Bill Esterson
MP for Sefton Central · Labour · United Kingdom
“It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). He gave a very thoughtful analysis—when he was not selling his book, but I am not going to accuse him of that being his primary reason. He mentioned breathing space.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I note the recommitment in the Red Book to the application of the findings of the Fingleton review. This is something my Committee has called for, because we need to have certainty on the siting of the next large-scale nuclear power stations after Sizewell C and Hinkley Point C, and also on what comes next after Wylfa with SMR2.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As well as the challenges around costs, there are huge challenges on how we move on from here, including challenges around how to build out the grid further. The Budget’s announcements mark the start of how to address the challenge, and I will come back to one or two of them later.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is also a commitment to continuing to break the link between the price of gas and the price of electricity, especially by fixing the price for new renewable projects, which will provide protection against volatile gas prices and the uncertainty that we all face now.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is up to nine times cheaper to drive an electric vehicle compared with diesel, and not all of that is due to the exceptionally high prices that we have at the moment.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This builds on the £150 off from scrapping the energy company obligation scheme and the moving of the renewable obligation to the Exchequer, as well as the £50 million of help for homes that rely on heating oil for their heating.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
4,740 held · 4,739 searchable for Bill Esterson. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North deserve support. We will vote with him if he chooses to go for a Division.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank all Members for their contributions today and on Second Reading, and I look forward to Report.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is a good example of where an advisory council, which was the subject of much debate in the Lords, could make recommendations to address the uncertainties that exist in legislating for the unknown, in the way that we are invariably having to do with primary legislation for technology that is yet to be developed. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on these points. The amendments attempt to reduce the risks of leaving things open to interpretation. We want the highest possible standards set out as early as possible to enable this technology to be developed as safely as possible.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government were quite happy to accept the amendment to the phrase “careful and competent driver” —we very much welcome that, which will reduce the number of things that are open to interpretation—so I wonder why they were not prepared in the Lords to accept amendments similar to these. Perhaps the Minister will answer that question in his response. “Careful and competent” itself was only established in case law; it is not in statute. That is being left to the courts as well, and is open to further interpretation. We will return to that point with later amendments, because we are trying to minimise the risks of leaving things open to interpretation.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendments 19 and 20 in my name relate to the critical area of safety: they seek to set in primary legislation the strongest possible safety standards. They would amend the standard of safety from “acceptably safe” to “high”, and amend the definition of “legally” to refer to “very low risk” rather than “acceptably low risk”. That is important because we are trying to anticipate what might happen and to minimise the risks and potential problems. When similar amendments were debated in the Lords, the Government’s response was that such “phrases…are open to…interpretation.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 10 January 2024; Vol. 835, c. 63.] It occurs to me to ask: if things are open to interpretation, who is going to decide? Invariably, that will mean going to the courts. We are trying to minimise the potential for that to happen.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers, for our consideration of this Bill, which I think it is fair to say has broad, cross-party parliamentary support. It will be encouraging over the next however many hours we are in Committee to look at the potential to strengthen it. There is huge potential for the economy in the safe transition to automated vehicles, but it is important that we recognise that this remains a largely undeveloped technology and we are trying to predict what will happen in the future. In our deliberations, it will be important that we try to set the strongest possible framework for what is likely to be needed. The detailed work of the Law Commission gives us a good start, and what we have been presented with from the Lords improves on that work.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have had an unexpectedly wide debate on the first group of amendments. I welcome the contributions by hon. Members. I am sure that all our debates will be similarly robust. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for explaining what we are trying to do. Red herrings were being put forward: no one is trying to ban automated vehicles by saying that we should have the highest possible safety standards. I hope that Government Members might reconsider the way in which they framed their interventions.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What is important is that we set out the intention in this legislation for the courts, which may well have to adjudicate at some point. That is why these amendments were important. I have listened to what the Minister said, and at this stage I do not feel that there is merit in pushing the amendments to a vote. However, I hope that he and other Members will take on board the fact that we are trying to set out our intention with as strong an opposition as possible in this framework legislation—yes, for secondary legislation, whenever that comes, but also for the courts, if they have to adjudicate. I will happily not press the two amendments in this group.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders demonstrate that there will be something like 300,000 jobs between now and 2040, and £66 billion added to GDP. We very much want to make the most of those opportunities. I suggest that having strong safety principles and the safest industry in the world is one of the ways in which we achieve exactly that goal. Having credibility, and the reputation for developing technology that is usable anywhere and is very safe, will be part of delivering the economic benefits. The expression, “careful and competent”, is not defined in statute; it is subject only to case law. The phrases “very low risk” and “a high standard of safety” are not defined. I completely accept those points.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am going to look up the word “ban” a bit later and see whether “euphemism” appears next to it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing that up. As I said in my opening remarks, the Government rightly accepted the phrase “careful and competent” in the Bill in the Lords. It is about putting a clear statement of intent in the regulations on the importance of safety in a so-far undeveloped technology. The comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington on the current concerns about where technology has reached were well made. What we want to do is remove the fear, risk and elements of concern. On the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire, absolutely, we want to make the most of this technology for economic purposes.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 Statement of safety principles”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert “and, if so, the locations, types of location or circumstances in which those criteria are met. (1A) The principles must set out how the Secretary of State will assess the potential safety impacts on different types of road user when assessing the locations, types of location or circumstances in which a vehicle is capable of travelling autonomously and safely, having particular regard to the safety of those road users who might be most at risk.””
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I look forward to the Minister’s response on these matters, and I commend the four amendments that I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 18, which requires the publication of a definition of “careful and competent human drivers” to address exactly that concern about the lack of precedent and the reliance on case law, has the support not just of the groups that I have mentioned but of the Road Safety Foundation and the SMMT, the industry body. “Careful and competent” was first used in the Road Traffic Act 1988, but it was not defined. Currently, it can be judged only against case law, so at this stage we want to tighten up these areas, not because we want to make things more difficult, but because we are trying to anticipate as far as possible what is to come, and we want to create the strongest possible framework as we finalise the primary legislation.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Easington mentioned, and for similar reasons. Cycling UK says that we need “a step-change in road safety”, not just a marginal improvement. It continues: “a slight improvement in overall road safety could actually mask a worsening in safety for pedestrians, cycle users and other non-motorised road users, providing this is offset…by an improvement in safety for motor vehicle occupants. We do not believe this is acceptable.” I agree that there has to be an improvement for all road users. A similar point applies to all four amendments in this group. We need the definition to avoid reliance on the ambiguity to which the Government themselves refer. We are trying to strengthen the definition with these amendments.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We now come to the statement of safety principles. We have tabled three amendments in this group to strengthen the support that we anticipate will be beneficial when secondary legislation is introduced, and to give confidence not just to the courts, but to consumers and investors so that they can make the most of the economic opportunity. This is a similar point to the one we made in the debate on clause 1. The Government described similar amendments tabled in the Lords as “ambiguous”—they said that the amendments to clause 1 were open to interpretation. I simply make the point that they were content to accept the change to “careful and competent” despite the fact that that is not set out in statute, so why strengthen safety in that way but not in this one? These amendments have the backing of Cycling UK, which my hon.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome the support for and analysis of the amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Easington. I wondered whether we were missing something about kangaroos in Easington.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As a result, I will not press amendments 21, 11 or 22 to a vote, but will test the opinion of the Committee on amendment 18. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert— “(2A) The statement must include the Government’s intended definition of ‘careful and competent human drivers’.”— (Bill Esterson.) This amendment would require the Government to publish a definition of “careful and competent human drivers” as part of the statement of safety principles. Question put , That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He is giving me other examples from a sedentary position. He is right to raise the concern. The Minister said that the points are accepted by the Government, which I welcome, but if they are accepted, why are they not in the Bill? However, he has said that in Committee, so that will have to be sufficient for now. I will come back to what he said about the definition of “careful and competent”. Given that we have case law and that the definition was first used in 1988 in the Road Traffic Act, as he says, I would think it possible to have a definition now against which future secondary legislation and decision making in the event of road traffic incidents could be judged. I do not understand why he has not made that clearer.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, after “must” insert “— (a) hold a public consultation on a draft statement; (b) ”.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government say they anticipate consulting a wider group than those they have previously mentioned. They said publicly in the House of Lords that that group will include members of the public, academia, trade unions and other representative bodies. We would like commitments on all those points, to which we will return with some of our other amendments. The Minister in the Lords said that “it remains the case that this is a particularly uncertain policy area with a rapidly developing industry” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 10 January 2024; Vol. 835, c. 81.] Does that not highlight the need for ongoing consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and an ongoing review of the statement of safety principles? Putting that on the face of the Bill is the way to guarantee that it happens.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“With this series of amendments we are keen to probe the consultation on the development of the statement of safety principles. It is a very important part of the legislation and I am pleased that the Government accepted the principle of publishing the statement of safety principles at the outset. However, the technology will continue to evolve, so it seems clear that the statement of safety principles should be subject to review and public consultation at a decent interval. Our amendments are designed to ensure that there is a sensible, five-year timeframe for each of the reviews by Parliament and that the work is carried on in the public domain. The Government have said that that will happen informally, but we believe it important to have it confirmed in the legislation so that there is a guarantee.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Holding a review is not binding the hands of any future Government. Setting a timeframe on it is definitely not binding their hands; it is actually just putting in a sensible provision for the future. My understanding of the way that the legislature operates is that one cannot bind the hands of a future Government anyway.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Well, it is an interesting view. I think “every five years” is far from onerous. Turning to some of the other points made in the debate, we have deliberately left a wide definition in amendment 13, where we use, “representatives of road user groups and other groups whose safety or other interests may be affected by the application of the principles.” That is not setting in stone exactly which organisations should be part of the consultation; it is important that we all recognise that. As time goes on, the nature— the exact identity—of those groups will change, and our amendment very much reflects the realities. I was concerned that the Minister had not discussed the legislation with the trade unions, which I think he said. I hope that he rectifies that very quickly.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Okay. I hope that the Minister will rectify that apparent omission promptly. As I say, amendment 14 is not binding the hands of Government at all. Holding a review is an important part of the future process, and I hope that the Government will reflect on that. The Minister said that the Government intend to hold reviews; I just do not understand why he is not prepared to put that into the legislation. However, on this occasion I will accept the Minister’s word on that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment , by leave, withdrawn. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 Power to authorise”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister points out that the bots are unregulated. What are the Government’s plans, if any, to regulate to address the anomaly? It is pretty implicit in what he says that there is a need for regulation. When and where will it happen? If not here, where?”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 10, page 7, line 21, at end insert— “(1A) The register referred to in subsection (1) must be made available online.” This amendment would mean that the register of automated vehicle registrations is available online.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s response to the request, which comes directly from the insurance industry, to try to avoid such delays by having a register that gives them access to information as quickly as possible.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 23 requires that a register of automated vehicle registrations is available online. The Government have to maintain a public register, but there is no commitment to its being online. The reason for the amendment comes from the insurance industry. As AXA puts it, the insurance industry requires clarity on the information that will be published to ensure that it is fit for purpose for insurance underwriting purposes. That matters because delays in accessing data could lead to long and expensive cases and an increase in insurance premiums. I am sure that we are only too aware of how much motor insurance premiums have gone up in this country in the past few years; anything we could do to minimise the risk of that happening with new technology must be a good idea.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am pleased to hear that the register will be online. It is a shame; the Minister so nearly got there at the end by saying that he accepted the amendment—and then he did not. We will have to take his word for it, but it is a bit odd for him to say that it will be available online but that he is not prepared to put that in writing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 38, page 25, line 35, at end insert— “(3A) A report published under subsection (3) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.” This amendment would require reports containing the Secretary of State’s conclusions on the monitoring and assessment of automated vehicle performance to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are pleased to say that, in the Lords, the Government changed the statement of safety principles from being subject to the affirmative procedure to being subject to the negative one to improve accountability to Parliament, and we ask that something similar be done to increase parliamentary scrutiny of the monitoring and assessment of automated vehicle performance.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This amendment requires that the reports containing the Secretary of State’s conclusions on the monitoring and assessment of automated vehicle performance be laid before both Houses. It addresses the points about insurance and operator responsibility that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington made in relation to an earlier clause. We need a guarantee that those running automated vehicles are continuing to keep the vehicles in the state that they were in and are maintaining and updating them appropriately.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I accept the Minister’s assurance that, although he is not going to follow the affirmative principle, he is going to make the assessment available to us. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a real delight to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir George. I rise briefly to support what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said about the important role of the devolved Administrations. He referenced the role of the Scottish Law Commission—and indeed the Law Commissions from all the nations of the United Kingdom —and its important work in producing this framework for the introduction of automated vehicles. He is quite right that the principle of consent on devolved competencies applies in this legislation, and I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington read out the relevant reference in the explanatory notes. The Government would not normally legislate on matters of devolved competence without that consent, and for that reason I think that the three amendments tabled by hon.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Nine sub-groups are listed in subsection (2) of new clause 3—consumer groups; organisations representing drivers; road safety experts; relevant businesses; vehicle insurance providers and providers of delivery and public transport services; trade unions; the police and other emergency services; highway authorities; groups representing people with disabilities; and groups representing other road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. Which of those nine sub-groups would the Minister want to leave out of consultation? If he agrees that all of them should be included, why not put it in the Bill? Why not set up an advisory council as part of primary legislation?”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope that the Minister will give this point the attention it deserves in his response. He and his colleagues have noted how the technology is developing and will continue to change. I put it to him that there is no reason to limit the consultation with the trade unions or the other groups that are set out in our new clause 3, and indeed in SNP new clause 1. The Minister says he is keen to engage with the trade unions and is looking forward to an early meeting. A very good way of showing his intent would be to agree to new clause 3 this afternoon.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“With this new clause, we have an opportunity to address some of the challenges in what is an exciting and potentially significant development over the coming years. The stakeholders all make the point that wider statutory engagement is desirable. The TUC states that job transition is its primary concern, and that embedding the principle of creating good new jobs is really important at this stage, before we know exactly how the technology will develop. Having that principle in the Bill is very important. Much of the detail will come out in secondary legislation, so ensuring that the trade unions have a seat at the table and a voice from the start is really important. The point about disability and accessibility is made by Guide Dogs. The point about transport more widely is made by Transport for All.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We want innovation and enterprise; we want to attract the investment that ensures, as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimates, the creation of 342,000 jobs—I think I quoted a slightly lower figure earlier—12,250 of which will be in automotive manufacturing. We need to ensure that those jobs are delivered, that we have an upskilled workforce and that new jobs are created, not lost, through this change in industry, to replace the jobs that will go. We need to ensure that disability groups are embedded from the start. This is an issue across the wider Transport brief. We said on Second Reading that it was regrettable that we had not seen a transport Bill to address some of these wider points.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Prizes to be won through this legislation include avoiding the damage done by deindustrialisation while ensuring that all groups impacted by this exciting new technology benefit from it and that we gain the maximum and widest-possible economic benefits from it. Having an advisory council that has the breadth of experience to give the Government support on all those areas is highly desirable. In the Lords, the Government said that such a council was not necessary. The Minister has reiterated today that consultation will be important to him, and I do not doubt that, but there are advantages to formalising the set-up of an advisory council so that particular interests do not come to the fore.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When I say all, I mean workers, those with disabilities and older people. We must minimise the risk of liability in the event of incidents that necessitate insurance claims, and we must ensure that safety is delivered as widely as possible. That is why an advisory council would be such a valuable addition to the legislation. We saw for generations what happened with deindustrialisation in this country. That came at different times across the country, but very many people were affected and continue to be affected—their areas, their communities and their life chances were badly impacted.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North—or maybe it was his daughter who I was agreeing with; I was not entirely clear. I wish her a happy 14th birthday. New clause 3, which I am speaking to, calls for the establishment of an advisory council. A Division on a very similar amendment in the Lords was narrowly lost. I accept the point made by the hon. Member about the benefits of the additional reference to the devolved Administrations in his new clause. New clause 3 is largely about why this legislation matters so much and why it is so important that through it we are as successful as possible in predicting the impact of the new technology’s evolution. In doing that, it is essential that the benefits are enjoyed by all in society, not just by a few; the hon. Member made that point in passing.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. In the previous debate, the Minister was saying that the Opposition should just accept that they are not here to make legislation.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Funny he should mention that! Call the date and we will be ready, if he can persuade the Prime Minister—2 May is still available. I was quite grateful for the answer because it showed a desire to have an early general election.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Easington touched on in relation to one of the earlier amendments. I would be grateful if the Minister would address that issue and set out exactly how he sees the Government ensuring that there is certainty for potential victims, given the uncertainty that his predecessor, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, identified seven years ago and that the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has drawn to our attention.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In section 2 of the 2018 Act, people injured by an AV when it is driving are allowed to make a claim against the driver’s insurance, but to benefit from that provision, injured people will need to know and prove that an automated feature was engaged when the incident occurred. That is the nub of the problem that the APIL has identified: it could be very difficult or downright impossible for someone to do that. That could lead to additional investigations, requiring complex legal claims and delaying the paying out of compensation, which undermines the whole point of section 2 of the 2018 Act. Lord Liddle pointed out in the Lords that the Department does not appear to have made its mind up about how long it takes a driver to take back control in a UIC vehicle. There is also the whole issue around transition, which my hon.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would be very grateful if the Minister could respond on how potential victims will be able to make claims in a timely fashion, and overcome the risk that they will have to prove that the vehicle was in self-driving mode. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has raised a number of circumstances where that problem could arise, and I am sure that it has raised them with the Minister as well. I would be grateful if he could address the issue of a pedestrian, who would normally be insured, being unaware of their legal situation, perhaps because they are too young or too badly injured.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), on Second Reading of the 2018 Act. He referred to the potential for claims, where there is a lack of clarity on whether a vehicle was in self-driving mode, to be “time-consuming and expensive, undermining the quick and easy access to compensation that is a cornerstone of our insurance system. Not tackling this problem risks jeopardising consumer protection and undermining the automotive industry’s competitiveness.” —[ Official Report , 23 October 2017; Vol. 630, c. 73.] I think the right hon. Gentleman made a very good point, and we share his concern that I have just reiterated, which has yet to be addressed.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Anyway, I will turn to new clause 5. In the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, there was a commitment on liability to the protection of victims and their ability to make a claim, if they are the victim of an incident with a self-driving vehicle. New clause 5 addresses the problem in the Act that, before they know whether they can prove liability, the question arises of whether they will have to prove it. If there is an incident in which somebody is hurt or killed, the question arises of whether it will automatically be accepted that an automated vehicle is designated as having been in self-driving mode. That is a potential problem if insurers insist that such proof be presented. That point was made in 2017 by the then Transport Minister, the right hon.”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Two questions follow from what the Minister says. First, how does somebody prove that a vehicle was in self-driving mode where it has the option to switch between self-driving and user in charge? Secondly, what is its definition during transition? I accept that those are difficult questions, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s answers. There is a related point about data access. What are his proposals to ensure that data is available from the operator and from the vehicle, notwithstanding the fact that they are not collecting personal information and that this process is purely about data that is relevant to an incident?”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗