Category Archives: Hansard

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and the Minister and his officials for their engagement between Committee and Report.

I will take a couple of points that my noble friend Lord Borwick raised as I entirely understand where he is coming from. The difficulty is that, if one is talking about logic, everything that currently is in place would need to necessarily remain as it is until it ceases to be, and then we could start again in terms of accessibility and inclusion. The Palace of Westminster is not perfect, but it is pretty accessible. Changes were made and compromises had to be given—and it is a grade 1 listed palace.

I say to all the businesses currently involved in this that I see the argument that the choice of vehicle—described as a donor vehicle—has not been able to be made accessible. One would assume that all the systems, software and platforms used, as they have been built from scratch, are fully accessible to blind, learning disabled and older people—indeed all people whose needs must be catered for. If those platforms and software systems are not accessible, that tells rather a large truth about what we are considering.

It is desperately disappointing that we find ourselves in this situation, when the promise of automated vehicles is accessible mobility for all, enabled through human-led technology. It is pretty clear that we are not quite there yet. I hope there will be greater changes and much more thought and reflection, potentially between Report and Third Reading. There is so much that needs to be done on access and inclusion. It is hard for me to make this decision but, having considered this deeply, sadly I find myself in the position of withdrawing my amendment at this stage.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Clause 3: Power to authorise

Amendment 9 not moved.

Clause 38: General monitoring duty

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register, not least my technology interest as an adviser to Boston Limited. In moving Amendment 8 I will also speak to Amendments 18 to 24 and 27. I thank all noble Lords who have shown an interest in these amendments, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who has put her name to all of them.

I will briefly take a step back. The major difficulty with the tone and tenor of this Bill on accessibility is that it takes a particularly utilitarian view—the greatest good for the greatest number. In this instance, accessibility is not even in the vehicle’s back seat. Similarly, it suggests that a disabled person should wait, and let innovation take its course and come to them. This is not only unacceptable but not pro-innovation. The whole point of accessibility, inclusive by design from the outset, is that it does not only enable and empower disabled people; it enables, empowers and benefits all people.

Similarly, there is a hint throughout the Bill that regulation is, again, anti-innovation. It can be—we have all seen examples of that—but in no sense is that inevitable just because it is regulation. Right-sized regulation can, indeed must, be pro-innovation. Plenty of good examples in our recent past, from various sectors, prove that.

Amendment 8 in my name is a resubmission of one of my major amendments from Committee. We heard in the previous group about the statement of safety principles. It seems perfectly logical, indeed thoroughly positive, to have a statement of accessibility principles in the Bill. If the Minister is unable to accept this amendment in its current form, will he commit, when he winds up, to the principles set out in this statement of accessibility?

Amendments 18 to 20, in various ways, ensure the accessibility of the vehicles themselves, in various parts of the Bill as drafted. Amendment 21 would require that disabled people be consulted on the granting of permits. This could be structured in such a way that disabled people would not need to be consulted at the micro level, on every permit; a structure could be put in place to ensure meaningful and effective consultation of disabled people throughout that high-level process.

Amendment 22 seeks to move a “may” to a “will”, to guarantee the intent of the Bill. Again, “may” is obviously conditional, and this would show, in a small example, the sense that this is wider than the voluntary or advisory “may”. It is an important amendment—changing to “will” would guarantee this sense. Similarly, Amendment 23 would assure this level of accessibility throughout.

Amendment 24, on the reporting requirement, seeks a minor but important change to the Bill. As currently drafted, the Bill sets out reporting requirements for those involved in automated vehicles. This amendment simply suggests that the first of these reports should be published before any of these vehicles are deployed—a small but important change.

Finally, Amendment 27 would put an obligation on the Secretary of State to commission and pay due regard to research around all elements of accessibility, including the vehicle, software systems and platforms, to ensure not just that the vehicle is accessible but that the whole experience and system are accessible and inclusive by design.

We are talking not only about inclusive by design but about a set of amendments that would make a real, material difference, not just to disabled people but to all users. Are they necessary? Just look at the situation we are currently in, with accessibility and inclusive design not being present at the beginning of the whole process of the development of automated vehicles. This is a clear indicator of the necessity of these amendments. Inclusion and innovation are important, but, more than that, inclusion for innovation is the thread that we should see shining through so many of our statutes: inclusion for innovation and not just for business. We must make it all our business. That is what these amendments are about. I beg to move.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who has done so much for the arts over such a long period of time; and equally, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for securing this debate. Again, he is a national treasure, a hero and a legend of our arts in this country. In doing so, I declare my interest as set out in the register as a member of the board at Channel 4. The arts excite, entertain, amuse, intrigue, shock and, yes, offend us, and all to the good. I will talk briefly about the arts’ potential to make the difference—not a difference but the difference—and to cause change.

I am reminded of a programme that the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, made decades ago, which affected me then and is still seared into my consciousness. It did not have a big blockbuster budget; it was not filmed on location; it was across the way, in a non-dressed empty studio, with two cameras and two chairs. The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, was on one chair and Dennis Potter, his life fading from him, was on the other, with a morphine flask in his hand. In that moment, with no set or and no need for graphics or any other staging, two humans discussed the power of art to change, transform and make the difference.

I have tried to take that essence into some of the things I have been fortunate enough to be involved in. When I led the team that planned and delivered the London 2012 Paralympic Games, I was absolutely seized of the necessity to drive the artistic as well as the sporting—not least because, for decades in this country, probably up to that point, sport and art had been put in some pathetic opposition where, if you funded one, you could not have the other. Like oil and water: never the twain shall meet. What nonsense. I hope that, in our small way, in 2012, we helped drive that point home, so that they would never be seen by any future Government as opposing forces.

We put on Unlimited, the largest deaf and disabled arts programme ever staged on these shores. There were great shows and exhibitions, with stand-up comedians and performers, many of whom then led or were part of the opening ceremony of the 2012 Paralympics—so perfectly put together by its directors, the sensational Jenny Sealey and Brad Hemmings. Shakespeare’s “The Tempest” ran right through the ceremony, with modern music and the national anthem—signed as well as sung. In the midst of all of that, Professor Stephen Hawking talked about possibilities not just beyond ourselves but beyond our universe. What gravity-defying, attitude-altering and opportunity-creating art and sport it was—all of it inclusive by design and accessible for each and every person who experienced it.

This leads to my one question for my noble friend the Minister, of which I gave him prior notice. How many of our cultural institutions—our museums and galleries—currently in receipt of National Lottery and/or grant in aid funding are not accessible? They are putting on inaccessible exhibitions and shows, for the want of simple accessible services such as audio description. It does not make a difference; it makes the difference between somebody being able to experience that art or exhibition or being effectively and completely shut out. As I am talking about making the difference, I ask not only how many institutions are currently putting on inaccessible shows but what my noble friend will commit the Government to doing to put an end to this.

The arts, accessible for all, is what we should all be aiming for. Accessible for all or not at all; “accessible for all” is my clarion call.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who has done so much for the arts over such a long period of time; and equally, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for securing this debate. Again, he is a national treasure, a hero and a legend of our arts in this country. In doing so, I declare my interest as set out in the register as a member of the board at Channel 4. The arts excite, entertain, amuse, intrigue, shock and, yes, offend us, and all to the good. I will talk briefly about the arts’ potential to make the difference—not a difference but the difference—and to cause change.

I am reminded of a programme that the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, made decades ago, which affected me then and is still seared into my consciousness. It did not have a big blockbuster budget; it was not filmed on location; it was across the way, in a non-dressed empty studio, with two cameras and two chairs. The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, was on one chair and Dennis Potter, his life fading from him, was on the other, with a morphine flask in his hand. In that moment, with no set or and no need for graphics or any other staging, two humans discussed the power of art to change, transform and make the difference.

I have tried to take that essence into some of the things I have been fortunate enough to be involved in. When I led the team that planned and delivered the London 2012 Paralympic Games, I was absolutely seized of the necessity to drive the artistic as well as the sporting—not least because, for decades in this country, probably up to that point, sport and art had been put in some pathetic opposition where, if you funded one, you could not have the other. Like oil and water: never the twain shall meet. What nonsense. I hope that, in our small way, in 2012, we helped drive that point home, so that they would never be seen by any future Government as opposing forces.

We put on Unlimited, the largest deaf and disabled arts programme ever staged on these shores. There were great shows and exhibitions, with stand-up comedians and performers, many of whom then led or were part of the opening ceremony of the 2012 Paralympics—so perfectly put together by its directors, the sensational Jenny Sealey and Brad Hemmings. Shakespeare’s “The Tempest” ran right through the ceremony, with modern music and the national anthem—signed as well as sung. In the midst of all of that, Professor Stephen Hawking talked about possibilities not just beyond ourselves but beyond our universe. What gravity-defying, attitude-altering and opportunity-creating art and sport it was—all of it inclusive by design and accessible for each and every person who experienced it.

This leads to my one question for my noble friend the Minister, of which I gave him prior notice. How many of our cultural institutions—our museums and galleries—currently in receipt of National Lottery and/or grant in aid funding are not accessible? They are putting on inaccessible exhibitions and shows, for the want of simple accessible services such as audio description. It does not make a difference; it makes the difference between somebody being able to experience that art or exhibition or being effectively and completely shut out. As I am talking about making the difference, I ask not only how many institutions are currently putting on inaccessible shows but what my noble friend will commit the Government to doing to put an end to this.

The arts, accessible for all, is what we should all be aiming for. Accessible for all or not at all; “accessible for all” is my clarion call.

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to introduce the Law Commission’s draft Bill on Digital Assets this parliamentary session.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this group of amendments. As has been rightly stated, it covers a serious and significant aspect of the Bill under consideration.

I will speak to my Amendment 55A, which, quite simply, goes to the question around the provision of data to establish liability in the event of an AV being involved in an accident. What we know from the whole question of automated vehicles is that they are simultaneously both extraordinary producers of, and consumers of, data. There are so many data issues, which need to be considered right through every element of the Bill in front of us.

When it comes to the swift understanding, investigation and attribution of liability in the event of an accident, it is clearly critical for all of that data to be understood by the parties who require it in the establishment of liability for the accident. Amendment 55A simply asks the Secretary of State to review the current situation and to produce guidance to bring clarity, certainty and whatever is required to avoid delay, distress and any other negative elements that would be occasioned if the wrong approach were taken in the event of an automated vehicle being involved in an accident where there was an inability to gain the right access to the data and to quickly and efficiently establish liability. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response.

The reality is that the current measures on accessibility in the Bill are not specific and are insufficient. To my noble friend Lord Borwick, I say that it is entirely possible that we could add to Clause 87 to make it specific to and sufficient for that purpose; I will certainly get my drafting pen out between Committee and Report.

I look forward to the meeting with the Minister to cover these issues. It is essential that we get them right at this stage. I will give an example of what happens if we do not. For many years, and potentially still, there have been stations on our network that are described as fully accessible; they are marked as “fully accessible” stations on the overall map of the network, be it in London or nationally. Indeed, they are: if you arrive at the stations, they have wide gates; if you have access needs or are a wheelchair user, they have audio announcements; and if you happen to be visually impaired or blind, they have lifts that enable passengers to access the platform. They are fully accessible stations—but you cannot board the train when it arrives. That is why it is critical to look at the golden thread of accessibility for the end-to-end experience. Just one small step, be it even tiny, can trip up the whole process of enabling an accessible experience.

The Bill needs to be beefed up on accessibility, otherwise it will be a game of catch-up and missed opportunities. The Minister said in winding up that there is “scope” for that, but scope is not actuality. He said that there is potential and opportunity, but opportunity is not inevitability. We have the opportunity in the Bill not to slow anything down. Through the input of disabled people from the outset, we can actually speed up the process and have free consultation from them—although everybody who is part of the co-production should, rightly, be paid and supported.

More needs to be done between Committee and Report. The opportunity that accessible automated vehicles provide cannot be left to go the way of other transport developments over the previous 200 years. We will certainly return to this between Committee and Report, potentially with some specific amendments on Report, but for the moment I beg to withdraw my Amendment 26A.

Amendment 26A withdrawn.

Clause 12: Power to establish operator licensing scheme

Amendments 27 and 28 not moved.

Clause 12 agreed.

Clause 13 agreed.

Clause 14: Collection and sharing of information

Amendment 29 not moved.

Clause 14 agreed.

Clauses 15 and 16 agreed.

Clause 17: Power to issue information notice

Amendment 30 not moved.

Clause 17 agreed.

Clauses 18 to 21 agreed.

Clause 22: Use of information obtained

Amendment 31 not moved.

Clause 22 agreed.

Clauses 23 to 37 agreed.

Schedule 1 agreed.

Clause 38: General monitoring duty

Amendments 32 and 33 not moved.

Clause 38 agreed.

Clauses 39 to 41 agreed.

Clause 42: Protection of information

Amendment 34 not moved.

Clause 42 agreed.

Amendments 35 and 36 not moved.

Clause 43: Fees

Amendment 37 not moved.

Clause 43 agreed.

Amendment 37A not moved.

Clauses 44 and 45 agreed.

House resumed.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on this group of amendments. In doing so, I declare my interest as an adviser to Boston Ltd. I shall speak to Amendment 26A, which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for co-signing. I look forward to hearing about the other amendments in this group, which I shall not trespass on at this time.

Automated vehicles are either accessible, or they should not be pursued. They have such potential to enable mobility through technology, transforming people’s lives, be they older people, disabled people or any member of our society. If accessibility is not the golden thread that runs through all their development and deployment, this project should not proceed any further.

We see in Clause 87 a couple of mentions of disabled people and older people. It is good to see that, but Clause 87 is not specific or sufficient. Without greater detail in the Bill, inevitably we will have potentially many elements of the user experience which simply will not be accessible, and there is precious little point in having 70% of the end-to-end experience accessible if 30% is not. That needs to run through all elements: not just the AV itself but everything involved in that user experience of engaging with an automated vehicle. That is why my Amendment 26A proposes a statement of accessibility principles which will run through and set out in the Bill, in detail, what is required to enable an accessible experience for all users.

As has been said, the vehicle itself, the physical features, must be accessible. All onboard systems must be accessible, but also the booking platforms and all the physical infrastructure that the AV needs to interact with, such as kerbs and drop-off points, must be accessible; otherwise, the experience will be unable to be seen as accessible. It can be rendered useless if just one of those elements is not accessible. We need to see a statement of accessibility principles set out in the Bill; it needs to be understood as an end-to-end accessible experience for users; and we need to see disabled people involved in the development and deployment of this whole AV enterprise. I believe that by having all these elements in the Bill, we will have much greater opportunity to enable an accessible experience for all.

It is clear that we need to have backstops. If the onboard system fails, if the booking system fails, if any element fails, by technical glitch or for want of accessibility, there needs to be a human in the loop, the potential for human intervention, so that a disabled person, an older person or, indeed, any person is not left, potentially, in a vehicle with a failed onboard system and no back-up, both for safety but also just for knowing where you are—the vital information to enable you to have an accessible experience in that AV.

We have spent many decades putting right inaccessible buildings, infrastructure and public realm that was built and conceived of long before accessibility, inclusion and inclusive by design were even considered, let alone deployed. That is still a work in progress, but we need to be absolutely certain that we are not potentially building new systems, vehicles and infrastructure that are inaccessible by design. We cannot start creating new steps—new barriers to access—in cyberspace and across the whole AV experience. We will get this right if we see it as a user experience, end-to-end, every beat point with a golden thread of accessibility ensuring that AVs can be enabling, emancipating and a positive experience for all users. I beg to move.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response.

The reality is that the current measures on accessibility in the Bill are not specific and are insufficient. To my noble friend Lord Borwick, I say that it is entirely possible that we could add to Clause 87 to make it specific to and sufficient for that purpose; I will certainly get my drafting pen out between Committee and Report.

I look forward to the meeting with the Minister to cover these issues. It is essential that we get them right at this stage. I will give an example of what happens if we do not. For many years, and potentially still, there have been stations on our network that are described as fully accessible; they are marked as “fully accessible” stations on the overall map of the network, be it in London or nationally. Indeed, they are: if you arrive at the stations, they have wide gates; if you have access needs or are a wheelchair user, they have audio announcements; and if you happen to be visually impaired or blind, they have lifts that enable passengers to access the platform. They are fully accessible stations—but you cannot board the train when it arrives. That is why it is critical to look at the golden thread of accessibility for the end-to-end experience. Just one small step, be it even tiny, can trip up the whole process of enabling an accessible experience.

The Bill needs to be beefed up on accessibility, otherwise it will be a game of catch-up and missed opportunities. The Minister said in winding up that there is “scope” for that, but scope is not actuality. He said that there is potential and opportunity, but opportunity is not inevitability. We have the opportunity in the Bill not to slow anything down. Through the input of disabled people from the outset, we can actually speed up the process and have free consultation from them—although everybody who is part of the co-production should, rightly, be paid and supported.

More needs to be done between Committee and Report. The opportunity that accessible automated vehicles provide cannot be left to go the way of other transport developments over the previous 200 years. We will certainly return to this between Committee and Report, potentially with some specific amendments on Report, but for the moment I beg to withdraw my Amendment 26A.

Amendment 26A withdrawn.

Clause 12: Power to establish operator licensing scheme

Amendments 27 and 28 not moved.

Clause 12 agreed.

Clause 13 agreed.

Clause 14: Collection and sharing of information

Amendment 29 not moved.

Clause 14 agreed.

Clauses 15 and 16 agreed.

Clause 17: Power to issue information notice

Amendment 30 not moved.

Clause 17 agreed.

Clauses 18 to 21 agreed.

Clause 22: Use of information obtained

Amendment 31 not moved.

Clause 22 agreed.

Clauses 23 to 37 agreed.

Schedule 1 agreed.

Clause 38: General monitoring duty

Amendments 32 and 33 not moved.

Clause 38 agreed.

Clauses 39 to 41 agreed.

Clause 42: Protection of information

Amendment 34 not moved.

Clause 42 agreed.

Amendments 35 and 36 not moved.

Clause 43: Fees

Amendment 37 not moved.

Clause 43 agreed.

Amendment 37A not moved.

Clauses 44 and 45 agreed.

House resumed.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on this group of amendments. In doing so, I declare my interest as an adviser to Boston Ltd. I shall speak to Amendment 26A, which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for co-signing. I look forward to hearing about the other amendments in this group, which I shall not trespass on at this time.

Automated vehicles are either accessible, or they should not be pursued. They have such potential to enable mobility through technology, transforming people’s lives, be they older people, disabled people or any member of our society. If accessibility is not the golden thread that runs through all their development and deployment, this project should not proceed any further.

We see in Clause 87 a couple of mentions of disabled people and older people. It is good to see that, but Clause 87 is not specific or sufficient. Without greater detail in the Bill, inevitably we will have potentially many elements of the user experience which simply will not be accessible, and there is precious little point in having 70% of the end-to-end experience accessible if 30% is not. That needs to run through all elements: not just the AV itself but everything involved in that user experience of engaging with an automated vehicle. That is why my Amendment 26A proposes a statement of accessibility principles which will run through and set out in the Bill, in detail, what is required to enable an accessible experience for all users.

As has been said, the vehicle itself, the physical features, must be accessible. All onboard systems must be accessible, but also the booking platforms and all the physical infrastructure that the AV needs to interact with, such as kerbs and drop-off points, must be accessible; otherwise, the experience will be unable to be seen as accessible. It can be rendered useless if just one of those elements is not accessible. We need to see a statement of accessibility principles set out in the Bill; it needs to be understood as an end-to-end accessible experience for users; and we need to see disabled people involved in the development and deployment of this whole AV enterprise. I believe that by having all these elements in the Bill, we will have much greater opportunity to enable an accessible experience for all.

It is clear that we need to have backstops. If the onboard system fails, if the booking system fails, if any element fails, by technical glitch or for want of accessibility, there needs to be a human in the loop, the potential for human intervention, so that a disabled person, an older person or, indeed, any person is not left, potentially, in a vehicle with a failed onboard system and no back-up, both for safety but also just for knowing where you are—the vital information to enable you to have an accessible experience in that AV.

We have spent many decades putting right inaccessible buildings, infrastructure and public realm that was built and conceived of long before accessibility, inclusion and inclusive by design were even considered, let alone deployed. That is still a work in progress, but we need to be absolutely certain that we are not potentially building new systems, vehicles and infrastructure that are inaccessible by design. We cannot start creating new steps—new barriers to access—in cyberspace and across the whole AV experience. We will get this right if we see it as a user experience, end-to-end, every beat point with a golden thread of accessibility ensuring that AVs can be enabling, emancipating and a positive experience for all users. I beg to move.