I will give the right hon. Member credit for his role in getting the Bill to this stage, and he is quite right that the Bill largely has strong support on both sides of the aisle and across society. I think it does set the framework, but there are concerns about it, and this is one of them. I will further set out the evidence base for that, but before I do, I turn to the impact of deindustrialisation and its legacy of inequality, which has been sown into the fabric of our country.

The failure to work with trade unions meant that the voice of working people was ignored. Communities across the country are still paying the price for the reckless approach taken. The Bill does not address directly the potential impact on jobs from the introduction of automated vehicles. Automated vehicles must be used for public good, and consideration must include the future of jobs.

As much of the detail will be addressed through secondary legislation, it is essential that unions and other stakeholders be consulted on it, not least to ensure a jobs transition. Will the Minister clarify, once and for all, whether he and the Government will commit to consulting trade unions throughout the roll-out of automated vehicles, so that we avoid repeating over and over the mistakes made in deindustrialisation? Labour’s proposed council would include a wider scope of groups, including those representing people with disabilities, pedestrians, cyclists, emergency services, road safety experts, highway authorities, public transport services, manufacturers, drivers and insurance providers.

I turn to the comments of Jesse Norman. Transport for All has highlighted that there is still no requirement in the Bill for disabled people to be consulted or involved in developing the legislation, which is crucial because of how much of the detail will be finalised in secondary legislation. It has warned that if disabled people are not consulted before this becomes statute,

“inaccessibility could be become woven into the fabric of this new mode of transport, before it even hits the road.”

What discussions has the Minister had with Transport for All to address those concerns? How does he propose combating the risks that it has outlined?

The approach to new clause 4 is consistent with the approach that we have suggested in new clause 3. New clause 4 mirrors the provisions in the Equality Act 2010 on providing information in accessible formats to bus passengers, and applies them to automated passenger services, bringing the Bill into line with the Bus Services Act 2017. The question for the Minister is: if there is such provision in the Bus Services Act, why is there not in the Bill?

The point about consultation with disability groups applies to new clauses 3 and 4. The Law Commission’s report repeatedly stressed the importance of co-production with disabled people, and recommended that an accessibility advisory council be established. It seems odd that the Government accepted many parts of the Law Commission’s report but not that one.

I turn to new clause 5 and data sharing. In Committee, the Minister recognised the significance of the availability of data to investigators and insurance companies. How does he plan to ensure that availability if there is no requirement for data sharing in the Bill? That is a concern for the industry. He said that safety data will be collected by the vehicle, monitored by the operator, and scrutinised by the Government. Will he explain how that approach will address the intricacies of insurance access and dispute resolution? How will the approach avoid disputes between vehicle operators and manufacturers?

The Minister’s response to the Committee was limited to the subject of sharing data about safety concerns. However, for the successful growth of this emerging market, competitive market conditions are needed, so in-vehicle data cannot be restricted to vehicle manufacturers, or withheld in real time from other market players. That was recognised by the Competition and Markets Authority in the guidance on motor vehicle agreements published in June 2023 to accompany the Competition Act 1998 (Motor Vehicle Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2023. The guidance states:

“In particular, the advent of ‘connected vehicles’ places suppliers of motor vehicles in a privileged position, enabling them to access and use vehicle information in a way which may restrict competition between them (including their Authorised Networks) and independent operators.”

The Bill intends to allow the UK to be world leaders in automated vehicles. However, our international competitors are making strides ahead of the UK; they are holding comprehensive consultations to prevent anti-competitive practices by vehicle manufacturers, and undertaking ongoing policy development. For example, the EU has extensively consulted on this broader issue in addressing the regulation of data under the proposed EU Data Act. Could the Minister therefore address the concerns outlined in new clause 5?

On new clause 6, a victim involved in a collision with an automated vehicle currently has to prove whether the vehicle was in self-driving mode at the point of collision. Could the Minister explain how we can guarantee that victims will be compensated when the burden of proof is always on the claimant in a legal claim, and neither the Bill nor the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 changes that? Could he provide absolute clarity on whether that is the case? If it is, how will costly and lengthy legal disputes over insurance be avoided?

Our four new clauses and amendments are designed to clarify matters and build on the framework of the Bill, which we support. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to my questions.