Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Alan Brown Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. This legislation is part of the process of keeping us as close as possible to the top of that league table. Clearly the presence of 4G and 5G networks is immensely important. He will know that this week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has talked about the Government’s achievements and ambitions for our broadband network and our 4G and 5G networks. It is absolutely essential, if we are to maximise this technology’s potential in the UK, that we have state-of-the-art IT systems. That is what the Government will continue to work towards.

To harness the revolution and take advantage of the potential of electric vehicles, we must continue to build the infrastructure they need. It needs to be ubiquitous and fast-charging, and this legislation will help secure that. Of course, that is backed by Government funding. In the Budget last November, the Chancellor announced a new £400 million electric vehicle charging infrastructure investment fund, £100 million of new funding for the plug-in car grant to help consumers purchase these vehicles, and of course we will play our part too by ensuring that 25% of cars in the central Government departmental fleet will be ultra low emission by the end of this Parliament. Through the Bill, we want to make it easier to recharge an electric vehicle, and that will be one of the consequences of what we have all debated today.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The UK Government have committed £200 million towards the roll-out of infrastructure. Previously, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy agreed with me that any allocation to Scotland has to be based on needs, including geography, rather than on population. Can the Transport Secretary confirm that he shares that view?

[Chris Grayling]

This has to be a United Kingdom-wide effort. Scotland is no different from the rest of the United Kingdom: it has rural areas, remote rural areas and busy urban areas. We will need to make sure that all those who seek to buy these vehicles have access to the appropriate charging points. This legislation will help to do that, as will Government funding. The Barnett consequentials of the Government funding announced in the Budget will enable the Scottish Government to play their part, along with private investment.

Taken together, the measures in the Bill will ensure that the UK is at the forefront of this profound technological shift. It will provide cleaner vehicles, easier travel and safer roads—all part of a transport system that works for everyone in this country, both today and in future. I am grateful to everyone who has been involved in working on the passage of the Bill. I hope that it makes a genuine difference. I am grateful to the whole House for uniting behind the Bill’s principles. Let us go forward and make sure that this country is a real success story in this field.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

Like many other Members. I pay tribute to the work done by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) and the way he conducted himself in the Bill Committee; he worked with everyone in a consensual manner.

I welcome the Bill as far as it goes. Sometimes people say that electric vehicles, particularly electric cars, will be the panacea for the UK’s current air quality issues, but electric cars themselves are not going to make that huge change to air quality, which is contributing to 40,000 premature deaths a year. We are going to need to look at tackling heavy goods vehicles, including the transport refrigeration units that many HGVs use, as they are powered by secondary diesel generators, which are more polluting than the lorry’s main diesel engine. That is the crazy position that we are in. We also need to look at construction vehicles, which also contribute greatly to diesel pollution in city centres, as well as at buses and taxis. The UK Government’s 2040 target for the elimination of carbon-based vehicles needs to be more ambitious. The Scottish Government have set a target of 2032 and I suggest that the UK Government should at least be able to match that.

Many hon. Members have agreed that there needs to be uniformity in the roll-out and type of infrastructure, as well as clarity on the costs. People will need clear information on the availability and type of chargers throughout the UK. If we are going to address range anxiety, that information will need to be clearly available and understood. The previous Minister committed to ensuring that there would be a rural roll-out strategy and that rural areas would not be left behind. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State also seemed to indicate that that would be the case. It is really important that we start work on that rural roll-out strategy and that rural areas are not left behind in the way that they have been with 4G and 5G network coverage. As I said earlier, the Business Secretary has agreed that funds must be allocated on the basis of need. I reiterate that point to the Transport Secretary. The allocations must be needs-based, not population-based. This is not about Barnett consequentials.

Another issue that will need to be addressed involves the competence, skills and qualifications required for technicians to be able to service and work on electric vehicles. Given the high voltage of the batteries installed in them, those people will need to understand what they are doing when they open the bonnet and start work on them. As we look towards the smart grid set-up that everyone keeps talking about, it is clear that Government energy policies will need to be more coherent. The UK Government will need to review their funding of renewables. They should not continue to throw money at nuclear energy. They also need to review transmission charging, so that electricity generation can be located in the most suitable areas.

We look forward to the roll-out of automated vehicles, but trials need to be undertaken in Scotland. The Government have funded four trials so far, but none of them has been in Scotland. I suggest that they need to address that point quite quickly. We look forward to an increased uptake in electric vehicles and to seeing autonomous vehicles on the roads. It was suggested in Committee that the roll-out of autonomous vehicles will open up opportunities for disabled and elderly people and for others who might be housebound and trapped or who rely on other people to provide their transport. The vehicles could therefore provide opportunities to address equality issues, and I welcome the innovation as the vehicles are rolled out.

Heathrow Airport: Public Consultation

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. Hopefully I will not take the full five minutes.

I suspect that, as always with any debate on Heathrow, there is a divide between for and against. It would seem that those against would be the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), who introduced the debate, and the hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). My neighbour the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke in favour of Heathrow expansion. I must say that I fall into the “for” camp as well because of the potential benefits it can bring to Scotland.

In supporting the principle of a third runway, air quality considerations, noise considerations and other potential neighbour nuisance aspects still need to be considered and cannot be ridden roughshod over. I look forward to the Minister responding to the issues brought forward by the right hon. Member for Twickenham. I also thought the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth made some valid points in terms of actually identifying what the approach paths are and making them public. Clearly, the people near the airport need to understand that and it is a valid question. The comments on respite and night flights are valid, as are the points about flight servicing requirements and how that could impact air quality. The Government need to take those aspects into account.

The SNP is in favour of the third runway because of the potential benefits it could bring to Scotland, including up to 16,000 jobs and connecting Scotland to a more global market. Ideally, the expansion will allow Scotland to open up and increase connectivity.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. This is the same point that I was going to make earlier. BA has announced that later this year it will be cutting half its routes between Leeds Bradford and Heathrow. Does that not show that the economics of domestic flights and domestic connections just does not stack up? The promises on greater connectivity between Scotland and Heathrow can be delivered only with the help of Government subsidy, and as far as I know there are no promises relating to that.

[Alan Brown]

I disagree. Clearly, the Government can have a role in terms of public service obligations—that can be considered. Heathrow has offered to guarantee slots to Scotland, and therefore I am not sure. In the existing climate, it is clearly much more difficult because Heathrow is so congested, hence the whole premise of a third runway to open up that connectivity.

It is clear, as the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock said, that all the airports in Scotland bar Edinburgh are in favour of this expansion. Northern Ireland is in favour of it. The hon. Member for Hammersmith mentioned hub airports. The reality is that hub airports want this. In my ideal world, if Prestwick and Glasgow could expand and pick up some of these new world markets, that would be great, but they are saying that that is not a reality and that they need that connectivity to Heathrow. That is where the critical mass is—that is just the reality of the situation. I also clearly support the idea that Prestwick could become a hub in terms of service delivery for the construction of Heathrow and off-site fabrication, which would be a welcome addition to the Ayrshire economy.

On the consultation, I am aware of some of the asks of the Englefield Green Action Group on statutory noise limits, which my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) has campaigned for and which I support. Air quality targets obviously need to be considered. They have suggested considering targets on a reducing, tapered basis, which is reasonable, and possible Civil Aviation Authority enforcement powers for airline operational performance on matters such as ascent angles—they appreciate that Heathrow is doing a name-and-shame process with airlines at the moment.

Overall, the Government need to consider these measures and respond accordingly. They need to look at air quality and produce a coherent air quality plan that looks at diesel HGVs, transport refrigeration units and construction vehicles, which will clearly be an issue in the construction of a third runway at Heathrow and need to be considered. I look forward to the Government’s response, how they will accommodate the revised proposals that Heathrow is now consulting on and how they will take this forward in the foreseeable future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I welcome the Minister to his post. On his opening remarks, may I remind him that there is a north beyond the northern powerhouse, and it is called Scotland? In general, in order to deliver high-quality, reliable rail services, funding needs to be based on the needs of the sector, taking account of future growth, the size of the network and essential maintenance. Does he agree with those sound principles?

[Jesse Norman]

I certainly share the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to the fact that the north goes beyond the northern powerhouse—of course, I entirely agree with him on that. That is why the Government are involved with the borderlands growth deal, the precise point of which is to work with local authorities on both sides of the border. He will be aware that the high-level proposition to the UK and Scottish Governments on that was submitted last year. We will continue to work on that, and of course we will continue to invest in roads, alongside that process, to the extent that we can.

[Alan Brown]

On the principles I was trying to lay out, Scotland has 17% of the UK rail network but was allocated only 10.4% of the UK spend. The Government regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, has stated that £1.9 billion is needed for essential repairs and £2.3 billion is needed to meet future demand. So why was the funding formula cut and why were experts ignored, leaving Scotland with a £600 million shortfall?

[Jesse Norman]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there has been a fiscal settlement which has changed over time, very much in consultation with and with the support of the Scottish Government. Of course, any changes to UK funding in England will be followed by Barnett consequentials, with an impact in Scotland.

Rail Franchising

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

A belated happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also welcome the new Ministers to the Front Bench and pay tribute to the work done by the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). He certainly knew how to conduct himself at the Dispatch Box, and perhaps the Secretary of State should be thinking about how he conducts himself. He said that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) spoke for 25 minutes just talking rubbish, but he then spent 18 minutes just union bashing before getting on to any substantive point.

Let me be probably the first in the Chamber today to congratulate Virgin on its recent decision to stop selling the Daily Mail on the west coast route. I am sure that many Members will agree when I say that I hope other outlets follow suit. That is probably the last compliment I will pay Virgin, but I want to commend the hard work of its staff. I encounter them fairly regularly on the west coast route and I can certainly testify to their professionalism and hard work.

The motion covers rail franchising in general and the bail-out of Virgin East Coast in particular. It is fair to say that there are opposite views across the Chamber on the merits of privatisation and franchising—we have already seen that in this debate—but one thing I am really confident about is that the Transport Secretary wrongly connects cause and effect when it comes to the privatisation of the railway. It can be argued, and has been, that British Rail was struggling, with poor rolling stock that was outdated, but that is only half the picture. Any under-investment in British Rail and rolling stock was due to Government constraints. Passenger numbers were affected by the recession, in terms of both affordability and commuters having jobs to travel to. Spending power for investment was further hampered by the safety-critical upgrades required following the 1988 Clapham rail crash, and upgrades needed to service the Channel tunnel links—yet another example of investment in the south-east of England to the detriment of the rest of the United Kingdom.

The response of John Major’s Government to the problems in British Rail was to privatise and sell it off, but they did that at such a pace that there was no co-ordinated or strategic approach. History shows that that rushed privatisation gave us Railtrack, which eventually went bust and was replaced by Network Rail. If ever there was a demonstration that infrastructure is best owned and managed by the public sector, to avoid profit being put before safety, that is the prime example. I do not pretend that Network Rail is operating as efficiently as possible, but it certainly does not put profit before safety.

The franchise approach to privatisation gave us a model in which the countries of Great Britain were the only ones to have completely divested themselves of any public stake in passenger rail operations. Given the problems since then, that appears to be another clear example of the UK leading the world, but leading it down completely the wrong path. What rail privatisation gave us was a complex model—stuck doggedly to by the Tories and the Blair and Brown Governments—of charging, interactions, private companies requiring large profits, and ticketing arrangements, and a way for companies and the network owner to play a game of blaming each other for problems.

The problems are aptly summed up in the report on the southern rail franchise just published by the National Audit Office, the main conclusion of which is that it cannot be demonstrated that the franchise has delivered value for money. The operator blames Network Rail and the unions. The Government blame the unions, as we heard again today from the Secretary of State, but completely ignore the part they played. The bottom line is that 60% of cancellations were due to Govia Thameslink and 40% due to Network Rail. It was the UK Government who set up the model that was supposed to align with the complex infrastructure upgrades; it was the UK Government who took the revenue risks, which means that strikes cost the taxpayer money; and it was the UK Government who awarded the franchise based on even further roll-out of driver-only operation; so the initial unwillingness on the part of the UK Government and Transport Secretaries to get involved is shameful.

The NAO also makes it quite clear that the Department for Transport had a large responsibility, especially in relation to access to the network and timetabling pressures. I am concerned that the DFT’s lack of understanding of pressures arising from upgrades and timetabling will have an impact on the west coast franchise and HS2 awards. Is that the reason why the invitation to tender for the west coast franchise, which was due in November 2017, still has not been issued and we do not know when it will happen?

Other franchise issues include the failed award of the west coast franchise in 2012. I am sure that, had Virgin Trains won that franchise in 2012, it would happily have taken it rather than threaten court action. As we have already heard, the case led to direct awards. According to a Library briefing, 12 of 16 franchises have now been subject to direct award. Further failures by the Department for Transport give us the worst of both worlds—there is no competition, and short-term awards provide no incentive for long-term investment, yet the companies are still guaranteed a profit. That is a poor set-up.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

According to the House of Commons Library briefing, the direct award for the west coast franchise mentions a commitment to work to remodel Carstairs junction, which is seen as significant bottleneck in the network. Anyone who has travelled on the line knows that time spent at Carstairs is often time that could be shaved off a journey, therefore making rail more attractive. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should increase investment to remove bottlenecks such as Carstairs junction?

[Alan Brown]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Carstairs junction could be a major blockage for HS2, as well as the other operation, so I hope that the Minister was listening to her intervention and will explain why, if the remodelling was a part of the direct award, it has not happened yet.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman decries the lack of competition from direct awards, so have he and his party considered the report of 18 months ago from the Competition and Markets Authority calling for more on-track competition within franchises as an alternative to the increasing allocation of monopolies through franchising?

[Alan Brown]

I am not against competition per se. There is certainly lots of information about models that are deemed to work better than others. One aspect of competition is that the public sector should be allowed to make its own bids for operating franchises. A bit of competition might help to drive innovation, but in no way should the public sector be barred from the process.

We then have the Virgin Trains East Coast shambles on the east coast line. The Transport Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box again to say that there was no bail- out. When he responded to me during proceedings on the statement, he claimed that the parent company guarantees would protect the taxpayer, but we now have confirmation that franchise fees were backloaded, meaning that Virgin was able to walk away without paying the £2 billion premium track fees it was supposed to pay. That was confirmed at the Dispatch Box. He said, “It’s okay, we’re going to get the £165 million parent company guarantee,” but that is considerably less than the £2 billion premium fees the taxpayer would otherwise have received, so the argument is nonsense. To say that the franchise might have failed is no excuse. It is testament, again, to the failed model currently being operated by this UK Government. The very fact that Stagecoach’s shares went up after we heard news of the new model proposed by the Transport Secretary tells us who is walking away with the best deal from the new arrangements.

The east coast main line gives us proof that public ownership can work. When the previous franchise failed, it was successfully run as a public operation that paid over £1 billion in track rental fees to the taxpayer and returned a nominal profit of £42 million from the overall operation. The large private companies would not suffer a £42 million profit, because they would think it too little, but it would be welcome for the public sector and could drive further investment. Another failing of the franchise model is that it only allows big companies to operate, and they chase massive profits, at the behest of their shareholders.

The public-private alliance model proposed by the Transport Secretary might in theory be an improvement but, again, it is bonkers not to revert to the working model under the public franchise. The new model will still contain risk in terms of multi-layer operations and interactions, and even the timetabling to get it in place, as was outlined by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

One of these new models is the Oxford to Cambridge line, in respect of which the Transport Secretary has said he is happy to devolve power to a private company. Does my hon. Friend therefore find it strange that the right hon. Gentleman would not be willing to devolve an operation such as Network Rail to Scotland, where we could make a real difference for the travelling public?

[Alan Brown]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I was going to come to that point later. I cannot understand the UK Government’s intransigence over devolving Network Rail, which it is anticipated would save the taxpayer £30 million and increase accountability to the Scottish Government.

I have touched on some of the causes of the demise of British Rail. Since privatisation, passenger numbers and investment have increased, but again we need to go back to cause and effect, because that was not a direct consequence of privatisation. It has been possible to lever in private investment, but that is recouped through passenger fares and public subsidy—that is the bottom line. When the Government allowed private investment to come in, they decided to be a bit bolder in specifying increased services, new rolling stock and other improvements for the franchises. However, that same ambition could be replicated either under nationalisation or by allowing public sector investment, rather than everything being levered in through private investment. Following privatisation, there was also an upturn in the economy, so a range of factors actually contributed to better passenger experience and increased numbers. The Transport Secretary really needs to move away from his “private equals good; public equals bad and inefficient” mentality, but I fear that today there are no signs of that changing.

In its 1997 manifesto, Labour reneged on its commitment to renationalising the rail system, but it at least commissioned the McNulty review in 2009 to identify better value for money in the railway franchise system. Incredibly, the Tory Government sat on that report for six years before coming up with modest proposals to vertically align the infrastructure and passenger operations in an alliance model.

Alliances can be made to work, or at least to work better than they do under the current franchise system. The ScotRail-Abellio alliance is the only franchise that stipulates that all staff must be paid the real living wage. It also guarantees trade union representation at every franchise board meeting, no compulsory redundancies and 100 new apprentices. Rather than making staff’s terms and conditions a mechanism for greater profit, the Scottish Government have incorporated protecting them into the contract. On passenger experience, there will be new rolling stock, 23% more carriages, a new approach to cycling interaction, and a drive to expand tourism. Those aims, ambitions and protections contrast directly with the attitude of the Secretary of State and the Tory’s southern rail franchise.

That is not to say that there were not teething problems with the new Abellio alliance, but it is now the best performing large franchise in the UK. Even so, the Scottish Government are putting in place measures to allow a public sector procurement bid to be submitted either at the end of the franchise or at the mid-point, where there is a possible break. The success of CalMac ferries in competing in the private sector shows how this can be achieved.

As we heard in the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), if responsibility for Network Rail was devolved to Scotland, with the body under the control of the Scottish Government, the operation of rail services in Scotland would be much more efficient, and there would be much more accountability. That would give us a better way to move forward.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

On the devolution of Network Rail, does the hon. Gentleman accept that power over devolved franchises has already been devolved? Enhanced capability was devolved in May 2016 whereby public sector bids could be brought forward for ScotRail. That was known well in advance of the current tender. Is it not the case that ScotRail could have been in public hands today if the Scottish Government had delayed that tender?

[Alan Brown]

A small history lesson: it was the UK Labour Government who refused to hand these powers over to Scotland. They had the chance to do so in 2000 and 2005. Since the Scottish National party Government came to power in 2007, they have written to three Transport Secretaries to ask for the powers to be devolved to Scotland, and three times that has been refused. The shortlist for the ScotRail-Abellio tender process was drawn up in November 2013, so the initial invitation to tender came way before that. The contract was awarded in October 2014—a year and a half before the new powers came into play. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that the Scottish Government could have sat on their hands and waited for future powers that might not have come. They did come, the Scottish Government will use them in the future, and they are preparing that public sector bid, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

[Alison Thewliss]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the experience from our casework is that Network Rail is not an accountable body at all? When we try to raise constituency cases, or make complaints about works on the line or things that it wants to do, it is very difficult to get any answers from it, because it just does not want to consult. It just wants to do things and pays lip service to community engagement.

[Alan Brown]

It is certainly a big problem. Network Rail is too big. The fact that it is effectively accountable to two Governments, but ultimately to the UK Government, causes further problems.

The Labour party is calling for full-scale renationalisation. I am certainly not against that—there is clear merit to keeping all moneys within the public purse—but I have concerns about the model proposed in its manifesto, in that the result might be something that is too large to be fully accountable, which touches on my hon. Friend’s intervention. Labour’s proposed model shows that it believes that the railway can be nationalised within the EU single market, given the EU firewall proposed between rail access and the network/operations side of the business, so the argument that we cannot be in the single market and have national railways clearly falls, as the Labour party itself recognises. We do know that nationalisation works, given how many state-owned railway companies current operate in the UK, and of course they are doing so under EU rules. The Tory anti-nationalisation attitude is therefore clearly utter nonsense.

The Library briefing on rail structures suggests there is no agreed best model operating in the world, but it does give some excellent examples of variations in models. What is clear is that public sector involvement or state-owned franchise companies can work. The UK has a franchise model that has not worked effectively, and a change of thinking is undoubtedly required.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We have been ensuring simply that we phase projects to cause the minimum possible disruption to users of the roads, while making sure the rolling programme goes forward. I am very proud of the fact that, as a Conservative Government, we are the ones transforming the A1—a project that is long, long overdue.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

To go back to rail funding, the Secretary of State is well aware that there is a £600 million gap in the allocation of funding to Scotland for the next investment period. Previously, rail funding to Scotland was based on its percentage of the network—that funding formula was developed in 2005—so will he explain why, if he thinks north-south rail links are a priority, he is quite happy for there to be a cut in rail funding on his watch?

[Chris Grayling]

As I keep saying to the hon. Gentleman, I am very happy that funding is allocated to Scotland on the basis of the Barnett formula. I thought that was the way things worked.

[Alan Brown]

Let me explain to the Secretary of State that the previous rail funding was based on need and on Scotland’s percentage of the rail network. Helpfully, the other day the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy acknowledged that the allocation of funding to Scotland for infrastructure should be based on need and geography, and it should be the same for rail. In answer to a question tabled in October, the Secretary of State for Transport said he has “various discussions” with the Secretary of State in Scotland only “from time to time”. Is it not time that he prioritised this issue, and will he agree to meet me and the Transport Secretary for Scotland to discuss the budget and north-south linkages?

[Chris Grayling]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to meet the Government to discuss the removal of the Barnett formula and the move towards needs-based allocation of funding across the piece for Scotland, I am sure that would be a very interesting discussion; but in this country over the past few years we have tended to follow the Barnett formula. Most recently, we have provided additional funding to Scotland through the allocations in the Budget. Money has been spent on capital investment in England and money is to be spent based on the Barnett formula in Scotland. That is the way we operate.

Rail Update

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right that this is an important project. We have been pushing ahead hard with the new special purpose vehicle, which will be set up in the coming weeks. Construction is due to begin next summer, and my goal is to have the first trains running on that route by the end of 2021.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. Unfortunately, I am having to thank him for early sight of what is a disappointing damp squib. Given the media coverage last night about the possible reversal of the Beeching cuts, I hoped there would be some firm commitments in the statement, but there is nothing other than a throwaway line.

The Beeching cuts were typical of the Tory policy of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, and this attitude continues in the Secretary of State’s ideological adherence to privatisation. While he worships the private sector, he needs to remember that there are already four foreign state-owned rail companies operating existing UK franchises. If it is good enough for foreign state-owned companies, it should be good enough for UK state-owned companies to run the franchises. I hope that he supports the Scottish Government’s move to make a public sector bid in Scotland.

The Secretary of State trumpets the turnaround in rail since privatisation, but he does not say that it has been driven by a 90% increase in public sector investment and a real-terms fare increase of a quarter. That is where the real investment and the turnaround have come from. The Secretary of State’s real masterplan is to create alliances and effectively to sub-divide Network Rail, so I have the following questions. What is the overall governance structure to prevent inter-alliance conflict? Given that he is such a fan of devolution, will he devolve Network Rail to Scotland? Who will fund the new railcard for 26 to 30-year-olds? Will the smart ticket system automatically provide consumers with the cheapest fares? If he is considering reopening lines, will he stop the fire sale of Network Rail assets? He will be well aware that the Scottish Government built the biggest new line in the UK for more than 100 years, on the borders. Will he consider reconnecting Carlisle to the borders by rail? Finally, what are the statement’s funding implications for Scotland, and will he review the existing funding gap of £600 million in control period 6?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman has asked a mix of questions; let me take them in turn. On devolution, it remains this Government’s position that we will follow the recommendation, which was part of the broader devolution package, that the Scottish Government should be responsible for franchising but not for the infrastructure. The Scottish National party needs to demonstrate that it can do a decent job in government with the powers it has, rather than ask for more powers.

We are working through the railcard with the industry. The extra revenues may well mean that it will be a self-financing venture, but the Treasury has underwritten it in the Budget process. On the cheapest fare options, I want a system of smart ticketing on our railways so that, for future shorter journeys, we end up with the kind of pay-as-you-go technology that exists in London and other cities, so that people can tap in and tap out as they travel. For longer journeys, ticketing is likely to be based on mobile phones and barcodes. We are working to achieve those objectives as soon as possible.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the sale of assets. There are times when assets are genuinely not needed. They can be sold and the money put back into the railway line—that is the right thing to do—but of course there are assets that we need to protect for the future. Frankly, I wish that some assets had not been disposed of or built over, because that makes it more difficult to reopen some of the routes that I would like to be reopened. We will protect the assets we need.

I applaud the Scottish Government for what they have done with Borders Railway, which is a good project and has made a positive difference to that part of Scotland. I am happy to talk to my Scottish counterparts about how we can do more in the future.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the funding settlement. As I have said before in this House, the funding settlement for Scotland for rail is based on the Barnett formula, which the SNP does not usually argue against. I do not think it can have its cake and eat it.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Seventh sitting)

Alan Brown Excerpts

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 16th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Karl Turner]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Review of impact of Part 2

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay a report before Parliament setting out the impact of regulations made under Part 2 on—

(a) the number and location of charge points in the United Kingdom,

(b) the resulting uptake of electric vehicles in the United Kingdom, and

(c) the manufacturing of electric vehicles in the United Kingdom.

(2) Before exercising their duties under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive and have regard to their views.”—(Alan Brown.)

This new clause would require the Government to produce a report examining the uptake and manufacturing of electric vehicles in the United Kingdom.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I apologise for being late; I am glad I got here in time to make some comments. New clauses 12, 13 and 14, when looked at in the round, encompass a common theme: ensuring a proper UK-wide approach and commitment to reviewing the policy’s implementation and effectiveness across all nations of the UK, in terms of the roll-out and uptake of electric vehicles.

I appreciate that the Minister appears to be a listening Minister who reflects, reviews and advises as appropriate. That has been evident throughout the Committee. I also appreciate that he has already made a number of commitments, but the reality is that nothing is absolutely certain unless it is in the Bill. In February 2016, as part of the Enterprise Bill Committee, I was urged not to push an amendment about cash retentions to a vote and was assured by the then Minister that the issue would be resolved by the end of 2016. We are now a full year on from that deadline and the Government are consulting on a previous consultation. That is proof that Ministers and commitments come and go, which is why we are trying to incorporate these measures into the Bill.

New clause 12 would require a binding 12-month review of the impact of the regulations and ensure that the views of the devolved nations are taken on board. For example, the Scottish Government are creating their own strategy for the uptake of ultra low emission vehicles, which they are linking with the Scottish energy strategy, which is obviously a common-sense alignment. It is important that the Scottish Government’s 2032 target for phasing out new petrol and diesel cars is not undercut by a UK Government strategy. A further example is that the Scottish Government are offering interest-free loans and free infrastructure installation over and above UK Government grants.

It is quite clear that the UK Government and the Scottish Government can and will work together on future strategies. That could include, for example, the UK Government introducing a vehicle scrappage scheme. New clause 12 would therefore formalise that aspect of working together towards a common goal in the long-term future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I certainly welcome the Minister’s assurances and his comments. I still have the slight feeling of having had my fingers burnt in the past, but I recognise the genuine commitment from him and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

Report on electric charging points

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay a report before Parliament setting out a UK-wide electric charging point strategy that must include, but is not limited to, a strategy for establishing charging points for —

(a) domestic properties,

(b) urban and rural settlements, and

(c) the road network.

(2) Before exercising their duties under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive and have regard to their views.”—(Alan Brown.)

This new clause would require the Government to consult with devolved administrations and produce a report setting out a UK-wide strategy for electric charging points.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alan Brown]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 13 would formalise the need for a reporting strategy for establishing charge points covering the varied demographics and geography of the UK, and would include differentiating between rural and urban areas. I appreciate that the Minister has spoken at length about the commitment to consider how we can roll out so as to ensure that rural areas are not left behind.

Again, this is about ensuring a UK-wide approach and picking up on other investment required for rural areas, which I have touched on before, such as mobile coverage upgrades. Additionally, as other hon. Members have highlighted, a strategy for domestic properties needs to be developed covering solutions such as charging points accessible to terraced houses and flats, and possibly roll-out in future developments, so that infrastructure is incorporated as new developments take place. We also need to consider the road networks and allow best practice to be rolled out fully across the UK. That is the idea behind the clause, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

As I did on Second Reading, I want to re-emphasise the point about the provision for other forms of electric vehicle—the Minister and I have had conversations elsewhere about it—particularly in the provisions for EV buses, for example, and cycles.

We are facing a revolution, not just in cars but in all forms of mobility. It is incumbent on us to recognise that at this juncture we should be thinking about how to integrate those needs into the Bill, and specifically about infrastructure. We have talked about where sites might be located, and about commercial properties, but we should be thinking specifically about the infrastructure needed for buses in our town centres. I urge that that be incorporated into the new clause as well.

[Alan Brown]

I welcome that intervention. It is a valid point; we need to look at the wider considerations. Buses and other vehicles are the biggest polluters in terms of NOx, so it is certainly an important consideration. As I said, I will be happy to hear the Minister’s response; I hope that it will encapsulate these issues as well.

[Mr Hayes]

In 2013, as the whole Committee, including the hon. Gentleman, will know, the Government published “Driving the Future Today”, which set out the path to achieving zero-emissions vehicles. It was Yeats, my favourite poet, who said that

“Happiness is neither virtue nor pleasure nor this thing or that, but simply growth. We are happy when we are growing.”

The growth of new kinds of vehicles has been almost unremitting since that publication. The facts speak for themselves. There are around 10 times more ultra low emission vehicles registered in the UK than in 2013, so although the aims of the strategy published then remain the same, the hon. Gentleman is right that we need a new one. I have thought about it since I read his new clause and since hearing the arguments made from both sides of the Committee. We shall publish a new strategy that will include all vehicles. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington is right: we have had private discussions about this and he has made representations to me. We will start work on it now, because I do not want to delay—I am casting an eye only at the politicians in the room, by the way. Shall we say that we will have it completed and published by March? That would be well within the time in which the Bill is being considered. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will withdraw his new clause.

[Alan Brown]

As the Minister says, the facts speak for themselves. I certainly welcome that review and that forward direction. I would also be grateful if he wrote to the Committee to confirm the timescale and the terms of reference.

[Mr Hayes]

indicated assent.

[Alan Brown]

On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14

Report on impact of electric vehicle charging points on energy consumption

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay a report before Parliament on the impact of charging points on—

(a) energy consumption,

(b) grid management, and

(c) grid storage capacity.

(2) Before exercising their duties under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive and have regard to their views.

(3) As well as consulting those in subsection (2) the Secretary of State must consult with—

(a) the National Grid, and

(b) any other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”—(Alan Brown.)

This new clause would require the Government to consult with devolved administrations and produce a report on the impact of energy consumption as a result of increased number of electric vehicles in the UK.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alan Brown]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Minister’s comments on new clause 13 almost make mine on new clause 14 superfluous, because some of the matters that I will raise can be incorporated as he outlined. New clause 14 returns to the theme of assessment and understanding of the impact of uptake on the energy network. We know that spikes in electricity usage are predicted while vehicles are being charged, but there is a huge variation among analysts’ predictions of how big peak surges could be. It all depends on when electric vehicles are plugged in and charged. We heard in evidence from the National Grid that it does not think the surge will be as large as predicted by many other analysts, who say that it will completely overwhelm the network.

The facts speak for themselves, as the Minister said. The number of electric vehicles on the road is still at a low point; we will fully understand the impact on the grid only once the uptake of electric vehicles has increased massively. That proof will be really important, and it is important that the Government review how uptake works in practice. What will the increase in peak electricity demand be? What impact will that have on the National Grid? What upgrades will be required? How will that feed into smart grid charging strategies and future energy storage requirements? All those questions need to be taken into account.

New clause 14 sets out a 12-month timescale, but at the predicted rate of uptake of electric vehicles, we will probably still not understand the full impact on the grid of people’s behaviour in that time. The roll-out of electric vehicles may be patchy across the UK, so on reflection I must admit that even 12 months might not be enough. However, I hope that the strategy assessment that the Minister mentioned in his remarks on new clause 13 could also incorporate consideration of this issue, with a commitment to further reviews in future.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am delighted that the Minister is talking to the National Grid and others. I entirely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s desire to see a transparent product of those discussions: a continuous published analysis of impacts.

There are two kinds of impact. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the adverse impact on the grid from peak moments early in the morning or late in the evening, and in winter there is a lot of fast charging, which will increase the peak effect. However, I am much more interested in the other kind of impact, which I see as much more serious: the benefits, which many of us have seen for some years, that the National Grid anticipates from peak shaving. Night-time, and indeed daytime, vehicle charging can be switched off at moments indicated as economically advantageous to the car owner by the half-hourly settlement price. It is also highly economically advantageous for the grid to have reduced demand at such moments, avoiding the need for additional power. That would transform the economics of intermittent energy supply, including through renewables, for example solar, which are currently not regarded as having any contribution to capacity. I am very much in favour of new clause 14’s general principle; I am sure the Minister is about to assure us that he will fulfil that principle through regular publications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

It is indicative of the generosity that typifies your stewardship of this Committee, Sir Edward, that you have allowed us to speak about the new clause, arguably tangentially but not in a way that is not helpful to our consideration. I will return to the argument of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun in a second, but the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset are reminiscent of the conversations that he and I had many years ago when I was the Minister responsible for energy and when we unsuccessfully attempted jointly to address these matters.

My right hon. Friend is right to say that it is important that the Bill creates the necessary means by which powers could be taken, should they become necessary, to deal with the flow of information in the way he described. He will know well, having studied the Bill in detail, that although clause 11 and clause 11(2) in particular suggest that the Secretary of State can indeed take powers that he considers necessary, those powers are defined as being

“likely to be useful to users or potential users”

of a charge point. Moreover, there is nothing in clause 12 that specifically addresses the argument that my right hon. Friend just made.

In the light of that I am minded to consider a minor technical Government amendment, which either adds a further Roman numeral to the list or amends one there already, to be certain that the Secretary of State taking the powers detailed in the Bill could do so for the purpose that my right hon. Friend set out. I hope that will be sufficient to persuade him not to become rebellious and, even if the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, who I am about to try to satisfy, withdraws his new clause, bring something potentially destructive to bear, thereby changing the whole atmosphere of this extraordinarily convivial Committee.

I think the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun is right again, if I may say so. It is certainly true that the strategy that I described, which we will bring in with vigour and rigour, with diligence and alacrity, should include the manufacture or use of electric vehicles. That is a given. It needs furthermore to relate that to the Government’s environmental objectives, which I spoke about earlier—our desire to create a low emission vehicle environment that is helpful to our broader air quality plans. However, he is also right that consideration of the matters brought up by his new clause must be part of that broad sweep or strategic approach. So, again, he does us a service by highlighting that.

I will take that point away and I hope that by the time we get to the next stage of our consideration of the Bill I will be able to say a little more about the characteristics of the strategy. On that basis, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will feel that I am going not the extra foot or yard but the extra mile to ensure that their wishes are granted.

[Alan Brown]

It is often asserted that the SNP is never satisfied in this place, but I am certainly satisfied with the Minister’s remarks and with that direction of travel, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

Liability of insurers etc where accident is caused by automated vehicles in convoy

“(1) That the Secretary of State must set out in regulations liability for insurers and other parties where an accident is caused by automated vehicles driving themselves in convoy.

(2) These regulations must make provision for—

(a) a definition of automated vehicles driving themselves in convoy,

(b) determining liability of insurers and automated vehicle owners in cases where—

(i) the automated vehicles travelling in convoy are insured, including where the vehicles may be insured by different companies;

(ii) one or more of the automated vehicles driving in convoy are not insured.

(c) resolving liability disputes where automated vehicles are driving in convoy,

(d) ensuring any compensation received by the injured party in such accidents is not delayed by liability disputes.

(3) Where a statutory instrument contains the first regulations made under this section, the instrument may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of the House.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulation under this section that is not the first such regulation made under this section, is subject to an annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”—(Clive Efford.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee will be pleased that this is the last of my amendments and my last contribution to the debate. It has been a pleasure to be on the Committee under your chairmanship, Sir Edward; please pass on my regards to Mr Bailey. I also thank the Clerks for their assistance in loaning me a few of their grey cells, from their humungous brains, to draft my ideas for amendments and make them legible; I am very grateful for their assistance.

The Bill attempts to make it easy for an injured party to claim in the event of an accident. That is necessary because we are opening up the insurance industry and disputes in the event of an accident to considerations that have not been part of our road system in the past. That is, we are bringing manufacturers further into the possible area of liability than they have been before, because vehicles will be controlled not by people but by machinery and computer software. Software designers may even be dragged in to these disputes.

As we heard in our evidence sessions, in some circumstances these automated vehicles will be connected and moving in convoy. It is an interesting concept that vehicles moving in convoy will communicate with one another, as is how they will share information and how that information will be used. When we look out of our vehicles, we see the immediate environment around us, but if vehicles are travelling in convoy and communicating with one another, they can see the road ahead exactly as it is seen by the vehicle at the head of the convoy. So, if something is amiss in the first vehicle with the data or the design of the software, or if there is a glitch, that will affect the vehicles further down the line.

When we discussed this issue at our last sitting, the potential hacking of the software was mentioned. If there is hacking, the driver of the vehicle cannot therefore be held responsible—he or she did everything they could to make sure the vehicle was roadworthy—and the manufacturer of the vehicle and the designer of the software may say, “Well, we did everything that was reasonable”. Helpfully, the Minister has written to us to say that in those circumstances the insured person—the person who took the vehicle on the road—is the responsible party.

However, in those circumstances the situation will become more confused and, again, this is an area that the Government need to consider, because who is responsible when we know that the vehicles are not necessarily driving themselves as they are communicating with one another? The assumption in this Bill is that the insurance companies will pay out and it will all be sorted out afterwards, but we know that that is not true.

My daughter had a collision. No one was injured, but her vehicle was damaged. Only when the two insurance companies had sorted out the blame—that is, who had caused the dent in the vehicles—was the claim settled. That took several months, during which time she was driving around in a brand-new damaged vehicle. The insurance company did not pay out straight away, so under circumstances in which consideration of who is responsible could be quite complicated—particularly instances where several vehicles were travelling in convoy—it could take some time for insurance companies to settle who should pay in the first instance. The Bill needs to protect the consumer—both the insured, and the third party, who may be the injured party. We could be creating a situation where no party is paid for some time while those complications are sorted out.

With these automated vehicles, which will be communicating with one another on the road, we are introducing an area that needs further consideration. I am not suggesting for a minute that the Minister should have the answer now—not even on the bit of paper that he may be passed in a few seconds—but I do think that this matter is worth further consideration by the Government, particularly as the Bill progresses through both Houses. We may well come back and look at this complication in more detail at a later date, so that we ensure that we are protecting the consumer—both the insured, and the third party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

Further to that point of order, Sir Edward. I thank you and Mr Bailey for chairing the Committee. I also thank the Clerks. Without their assistance, I would have struggled a great deal, having come to the brief relatively recently. I also thank the officials, who have been extremely supportive with my colleagues in my office and have helped a great deal, even by just having telephone conversations about certain amendments that we planned to table. I also thank the Minister for the discussions that we have had both privately and publicly on the issues that we have been debating.

[Alan Brown]

Further to that point of order, Sir Edward. I, too, want to put on the record my thanks to you and Mr Bailey for chairing the Committee. I thank the Clerks for their assistance and helping with amendments. I realise that they had to be robust in terms of keeping to the guidelines of the Bill, and I appreciate the guidance that was given. I thank the Minister, who certainly seems to have listened and engaged. He has a good way of getting us to withdraw amendments with a mix of humour, appearing to listen, and a wee bit of flattery thrown in at the start just to keep us off guard. It has been an enjoyable process and I thank everyone involved.

[The Chair]

On behalf of Mr Bailey, myself and the Clerks, I thank all Committee members for attending. I am thankful for the remarkably good nature of the debate, for the mellifluous tones of the Minister, and for the good nature of the Opposition spokesmen. Whether we will end up with Hayes hooks, Turner turnkeys or something that alliterates with Leigh, we do not know, but there have been some good moments. I look forward to one of Sir Greg’s old cars colliding with Sir Oliver’s 100-mile convoy. I thank you all. We have not deviated too far into the realms of Ruskin.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (First sitting)

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind everyone to ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode.

Clause 4

Accident resulting from unauthorised software alterations or failure to update software

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 4, page 3, line 13, at end insert—

‘, provided that the vehicle manufacturer has made all reasonable efforts to—

(a) notify the owner of a vehicle about the need for an update of the vehicle’s operating system

(b) provide the relevant update of the vehicle’s operating system to the owner or insured person, and

(c) arrange for the installation and update of the vehicle’s operating system.’

This amendment would ensure the manufacturer has made every possible effort to inform the owner of the vehicle that a software update is needed before liability is passed to the owner.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 12, in clause 4, page 3, line 36, at end insert

‘(7) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a system by which an automated vehicle may only be approved for driving itself on public roads if all application software is up to date.’

This amendment would require the Government to introduce regulations to establish a system that requires automated vehicle software to be up to date in order for them to utilise automated functions on public roads.

New clause 9—Updates to software and operation of automated vehicles—

‘The Secretary of State must bring forward regulations to require that automated vehicles cannot operate in automated mode on public roads unless the application software relating to the vehicle’s automated function is up to date.’

This new clause would require the Government to introduce regulations that require automated vehicles to be up to date in order for them to utilise automated functions on public roads.

[Alan Brown]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Bailey. I note that you wisely ducked out just before I spoke yesterday in Westminster Hall, right enough—no such luck this morning.

Clause 4 is all about liabilities associated with operational software for automated vehicles. Amendments 11 and 12 aim to strengthen the clause and amendment 11 aims to clarify the responsibilities of the vehicle manufacturer. In turn, that may even assist the vehicle manufacturer with regards to clause 4(1)(b), which refers to whether a person ought to reasonably know about safety-critical software updates being required. We are using the right terminology, and it is hoped that the law meets its intended purpose both of ensuring that people are insured and of clarifying where liabilities are limited for insurance companies.

If the Bill sets out how important it is that safety-critical software is updated, it follows that duties are placed on the manufacturers to take all reasonable steps to ensure that that happens. Therefore, as with smartphones, the manufacturer must notify the owner of the need for upgrades but, unlike smartphones, it needs to be much more than a simple notification. Steps need to be undertaken to ensure that the vehicle owner is aware of the need for upgrades and to make arrangements for them to happen. There could be a series of warnings through the software, or written letters and correspondence. Given the sophistication of the software, and its interactive nature, in that it tries to talk to software on other servers, perhaps even some form of remote immobilisation could be considered. If those steps are followed, any evidence of the deliberate overriding of adaptations undertaken by the owner will fall within the insurance liability limitations outlined in clause 4.

Amendment 12 follows on from that, requiring the Government to introduce regulations to establish a system that requires automated vehicle software to be up to date in order to utilise automated functions on public roads. It might be argued that the amendment is not required, that it simply dots the i’s and crosses the t’s, but given that that function of the software is the brain of the vehicle, it is absolutely incumbent on the Government to ensure that there is a system for explicitly determining that the software is safe, and able to be used.

I suggest that new clause 9 serves the same function as amendment 12. I am therefore supportive of it in principle, but there is a logic in amendments 11 and 12 being put in with clause 4, to tighten it up.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I want to make a brief contribution. I mentioned in a previous sitting that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on insurance and financial services. We have looked into this area in some detail and I think it is fair to say that across the industry there is a lot of support for the Bill, which is good news. The industry is appreciative of the fact that the Bill is moving forward at pace, and of the Minister’s approach to that. However, we think there is a definite opportunity to tighten the wording in clause 4(1)(b), as there seems to be scope for conflict between different parties in two areas.

First, regarding the phrase

“insured person knows, or ought reasonably to know, are safety-critical”,

one of the consequences is that there might be a legitimate reason for software not being installed: a vehicle might be on a journey, there might be no signal or someone might have to use a vehicle in an emergency. The wording is open to interpretation and one of the consequences of that could be delays in paying out claims.

My second point is whether a safety-critical update was contributory either in whole or in part to an accident. Without tightening up the wording, there could be delays in the settling of claims, potential higher claims costs, and more data—data was raised quite a bit in the evidence sessions—being required to settle claims and to establish cause. Again, a knock-on effect is that the full potential of cost savings on insurance might not be fully recognised because of the cost involved in deciding on liability.

With those two points in mind it seems sensible to shift the onus from the insured person for the safety-critical update directly on to the manufacturer in all cases. We know the technology is there. It is available either to not enable the vehicle to start if a safety-critical update is not put in place or—this is probably more reasonable—to not enable a vehicle to access the automated mode unless all safety-critical software issues are up to date. Those are just a couple of points that I wanted to raise with the Minister which perhaps he will consider when he responds to the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentlemen implies that those things are mutual exclusive. Of course, if someone intentionally—deliberately—goes about the business of not updating their vehicle, that creates a responsibility and a liability. That has ramifications of the kind that I described for insurers, but it also has the wider ramifications that he described. I do not think we are in different places on that.

Let me turn briefly to the comments made by the shadow Minister. Again, I can see why he makes that point, but as he knows, we will shortly discuss clause 5, which gives the right of recovery against the person actually responsible for the incident, whoever that responsible person is. We can probably deal with the matter he raises when we debate clause 5, rather than adding to this clause in the way he suggests. His intent is entirely understandable but I do not think this is the best place to make the amendment that he proposes. With that, and my commitment to take further the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire raised, and the more general commitment I have made, reflecting my original remarks about the ambitions of the Bill, the limits on those ambitions, and the development of further regulation, I do hope that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and others will see fit not to press their amendments.

[Alan Brown]

I have listened to the Minister and to the comments that have been made. Amendment 11 is still about putting additional responsibilities on the manufacturer, which seems to accord with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. The Minister agreed to take on board those comments, but I felt he was a little dismissive of amendment 11. I would like to press amendment 11 to a vote, but I will not press amendment 12.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Sixth sitting)

Alan Brown Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Hayes]

I will take that, Sir Edward, with the courtesy that you deserve, as a bid and consider it alongside other helpful suggestions.

So, the design competition will be launched shortly. A combination of that readily recognised design, with the pervasive policy that will result from the work that we are going to do with other Government Departments and the powers we are taking here, will mean that, as with the old red telephone boxes, when they were more common, and pillar boxes that still are, people will know exactly what a charging point looks like and how they can access one.

Perhaps inspired by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, I want to deal with the matter of rural areas, which is not in my notes. I am mindful of the experience of mobile telephone coverage or the roll-out of broadband. Members of the Committee who represent rural areas who, if they have not said something already, will at least be thinking, what about Dorset, Lincolnshire or Cornwall? We love driving on the main arterial routes, but will we be neglected? I think we need to do more work on that. We have mentioned major retailers in the Bill, but by their nature they may well be disproportionately located in the places where populations are concentrated and where most vehicles travel, and not in the rural areas represented by a number of members of this Committee.

We should think creatively about how to ensure that rural areas are not neglected. We must not end up with an inadequate number of charging points in parts of the country and therefore a disadvantage for the people of, for example, Gainsborough. I know you would not want that, Sir Edward. That is an additional consideration that I offer the Committee. I do not think it is an automatic consequence of the Bill, but it should accompany it as a further piece of work. There may be ways in which we can encourage certain local authorities. There may be ways to monitor and then ensure a consistent roll-out of charge points across the country. This is not unlike the suggestion that was made by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington about how we might apply different aspects of the policy in different ways at different locations.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I welcome those comments, but obviously this will not be in the Bill. How can we make sure that the work goes ahead on assessing rural capability and the actual roll-out in rural areas?

[Mr Hayes]

This part of the Bill facilitates a regulatory environment that would allow us to address a range of challenges. The Bill anticipates regulations, though I do not yet know whether this needs to be done by regulation or whether it can be done by other means. I wanted to highlight that I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I know that the Committee felt that there is, not a risk or a likelihood, but a possibility that we might end up concentrating charge points, even though they are interoperable and easily accessible and wonderfully recognisable and beautiful, and that rural areas would consequently be at a disadvantage. I will look at the matter closely and see whether we need regulation, or whether we can use other means.

I must say a word about amendment 3, as it is the subject of the debate. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East suggests that we require the Secretary of State to consult charge point operators and vehicle manufacturers before regulating. I can absolutely assure him that we will be consulting charge point operators and vehicle manufacturers before we make regulations. He has my certain assurance that that consultation will take place. I do not feel that the amendment is necessary, because it is implicit in the way in which the Government will go about their work. Ruskin said:

“Remember that the most beautiful things in the world are the most useless; peacocks and lilies for instance.”

That does not mean that useful things must be ugly. It is perhaps true that the most beautiful things are useless, but let us make useful things as beautiful as they can possibly be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I know that when I display my scepticism about the free market, it excites my Opposition friends whose views on such things are closely aligned with mine. I have to say, however, that the market is not entirely undesirable. We hope that through co-operation and collaboration, consultation and discussion, we can bring about a happy series of outcomes. We want to work with manufacturers and industry to ensure that we get to the destination that we all seek, but the regulations ensure that if we do not get there, we take the powers. My view is simple: we will introduce regulations when it is necessary to do so. We will not regulate unless we have to. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, there seem to be persuasive arguments that if we do not establish the ability and, in some instances, the actuality to do so, the market will not necessarily deliver all these outcomes, but that is a matter to gauge when we see how things develop. The important thing is that the Committee can be proud of putting in place the means by which Government can do just that.

[Alan Brown]

Building on the Minister’s commitment to look at the considerations for the roll-out in rural areas, I make a plea for him to consider the associated factors that need to be taken into account, such as mobile coverage or communications connections. I ask him to take account of those wider issues to get the full big picture of what is required to enable roll-out.

[Mr Hayes]

I am a great believer in allowing one’s ideas to formulate and develop through scrutiny. I am inclined to say that we should do a mapping exercise to see where charge points are now and where we envisage them developing in the short term, and to identify the further steps that need to be taken at an early stage. With the other technologies that the hon. Gentleman and I have mentioned, we are playing catch-up. Good work has been done by this Government, the previous Government and the Government before that in trying to get there, but anticipating some of those problems by doing a detailed mapping exercise might allow us to take early steps of the kind that the hon. Gentleman and I wish to see. I commit to do that as a result of this scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

The amendments and the new clause address the issues of consultation and review, as the hon. Gentleman briefly set out. I could give a short version of my speech and simply say to him, “Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes,” but I am not sure that that would satisfy the more demanding members of this Committee, so let me explain what I mean.

The hon. Gentleman is right that consultation must be part of the continuing determination to ensure that the objectives of the Bill are met. I am determined that we should consult with the National Grid, large fuel retailers and others before making regulations. I completely agree with him that it will be important to consult a wide range of stakeholders on making regulations under these powers, and that will include the devolved Administrations detailed in amendment 13.

The hon. Gentleman will note that we have an obligation, set out in clause 15(3), to do so:

“Before making regulations under this Part, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

It is right that the hon. Gentleman asks, “Well, who does the Secretary of State consider appropriate?”, because these are broad powers. It would certainly include all the organisations he has mentioned and, by the way, others across the industry. The providers of charge points and others must be consulted, as I have emphasised throughout our consideration of the Bill. He can have the binding assurance from me that we will consult in precisely the way his amendment suggests.

Furthermore, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the business of review. Given that I have emphasised, as I think have other members of the Committee, that this is a rapidly changing area of work, with evolving technology—the modest nature of the Bill means that we know more will need to be done, both in secondary legislation and, I suspect, beyond—it is important that we keep a close eye on how things are developing.

I have already agreed, as a result of the brief exchanges between myself and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, both today and in earlier consideration of these matters, that we should map the provision of charge points across the country. It is very important that we monitor closely how charge points are rolled out. We have spoken about workplaces, local authorities, service stations and so on and so forth, but we need to get a clear view about where the concentrations of charge points are and what needs to be done to fill in any gaps that emerge.

More than that, it is appropriate to review more generally. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, in particular to section 28. He will remember, probably having debated it at other times and in other places, that section 28 creates a

“Duty to review regulatory provisions in secondary legislation”—

in my judgment, absolutely properly. Section 28(2) makes it clear that:

“The Minister must—

(a) make provision for review in the secondary legislation in which the regulatory provision is made…or

(b) publish a statement that it is not appropriate in the circumstances to make provision for review in that legislation”.

Either the Minister must justify why he is not reviewing, or review.

My strong indication to the Committee is that in those circumstances, we would want to review and consider the ramifications that result from the legislation, for the very reasons I have just given. It is a rapidly evolving and changing field and we want as much debate and scrutiny of it as possible. It is not a matter of contention, but a case of the whole Committee—indeed, the whole House—wanting to get it right. There is provision for us to do so; we have committed to that in clause 15. For those reasons, and with the strong assurances I have offered, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

[Alan Brown]

I agree with the principle of amendment 7, and it is good that the Minister says he will take that on board and do the necessary consultation. New clause 5 is about annual review, reporting and updating Parliament, so I would like to hear a wee bit more about how the Minister will do that kind of review of the uptake of electric vehicles and feed back to Parliament, working out, if necessary, what targeted interventions might be required on the back of that.

The Minister said that he would consult the devolved Administrations listed in amendment 13, which appears in my name. I welcome that, but the whole purpose of the amendment was to get the involvement of the devolved Administrations into the Bill, to absolutely ensure that it happens. Based on his earlier intervention, I am sure that the hon. Member for Stirling would agree with that concept.

Certainly, there are advantages to a UK-wide approach, and that requires the involvement of the devolved Administrations. For example, Scotland has its own electric and automated vehicles strategy, which was announced in this year’s programme for government. Scotland is trying to take a lead in the roll-out of such vehicles, and we have set a target of 2032 as opposed to 2040. If the Bill had not been so tight, I would have tabled an amendment to bring forward the 2040 deadline, but unfortunately I have not been able to do so. There is a different strategy in Scotland, and the UK Government need to take that on board, with the Scottish Government.

Scotland has an excess of commercial and academic expertise in smart grids and data management, and we need to ensure that that expertise is tapped into in the consultation and brought forward for the benefit of everyone. I have mentioned the Scottish Government; clearly, other devolved Administrations might have their own priorities that need to be fed in as well. The Minister said that he would give that assurance, but I will look to see how it is taken forward and whether we need to revisit amendment 13 on Report.

I am happy not to push the amendment to a vote; I am just looking for that certainty on an ongoing basis. The Minister is probably aware, regarding the Brexit negotiations just now, that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have raised concerns that they are not fully involved and are getting overlooked. We cannot be in a position where decisions are imposed on the devolved Administrations without consultation and without those decisions being agreed.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is not the first, and will not be the last, to clamour to hear more from me, but I do not want to tire the Committee unduly. I have given the commitment that he will have heard about the consultation, but just in case he is uncertain about the good will that lies behind it, let me say, merely on the grounds of unvarnished self-interest, that the Government would certainly want to consult, because we want to get this right. Frankly, there is little for the Government to lose from that kind of dialogue with the devolved Administrations and the whole of the industry. Any responsible Government would want to engage in such dialogue and consultation. I do not suggest for a moment that the hon. Gentleman does not trust my good will, but just in case he does not want to depend on it, I assure him that it is in the Government’s interests to ensure that we get this absolutely right.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Fifth sitting)

Alan Brown Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind everyone to ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode.

Clause 4

Accident resulting from unauthorised software alterations or failure to update software

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 4, page 3, line 13, at end insert—

‘, provided that the vehicle manufacturer has made all reasonable efforts to—

(a) notify the owner of a vehicle about the need for an update of the vehicle’s operating system

(b) provide the relevant update of the vehicle’s operating system to the owner or insured person, and

(c) arrange for the installation and update of the vehicle’s operating system.’

This amendment would ensure the manufacturer has made every possible effort to inform the owner of the vehicle that a software update is needed before liability is passed to the owner.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 12, in clause 4, page 3, line 36, at end insert

‘(7) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a system by which an automated vehicle may only be approved for driving itself on public roads if all application software is up to date.’

This amendment would require the Government to introduce regulations to establish a system that requires automated vehicle software to be up to date in order for them to utilise automated functions on public roads.

New clause 9—Updates to software and operation of automated vehicles—

‘The Secretary of State must bring forward regulations to require that automated vehicles cannot operate in automated mode on public roads unless the application software relating to the vehicle’s automated function is up to date.’

This new clause would require the Government to introduce regulations that require automated vehicles to be up to date in order for them to utilise automated functions on public roads.

[Alan Brown]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Bailey. I note that you wisely ducked out just before I spoke yesterday in Westminster Hall, right enough—no such luck this morning.

Clause 4 is all about liabilities associated with operational software for automated vehicles. Amendments 11 and 12 aim to strengthen the clause and amendment 11 aims to clarify the responsibilities of the vehicle manufacturer. In turn, that may even assist the vehicle manufacturer with regards to clause 4(1)(b), which refers to whether a person ought to reasonably know about safety-critical software updates being required. We are using the right terminology, and it is hoped that the law meets its intended purpose both of ensuring that people are insured and of clarifying where liabilities are limited for insurance companies.

If the Bill sets out how important it is that safety-critical software is updated, it follows that duties are placed on the manufacturers to take all reasonable steps to ensure that that happens. Therefore, as with smartphones, the manufacturer must notify the owner of the need for upgrades but, unlike smartphones, it needs to be much more than a simple notification. Steps need to be undertaken to ensure that the vehicle owner is aware of the need for upgrades and to make arrangements for them to happen. There could be a series of warnings through the software, or written letters and correspondence. Given the sophistication of the software, and its interactive nature, in that it tries to talk to software on other servers, perhaps even some form of remote immobilisation could be considered. If those steps are followed, any evidence of the deliberate overriding of adaptations undertaken by the owner will fall within the insurance liability limitations outlined in clause 4.

Amendment 12 follows on from that, requiring the Government to introduce regulations to establish a system that requires automated vehicle software to be up to date in order to utilise automated functions on public roads. It might be argued that the amendment is not required, that it simply dots the i’s and crosses the t’s, but given that that function of the software is the brain of the vehicle, it is absolutely incumbent on the Government to ensure that there is a system for explicitly determining that the software is safe, and able to be used.

I suggest that new clause 9 serves the same function as amendment 12. I am therefore supportive of it in principle, but there is a logic in amendments 11 and 12 being put in with clause 4, to tighten it up.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I want to make a brief contribution. I mentioned in a previous sitting that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on insurance and financial services. We have looked into this area in some detail and I think it is fair to say that across the industry there is a lot of support for the Bill, which is good news. The industry is appreciative of the fact that the Bill is moving forward at pace, and of the Minister’s approach to that. However, we think there is a definite opportunity to tighten the wording in clause 4(1)(b), as there seems to be scope for conflict between different parties in two areas.

First, regarding the phrase

“insured person knows, or ought reasonably to know, are safety-critical”,

one of the consequences is that there might be a legitimate reason for software not being installed: a vehicle might be on a journey, there might be no signal or someone might have to use a vehicle in an emergency. The wording is open to interpretation and one of the consequences of that could be delays in paying out claims.

My second point is whether a safety-critical update was contributory either in whole or in part to an accident. Without tightening up the wording, there could be delays in the settling of claims, potential higher claims costs, and more data—data was raised quite a bit in the evidence sessions—being required to settle claims and to establish cause. Again, a knock-on effect is that the full potential of cost savings on insurance might not be fully recognised because of the cost involved in deciding on liability.

With those two points in mind it seems sensible to shift the onus from the insured person for the safety-critical update directly on to the manufacturer in all cases. We know the technology is there. It is available either to not enable the vehicle to start if a safety-critical update is not put in place or—this is probably more reasonable—to not enable a vehicle to access the automated mode unless all safety-critical software issues are up to date. Those are just a couple of points that I wanted to raise with the Minister which perhaps he will consider when he responds to the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentlemen implies that those things are mutual exclusive. Of course, if someone intentionally—deliberately—goes about the business of not updating their vehicle, that creates a responsibility and a liability. That has ramifications of the kind that I described for insurers, but it also has the wider ramifications that he described. I do not think we are in different places on that.

Let me turn briefly to the comments made by the shadow Minister. Again, I can see why he makes that point, but as he knows, we will shortly discuss clause 5, which gives the right of recovery against the person actually responsible for the incident, whoever that responsible person is. We can probably deal with the matter he raises when we debate clause 5, rather than adding to this clause in the way he suggests. His intent is entirely understandable but I do not think this is the best place to make the amendment that he proposes. With that, and my commitment to take further the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire raised, and the more general commitment I have made, reflecting my original remarks about the ambitions of the Bill, the limits on those ambitions, and the development of further regulation, I do hope that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and others will see fit not to press their amendments.

[Alan Brown]

I have listened to the Minister and to the comments that have been made. Amendment 11 is still about putting additional responsibilities on the manufacturer, which seems to accord with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. The Minister agreed to take on board those comments, but I felt he was a little dismissive of amendment 11. I would like to press amendment 11 to a vote, but I will not press amendment 12.

Question put, That the amendment be made.