Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024

Official Report 1015KB pdf

---

Automated Vehicles Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-12834, in the name of Jim Fairlie, which is a legislative consent motion on the Automated Vehicles Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. Regrettably, the minister is not yet in the chamber, despite the fact that Parliament agreed the timetable.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could give the response of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee first if that would be helpful.

I appreciate that, Mr Mountain.

I see that the minister has now come in.

I will allow the minister to begin his speech after he has apologised to the Parliament.

As I was saying, the next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-12834, in the name of Jim Fairlie, on a legislative consent motion on the Automated Vehicles Bill, which is UK legislation.

17:02  

First of all, I offer my apologies, Presiding Officer: I misjudged what I was about to do. I offer my sincere apologies to you and to the Parliament. Thank you very much for this opportunity, Presiding Officer.

This afternoon, we are debating a motion on the UK Government’s Automated Vehicles Bill. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of autonomous vehicles and of keeping pace with advances in technology in a fast-changing market. Self-driving vehicle technologies and services will not be successful in the UK without a regulatory framework that provides certainty for innovators and investors and that gives the public confidence that the technologies are safe, secure, accessible and inclusive and that they work in the interests of society.

The bill implements the recommendations of a four-year review of the regulation of automated vehicles that was carried out jointly by the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission. The bill sets out a new comprehensive regulatory, legislative and safety framework for the safe deployment of self-driving vehicles in Great Britain. A suite of implementing regulations will be developed by the UK Government, and the Scottish Government will work closely with the UK Government, stakeholders and safety groups throughout the development of the regulations. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport and I welcome their support, which is necessary for the legislative framework.

The motion covers the clauses of the bill that, as is set out in the supplementary legislative consent memorandum, fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or alter the executive competence of Scottish ministers. The Scottish Government recommends consent to all the provisions that are outlined in the supplementary legislative consent memorandum other than clause 50, the reasons for which I will explain later. UK ministers have requested to meet the cabinet secretary to discuss that clause, but the fact that the bill is moving at pace through Westminster means that we need to present our views as a Government now.

I will explain the clauses that are outlined in the supplementary LCM in turn. Clause 40 is the power to require reports from the police and local authorities. It permits the Secretary of State for Transport to make regulations that will require Scottish ministers to provide reports on incidents involving autonomous vehicles in Scotland. That is to ensure that the secretary of state has the relevant information to decide whether enforcement action should be taken. The Scottish Government already shares information with the Department for Transport, as it informs an annual publication on road casualties in Great Britain.

Clauses 46 to 51 establish the legal liability of the user in charge of an automated vehicle. Those clauses provide immunity from driver-related traffic offences for individuals operating a vehicle in automated mode. When the self-driving feature is engaged, the user in charge will not be responsible for the way in which the vehicle is driven, but they must be ready to respond to a command to take back the operation of the vehicle. They will also retain responsibility for issues not linked to the way that the vehicle is driven—for example, appropriate car insurance, parking legally and paying tolls and charges.

The UK Government considers those clauses to be reserved because they relate to the Road Traffic Act 1988, which is mostly reserved under the Scotland Act 1998 and is concerned with the use of vehicles on roads. The UK Government acknowledges that those provisions will apply to devolved driving offences but considers that the impacts on devolved matters are incidental to that reserved matter.

The Scottish Government considers that the UK Government has taken too broad a view of what is reserved. Any and all regulation of the use of conventional vehicles is not reserved. For example, traffic regulation under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is not reserved, and therefore any and all regulation of the use of automatic vehicles is not a reserved matter. The Scottish Government’s view is that determining the liability of any user in charge or any other person for devolved driving offences has a devolved purpose and sits within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

The Scottish Government is content with the policy position of the user-in-charge immunity clauses on the basis that the Law Commission has undertaken an extensive multiyear, expert-led review on the principle of those clauses, which aligns with the recommendations of the joint report.

Will the member take an intervention?

If the member allows me to finish this point, I will come back to him.

However, the Scottish Government recommends withholding consent to clause 50 because it provides the secretary of state with the power to change and/or clarify how existing legislation, including acts of the Scottish Parliament, will apply to the user in charge of an automated vehicle without a mechanism to seek consent from or even consult the Scottish ministers or the Scottish Parliament.

I thank the minister for taking the intervention. I think that I heard him say that UK ministers had asked to meet about clause 50. If I heard him right, can he tell us when that meeting will take place?

The Scottish Government does not have a date from the UK Government, so we are still waiting for that meeting to be arranged.

I will return to the point that I was making.

That may include devolved legislation in the criminal sphere in relation to driving offences, as well as, for example, legislation on matters such as low-emission zones, parking in bus lanes and bus lane contraventions.

Despite the significant engagement between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, we have been unsuccessful in reaching an acceptable position. However, I thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee for considering the LCM and for setting out their views and recommendations, specifically those relating to clause 50. We hope that discussions with UK ministers will be meaningful and that agreement can be reached on clause 50 with respect to the devolution settlement.

Clauses 82 to 85 and 87 to 90 and schedule 6 permit automated passenger services and civil sanctions for infringing passenger permit schemes. Clauses 82 to 90, excluding clause 86, provide for new powers for Scottish ministers in relation to interim passenger permits for use of automated vehicles within a private hire and taxi regulatory regime. Those powers reflect the devolved nature of private hire and taxi licensing, and they are needed because the existing regulation is based on drivers being in vehicles when providing passenger services. New regulation is needed when vehicles no longer have drivers, which will allow the relevant national authorities for Scotland and the Scottish ministers to develop an appropriate regulatory regime.

I welcome the collaborative engagement between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on those clauses—specifically clause 88, which was amended to ensure that Scottish ministers operate the regulation-making power where it relates to matters within their devolved competence, with accountability to the Scottish Parliament.

Autonomous vehicles will be part of the transport system of the future, and we need to ensure that the technologies are safe, secure, accessible and inclusive and that they work in the interests of society. That is why we will continue to engage with the UK Government and a wide range of stakeholders as regulations are developed. I welcome today’s debate and ask members to vote for the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions in Part 1, Chapter 6, clause 40, Part 2, Chapter 1, clauses 46 to 49 and 51, Part 5, clauses 82 to 85, 87 to 90 and Schedule 6 of the Automated Vehicles Bill, introduced in the House of Lords on 8 November 2023 and subsequently amended, so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

17:09  

I am pleased to speak in this debate as convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I draw members’ attention to the committee’s report on the bill.

The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recognises the need for the bill to provide regulation in relation to innovative technology use, which may be expected to increase. It also recognises that the bill is the result of four years of careful joint work by the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission of England and Wales, alongside other consultation and policy development. Unfortunately, there was very limited time for the committee’s scrutiny, but I would like to highlight the key points that arose during our consideration.

The committee’s consideration related principally to clause 50 of the bill. There is a dispute about that between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. The clause gives a power to the secretary of state to clarify the application of legislation to the user in charge of an automated vehicle. As I understand it, the dispute between the Governments centres on whether the provision is reserved or devolved. As we have heard from the minister, the Scottish Government’s objection to that clause is that the power can be exercised in devolved areas without the UK Government having to seek the consent of the Scottish ministers and without its having to consult them. The UK Government considers that a requirement to seek consent or to consult would be unnecessary, as the provision relates to a reserved matter.

The committee is in no position to adjudicate disputes on the dividing line between devolved and reserved competence. However, we noted in our report our disappointment that both Governments could not reach a solution on the matter that satisfied everyone. It appears that there is little dispute in relation to the policy behind the bill. It is therefore unfortunate that, even though that is the case, the Governments have been unable to reach agreement.

As I have said, the committee cannot determine whether or not clause 50 relates to devolved matters. However, we agree in principle with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s recommendation that the Scottish Parliament should have an opportunity to effectively scrutinise the exercise of all legislative powers within devolved competence.

The committee explored the Scottish Government’s specific concerns about the potential use of clause 50. Those concerns relate to the potential for the creation of a two-tier approach to driving offences, with one set of rules applied to conventional vehicles and one set of rules applied to autonomous vehicles. The committee understands that the Scottish Government has concerns that that could potentially complicate the law on road offences in a way that might not have been intended.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will take an intervention. However, I am limited in what I can say.

I want to clarify a point. Edward Mountain talks about a question being raised about a two-tier system. That was not the point that the Scottish Government raised concerns about; it was about the lack of legislative scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament.

That is the point. It is about where the dividing line is, where scrutiny is needed and whether the UK Government and the Scottish Government agree in relation to autonomous vehicles.

The potential for unintended consequences has been discussed in other contexts—for example, in relation to accessibility and the impact on taxi services from an employment perspective. The committee is glad that consideration has been given to the potential for unintended consequences in what is a developing area. We encourage constructive and effective engagement between both Governments to further minimise the risk of any conflict.

Although there have been disagreements in relation to the drafting of the bill, I hope that we will see effective co-operation when it comes to its implementation, to ensure that there is a fair and clear system for everyone.

I call Graham Simpson, who has up to five minutes.

17:14  

I assure members that I will take nothing like five minutes to deal with this matter, so we may have an earlier decision time.

Given the debate so far, it is clear that this is potentially a complex area of law and that there are a whole range of issues to be considered. With regard to clause 50, I note that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s excellent report dealt with the issue in some detail. The committee received evidence that it could lead to a two-tier system, and that concern was raised at committee by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, so I think that the minister is wrong to ignore it.

I share the committee’s concern that it is not in a position to properly say whether the Scottish Government or the UK Government is correct on the matter of clause 50. In general, we have, time and time again, come across the same issue. Where the Scottish Government and the UK Government disagree on whether something strays into the area of devolved competence, in my experience, committees of this Parliament get to hear only from the Scottish Government, and that is the case in this instance.

It might interest the member to know that one of the reasons why it is so difficult for committees such as the one on which I serve to hear a perspective from the UK Government is that it not only refuses to turn up when it is invited but refuses to answer our letters.

In this case, I am not even sure that the UK Government was asked for its opinion.

That gives parliamentarians in the Scottish Parliament a problem, because we have only one side of the story. It may be that the Scottish Government is right, but, unless we hear both sides of the story, how are we to judge?

That frustration—my frustration—is echoed in the report from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. The committee is quite clearly not in a position to say who is right and who is wrong, and it calls for further talks between the Governments. We have heard from the minister today that UK ministers have now reached out—perhaps it is late in the day, but they have asked for a meeting. That meeting has not yet taken place, and it should have taken place much earlier.

I am not interested in whose fault it is. Both Governments ought to be working together to resolve these matters—in essence, I share the committee convener’s frustration. Having said that, however, we will support the motion.

17:17  

I am pleased to speak on behalf of Scottish Labour in this debate on the Automated Vehicles Bill, and I am grateful for the work that the two committees have done in considering the bill’s implications.

The Automated Vehicles Bill, which was introduced by the UK Government last year, is intended to regulate the use of automated vehicles and to

“set the legal framework for the safe deployment of self-driving vehicles in Great Britain”.

There should be little argument as to whether the proposed legislation must be put in place. The pace of technology greatly outstrips the pace of legislation, so it is welcome that the UK Government recognises the development of automated vehicle technology and is seeking to ensure that we have in place an initial framework of regulation to govern that.

It is also important to note that the bill does not in itself allow automation to happen. Progress in automated vehicle technology will happen with or without the bill, so it is necessary that we have in place some form of regulation that sets the parameters of what is considered safe in the field.

I am aware that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee considered the Scottish Government’s concerns about clause 50 of the bill. According to the committee’s report, the Scottish Government objects to clause 50 as it

“gives the Secretary of State a regulation-making power to clarify the application of other legislation to the ‘user-in-charge’ of an automated vehicle.”

The report goes on to note that

“The Scottish Government’s objection to this clause is that the power can be exercised in devolved areas without the UK Government having to seek the consent of, or consulting, the Scottish Ministers or Scottish Parliament.”

I note that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee also commented on that aspect, highlighting

“the apparent contradiction between the statement in the DPM that the Scottish Parliament will be able to scrutinise the use of this power and the absence of any mechanism in the Bill that would enable such scrutiny”.

As a supporter of devolution, I believe that it is important that, if legislative powers are to be exercised in an area of devolved competence, the Scottish Government must have the opportunity to scrutinise that. I am disappointed that the bill includes no mechanism to enable that and that there has been no resolution to the issue through co-operation between the UK and Scottish Governments. I urge both Governments to work together to resolve that important issue, no matter how small its application might be in reality.

The topic of the bill lends itself to greater discussion of the role of automation in our future economy. As I have already stated, the bill does not allow vehicle automation to take place; it merely sets out a regulatory framework for it. However, if the automation of vehicles is to increase in the near future—as the necessity of introducing the bill seems to suggest will happen—it is crucial that we consider the impact of automation on workers who are employed in driving roles and in other areas.

Although the discussion on a just transition for workers relates to industries that are impacted by net zero targets, it needs to be widened to include workers who will be impacted by the greater introduction of automation and the question of what our plan as a nation is to protect livelihoods in the face of technology that will remove the need for workers in certain sectors.

17:21  

As we draw today’s deliberations to a close, I thank members from across the chamber for their contributions to the debate. I reiterate that UK ministers have requested a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport in an effort to come to an agreement on clause 50 that respects the devolution settlement.

We welcome the UK Government’s bill, which takes an important step and a proactive approach to integrating cutting-edge technology into our transportation landscape. I take the opportunity to recognise the extensive work that the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission carried out, which concluded in a joint report on automated vehicles.

The bill establishes a legal framework for the testing and deployment of autonomous vehicles, ensuring safety and accountability. We appreciate that the bill allows for companies to be held firmly accountable once vehicles are on the road, while protecting users from being unfairly held accountable.

In addition, we recognise the need to share data, to safeguard privacy and security, and to investigate and learn from incidents. I take Edward Mountain’s point about the time that the committee had available to it to scrutinise the LCM. However, the Scottish Government was made aware of the bill being introduced only in November 2023, and it was given weeks to give consent, with no meaningful engagement. Therefore, we needed time to consider the devolution position—hence the need for the two legislative consent memorandums.

To respond to Alex Rowley’s point, automated vehicles are already available, and the Scottish Government recognises that autonomous vehicles will be part of the transport system in the future. That will not be successful in the UK without our having a robust regulatory framework in which we can foster the development and deployment of such technologies, thereby enhancing mobility options and driving economic growth. However, I very much take Alex Rowley’s point that some people may no longer have work if vehicles are autonomous.

We hope that the legislative framework will pave the way for a future of self-driving vehicles. As always, the devil will be in the detail as the secondary legislation is developed. We will continue to work collaboratively with the UK Government and key stakeholders in the sector. We must provide certainty for innovators and investors, as well as instilling confidence in the public that the technologies are safe, secure, accessible and inclusive, and that they will work in the interests of all of society.

There has been general consensus that the proposed legislation should lead to safer roads. We all want to reduce the number of accidents, injuries and deaths on the roads, and we hope that the framework will lay the foundation for the safe deployment of self-driving vehicles in the UK. As we move forward, let us remain vigilant in addressing concerns regarding safety, privacy and accessibility, and let us ensure that we embrace innovation. We do so with the wellbeing of our citizens at the forefront of our minds.

As we note the importance of the bill, I once again ask members to support the motion that was lodged by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport. Let us continue to collaborate, innovate and lead the way in shaping a future in which we remain at the forefront of technological progress while upholding our values of safety, accountability and inclusivity.