My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The amendments in this group concern the day-to-day operation of the regulatory framework.
Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, refers specifically to incidents in which the technology of a self-driving vehicle is at fault. In such a situation, it would be for the in-use regulatory scheme to determine whether regulatory sanctions were appropriate. Criminal penalties would also apply if the authorised self-driving entity had failed to disclose relevant safety information. Separately, a statutory inspector may also conduct an independent safety investigation. The statutory inspector is then responsible for publicly reporting on safety lessons and making recommendations for improvement. These reports would include the failure in vehicle technology and any other causation factors.
The amendment therefore confuses the role of a statutory inspector with that of the in-use regulatory scheme and the police. In doing so, it inadvertently contravenes a long-standing fundamental principle in incident investigation: learning, not blaming. In developing the inspector role, we have been guided by international standards, best practice and precedent, including that established by our own exceptional existing transport accident investigation branches. All three of these branches conduct no-blame investigations.
I have similar concerns that his Amendment 41 also risks departing from established precedent in safety investigation. An inspector must be able to report neutrally and factually without being influenced, directly or indirectly, by any person or organisation. Historically, this has extended even to Parliament. Indeed, none of the reports published by the existing air, maritime, and rail accident investigation branches are required to be laid before Parliament. However, I am happy to reassure the noble Lord that it is absolutely the Government’s intention to make all the inspector’s reports, findings and associated recommendations publicly available on GOV.UK, as is the case for the existing branches.
I confirm that specific testing for self-driving vehicles will be considered for inclusion in the MoT. Naturally, this will need to be an evolutionary process, developed in line with the introduction of the technology. The MoT will continue to play an important role in ensuring the ongoing maintenance and roadworthiness of the vehicle. However, we will not depend on it to ensure that self-driving vehicles drive safely. Authorisation places the obligation on the authorised self-driving entity to ensure that its vehicles continue to satisfy the self-driving test. The Bill grants powers to set requirements, secure information and issue sanctions as necessary to ensure that this is done. The review proposed in Amendments 25 and 59 could therefore unnecessarily delay the implementation of Bill.
On the noble Baroness’s specific question, in the event of an authorised self-driving entity ceasing trading, safety must be the priority. It would not be right for a vehicle to drive itself without someone taking responsibility for how it behaves. Given that this market is still emerging, there is much that we do not know about future ownership models and what consumer protections will therefore be needed. However, I can confirm that the important issue of the handling of ASDEs’ insolvency will be considered, following consultation, as part of establishing financial and good-repute requirements for authorisation.
5.15 pm
Turning to Amendment 55E, we recognise that having the right workforce and skills in place will be pivotal to the successful deployment of self-driving vehicles. In 2022, the department established the transport employment and skills taskforce, made up of leading transport industry figures. Supported by this taskforce, we have commissioned a future skills assessment for the transport sector, and this will report on skills gaps and provide recommendations to government and industry.
The Government have already published a series of wider plans for how we will build the right capabilities in industry and the public sector to tackle the challenges of the coming decades. For example, our national cybersecurity strategy and Advanced Manufacturing Plan both include plans to strengthen industry skills. The same work is under way in our own delivery bodies. The Vehicle Certification Agency has already formed links with the National Cyber Security Centre and is working to develop the necessary skills to assess the cybersecurity of self-driving vehicles. I trust that these examples reassure the noble Baroness that the
necessary work is already in hand. To publish an industry-specific workforce strategy within the year would therefore be unnecessary and likely duplicative.
I turn to Amendments 37A and 57A from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. We expect that operator licensing functions will sit with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. The DVSA is already responsible for licensing operators of passenger service vehicles and freight, and it has existing powers to stop and test vehicles. It is therefore well placed to undertake this role. We expect the authorisation process to sit with the Vehicle Certification Agency, and the close existing relationship between these two bodies will help to ensure that the whole system runs smoothly.
Transferring the licensing process to the Office of Rail and Road would split these functions and their respective lines of accountability, which would add significant complexity. More generally, the specialist expertise of the Office of Rail and Road is in regulating the effective management of our road and rail infrastructure, rather than the vehicles that operate on them. Therefore, the overlap between the ORR’s core functions and the regulation of self-driving vehicles is relatively narrow and may confuse the intended roles of the VCA and the DVSA. I recognise the noble Lord’s points about the importance of independent oversight and, with this in mind, I remind him of the role of the statutory inspectors, who will conduct independent safety investigations.
I turn to Amendment 56A and the definitions used in the Bill. I make clear that the terms highlighted in this amendment do not all mean the same thing. The Bill covers a highly technical area, and it therefore uses a combination of defined terms and further descriptors to clarify their meaning. In brief, a vehicle travels “autonomously” if it does so without being monitored or controlled by an individual. This definition is set out in Clause 1(5). The Bill then refers to the “self-driving test”, which establishes whether such a vehicle can operate safely and legally. In other words, these terms draw the distinction between the simple ability to operate without human control and the ability to do so to the required standard.
An authorised automated vehicle is one that has proven that it meets the standard and has been authorised by the regulatory regime. The term “autonomous” is not given a definition in the Bill, because it is used only in the specific context of marketing offences. While we need to be able to draw out these nuances in the Bill text, we are conscious of the need for simplicity and clarity in public understanding. Our research has shown that “self-driving vehicle” is the term that is most easily understood by the public, so it is the term that we focus on in our public communications.
In conclusion, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, to withdraw her amendment.