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Amendment 26A withdrawn.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.