Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, that is correct, because the problem would be with the vehicle and the manufacturer of the vehicle. The issue with clause 50 is about changes to devolved legislation. It would give the UK Government powers over speeding or other aspects that would be offences.

That is the problem. I suspect that it did not. Therefore, this is retrospective. How do you fit in what is novel legislation in a situation where you are bolting it on to existing traffic provisions? Quite clearly, many of the existing traffic provisions are devolved. All we are trying to do is to respect those devolved issues. You bring up an important point that I have not referenced, which is the need to review the legislation precisely because it is new legislation. It is an issue that we have raised with the UK Government.

The UK Government says that clause 38 is sufficient because it reviews the practice and the experience of automated vehicles, whereas we think that, because this is a framework bill, the secondary regulations will be important areas as well. The UK Government has said that it will engage with Police Scotland and the Crown Office, but it is new territory. Therefore, we think that a more established formal review of the legislation will be needed precisely because we have a new piece of legislation that is working with old pieces of legislation in a brand new area that is novel to us all.

There is the potential for change in the future, and, if we are to have consistency across the UK, there should be a basic assumption that the UK Government will talk to us about those changes or consult us formally. That is all that is being asked for by the Scottish Government. We do not think that that is unreasonable, bearing in mind that we are giving consent to the rest of the bill. The UK Government would probably not want to consider clauses 46 to 51, for example, to be LCM issues, but we do, although, as it happens, we agree with the policy content, so we are not objecting to the them, apart from clause 50, for the reasons that you have set out.

There were quite a lot of questions in there, and I will try to recall a number of them.

The CAVForth project ran from May 2019, with the bus service itself operating from May to August 2023. The partners in the project were Fusion Processing, Stagecoach, Alexander Dennis, Edinburgh Napier University and Bristol Robotics Laboratory, and I think that it was supported through Innovate UK. Transport Scotland has not been directly involved in anything subsequently, but a number of trials are taking place in different parts of the UK, so exchange and monitoring in that respect will be really important.

I am trying to remember your other questions. Jim, do you want to come in on anything that you might have been asked about?

I am just disappointed that there is no appreciation from the UK Government that, in such a challenging, new and novel area, there must be a good understanding of such issues and some preparedness to consult us on clause 50. That addition would show that it understood the difference with regard to devolved competence under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which is the traffic offences legislation—that is, the rules of the road. Those rules are still devolved matters, not reserved, and that clause opens up an opportunity for them to become reserved.

I do not even know whether that is the UK Government’s intention. It might well be, but we might start to get completely conspiratorialist about the reach of the UK Government’s powers. Perhaps I will just leave it at that.

The bill was announced in the King’s speech, and it is fair to say that it is moving quite rapidly, even though it was anticipated as a result of the collective work of the law commissions. The time period in that respect has been quite tight.

There are issues not just for ourselves but for the Crown Office, Police Scotland and policy officials. In that short period of time, there has been as much engagement at official level as there could be; I have to say, though, that I had not spoken to the minister in charge—although we have had various pieces of correspondence, some of which came in the past week. If that correspondence has not been copied to the committee, I am happy to have that done.

In our engagement, the main points that we have been reinforcing include the fact that clauses 46 to 51 fall within devolved areas—although I say again that we will agree to them all from a legislative consent point of view. The UK Government, though, disputes our view. There are also issues with regard to review and clause 38 not being sufficient, because it reviews only what is happening on the roads rather than whether the legislation is fit for purpose or needs to be reviewed.

That has been the tenor of our engagement. We have been as co-operative as we can be. Nevertheless, as I have been trying to explain, the regulations and secondary legislation will, I suspect, be as important as the substantive framework aspects of the UK bill. That legislation will be needed.

As I have said, the bill is moving fairly rapidly; indeed, it had been in its committee stage in the House of Commons this morning. I suspect that this is a staging post in what will be a continuous dialogue, but perhaps my other colleagues might want to add something.

I have a briefing about where Wales is, but I would rather come back to you on that. I do not want to misrepresent the Welsh position.

Remember, however, that Wales has different devolved and reserved responsibilities. I am not an expert on Welsh traffic legislation. I am happy to come back to the committee on your question once we have checked it out. I think that we have some indication of their general views, but I do not want to misrepresent the Welsh.

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.