 must be paid into the Consolidated Fund in such manner as the Treasury may direct.”—(Anthony Browne.)

This amendment is one of two that clarify what happens to fees, penalties or costs under Part 1 if they are made payable to traffic commissioners by regulations.

Clause 89

Procedural and administrative matters

Amendment made: 3, page 63, line 18, at end insert—

“(8) Regulations under subsection (7) made by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers—

(a) if they apply to a function in respect of which a fee is payable, must also apply to the function of charging and receiving that fee;

(b) if they apply to the function of issuing a notice under paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 6 (compliance notices and monetary penalty notices), must also apply to the functions under paragraph 4 of that Schedule (costs notices) so far as exercisable in connection with the first function.

(9) Money received by a traffic commissioner as a result of regulations under subsection (7) must, unless subsection (10) applies, be paid into the Consolidated Fund in such manner as the Treasury may direct.

(10) Money received by a traffic commissioner under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 6 (monetary penalties) as a result of regulations under subsection (7) made by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers must be paid to those Ministers.”—(Anthony Browne.)

This amendment makes provision about fees, penalties and costs made payable to traffic commissioners by regulations under Part 5.

Schedule 1

Enforcement action under Part 1: procedure

Amendments made: 4, page 78, line 7, after “Part” insert “(other than section 43(1))”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 1.

Amendment 5, page 78, line 14, at end insert—

“(5) Money received by a traffic commissioner as a result of regulations under this paragraph must be paid into the Consolidated Fund in such manner as the Treasury may direct.”—(Anthony Browne.)

This amendment is one of two that clarify what happens to fees, penalties or costs under Part 1 if they are made payable to traffic commissioners by regulations.

Third Reading