Chamber and committees

I think that that is where the user-in-charge aspect becomes quite important, because it means that somebody else is in the vehicle. The vehicle might be automated, but there will be times where there might be an instruction from, say, the computer that there needs to be a transition and a person needs to take over, because of whatever circumstance. As for deployment of people and the issue of drivers working, I think that there is likely to be a transition, with control going to a user in charge instead of the vehicle just driving itself, with no other human there.

With regard to socialising the issue around the implications for jobs, we all have a responsibility to raise such matters. Last June, I think, the Parliament had a debate, in which I took part as a back bencher, on artificial intelligence and what it means generally. We cannot give you all the answers, because it is a developing area, but if we do not prepare for it and anticipate things, the market will just take over. That is the interesting aspect—that is, how you regulate in this sphere—and that is what the UK Government has done after the law commissions’ quite extensive study of the issue and report.

That would be allowed if the UK Secretary of State were to use his powers under clause 50 to do that. That would be a policy decision in that hypothetical situation.

Thank you for inviting me to discuss the LCM and supplementary LCM for the UK Government’s Automated Vehicles Bill.

The bill implements the recommendations of a four-year review of regulation of automated vehicles that was carried out jointly by the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission. The bill prescribes a new framework for the safe deployment of self-driving vehicles in Great Britain.

Autonomous vehicles represent a vital part of mobility of the future, and the focus on public safety is required to support that. I welcome the necessary legislative framework, albeit that there is concern over some clauses. The late engagement by the UK Government on the bill has also been challenging, given the complexity, novelty and technical nature of the bill. The Scottish Government considers that a number of provisions engage the LCM process.

Clause 40 will require Scottish ministers to provide the Secretary of State with reports from police and local authorities. That is in line with our current policy on sharing safety information with partner agencies to allow us all to learn from incidents. Therefore, we recommend consent.

Clauses 46 to 51 establish the legal liability of the “user in charge”, who is a person in a position to exercise control of a vehicle that is being operated by an authorised automated function. The Scottish Government is in disagreement with the UK Government, as we consider those clauses to relate to devolved matters. Our view is that determining the liability of a user in charge, or any other person, for devolved offences involving the use of a vehicle would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. However, we agree with the policy position of the user-in-charge provisions and recommend consent to clauses 46 to 49 and clause 51 only.

Clause 50 provides the Secretary of State with the power to change or clarify existing legislation, including acts of the Scottish Parliament, without a mechanism to get consent from or consult the Scottish Ministers or Scottish Parliament, so we do not recommend consent on clause 50.

Clauses 82 to 90, excluding clause 86, provide new powers for Scottish ministers in relation to a system of interim passenger permits over the use of automated vehicles within the private hire and taxi regulatory regime. Those clauses are an appropriate approach that reflect the devolved nature of private hire and taxi licensing and, therefore, we recommend legislative consent.

I conclude by saying that extensive engagement has been taken forward by officials with the UK Government’s Department for Transport, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and Police Scotland. That ensured that we were provided with the expert advice to allow us to consider and take an informed view on the policy intent of the bill.

I ask you to bear with me as I explain the position. I might bring colleagues in, too, as the issue is fairly complex.

Clause 50 contains a broad power for the Secretary of State to change or clarify the application of existing relevant legislation, including acts of the Scottish Parliament, to a user in charge, and states that that legislation is relevant if it relates to the driving or use of a vehicle. The UK Government maintains that those provisions are reserved because they relate to the subject matter of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which is reserved under the Scotland Act 1998, in so far as it is concerned with the use of vehicles on roads. The UK Government acknowledges that the provisions will apply to devolved dynamic driving offences but considers that impacts on devolved matters are incidental to that reserved matter. In the most recent letter—as you can appreciate, there has been correspondence back and forwards between us and the UK Government—dated 13 March 2024 from the UK Government, this has been summarised as the reserved policy on use of automated vehicles on roads.

The Scottish Government considers that that takes too broad a view of the reservation. 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. Therefore, any and all regulation of the use of automated vehicles is not a reserved matter. Our view is that the provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1988 that are quoted by the UK Government in relation to the construction and use of vehicles are connected with the regulation of minimum standards for the safe use of vehicles. That is why part 1 deals with the regulatory regime.

I will conclude on this point. The provisions of this user-in-charge immunity, which is dealt with in clauses 46 to 51, do not appear to relate to the regulation of minimum standards for the safe use of vehicles. Instead, the Scottish Government’s view is that the primary purpose of those provisions is to clarify liability for traffic offences. In the case of clause 50, that is civil penalty contraventions of persons in an equivalent position to the driver of a conventional vehicle. Accordingly, modifying offences to remove or clarify liability, which clause 50 gives powers to the UK Government to do in reserved and devolved areas, cannot be incidental. Rather, it appears to be the primary reason why those provisions are being made. Some examples of what would be in the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament include issues in relation to civil penalties, but also bus-lane issues, things that are to do with offences under devolved legislation and offences that would be part of devolved areas. Those are the areas that the provision would allow the UK Government to legislate on or to make provision for in the future in relation to the user-in-charge immunity.

I know that that is quite complex and I apologise to colleagues if I have not quite got that right—they can correct me if that is the case—but that is the explanation of what the difference of opinion is. We think that it is a genuine issue of concern. I know that the committee stage of the bill is taking place today, and that is one of the issues that is being debated there, as well.

My colleagues can give any examples of practical issues that they want to mention, but I will say that this is a framework bill. There is a desire to have a consistent approach across the UK for what is a new policy area for automated vehicles. We agree with that approach, which makes sense. However, when it applies to devolved areas that is where we think that there needs to be, at the very least, consultation of Scottish ministers about issues that may impact on us. Of course, the user-in-charge immunity is a brand-new concept, but the issue about what can happen to the vehicle in respect of devolved areas is similar to what might happen in respect of a vehicle if it had been driven by a human being. Therefore, it is the consequences of that and the penalties or the civil offences that are at issue. I will ask colleagues—

With regard to the consultation, you will remember that this work has taken a number of years; it was the Scottish Law Commission that did the work and conducted the consultation, and there is probably a list somewhere of the people whom it consulted.

We should remember that this is a UK Government bill. Quite often legislation comes out of Law Commission reports, and this legislation has come out of its recommendations, too. However, I will bring in Jim Wilson to talk about the issues and what I suspect will be a need for on-going attention to be paid to licensing issues with regard to the taxi and bus industry in this respect.

It could have been better, but I recognise that this is a complex area. At the heart of this is a failure to differentiate between the technology of the automated vehicle and the rules of the road. The rules of the road are, in effect, devolved, whereas the monitoring of the technology is, as we appreciate, a reserved matter under the provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1988 on standards of vehicles. The issue is that now there is this bridge to the vehicle becoming the driver as opposed to what happens in the cars that you and I drive, regulation of which is reserved. The issue is the interaction with the rules of the road.

I do not want to put officials in the position of having to say where they are with that discussion. To be fair, it is a challenging area.

Yes, and that is exactly what clause 50 could lead to. I am not saying that it will lead to it, but it could.

Some local authorities have requested to increase the amounts of fines for bus-lane infringement in Scotland, which are a devolved matter. What you have described is a good example of what the UK Government bill, as it is currently drafted, would enable. If you had a judgmental view about trying to drive the market towards use of automated vehicles, for example, you might want a differentiated system, but I do not think that that makes sense.

On the point about the rules of the road, it would be easier for everybody if they are consistent and there will be a period where there will be hybrid use. There will be us, then there will be everybody else as well as user-in-charge vehicles and so on. There will be a period of hybrid activity and I do not think that it would make sense for that differentiation between rules of the road, fines and so on, to happen.

I am not saying the UK Government would do that, but it is exactly what clause 50 would enable and allow.

Yes. George Henry may want to come in on that. Is that a good explanation, George?

We will all have to consider those things as we go forward, as AI and automated vehicles increasingly become part of our everyday life. As I say, it is a journey for everybody to go on. Is that sufficiently short for you, convener?