Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill - Second Reading (general debate on the bill)

Raises concerns about insurance premiums but supports the need for clarity on insurance liability for victims of collisions caused by uninsured automated vehicles.

Supports testing self-driving technology in Milton Keynes, highlighting the economic opportunities for the city and its potential to become a global hub for autonomous vehicle development.

Clarifies insurance liability issues, ensuring that victims of collisions involving self-driving vehicles receive reimbursement similar to those injured by uninsured drivers. Asks about the arrangements for compensating victims in cases where vehicles are uninsured.

Questions data storage and access, ensuring that any data collected is protected under existing data protection laws and not used for non-driving reasons such as divorce proceedings or employment tribunals.

Raises concerns about the ethical implications of algorithms determining outcomes in potential accidents, focusing on prioritising safety for pedestrians and other road users.

Expressed concern that the Secretary of State's safety-first approach might compromise economic growth. Raised discussions with technology companies and their comfort levels with Government’s approach.

Voiced hesitation about automated vehicles, stressing that everyone learning to drive should have full capacity. Highlighted the importance of not allowing people to assume they can just sit in an automated vehicle without driving.

Asked about potential legal conflicts between drivers and companies if there is a switch-off of autonomous features during accidents. Emphasised the need for clarity on responsibility.

Asked about driving experience and refresher courses when drivers switch between manual and autonomous modes. Highlighted potential challenges in immediate circumstances requiring driver intervention.

Inquired about manufacturer responsibility if cars are modified, even without affecting safety features, and asked whether modifications would affect warranty or liability.

Asked for assurances regarding cyber-safety and robust regulations to protect against hackers and terrorists. Highlighted vulnerability of automated vehicles to cyber-attacks.

Asked about security from software designers, referencing the Horizon scandal where manufacturers had access to technology. Raised concerns about protecting drivers' interests.

Asked if an owner could bear responsibility in fully auto mode accidents, especially if tyres are worn out or without tread.

Supports the Bill for its efforts to establish safety standards and prevent consumer misrepresentation. Highlights road safety benefits, potential economic impacts, and accessibility issues for disabled individuals. Advocates for proper consultation with trade unions and disability groups to mitigate job losses in vulnerable sectors.

Concerned about potential job losses in logistics and driving, highlighting the impact of automation on employment in deindustrialised areas. Seeks assurance from the Government to ensure positive economic outcomes.

Expresses scepticism about automated vehicles, particularly regarding consumer choice and traditional automotive jobs. Questions the intention to provide alternatives if automation displaces current employment.

Supports the Bill for its economic and social benefits. Highlights SMMT estimates of £66 billion annual economic impact by 2040, with job creation in automotive manufacturing and wider economy. Emphasises safety improvements through amendments introduced in Lords, including consultation with road safety stakeholders and a change from negative to affirmative resolution. Raises concerns about driver skills for intervention and the need for updated MOT tests. Also mentions insurance issues like data sharing and potential cyber-attacks leading to mass public injury, suggesting consultation with the industry on such risks.

Welcomes the Bill, recognising its necessity in regulating autonomous vehicles before issues arise. Emphasises the importance of appropriate legislative framework and the need for robust regulation to prevent incidents like those seen in the US. Highlights the Scottish Government's role in pioneering autonomous vehicle trials and urges respect for devolutionary powers, especially regarding clause 50. Raises concerns about societal and economic consequences of automation on employment sectors such as logistics and taxi driving. Calls for a public conversation on the implications of automation.

Mr Western supports the development of autonomous vehicles, citing economic benefits, safety improvements, and job creation. He emphasises the need for an advisory council to ensure diverse voices are heard and that public safety remains a priority. He mentions concerns about insurance, security, and the clarity of communication regarding AVs, advocating for strong regulatory standards.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, which aims to create a framework for automated vehicles that can operate safely. They argue it is essential for sustainable travel and road safety improvement as nearly 90% of traffic accidents are caused by human error. However, Wera Hobhouse emphasises the importance of public confidence in these technologies, advocating for clear legal and safety frameworks to address potential issues like hindering emergency vehicles and stopping in cycle lanes. She also calls for improved infrastructure, assurances for vulnerable users regarding access on automated public transport, and robust data protection regulations.

Intervened to ask whether the Bill should regulate autonomous delivery robots currently on pilot in Leeds, highlighting another area of concern that might require additional regulation beyond what is currently covered.

He supports advancing autonomous vehicle technology but stresses the need to address ethical dilemmas in programming algorithms for accident scenarios. Mr. Efford calls for wider consultation, including road user representatives, and suggests a statutory body for oversight as vehicles co-exist with traditional cars for decades.

Ms. Wera Hobhouse intervenes, suggesting a model akin to the aviation industry's rigorous accident investigation procedures as a safety mechanism.

The speaker supports the amendment, emphasising its importance in setting higher safety standards and engaging with stakeholders such as trade unions. He also mentions the potential economic benefits of the bill, including job creation and improved road safety.

Emphasised the importance of consensus across parties, supported by Labour, Scottish National party, and Liberal Democrats. Acknowledged the need for proper accident investigation to learn from incidents involving self-driving vehicles. Reiterated the government's commitment to jobs creation, accessibility benefits for disabled users, consultation with user groups on safety principles, public education through PAVE initiative, and international lessons.

Asked about the technical details of the proposed technology that would assist independent accident investigators in accessing vehicle data to understand accidents better. Highlighted concerns about job losses but noted they were not immediate.

Expressed concern that clause 50 oversteps devolved powers, as it could potentially amend Scottish enactments more broadly than intended.