Draft Specified Agreement on Driving Disqualifications Regulations 2017

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2017 General Committees

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I shall be mercifully brief. Labour fully supports the regulations. It is of course entirely sensible that there should be mutual recognition of driving disqualification between the Governments of the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The agreement will mean that a driving disqualification imposed in the Republic on a UK resident or the holder of a UK driving licence will be recognised and given effect in the UK. Accordingly, a person disqualified in the Republic will not be able to hop across the border to the north and drive there.

The legal basis for such an agreement was in place between January 2010 and December 2014, until the UK opted out of the European convention on driving disqualifications of 17 June 1998, following the Lisbon treaty; so it is somewhat disconcerting that there has been a legislative black hole for more than two years. No doubt, however, the Minister will explain the length of the gap and expand upon why it has taken the Government from December 2014 to May 2017 to re-establish the legal basis for the mutual agreement with the Irish Government.

Without an acceptable explanation or justification observers would be perfectly entitled to wonder at the Government’s sense of priority and urgency, or lack thereof, which sadly characterises their approach to road safety issues. It is worrying that for more than two years there have been no provisions in place to stop dangerous drivers who have committed road offences in the Republic of Ireland driving in the UK, or vice versa. The regulations are a much-needed measure and will undoubtedly make our roads safer. It is just terribly disappointing that the Government did not seek to correct the position before. It is imperative that every opportunity, legislative or otherwise, should be taken to make our roads the safest they can possibly be.

The Government have failed in their manifesto commitment to reduce road casualties year on year, and have scrapped the road safety targets that were introduced under Labour. I cannot see why Ministers have persistently refused to bring those back, especially when we support international targets at United Nations and European level. The targets focus minds and attention, and a Labour Government would certainly bring them back. As I have said, Labour fully supports the regulations, which will make a small but highly important contribution to making our roads a safer place for all users, against what has been a worrying backward trend in recent years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We are in the process of digesting the route strategies provided by Highways England. The strategies set a blueprint for the projects we will need to deliver in the future to ease those points of congestion. I cannot at this early stage give a Government commitment to individual projects, but we are looking carefully at that study and others. We are seized of the need to make sure that we address such problems.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Three years ago the Law Commission recommended wholesale reform of taxi and private hire services, but the Government have not responded. Uber proliferates, but it pays no VAT and the country loses a fortune in avoided corporation tax. The former London Mayor was sat on when he tried to bring Uber to heel, despite the denials of his Bullingdon club friends. A No. 10 adviser, lo and behold, now runs Uber. Is it not time that we saw some urgent action from the Secretary of State on the taxi and private hire industry and, while he is at it, on the way in which his party runs its chumocracy?

[Chris Grayling]

Given the current state of the Labour party, I am not sure I would go down that road if I were the hon. Gentleman. We are currently looking at what is the best approach to the future regulation and structure of our taxi and private hire services. I see it as a particular priority to ensure public safety. We and local authorities are doing that work, and we want to deliver the right framework for it. Our job is to ensure that we have the right choice for consumers and the right options in our marketplace, but we also want to protect those parts of our industry, such as London black cabs, that are a national institution and that none of us would wish to see disappear. This is about a measured approach. Of course, some of the most evocative issues lie in the hands of the London Mayor and not of this Government.

[Andy McDonald]

The Uber scandal is not the only issue of concern right at the heart of this Tory Government, given their perpetual revolving-door employment strategy. While we await a formal response on how a senior Department for Transport civil servant awarded a rail franchise while part-owning the consultancy advising the successful bidder, yesterday it was announced that HS2 had dropped the £170 million engineering contract with CH2M. The chief executive officer of HS2, now a full-time appointment, came from CH2M and, more than that, HS2’s former chief of staff worked on the engineering company’s bid for the project. Now the director general of HS2 has resigned this very morning. I do not agree with the TaxPayers Alliance when it says that it does not pass “the smell test,” because in fact it stinks to high heaven. Will the Secretary of State order an immediate independent inquiry into these goings on? His silence on the issue speaks volumes.

[Chris Grayling]

Let us be clear about this. First, on the appointment to the chief executive role of HS2, I want the best person for that job, and we will always seek to recruit the best person for that job. I will also ensure that if there are any questions about the recruitment process, they are addressed and investigated carefully by the civil service to reassure me that we can make an appointment without any concern. That we did, and I have absolute confidence in both that recruitment process and in that new chief executive. Yesterday’s announcement that CH2M HILL has decided to withdraw from the contract after an issue—not a massive one—emerged in the contracting process is the right one. I am grateful to the company for doing that, as it is the right thing to do. I want to make sure that Government contracting processes recruit the right expertise, corporate or individual, but are also robust in making sure that, if things are not done right, it is addressed. That is what has happened.

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Andy McDonald Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

I will pick up where the Minister left off and thank everyone who has contributed to the Bill, especially my hon. Friends who served on the Public Bill Committee, and the officials. I pay tribute to the wonderful work of the Transport Committee and everything it has done on this matter. I also thank hon. Members’ staff for their efforts, particularly Juliet Eales, who is soon to leave the shadow Transport team, but whose contributions have been invaluable throughout the passage of the Bill.

The Bill is ultimately underlined by broad consensus, which has been reflected in the generally cordial spirit of our debates. At its heart, the Bill offers local authorities the opportunity to improve the way in which buses are run in their areas, should they choose to take it. We have fought for this over many years—first, 17 years ago through legislation that failed to make the impact we had hoped, and then from the Opposition Benches for seven years. Since 2010, we have sadly heard, time and again, of bus routes axed, constituents campaigning hard to keep their vital local bus service, and disabled people, jobseekers and students unable to afford the rocketing cost of travel. We have heard these issues, and we have fought for a revision of the bus market to give local areas the power and flexibility to control their bus services as local circumstances best allow.

Although the Bill is not perfect and is certainly not the silver bullet to fix the bus system across the whole country, there is much to be positive about. Mayoral combined authorities will now be able to unlock powers to regulate their bus services, increasing parity between areas such as Greater Manchester and London. We have fought to ensure that those powers can be accessed without delay, and that the process for bringing in those powers will be clear and free from hidden barriers. We had hoped that all areas of the country, whether they have an elected mayor or not, would have access to those powers, but we will have to continue that argument another day.

The Bill provides new partnership options to local authorities for working alongside bus operators. We hope that local authorities will be encouraged to use these new tools to improve journey times and vehicle standards, and consequently to reduce congestion—huge environmental and health issues that affect us all. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring buses providing local services to have in place audio-visual information systems. We are so pleased that the Government included this provision following strong pressure from Labour in the other place, and an excellent campaign from Guide Dogs. That measure could make a real difference to people’s lives.

What is missing? Stronger employment protections, clearer accessibility provisions and bus safety improvements. We fought for those and we won the arguments, but we lost the votes. That is the tragedy of being in opposition. The Bill could have been better, and we were disappointed by the lack of movement from the Government in these areas. The Bill is not perfect, but it will go some way to reversing the damage of deregulation that we have fought to fix for three decades. Going some way to reversing that damage is better than going no way at all. For that reason, and on behalf of all those constituents waiting at bus stops right now, we will support the Bill on Third Reading.

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I am sincerely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for tabling this amendment; I understand his honourable intentions behind it, and I have carefully reflected on it over recent weeks. My hon. Friend has put his case well, and I acknowledge the attraction of the logic, which says, “If we think this should not be on the statute book now, do we think it should never really have been there in the first place?”

I also acknowledge the deep injustice that an individual would feel in being dismissed under provisions that are later superseded. That injustice has been tackled in the other cases of legislation penalising homosexual activity, for example in the Turing clause in the Policing and Crime Act 2017, which allowed for the pardon of those convicted of sexual acts that are no longer illegal.

There may be a place for providing some level of redress or apology to those who were dismissed from the merchant navy on grounds of homosexual conduct, but that cannot be provided for in this Bill. That is because a system of redress would need to be carefully designed and calibrated, in a similar way to the Turing provisions, to ensure that acts that are still cause for dismissal were not eligible for apology or compensation. Sadly, the capacity for the scrutiny that such legislation would require does not exist within the tight timings involved in the private Member’s Bill system.

However, in the absence of a full system for investigation and redress, a retrospective repeal creates unnecessary legal ambiguity over dismissals that would clearly have been legal at the time without creating a clear opportunity for redress or apology. As I have said, the aim of this Bill has always been to create clarity and certainty going forward, and that aim would be frustrated if we were to create an ambiguity about the legality of some possible dismissals until the provisions were legally superseded by the Equality Act 2010.

I also have a deeper concern, however. As has been discussed, the House has generally been extremely cautious about any form of retrospective legislation, and particularly so in the case of legislation that creates an offence or penalty where none existed at the time—something that is deeply inconsistent with the rule of law. As I have said, my hon. Friend’s amendment could retrospectively render the actions of merchant navy employers illegal.

Retrospective legislation has occasionally been used, very sparingly, to validate or authorise retrospectively actions that were illegal at the time. The motivation for including sections 146(4) and 147(3)—which would be repealed by my Bill—in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was to enable merchant navy employers to dismiss seafarers for homosexual conduct even though the 1994 Act decriminalised such conduct. We need to remember that the relevant sections apply to employers and not to seafarers. The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch does not authorise conduct found to have been illegal at the time, and therefore does not fit with recent precedents of retrospective legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has discussed with me privately the one rare possible precedent in which criminal liability was created retrospectively, through the War Crimes Act 1991. With respect to him, I have looked into the matter carefully and found that that Act allowed domestic criminal proceedings to be brought against British citizens who had committed war crimes in Germany during world war two. That was because there was no provision for the extradition of British citizens to face international law proceedings. The Act was a response to a practical problem of the operation of international law, where an offence already existed. I do not believe that my hon. Friend’s amendment falls into that category. I respect the fact that he did not mention it this afternoon, and I want to express my respect for his having a conversation with me on the matter. I contend that the amendment is not covered by that precedent.

I have two more practical concerns. The first is that the other place has perhaps even more discomfort with retrospective legislation than does this House. That was demonstrated during the passage of the War Crimes Act 1991, which the then Government had to use the Parliament Act to enact. I worry that, if the amendment were carried, the Bill would be amended again in the Lords and then lost altogether, as there would be no days available for ping-pong.

My second point is that, during the passage of the Bill I have enjoyed the warm support of the Government. The Department for Transport has kindly provided the explanatory notes to the Bill. I understand that the Government do not sponsor any retrospective legislation unless a lengthy procedure is undertaken to examine all possible effects. I have been told that they will undertake no such procedure in this case. I fear that the Bill could be lost without the support of the Government.

I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for tabling his amendment and for the serious scrutiny that he has undertaken of this Bill and others. I should like to express my sincere respect for his intentions in doing so, but I also appeal to him to withdraw his amendment so that we can pass a Bill that provides legal clarity and certainty in the place of ambiguity.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Let me begin by briefly addressing the amendment to clause 2 of the Bill made in Committee, which we supported there. It is right that the Bill should come into force immediately on receiving Royal Assent, rather than at the end of two months. The sooner this change to the law is made, the better. In that spirit, let me move straight to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). Labour appreciates that the amendment is well intentioned. We also acknowledge that it is, in principle, certainly right to seek redress for any members of the merchant navy who were dismissed on the ground of homosexual conduct between the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Equality Act 2010. None the less, retrospective legislation is set into law only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and we do not believe, on this occasion, that voting for this amendment to the Bill would be appropriate.

My hon. Friend the brilliant Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) pointed out in Committee that, as the provisions to be repealed are now legally null and void, this Bill is a simple, symbolic gesture that will tidy up existing legislation. Accordingly, the Bill does not aim to provide redress for those members of the merchant navy affected by the provisions to be repealed, so the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman does not fit with the purpose of the Bill. Labour will therefore not be supporting the amendment today.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

Seneca the Younger said:

“If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favourable.”

It is certainly true that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) knew exactly to which port he was sailing when he introduced this Bill, and I congratulate him on his hard work and persistence. It is an important measure that puts right a wrong. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for his thought and diligence. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) said and for the reasons set out in the thoughtful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, it is understandable that we should wish that this Bill had been introduced earlier than it has been.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I will keep my comments brief, as the point I wish to make is straightforward and does not require a lengthy speech. Labour Members whole- heartedly support this Bill and what it represents, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on introducing it. By doing so, he has focused our attention on anachronistic and unfair provisions from the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which suggest that it would be lawful to dismiss a seafarer for a homosexual act. This Bill would remove ambiguities surrounding whether it is legal to dismiss a seafarer on the basis of such an act, but, as has been pointed out, the discriminatory provisions targeted by the Bill have been superseded by current equality legislation, primarily the 2010 Act.

The Bill is therefore, ultimately, symbolic, but importantly so, as we should not underestimate the importance and power of symbols. We believe that this Bill, which would amend legislation to better reflect the values of equal rights to which we now adhere, is a powerful symbol, and Labour Members are pleased to give it our support.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Seventh sitting)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

With your indulgence, Mr Gray, may I say a few words? As we stood together in silence and sorrow earlier, so we stand together for all time; Parliament and people. Our Committee, in its modest way, tells all that should be known about this place, our work: debate without rancour and difference without disputation; and mutual regard and respect. Parliamentary politics is, in my judgment, far from broken, and it will not be broken by the enemies of decency.

In that sombre way, we continue our consideration of this important Bill. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield proposed the new clause when we last met, which seems an age ago. It would require the Secretary of State to bring forward a new strategy for using vehicle technology to address climate change and air quality. The hon. Gentleman and others heard me say that we are indeed looking to do so. We will bring forward an updated strategy for promoting the uptake of ultra low emission vehicles in the next 12 months. Our intention is that that strategy will go further than just low-emission vehicles and reference support for low-emission road transport more widely, such as the use of advanced fuels, to help air quality in exactly the way that Opposition Members have invited us to. That strategy will of course be parallel to, but synergous with, the national air quality plan that we will develop. Our work on that plan will focus on low-emission vehicles—it is of course not wholly about that, but we see low-emission and zero-emission vehicles as a critical component in the delivery of that plan.

I was pleased yesterday to attend the opening of a new factory for electric black taxis in Coventry, where we announced our support for precisely the kinds of things that Members across the Committee have called for. Taxis can be one of the biggest contributors to urban air pollution, for obvious reasons, so we announced £64 million of funding to encourage the uptake of electric cabs and installation of a dedicated charging infrastructure. It is worth sharing the detail of that funding with the Committee, because it affects most of the areas of the country that we represent. We will work with a series of local authorities to invest £14 million to deliver around 400 rapid and 150 fast dedicated charge points for electric taxis in those areas.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I will not detain him for long. While I was trying to gain access to the estate yesterday—I was not able to cross Westminster bridge —I was with Transport for All, which pointed out to me the need to consider wheelchair access to taxis. As they are currently constructed, taxis will take only the smallest and narrowest of wheelchairs, not the sorts of wheelchairs—especially electric wheelchairs—that some disabled people need.

[Mr Hayes]

That is an excellent point. The hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee probably know that I am passionate about disabled access, having been the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on disability for many years. I always say that Jack Ashley was the real chairman—I was there only as his assistant, really. Disabled access is something that the Department takes seriously, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who has responsibility for access, has done immensely good work on it. I recently held a cross-party meeting with him and others about precisely that matter. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough makes his point forcefully, and he can be sure that it will certainly be part of our considerations as we move forward.

I was coming to the exciting news about the areas that will benefit from the extra investment in charge points for taxis. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield will be delighted to know that Birmingham will receive £2.9 million for that purpose, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West will be delighted to learn that Wolverhampton will receive nearly half a million pounds—£478,000. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford will want to know that London will receive £5.2 million. I know my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, who is not in his place, will be excited to find out that Yorkshire will receive £1.98 million. My Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, will want to know that Oxford will receive £370,000. The Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, will want to know that Scotland has not been forgotten, because half a million pounds will make its way from here to there in the form of support for the city of Dundee. Other areas to benefit are Coventry, Nottingham, Cambridge and Slough.

We are determined to create an electric charging infrastructure that is suitable and appropriate to need. It will be dedicated to taxis, which we see as a critical element—I do not want to exaggerate—in delivering the change that I think we all seek and wish for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

My hon. Friend says he will take a leaf out of the Minister’s book. Although it will not be on the record of this Committee, it might end up on the face of the Bill.

Labour Members feel strongly about this issue. I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance that he is thinking about it and is engaging with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and with the Automotive Council to see what role they might play in developing such accreditation. We are still keen to see something about it in the Bill if possible. I accept that the new clause, as it stands, may not be exactly the right way to do so, but we would still like something in the Bill. We will think about it before Report, and I ask the Minister to do so as well. If there is consensus about doing something along these lines, let us put it in the Bill. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

Consultation on the collection and use of data from automated and electric vehicles

“The Secretary of State must consult with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate on the collection and use of data from automated and electric vehicles. The consultation must address—

(a) who is responsible for collecting data from automated and electric vehicles and from any associated charging or network infrastructure used by such vehicles,

(b) how the data is shared between different parties, and

(c) any limitations on the use of such data.”—(Andy McDonald.)

This new clause would require the Government to consult on how that data should be handled, who should own the data and what it should be used for.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Andy McDonald]

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

I associate myself with the remarks made by colleagues on the events of the past 24 hours. It is a delight to be here going about our proper parliamentary business; we are all delighted to be getting on with that.

Automated vehicles are likely to produce huge amounts of data on such things as car location, traffic information, maps or footage of surrounding areas, details of accidents, weather information and the car’s route, as well as information about passengers or indeed parcels inside the vehicle. Information associated with the charging of electric vehicles will inform Government policy on the legislation and infrastructure needed to support and encourage the uptake of electric and automated vehicles. The data will be a valuable resource.

There are many advantages to gathering such information. For example, if a car is self-driving and makes a mistake, the information gathered by the vehicle can be used to prevent other cars on the road and future generations of cars from making the same mistake. Information about accidents can better inform how we design our roads, and information about traffic could lead us to reconfiguring our towns and cities in order to reduce congestion and improve air quality. However, there are risks as well, as some of the information gathered by the car might be sensitive. Information about a car’s history could make identifiable a person’s place of work, who their friends are and what they have been doing, which is information that people may wish to keep private and which could be damaging in the wrong hands. Therefore, it is important that the Government ensure that the gathered data are secure, private and open, if we are to best take advantage of the new technologies.

That is not going to be an easy task, and the new clause recognises that it is important that the Secretary of State consults widely on it. That is why the new clause is tabled in these terms. It would require that the Secretary of State consults appropriate persons on the collection and use of data from automated electric vehicles, that the consultation addresses who is responsible for collecting the data from such vehicles and from any associated charging or network infrastructure used by such vehicles, how the data are shared between different parties and any limitations on the use of such data. I trust that the Minister is supportive of the intention behind the new clause and I look forward to his comments on whether it is acceptable to the Government.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I can appreciate the thinking behind the new clause, because this is a very important area. I personally think that the new clause is defective, in that it does not require action but requires the Minister to consult. The Minister does need to go through with his officials the areas where it is permissible for data to be collected and those areas where it is not. For example, I think that we would all agree that where an automated vehicle has been involved in an accident, the data should quite clearly be made available to the insurance companies and, if the accident has involved personal injury, to the police as well.

I can also envisage certain circumstances in which the automated vehicle has not been involved in an accident, but where the authorities might wish to access the data and should be given the right to do so, for example where it is suspected that an automated vehicle has been used in a burglary or a crime such as that which we witnessed yesterday. There could be circumstances in which the police suspect that the vehicle has been used for a criminal offence and they wish to access the data to confirm that that is the case, and perhaps to find out where the vehicle has been on other occasions.

There are then other circumstances in which I am far from convinced that it is either desirable or necessary for the data to be shared. If an automated vehicle is used in a company situation by an employee, should the employers have the right to access the information to see where the employee has been? In the absence of the Minister taking any action in that area, what would the status of a freedom of information request be to the owner of the vehicle asking to see the data? Would that be allowed? I pose the question because I do not know the answer—as a lawyer, perhaps I should not do that, because we are taught to ask only the questions to which we know the answer. I honestly do not know whether the Freedom of Information Act would apply if the Bill remains silent on this issue.

[Andy McDonald]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether the intended target of the request is subject to the Freedom of Information Act if they are not a Government body or a manifestation of the state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I am minded to be quite brief on this new clause. I am clear that none of the contributors has sought to illaqueate the Government in an unhelpful or disputatious way. The clarity of the argument that has been advanced seems persuasive. It is absolutely right that, as our transport networks become increasingly digital, the collection and sharing of data becomes a more vital element in those developments. Of course, that includes data from electric vehicles as well as connected and automated vehicles.

We will have to consider carefully who owns the data and on what basis they are exchanged. The balance between public good and private interest here is equally clear and we will need to consult widely on that. To do so would be beneficial and necessary to engage the industry, as we have up until now, to understand both the pace and character of those developments.

We have throughout our work, as the Committee has heard, been engaged in just such consultation. The automated vehicle insurance clauses in the Bill came as a result of careful consideration, following the kind of consultation recommended by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and others. We have a set of good consultation principles, which will underpin all we do as we move forward, but I think I can go further than that. I do commit to exactly the sort of consultation that the hon. Gentleman has called for. As we progress with these matters, we will engage with the House on the outcomes of that consultation. More than that, we will consult colleagues here. The House will have its own part to play in the discussion about how these matters develop.

For the record, I should point out that freedom of information applies only to the public sector, whereas data protection laws apply to all. I hope that provides some assurance to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire. He is right to say that there is a potential risk to security unless we get this right, a point the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey also made in his contribution. Yes, we are going to consult. Yes, we know that this is important. Yes, we will come back to the House during that process of consultation. I give that absolute guarantee now, which will be supported in writing, if the hon. Member for Middlesbrough wishes, because it is the right thing to do.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for his acceptance of what we are trying to achieve. In response to the comments from the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, we live in a world of equal opportunities, so we should point out that husbands are also capable of committing adultery and could be on the receiving end of such fishing expeditions.

The Minister has committed to the consultation we have called for, is happy to put that in writing and will come back to the House. I am grateful for his approach to our proposed new clause, which I do not need to press. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

Membership of European Aviation Safety Agency

“Within three months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent the Government must publish a report setting out its preferred option on the future of the UK’s membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency.”—(Richard Burden.)

This new clause requires the Government to set out its position on UK membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency after leaving the European Union.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Richard Burden]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

On a point of order, Mr Gray. As we conclude our work on the Bill, I would personally like to thank you and your fellow Chairman, the Committee Clerks, all those who have informed us, kept us secure, delivered messages to us and recorded our words for posterity in the Official Report, for their work and service.

I also wish to thank all the members of the Committee. Committees vary in their tone and character, but I think that this Committee has been what I would describe as a gilravage. For those not familiar with that word, gilravage is a merry meeting with noise, but without injury to anyone. That is precisely what we have had: a gilravage.

Governments sometimes like to pretend that they have all the answers. All but those who are blinded by self-aggrandisement know that no Government have all the answers because no Government know all the questions. This Committee on this subject has allowed us to be reminded of that fact, as we have improved our ideas, thoughts and the condition of the Bill, through really good debate.

I must end with a quote. I think that I have done Burke and Chesterton to death during the course of my consideration of the amendments and my responses to them, so I have picked something inspired by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, who I know is a great admirer of this late gentleman: it is Ronald Reagan. That will not cause celebration in all parts of the Committee. None the less, hon. Members will perhaps remember one of Reagan’s most famous quotes:

“With our eyes fixed on the future, but recognising the realities of today, we will achieve our destiny to be as a shining city on a hill for all mankind to see.”

The Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill will certainly be the UK’s opportunity to pave the way towards a world-leading future. Looking to that future, but mindful of the realities of the day, it will place this country at the forefront of this technology, so to shine not just in our cities, but across our kingdom.

[Andy McDonald]

Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I will not detain the Committee for any length of time. I will simply record my thanks to you and to Ms Ryan for your expert chairing of our proceedings. I would also like to thank the Clerks, the Doorkeepers and, in particular, the police officers. I was greeted this morning with a polite and gentle request to put my badge on. I thought, “My goodness, here we are coming into this place to conduct what we call the ordinary business of our parliamentary democracy.” It is far from ordinary; it is precious. The line-by-line scrutiny of this Bill has been a living example of why we hold this so dear. With that, Mr Gray, I thank you again. I will not provide a quotation with the eloquence of my right honourable friend the Minister. I will perhaps quote Paul McCartney and say that this has been “a long and winding road” and we are at the end of this particular one.

[The Chair]

Both the hon. Gentleman and the Minister know that those are entirely bogus points of order. None the less, I will pass on their thanks to the right hon. Member for Enfield North, and I know that the Clerks and other staff are grateful for what they had to say.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Sixth sitting)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Hayes]

I never want to be locked in anywhere—I do not know how the hon. Gentleman feels about that—but he is right. As he implies, there is a balance to be struck between getting the absolute protections that we want for our consumers who travel overseas, and allowing our businesses to move forward with certainty in planning their growth and development. To clarify, when I described my occasional visits to the Co-op travel agents in Spalding, I rather suggested that I journeyed abroad recreationally a great deal, but most of my family holidays are actually spent on the east coast of England. I do not really like moving far from the east coast—from Northumberland down to Kent. That is quite sufficient for me. I am a man of simple tastes. None the less, there are those who travel widely and regularly, and it is important that they are protected by the Government supporting the industry by underpinning an already strong system. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is our intention.

The Civil Aviation Act 1982 already confers a power on the Civil Aviation Authority to obtain information from persons, businesses and practice to determine whether there is a need to hold an ATOL licence. This is based around the existing scope of the scheme, which focuses on holidays offered to consumers in the UK. Clause 20 will extend the scope of the information powers to bring in the new scope of the ATOL scheme introduced through clause 18. Essentially, clause 20 reflects clause 18 in those terms, and is certainly consequential to it. In effect, the Civil Aviation Authority will have the power to obtain information from all businesses that are selling flight holidays in the UK, which is the existing scope, and UK-based operators selling to consumers in Europe, which is the extended scope. The practical effect of the clause is to make it easier for the Civil Aviation Authority, as the regulatory authority, to ensure that businesses selling holiday packages have the required consumer protection in place.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West is right to say that, as we go through Brexit process, it is important that the improvements that we believe will come from the new European approach to these matters are not compromised. In a way, the improvements bring other countries in Europe up to a standard that we have enjoyed without any diminution of the protection offered here. That will probably be the net effect of that new regulatory environment. It is important that our departure from the European Union does not compromise that.

It would be well beyond my pay grade and outside my orbit to anticipate what the negotiations we are about to enjoy with the European Union will mean in respect of Brexit, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield and others on this Committee would not expect me to do so. However, it is clear to me that there is strong mutual interest across the European Union in maintaining a system that is consistent, reliable and comprehensible. Those seem to me to be the things that underpin the regime that Europe has been working to try to bring about and that Britain has long had. While I cannot anticipate the outcome of those negotiations, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield mentioned in his opening remarks, I can stress our determination to ensure that, for us and others, those protections will remain in place. Certainly we would not want to be in a circumstance where any holidaymaker from the United Kingdom was worse off than they are now.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Powers to designate premises for vehicle testing and to cap testing station fees

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 21, page 16, line 5, at end insert—

“(c) must be accompanied by an assessment of how the designation would affect existing DVSA testing facilities and staff.”

This amendment requires the Government to review and report how any new designated premises may adversely impact existing DVSA testing facilities and staff.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Ryan. We move seamlessly to the issue of vehicle testing, and in particular the testing of lorries, buses, coaches and heavy goods vehicles, and the proposed move from centres under the control and ownership of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to authorised testing facilities, with independent examiners remaining in the employ of the DVSA. That is the context, and I am assisted in that regard by the explanatory notes. I noted during the debate on the previous clause that, at the bottom of page 12, we have a paragraph 66 and then another paragraph 66—too many sixes. I wonder whether the devil is in the detail.

The Labour party does not have an issue in principle with the contents of the clause. However, we have concerns about the effects on existing DVSA testing facilities and staff of the increased movement from Government-owned testing facilities to privately owned sites. Our amendment therefore would ensure that the Government reviewed and reported on how any new designated premises or authorised testing facilities may adversely impact existing DVSA testing facilities and staff.

I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me specifically about this and for providing a reassurance that the Government will not close any DVSA sites unless other suitable local testing sites are available; that tests will continue to be conducted by DVSA examiners; and that the DVSA will still employ the examiners who deliver vehicle tests at private sector sites. However, that is not the entire story. We have been in contact with Prospect, the union that represents DVSA vehicle testing staff. Prospect supports our amendment, and it shared with us its members’ concerns about the Bill. It is clear that industrial relations have been far from perfect. Matters came to a head at the end of 2015 when industrial action was taken in a dispute about terms and conditions. Prospect states that the way in which the DVSA has conducted negotiations with staff working in vehicle testing centres has had

“an impact on existing staff and the attractiveness to potential new entrants”.

In the light of the Government’s intention in the Bill to migrate towards a new system, I urge the Minister to take those issues on board, because they have depleted staff numbers and resulted in the DVSA’s technically qualified staff being diverted from their roadside enforcement work to cover annual testing of heavy vehicles.

Peter Hearn, the DVSA’s group service manager for vehicle and testing services, explained to the Transport Committee in November 2015 that DVSA staff members working in vehicle testing had been forced to work overtime to manage workload while maintaining standards. Since the agency ended the practice of diverting roadside technical enforcement staff away from their work at the beginning of this year, the staff shortage has reached what Prospect calls a “critical point”, which has resulted in staff in northern areas of Great Britain being redirected to undertake annual testing activities in the south.

It is Prospect’s belief that, despite its members’ extraordinary efforts, the DVSA is paying authorised testing facilities compensation on account of failing to meet its contractual obligations to provide them with the staff to carry out testing. Accordingly, there is some concern that, in order to deal with the shortfall in staff numbers for ATFs, the DVSA is considering allowing delegated testing. There is a concern as to where that might lead. As was stated in the Transport Committee report into the work of the Vehicle and Operators Service Agency, the DVSA’s predecessor:

“The UK’s HGVs and PSV road safety record is testament to the high standards of VOSA’s testing staff and we would not like to see this undermined in any way”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and reassurances. I am curious about the capital receipts that may flow from the disposal of 96 DVSA sites; they will be considerable. There will also be a saving on renovation costs, which seems eminently sensible. I am reassured by what he said about delegated testing requiring primary legislation and, furthermore, about the Government having no intention of bringing that forward.

The Minister commented on the peripatetic use of inspectors; that underpins my remarks about the good will that has been deployed, in terms of the staff’s willingness and ability to go the extra mile—literally, because they have been deployed around the country. I am not entirely enthusiastic about seeking leave to withdraw my amendment, but I have heard a great deal from the Minister. He has reassured me that the issue has been properly considered in DVSA’s future planning and strategy, and perhaps more importantly, he has given his undertaking to meet with staff, and if they and he jointly conclude—or one or other concludes—that this sort of mechanism is worthy of reconsideration, we could revisit this, if it were thought necessary.

[Mr Hayes]

Having sent a minor shockwave through my officials—they did not know that I was going to offer to meet the staff—maybe they need another one: I think we should do that before the passage of this Bill is concluded, as it is absolutely right that the hon. Gentleman and the staff should be aware that the engagement we have with them on these changes is meaningful. I happily commit to that, too. I do not want to meet them at some distant future point; we want to do so in the context of these changes.

[Andy McDonald]

I am extremely grateful, and that tips it: with those reassurances and remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Offence of shining or directing a laser at a vehicle

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 22, page 16, line 39, leave out from “and” to end of the subsection and insert

“or

(b) he or she shines or directs a laser beam at a fixed installation involved in traffic control.”

This amendment would ensure the act of shining a laser itself is the offence without the need for explicitly proving persons with control of a vehicle were dazzled. The replacement lines also ensure that it is an offence for persons shining a laser at traffic control towers.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 10, in clause 22, page 17, line 9, leave out “five” and insert “ten”.

This amendment would increase the maximum term of imprisonment from five years to 10 years for conviction on indictment for the offence of shining or directing a laser at a vehicle.

Amendment 26, in clause 22, page 17, line 17, after “take-off,” insert “including during taxiing”.

This amendment clarifies that shining a laser at a plane while it is being taxied around an airport is covered under the offence.

Amendment 27, in clause 22, page 17, leave out lines 19 to 23.

Consequential amendment following amendment 25 to Clause 22.

New clause 15—Power of constable to stop and search: lasers—

In section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, after subsection 8C insert—

“(8D) This subsection applies to any article in relation to which a person has committed, or is committing or is going to commit an offence under section 22 of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill.”

This new clause would give the police the power to stop and search persons who they believed were carrying lasers that have been, or are intended to be, used to commit an offence of shining or directing a light at a vehicle.

[Andy McDonald]

Labour is fully supportive of the aims of this clause and welcomes Government action to tackle laser attacks—a crime that could have absolutely catastrophic consequences, and that has unfortunately become increasingly prevalent in recent years as access to lasers has become easier. We have tabled a number of amendments, which would clarify certain definitions, increase the scope of the offence, and grant enforcement officers powers to enable them to tackle effectively the perpetrators of laser attacks.

In amendment 25, we seek to delete subsection 1(b) and in its place insert a new subsection concerning the shining of laser beams at fixed installations involving traffic control. As has been seen in the written evidence provided by the British Airline Pilots’ Association, and as we heard last week in oral evidence from BALPA’s Captain Martin Drake, it is not only drivers of vehicles but those working to control vehicular traffic in fixed installations who are vulnerable to laser attacks. As BALPA’s written evidence puts it,

“a laser attack on an Air Traffic Control Tower could cause substantial disruption and could even result in a major airfield being closed for the duration of an attack. The financial and commercial implications of this type of event would be significant.”

I thought it was important to widen the provision, given the evidence that we heard, because such an installation is of course a ready-made target for any mischievous individual.

It should be noted that the amendment does not restrict the offence to laser attacks on air traffic control towers; fixed installations involving traffic control of modes of transport other than aviation could be subject to a laser attack. Clear examples are the port of London’s vessel traffic service control centres on the River Thames and in the estuary. These two centres—the Thames Barrier navigation centre in Woolwich and the port control at Gravesend—oversee maritime navigation in one of the largest and most diverse vessel traffic service areas in the UK, covering some 600 square miles of waterway, spanning 95 miles, from Teddington to the North sea. A laser attack on one of those fixed installations could have catastrophic consequences for safe navigation on the Thames.

The new paragraph that would replace subsection (1)(b) would ensure that the act of shining a laser at a vehicle in the course of a journey, or at a traffic control installation, was itself an offence, regardless of whether the driver or drivers of the vehicle, or the person or people controlling traffic in the fixed installation, were dazzled by the laser, whereas under the Bill it is a requirement that they be dazzled; Opposition Members think that is restrictive and could cause difficulties. We believe that an attempted laser attack in which a perpetrator shines a laser at a vehicle or traffic control installation but is not successful in dazzling a potential victim should be considered an offence in any event, and that the offence of committing a laser attack ought not to be restricted to those occurrences in which the perpetrator is successful in dazzling a victim.

On amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Wycombe, Labour is satisfied with the current maximum term of imprisonment of five years following conviction for the offence of perpetrating an attack, so we do not agree with the amendment. We do not believe that doubling the maximum term of imprisonment is the correct approach, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me as I explain why. In our interpretation—unless we are guided otherwise—the perpetrator of any laser attack that can be proven to be attempted murder or manslaughter will receive a sentence appropriate to the crime. As we set out in new clause 15, which I will speak to shortly, the emphasis should be placed on enforcement and the policing of laser attacks, but I look forward to hearing what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Through amendment 26, we seek clarification of what constitutes an aircraft’s first movement. It will not have escaped your attention, Ms Ryan, that a person

“commits an offence if…he or she shines or directs a laser beam at a vehicle which is in the course of a journey”.

That is causing us—well, not concern, but we would like clarification. What constitutes the first movement for the purpose of take-off? We want to ensure that a laser attack on an aircraft that is taxiing to take off, or indeed to its position for passenger disembarkation, is covered by the legislation. This is our anxiety. The Bill as it stands could be construed as stating that a laser attack on an aircraft would be an offence only if the laser aimed at an aircraft in the air, or on a runway in the process of taking off, but not if it was taxiing towards a runway or on its post-landing journey to its parked position.

We believe that aircrafts taxiing—that is, in the stage between being in a position of rest and take-off—should be explicitly included in the definition of aircraft that are in flight, as should those on the post-landing journey to the parking position. The amendment was tabled to include that in the definition, and to avoid any confusion or ambiguity, which could be exploited by a defendant; we can imagine a scenario in which they, interpreting the Bill to the letter, say, “I don’t fall within that description.” The amendment would cover a scenario in which someone outwith the airport perimeter, for mischief and mayhem, seeks to cause disruption in this way, because they consider a taxiing aircraft to be the easiest of targets, as it travels at a much slower speed than one in the air.

Amendment 27 is a tidying-up exercise; if amendment 25 is accepted, lines 19 to 23 become superfluous. Finally, new clause 15 would give the police the power to stop and search persons who they believed were carrying lasers that had been, or were intended to be, used to commit an offence of shining or directing a light at a vehicle or fixed installation involved in traffic control. BALPA’s written evidence stated:

“We strongly believe that this new offence”

of laser attacks

“must be accompanied with appropriate stop and search powers for the police. Without it we doubt the deterrent effect will be enough to deter attacks.”

BALPA went on:

“This is the one area that we believe must be addressed to enable law enforcement officers to bring the perpetrators of laser illumination offences before the courts. We would strongly urge the committee to amend the Bill to cover this point.”

Without the insertion of this new clause, a police officer who responds to a report of a laser attack but does not catch an offender in the act of shining a laser will not be in a position to carry out stop and search and, accordingly, will not be able to arrest the offender. We therefore think it is critical that this new clause makes its way into the Bill, so that the police are given these stop and search powers and, crucially, the offence of shining a laser at a vehicle or fixed installation involved in traffic control can be properly enforced.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

In tabling amendment 10, my intention was to probe the Government’s position on the seriousness of this offence, and to ensure that the Committee had an opportunity to discuss the same. Very simply, the amendment doubles the sentence from five to 10 years. In oral evidence, I picked up the issue of the seriousness of the offence, and in replying to me, Richard Goodwin talked about the difficulty of proving a person’s intent:

“if somebody shines a laser and a plane crashes, there is a lot of injury to a lot of people; the consequences at that end are obviously catastrophic.”

I picked that theme up and asked BALPA whether it is possible that an attack with a laser could cause the loss of an aeroplane. Martin Drake replied, “Oh yes, absolutely.” He went on to explain that laser attacks happen during finals for aeroplanes, when pilots are carrying out essential and, in some cases, obvious checks, such as checking whether the wheels are down. He said:

“The vast majority of these strikes happen at night, and you are using all lights. Your instruments are lit up. We have mostly cathode ray tube or LED instrumentation on the flight deck; there are very few aircraft still flying around with the old-fashioned dial-type instruments. The potential for a pilot to confuse whether he is looking at the centre line or a side set of lights—particularly in a crosswind, when you are canted over to deal with that—is huge. It is quite conceivable that if both pilots were affected by the dazzle effect at a critical stage of flight, they could attempt to land down the side of the runway, rather than down the centre of it.”

I asked him to remind us of the maximum capacity of the largest aeroplanes, and he said:

“You could end up with about 520 on an A380.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 74, Q171-173.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

This has been an interesting, short debate on an important subject. The Government are responding to a threat by legislating. It is not yet clear how extensive the threat is, but it is certainly serious and probably growing. A small number of people have been convicted thus far under existing legislation.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the existing powers, which deal in part with the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe about aircraft. It is already illegal to cause risk or endanger safety or life in respect of aircraft. The existing legislation allows the forces of law to apprehend anyone who does that by whatever means, including through the use of the technology under discussion. However, the Government clearly feel that we need to go further, which is why we are introducing the new provisions.

Before I move to the substance, the semantics matter and I will consider the points made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West. Those would be small, technical drafting changes, and I will make further inquiries about whether they are necessary. My inclination is that his second suggestion is probably not necessary, but I will look at both of them. He is always diligent and assiduous in concentrating on such matters, and that deserves a reasoned and reasonable response.

On the business of taxiing, I want to be clear that the wording of the proposed legislation mirrors that in the Air Navigation Order 2016, which includes taxiing. The reference to

“a vehicle being in the course of a journey”

includes taxiing aircraft because that is part of the course of its journey. We are advised that the application of the provisions would not be in doubt.

[Andy McDonald]

I hear what the Minister says, but will he turn his attention to clause 22(6)? It states:

“For the purposes of subsection (5)(a) an aircraft is in flight for the period…ending with the moment when it next comes to rest after landing.”

As we heard in evidence—right hon. and hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong—there are various moments in the aircraft’s journey when it has landed that it can come to rest. Many of us will have experienced sitting on an aircraft when it has first landed, waiting for a gate to be made available. We need to be precise about that. I want to ensure that when it comes to rest after landing, the aircraft gets safely to its berth at the point of disembarkation, and that it does not just sit on a landing strip or, having taxied so far, still have a journey to make. If that is the existing definition, I respectfully suggest that it requires some thought and attention, because it is not clear to me. We are here to try to make things crystal clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Yes. I do not want to examine this matter exhaustively. Those are all well-made points. Our desire is to ensure that, whatever we do, the provision works in concert with existing law, is fit for purpose, does what it is supposed to and takes account of a range of eventualities in which mischievous or, more worryingly, seriously malevolent activity may take place. I will think about the exact semantics and speak to parliamentary draftsmen. I hope hon. Members will bear with me while I do so.

This is a new area of work, though it builds on good existing practice. I have mentioned the legislation, the navigation orders and so on, and the Aviation Security Act 1982, to which I referred when I spoke about the existing offence of any person unlawfully or intentionally endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight. By the way, I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe that the penalty under that Act is life imprisonment. It is, of course, a very serious offence, for the very reasons that several hon. Members have offered. Its consequences could be dire. All crime is serious and violent crime more so, but this could be a crime of catastrophic proportions. It is important, therefore, that we give it serious attention and concentrated and diligent scrutiny, which this Committee has.

Let me now speak about the amendments. I can tell by the way they are written and have been spoken to that they are designed to improve the legislation. I do not think there is any doubt about that. We all understand that this matter requires the Government’s and Parliament’s attention.

Amendment 25 creates two freestanding offences. First, it would make the act of shining or pointing a laser at a vehicle an offence in itself. Secondly, its subsection 1(b) would bring into the scope of the clause a new offence of shining a laser at fixed installations, such as traffic control towers. The effect of amendment 25 would be that prosecutors did not need to prove that the person in control of the vehicle had been dazzled or distracted; it would make the act of pointing or shining a laser at a vehicle an offence in itself.

I offer this not to be excessively critical but to be analytical about the amendment. The amendment might inadvertently capture the directing of lasers at driverless vehicles, such as with automated light meter systems. In such a circumstance, it would be difficult to prove harm because the person would not physically be at the controls of the vehicle. A further effect would be that the amendment captured those who did not seek to cause harm. I qualify that by echoing what the hon. Member for City of Chester said—I have rarely known him contribute to a Committee of this House without doing so sensibly. It is hard to imagine a circumstance in which someone would shine a laser at a vehicle without at least mischievous intent. That is why I chose the word that he used. Whether they would be intending to do harm is, from a legal perspective, a slightly different matter but, as he suggested, it is certainly fair to say that they would not be there to do good.

I can understand why the amendment has been tabled, but I want to emphasise that, in introducing this provision, we are mindful of the need for clarity in terms of enforcement. To some degree, we are breaking new ground—albeit on a base of good legislative foundations—and I want to be confident that we could enforce the measure. There can be no room for anything that is not tightly drawn or carefully directed.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister describes a circumstance in which the amendment would inadvertently draw people into this offence. Is the answer to his query not in subsection (2), which states that it is a defence for a person charged under this section to show that they did not intend to commit the offence?

[Mr Hayes]

If we imagine that someone is using a laser to attract attention in a way that is not designed to be malevolent, it is not inconceivable that, if we drew up the legislation in a broad way, they might be captured by its scope. There has to be proof of malevolence at the heart of what we do. That is why the proposals are—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

As we were enjoying this interesting debate, I wrote that to learn to speak takes a couple of years for most of us, and to learn to listen takes a lifetime for almost all of us. I am inclined to share this with the Committee. Listening to other people’s perspective on this will help me to frame my own. That is how Committees should be. I have always taken the view that in this House, the purpose of democratic exchange is to help shape the thinking of Ministers and governments. Governments who fail to know that fail to learn it over lifetimes, and one might say that their lifetimes are the worse for it so I am, of course, mindful of the sense of what has been said.

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I will, but I do want to move on to the substance, otherwise my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock will think I am not being pithy, and then I will get into all kinds of trouble.

[Andy McDonald]

I will be as pithy as I can possibly be. I am trying to help the Minister here. With the reintroduction of the concept of dazzling, we are back in the conundrum that existed in previous legislation, with the concept of endangerment. That was the difficulty; commentators were saying that the offence is committed by simply doing it. To have to establish endangerment is a bar too high, and it removes the very scenario that I am trying to describe. Hence my suggestion of the removal of the concept of dazzling.

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, but there are two things to say about that. I will move to the substance. By the way, the dividing line here can be shortened as a result of the length of my own introductory remarks. The dividing line is where there is a real potential for harm. We do not want to capture instances in which harm is not likely to arise, whether as a result of malevolence or recklessness. We have not heard evidence that police find it difficult to show that someone has been dazzled or distracted. Indeed, the opposite is true. The police are clear that they can identify when someone has been dazzled or distracted, almost ipso facto.

I will now move to the amendments. If there is time at the end then I shall be more than happy to take further interventions, but my generosity has been proven by the number that I have taken so far. I do not need to re-prove it. This group of amendments relates to the offence covering the misuse of lasers, as we have said. I will now speak directly to amendment 25 because it speaks to the principal focus of the clause, which is to protect transport operators and the public. The Government’s priority is, I have made clear, to ensure that we maintain high levels of transport safety across all modes of transport in the UK, and that is what we propose to do. Clause 22 addresses an important gap in legislation, and seeks to improve the ability of police and prosecuting authorities to investigate and prosecute the misuse of lasers. That much is clear.

Article 225 of the Air Navigation Order 2016 makes it an offence to

“shine any light…so as to dazzle or distract the pilot”.

The police are concerned that this provision does not provide the necessary power to tackle and adequately investigate an offence. I will explain further. As a summary offence that is triable in a magistrates court, it provides the police with powers of arrest only. It does not provide the powers to search a person or property after arrest, nor enter a property for the purposes of an arrest. Together with the fact that there is no specific offence covering the use of lasers against other modes of transport, those are the gaps that we are seeking to address here. This both extends the police’s powers in a measured but what seems to me apposite way, and covers other modes of transport. We have heard about some of those. They can be almost as wide as there are modes of transport.

The offence that we are creating gives police the powers needed to investigate an offence, enabling them to use powers to enter a property for the purposes of arrest and to search a person or property after arrest. The Government believe that, while amendment 25 seeks to address the problem, it goes further than is appropriate. The offence we are creating would specifically address the risk of harm—that is the point I made a few moments ago—as a result of shining a laser that dazzles or distracts the person physically operating a vehicle. The British Airline Pilots’ Association, which we heard from in evidence, said that in the case of aviation, the illumination of a cockpit from the act of pointing or shining a device, and by dazzling or distracting a pilot, creates the risk of an accident.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister. We have made some progress and we might simply have a different approach in amendment 25, because, as I said at the outset, we are not talking simply about shining a laser and dazzling pilots and other people. This is principally a strict liability offence. Paragraph 76 of the explanatory notes says that it will be a strict liability offence, and that is repeated in paragraph 77. I am in difficulties in that regard in seeking leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 27 ties in with amendment 25; one follows inevitably on the other.

On amendment 26 and definitions of taxiing, I am greatly reassured by what the Minister had to say. He has given an undertaking to look at the exact wording and very sensible observations have been made by a number of Members on both sides of the Committee. I recognise that there must be consistency between what we say here and what is in the air navigation order.

As for new clause 15, the Minister has explained that powers are currently available to police in pursuit of those in possession of offensive weapons, but I think he entirely understands the point and the representations that were made in evidence and has given an assurance that the consideration of the matter will include Home Office colleagues and the police. I shall not press new clause 15 or amendment 26 to a vote, for the reasons I have outlined, but in the circumstances I do want to proceed to a vote on amendment 25.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Third sitting)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I welcome the Committee to line-by-line consideration of the Bill; I hope we have a pleasant and uncontroversial time. Perhaps I can lay down a few rules straightaway. I tend to the conservative—with a small c, of course—side on such matters, so I will apply the same rules of dress and conduct as we have in the Chamber. In particular, if anybody’s phone goes off, they will be banished from the room with no further ado, so please ensure that they are turned off.

We have one or two new Members with us, so if the Committee does not mind, I shall give a short seminar on how we will conduct our business. You have the list of amendments in front of you; it will be available in the room in all events. You will see that amendments of a similar nature and subject are grouped together. Any Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in the group may speak to move it. I hope that is reasonably clear. After that, other Members can catch my eye and speak in favour of or against an amendment. Any Member may speak to an amendment more than once. For the sake of time, that might not be encouraged, but Members are perfectly entitled to speak more than once if they so wish.

At the end of a debate on a particular group, I will call the Member who moved the amendment to speak again. Before they sit down, they have to tell me whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or press it to a Division. If any other Member wants to press other amendments or new clauses in a group, they should let me know informally—by passing me a note or telling me—and I will make that possible. I shall work on the presumption that the Minister wishes to move all the Government amendments.

For those who are new to Committee work, it is important to remember that the amendments are not voted on in the order in which they appear on the selection list or are debated, but in the order in which they appear in the Bill. An amendment may well be grouped with a later clause, so it will be voted on when we get to that clause during the ordinary process of the Bill.

We will probably not have many stand part debates—the debate that happens on a particular clause—as the preference is to debate the clause with the amendments instead. Occasionally, if we have not had that opportunity, I may suggest that we have a stand part debate, but such debates often take up time. I hope that is all reasonably clear.

Clause 1

Listing of automated vehicles by the Secretary of State

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must consult on and publish the criteria that they will use to determine whether, in their opinion, a motor vehicle is designed or adapted to be capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving themselves without having to be monitored by an individual.

(1B) The Secretary of State may not change the criteria until further consultation has taken place with vehicle manufacturers, insurers and other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

This amendment requires the Government to consult on and publish criteria for the definition of “automated vehicles” that will be used by the Secretary of State.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in this Committee, Mr Gray—although, we were together at the evidence session on Tuesday. I am delighted to speak to the Bill generally, as well as to my amendment, because we are now entering the age of automation, which has the incredible and immense potential to liberate many people who are excluded by dint of age, skill, capacity or ability. It heralds a new era of inclusivity for personal transport and can address geographical, social and economic isolation.

The economic dividends of the transformation in our personal transport arrangements, in terms of air quality and climate change, could be immense, as could the industrial and technological advances. I am thinking particularly of the potential road safety benefits, the impact on our national health service and the health dividends, and the reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads.

This is an exciting era, and the idea of us entering into a discussion about automated vehicles is terribly exciting, until we realise that part 1 of the Bill is about insurance. To some degree, we seem to be coming at the issue from the wrong end of the telescope, but we will have to put all the exciting stuff to one side for now and concentrate on the framework. [Interruption.] Yes, insurance is riveting, and it is right that the Government have sought to set out a framework to enable the sector to develop. On that logic, it is the right thing to do.

I thank the Minister at the outset for his approach to the Bill. As you rightly say, Mr Gray, we find ourselves in largely uncontested territory—not exclusively, but very largely—and a great deal is to be welcomed. I thank the Minister for his approach, his co-operation and his assistance in preparing for the sitting.

There are times when we have to be detached from our technology, as you rightly said, Mr Gray, and there are times in our daily lives when we want to be removed from it, so I was a little disappointed that an email was sent to me at 9.02 pm last night with the policy scoping notes, which I did not look at until this morning. They are enormously helpful and they speak to the amendment, but I rather wish we had them a little earlier. I just make that gentle point.

The amendment would require the Government to consult on and publish the criteria for the definition of automated vehicles that are to be used by the Secretary of State. That goes right to the heart of what an automated vehicle is. We are asking for that consultation and publication of criteria because it is crucial for manufacturers, vehicle owners and insurers to know whether they are making, buying, loaning on or insuring on an automated vehicle, and whether the scope of the legislation applies to their vehicle.

In Tuesday’s evidence session we heard that the insurance industry welcomed the Government taking on the responsibility to say what an automated vehicle is, so providing clarity, but we have concerns that the Bill as drafted leaves the Secretary of State with total discretion as to what qualifies as an automated vehicle. We have therefore tabled the amendment to provide greater clarity and to ensure that relevant persons and organisations—stakeholders, as we sometimes call them—would be sufficiently involved, allowing that to inform the Secretary of State’s list of automated vehicles.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that, on reflection, his amendment is otiose? Surely it beggars belief that the Secretary of State would not consult. Any good Secretary of State must consult in such circumstances.

[Andy McDonald]

It is also about the publication of criteria; we have to arrive there and there has to be a journey to get to the establishment of the criteria, and we could explore how we might share some consensus around that. I do not suggest for one minute that Secretaries of State will rush off and include on their list of vehicles devices that are wholly and utterly outwith the contemplated legislation, but it is useful to consult on and establish the criteria against which we judge automated vehicles. I hope that will become clear from the rest of my contribution, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

The significant production of automated vehicles is still some years away. We are preparing the ground for an environment that we know will come but does not yet exist. However, there has already been an increase in assistance systems and partial automation introduced over the years to support drivers. The Bill assumes a clear distinction between advanced driver-assistance systems and fully automated driving technology in UK policy and legislation. As such, there is a need for collaboration between the Government, manufacturers, insurers and consumers to develop a viable and practical system of classification to identify when a vehicle is deemed to be automated or autonomous.

The clause requires the Secretary of State to

“prepare, and keep up to date, a list of all motor vehicles that…are or might be used on roads or in other public places in Great Britain, and…are in the Secretary of State’s opinion designed or adapted to be capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving themselves without having to be monitored by an individual.”

By introducing a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult on the criteria used to reach that opinion, the amendment would ensure that all automated vehicles were covered by those criteria. The requirement for the criteria to be published would provide greater clarity for all concerned.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware—the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire might be, because he is sometimes referred to, perhaps unfairly, as a petrolhead—of whether the current homologation criteria for vehicles on the road are published?

[Andy McDonald]

If I knew what “homologation” meant, I might have a chance. My goodness, we get an education here.

Because we are entering new territory, we need to agree what we mean by automated vehicles. We have it fixed in our minds that the definition covers only end-to-end journeys, but there are also journeys of which parts are under the direct control of the vehicle and not of the person who occupies it. We already have autonomous braking systems—the Committee explored those on Tuesday—and our shared view is probably that they fall outside the definition of an automated vehicle, because they do not cover every function; the person occupying the vehicle is still required to intervene. There are also devices to ensure that drivers do not stray into another lane. Those are all welcome assistance measures, but they do not fall within the definition of an automated vehicle as I understand it. I do not think that it is asking too much to suggest that we go through the process of establishing the criteria.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman draws my attention to the word “monitored” in clause 1(1)(b). It is an interesting word to use in relation to whether a vehicle is autonomous. I can monitor myself driving but not be in control. Is not the essential point whether the individual controls the vehicle? I wonder whether he has any observations about the word “monitored”.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. That is indeed the word used, but I find it a little difficult to reconcile with the rest of the Bill, because it might suggest some engagement and involvement. He is right to point that out, and I am sure that the Minister will want to pick up on his well-made observation.

The Opposition believe that the additional clarity provided by the amendment would help to create a more reassuring environment that encouraged the development and uptake of automated vehicles. The amendment would also prevent the Secretary of State from changing the criteria without further consultation. It has been pointed out that such consultation would happen in any event, as a matter of course, but I suggest that it would be helpful for that to be made abundantly clear in the Bill. The amendment would ensure that the criteria used remain up to date and as practical as possible in a fast-moving world, and that they provide a device to allow all interested parties to engage fully.

Finally, let me refer to our helpful scoping notes, for which I am grateful. We are told that in practice the Secretary of State would need to have regard to whether the vehicles or types of vehicles have met international or domestic standards on the safe functioning of automated vehicles. That is very useful, but I suggest that it is merely a part of the criteria that could be established. We need to think about the whole range of functionality that automated vehicles can deliver. Although that information is helpful, it is not the complete picture, which is why my amendment suggests a consultation and the establishment of criteria.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I look forward to our consideration of the Bill in Committee being electrifying, but never too highly charged. The shadow Secretary of State made some important initial comments about why the Bill matters, and with your indulgence, Mr Gray, I will speak to that before moving to the specifics of his amendment.

The shadow Secretary of State is right that the changes the Bill envisages—in some ways, I hope it facilitates change and allows it to continue—are significant. I was delighted that he highlighted the effect that those changes might have on the wellbeing of all kinds of people who in future could travel, but who cannot travel now. He made a profound point about the effect those changes will have on their lives. It is true that many infirm, elderly and disabled people will have the ability to travel in a way that they do not have now, with all the opportunities that brings. In a way, for me that is perhaps the most exciting part of the journey that we are all travelling on as a Committee; on the Government side, we are travelling as a Government; and as Parliament, we are travelling as the representatives of those people. I am delighted that he chose to highlight that point in particular in his introductory remarks.

Most men—by “men”, I am using the inclusive generic term—know that they cannot dictate the future, but some think that they can define it. Can we prepare for an unknown future? What we certainly can do is lay the ground to ensure that we can embrace what we think will be efficacious and resist that which might not be. That is our responsibility. The tightrope we have walked—the balance we have tried to strike in the Bill—is doing sufficient so as to continue to support developments in this technology while simultaneously not constraining those developments and not trying to determine or dictate what that future might look like. As the shadow Secretary of State said, it is far too early to say exactly how this technology will develop, or indeed at what pace.

We have consulted widely on these matters, as the Committee knows, and I continue to discuss them regularly with those involved in the motor industry. The discussions we have had suggest that changes might happen sooner than many people expect. The shadow Secretary of State was also right to say that they might take the form of a series of incremental changes, rather than a single step. In a way, that is what we have enjoyed over the past few decades. Cars have become increasingly likely to assist us in the way we drive. We have already talked about parking assistance, which is a common feature of most of the cars we buy. A combination of the technological changes that assist drivers in that way, and the data that are now available—through things such as real-time data, sat-nav and other technology—has changed the driver’s experience in a way that would have been unimaginable only a few decades ago. The essence of the changes that the Bill envisages are altogether different in their effect.

I will turn to the amendment, which will allow me to explore some of the other points that the hon. Gentleman made—sorry, the right hon. Gentleman.

[Andy McDonald]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Hayes]

He is honourable, certainly, and in my estimation, deserving of so much more.

Clause 1 compels the Secretary of State to create a list of automated vehicles. That is to provide clarity to industry and the public on which vehicles will be captured by the provisions—we need to define what kinds of vehicles are affected by the Bill. The Secretary of State will do that by applying the definition in subsection 1(a), to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and subsection 1(b). In those provisions we see the means by which the Secretary of State will create that list.

It is important to define the difference between driver assistance and automation, as the hon. Gentleman asked us to do. We are defining automated vehicles—the hon. Gentleman asked for this clarification—as those vehicles that have the capability to drive themselves without human oversight or intervention, for some or all of the journey. An automated vehicle might not be automated for the whole of the journey, but for at least part of it, and perhaps for the whole, it will not require the person driving it to intervene.

[Mr Hayes]

No, they would not be on the list because, although it is true that the cars we typically buy now might well have assistance with parking—I mentioned them a moment ago—the oversight of that remains with the driver. Automation is the transfer of that oversight or responsibility.

It is important to point out that the driver retains responsibility for the performance of the vehicle, but will not have oversight of the functions that are automated. I suppose that in the world we are now imagining, it would be possible for a driver to be doing something else while the car was being driven.

The best parallel here, and one with which we are all pretty familiar, is aeroplanes. When we fly on a jet, as some of us no doubt have and will again, for some of the journey the plane will be switched to automatic pilot, although it is true that the responsibility remains with pilots and co-pilots. We are quite familiar with that; the plane will essentially be flying itself. As I said, that means that the capability moves from the pilot to the plane, and in the case of a car, from the driver to the vehicle. So the vehicle will become capable of driving itself in an automated way.

[Andy McDonald]

Can I just take the Minister back to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bedford about the word “monitored”? I am trying to think through what is required of a driver when a vehicle is going through its process of self-parking. If we are saying that that individual has to be on notice and ready to intervene should something occur, I am not sure that the word “monitored” properly addresses that concern. If the word “intervention” was used, I could see how things would stack up. It really comes back to the criteria that I am talking about, and for the avoidance of any doubt, I am not in any way suggesting that there should be control over the list itself; it is the criteria by which vehicles are adjudged to be automated. I hope that is helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

That is a well-made point. The list’s purpose is not solely to provide the platform that insurers need to continue to develop appropriate products. It will also be available for consumers and manufacturers; in a sense, that is why it is here. It is in part to do what I said, but of course it will be a public document. People will know what vehicles are on it and they will be able to scrutinise it. It is in law not just for the practical purposes I described, but for the public purposes that the hon. Gentleman advertises. That is going to be necessary, because there will be uncertainties. We will no doubt talk about behavioural change and how people anticipate the effect of this technology, and there will be a need to provide reassurance about safety. That is why I emphasised safety so strongly this morning, and why it is underpinned by what we are doing in the Bill. I accept that there is work to be done in ensuring that the list provides the reassurance that he and I both seek.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West and I exchanged views about tests. If there is a safety issue with one of these vehicles, it will be recalled. Let us be clear that there is no suggestion that these vehicles will be subject to anything less than rigour in the way they are tested. As I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, they can be removed from the list.

An interesting point was raised about prototypes. I suspect that the insurers will have a view about the policy they might offer in respect of a prototype vehicle. They do now, as right hon. and hon. Friends will know. There are particular insurance products for particular kinds of prototype vehicles—which often restrict their use, by the way. When a very new product is being introduced, it is probable that the manufacturers will designate it in that way and that the insurance industry will respond accordingly. However, it is a well-made point; I may make further inquiries about it and write to the Committee, because I think such an important area requires further clarification. I have drawn from discussions and consultations we have already had with the insurance industry, and I suspect that it is as I describe: existing policy and practice in respect of prototypes will probably be reflected in this particular area of technology.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford took us to the stars. Too many Frank Sinatra lyrics at this early stage in our consideration are probably superfluous—as I said, we could play among the stars together. He raised an interesting semantic point about clause 1(1)(b) and the question of whether a vehicle is monitored or controlled. I will ask more about it and, when I write to the Committee, I may write on that, too, with the Chair’s agreement. I was considering it as my hon. Friend was speaking—as good Ministers should, because we learn from these Committees, do we not?—and I will return to it.

I am mindful of the need not to be too narrow in what we say, but to be sufficiently clear. It is important to strike a balance between absolute clarity and a specificity that would hem us in too tightly in all of these matters. We are trying to strike that balance—to walk that tightrope, in a sense—but I hear what my hon. Friend says and I will write to the Committee on the subject.

I think that hope is an important part of the work of politicians, Governments and members of the Committee. In that spirit, I hope that the combination of absolute assurances I have given—on consultation; the willingness to listen and learn from what has been said; the need for absolute clarity, and the stated and restated determination to deliver it; and the reassurance we have had from the industry that it is comfortable with where we have got to and that it is right and sufficient for its purposes—will not merely be a matter of tone, to quote the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, but also a matter of substance. After a healthy but long debate, although not exhaustibly so, I hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough will withdraw his amendment.

[Andy McDonald]

We have had a thorough and useful discussion. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South for taking us back to the days of “Tomorrow’s World”, Raymond Baxter—a few hon. Members will remember—and James Burke by talking about motor trains on the motorway. We did not think that would happen; it has only taken more than 40 years to get to this position. He is right to draw that out.

I am grateful to the Minister. I actually thought at one point that he was speaking in support of my amendment, but I think what he actually did was give me the assurances I was seeking, and I am grateful to him for that. He has assured us that the conversations will continue and that that will be a continuous feature, and importantly, that there will be a publication and that he will write to the Committee on the criteria. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jackie Doyle-Price.)

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Fourth sitting)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out “owner of the vehicle” and insert

“person in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident”.

This amendment ensures that the person who was in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident is liable, rather than the owner of the vehicle who may not necessarily have been in the vehicle at the time. However “person in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident” can also include the owner of the vehicle if they were in charge of it at the time.

It is a pleasure, Ms Ryan, to serve under your chairmanship. We had a thorough debate this morning and perhaps took a little bit longer than we anticipated. I promise to be exceptionally quick on this amendment, which seeks to clarify who would be liable in the event that an automated vehicle is not insured, and relates not to the owner of the vehicle but to the person in charge.

I tabled the amendment because it appeared to me that we run the risk that a thief of a vehicle would get away scot-free if that vehicle was not insured; the owner would be liable, which would be a perverse outcome. We had some helpful information from Mr Howarth at our evidence session when I put that scenario to him. He correctly pointed out that the clause relates to Crown Estate vehicles, local authority vehicles, police and ambulance vehicles and so on and that the current insurance arrangements will apply to automated vehicles. That is clear, but I wonder whether the Minister considers that matters would be even clearer if the word “and” were to be inserted in clause 2(2)(b). That is not included in my amendment, which I intend to withdraw, but does the Minister think that that addition would bring further clarity to the Bill, because at first blush, I think there could be some perverse outcomes.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

The shadow Secretary of State has made it clear that he intends to withdraw the amendment, so I will be very brief and straightforward about clause 2. It mirrors the Road Traffic Act 1988, which, as the hon. Gentleman has said, allows some public bodies and the Crown itself to insure the use of conventional vehicles. In effect, they take the role of the insurer in terms of paying compensation to an innocent victim in the event of a collision.

Just as clause 2(1) places a first instance liability to pay compensation on insurers, clause 2 (2) places it on the public body or the Crown, as the hon. Gentleman has said, if they choose to self-insure a vehicle. That will ensure that innocent victims would have quick and easy access to compensation, and mirrors the arrangements under the Road Traffic Act, where a public body or the Crown self-insures a conventional vehicle.

The risk with the amendment is that it might confuse that policy intent, as the driver of the vehicle may not have sufficient financial resources to pay compensation at all, let alone in a timely manner. I know that that is not the intention of the amendment but it might be its effect.

There is also a question of fairness. One can imagine that in a large public sector body, it would be unlikely that the driver of an automated vehicle would be the person who made the decision whether or not it should be self-insured. Also, the driver may not have contributed in any way to causing the collision. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to press his amendment, but my fear about it is that it may actually confuse all the issues in respect of the relative responsibility of the body and the driver. I will certainly look at the semantic point that he raised; the addition of a single word is a modest request, and inevitably as the Bill progresses a series of minor and technical changes will be made. If his suggestion is helpful, we will of course consider it. I absolutely understood that the intent of the amendment was not to do what I said, but I think that might be its effect.

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ryan. I have a couple of minor points for the Minister.

First, on line 5 of page 2, the first three words of subsection (1)(c) are “an insured person”. I tried to clarify this, I think with the Association of British Insurers, during our oral evidence session two days ago, but my understanding is that the insurance architecture for automated vehicles is changed by the Bill. Rather than the driver being covered by a policy of insurance, which is the existing situation, for an automated vehicle pursuant to clause 2 it will be the vehicle itself that is insured. Unlike now when negligence is alleged in a road traffic collision, the claim legally will be against the tortfeasor, the wrongdoer, not against the insurance company, although legislation from the 1930s enables the insurance company to step in at present. Under the Bill, were there to be legal proceedings, the person on the other side would be the insurance company directly, not, as now, indirectly, in lay terms.

If that is the case, there is no insured person on the scene, unless “person” in that context somehow means the insurance company as a legal person. The way the clause appears to be worded, the policy of insurance is carried not by the driver, the human being, but by the vehicle itself. In which case, if I am reading the Bill correctly, there is no insured person. I am hoping that the Minister will clarify that today or in writing to me later. I fully accept that he might say that I have misinterpreted it.

Secondly, on lines 19 and 20 of page 2, subsection (3) includes a definition of “damage”, but that definition does not include what used to be called special damages and have since 1998, I think, technically been called financial losses and expenses. For example, if someone is injured in a road traffic collision and loses pay at work as a result, that is liquidated damages, but it does not seem to be covered in the definition of damages in that subsection. That might be deliberate and might come in somewhere else, but I hope that the Minister will clarify the wording.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point about special damages. As he knows all too well, special damages in any given case could dwarf the compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, so it is a hugely important point, which I want to support. I hope that the Minister can clarify it.

[Rob Marris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. For someone who has to have two years off work, is earning £50,000 a year and so on, that can be a loss of money. I fully concede to the Minister that I may have overlooked something, or it might be covered somewhere else or not need to be covered, but I would find it helpful were he able to explain to the Committee why special damages, as they used to be called, are not included in the clause. Will he also explain why we have “an insured person” in subsection (1)(c)?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 3, page 3, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations define when it is and is not appropriate for a person in charge of the vehicle to allow the vehicle to drive itself.”

This amendment requires the Government to provide regulatory guidance for when it is and is not appropriate for a person to allow an automated vehicle to drive itself.

Our amendment would allow the Secretary of State to define by regulations when it is appropriate for a person in charge of a vehicle to allow it to drive itself, because under subsection (2), the insurer or owner

“is not liable under section 2 to the person in charge of the vehicle where the accident that it caused was wholly due to the person’s negligence in allowing the vehicle to drive itself when it was not appropriate to do so.”

We are talking about the realm of automated vehicles, so this issue warrants some discussion. It should always be appropriate to allow the vehicle to drive itself—that is the whole purpose, but perhaps we can explore it.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that if, when someone gets into an automated vehicle, a dashboard warning light said, “Software error: do not move”, and they ignored it, that would indeed be a case where they should not have proceeded to use the vehicle?

[Andy McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We will consider in what situations it would be inappropriate to continue in that mode. If he bears with me, I will come to that. A great advantage of automated vehicles is to allow people with disabilities and without capacity to enjoy the same freedoms as we do. If they are in that environment, it would be somewhat difficult, as I am sure he would concede, to impose an obligation on certain individuals to do the very thing that he is suggesting, so I would be grateful if he bears with me.

As the clause is drafted, whether or not it was appropriate for the person in charge of a vehicle to allow it to drive itself has a consequence for negligence, but the Bill does not outline when it is appropriate or not for a vehicle to be used in automated mode—it talks about it, but it does not tell us. I accept that it might not be appropriate in some circumstances for vehicles to drive themselves. For example, early automated vehicles might be deemed safe to use only on motorways and not on some urban roads. Perhaps a known fault with the software that manages the function might have come to people’s attention, so using it would be inappropriate. I wonder whether the true intent of subsection (2) was to focus on bi-modal vehicles, because to my mind it is a bit of a nonsense to apply it universally to fully automated vehicles.

One of the primary purposes of part 1 of the Bill is to provide a framework to give insurers, manufacturers and potential users greater clarity, providing confidence and encouraging progress on automated vehicles. However, it is still not clear from the Bill what the Government have in mind about when their use would be inappropriate. I do not propose to press the amendment to a vote at this stage, but I think the Minister has got the point I am making. We are asking for regulations to be brought forward that better define those circumstances, because we cannot afford to have any fudging or confusion. People must be clear where there obligations lie. If we are to see the growth of the industry as we all wish, we do not want to leave this issue hanging over it.

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

It just occurred to me when the hon. Gentleman mentioned manufacturers that some of the conditions or stipulations for when the vehicle should not be driven should derive from the manufacturers rather than Government regulations, although I am not sure how that could be worked in with his amendment.

[Andy McDonald]

That is an excellent observation. That could form part of the regulations, so that the obligation sits with the manufacturer to ensure that the situation we are describing is avoided. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which highlights the lack of clarity about describing the circumstances in which it is inappropriate for the vehicle to drive itself. Somebody could get into the vehicle, fully anticipating it to be totally automated and expecting to be free to eat their fish and chips or make the cup of tea that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West referred to with impunity. If that is not the case, we need clarification of when those circumstances arise, especially when we talk about issues concerning capacity, capability and so on.

[Mr Hayes]

GK Chesterton said:

“The centre of every man’s existence is a dream.”

To dare to dream is to drive us beyond the prosaic towards the sublime. For me, the achievement of the sublime is indispensable from a redistribution of advantage in society. To redistribute advantage we must seize opportunities where they do not exist, in exactly the way that the hon. Gentleman described. To seize the opportunity to travel for those to whom, for no other reason than their incapacity, it is currently unavailable would indeed be the achievement of a dream leading to the sublime, so he is right that we need to get the circumstances in which people can achieve that right now, but we also need to be mindful of the fact that as the technology develops there will be a need to do more.

Therefore, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for further regulation. There will certainly be a need to look at Road Traffic Acts, because of what he queried in respect of the obligations of very vulnerable people. We will certainly need to look at that. That is a matter for future standards and Road Traffic Acts rather than the Bill, but I fully acknowledge that that will need to be a part of the legislative package that is bound to emerge as a result of these changes.

The Bill is very much a first step, as we have all acknowledged. It is a first step that, rather strangely, as he pointed out, begins with insurance. It does not begin with insurance because of any philosophical or doctrinal belief that insurance matters most, but it certainly matters enough to stop further investment and development. That is why insurance is the beginning of the process. In the end, the other adjustments to law and the publication of regulations will be necessary to achieve some of what he has described. We therefore recognise entirely the need to put in place a proper regulatory framework in this area. This is about the safe deployment and safe use of automated vehicles. It is also about public confidence, which was raised this morning by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, who is not now in his place. By doing what he said subsequent to the Bill, and through the passage of the Bill, we will send a signal to the industry and the wider public that we are indeed at the beginning of that journey, which I hope might lead us to the sublime.

Perhaps it is worth pointing out by way of illustration that we consulted on changes to The Highway Code and the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 to support remote parking systems, because there are also Highway Code issues associated with the changes. We are looking at how the existing regulatory framework will need to be amended, leading up to a series of incremental changes that will take us to the place where full automation will become accepted by the public and available through the industry.

I must not compliment the hon. Member for Middlesbrough so much so early, because not only might that encourage him to believe that I will do so throughout our consideration—at some point I might no longer wish to do so—but also because it might make him a trifle big-headed, and I would not want to do that. However, he is also right about the likely first stages of the development. He is right to point out, as has been written elsewhere, that automated vehicles might initially be used in particular circumstances in particular modes. Some of the developments that manufacturers are researching, considering and rolling out are likely to be for use on motorways, as he said, or in particular driving conditions. As part of the incremental change I have described, it is possible that automated vehicles will be used in specific situations, or what are sometimes called “use cases”. This would involve a kind of geo-fencing of vehicles, defining when and where they are used—perhaps in part of a city or something of that kind, or perhaps on high-speed roads exclusively.

It is also important to point out that we are not considering this matter in isolation. The development of the technology is international and, as I described earlier, international regulations will create a set of safety standards leading to type approvals that may reflect that limited case use. It is also likely that those regulations will contain requirements for the vehicle to be able to detect where it is, so that the system can be used only in those situations that are designated or defined. It is not clear whether we need to make matching regulatory changes in our domestic framework, but if we do, we could use existing legislative vehicles. We typically use the Road Traffic Act 1998 to revise existing or create new road vehicle construction and use regulations to reflect and reinforce those international regulations.

I acknowledge also that the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that further work will need to be done. I am not sure that the Bill is the right place to do that—by the way, I do not think he is suggesting that—but it is the right place to ask that question. I freely acknowledge that the issues he raised about obligations, specificity—how a vehicle might be used in what circumstances—and so on will require further consideration, consultation and regulatory measures. With that assurance I hope we can move on in the spirit of harmony and agreement to which I have attempted to add by my not excessive but generous compliments.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister, who has been very kind and generous. However, I do not want to misquote him, but he seems to have set out a strong argument for a regulatory framework, the better to describe the circumstances in which it would be unsafe to allow a vehicle to be conducted in the automated mode. In fact, he set out a number of circumstances where that would be relevant.

The Minister also referred the Committee to international standards and to international regulatory application in this case, but we have no information before us about how that would address the current situation in an evolving market for an evolving technology. I am struggling to understand where the deficit would be if we were to commit to a regulatory framework to address the issues—not by saying, here and now, what would be in it, but simply by saying “That is what we are going to do. We recognise it needs to be done.” I am not persuaded that this is not the right time and place to do that very thing.

[Mr Hayes]

Perhaps I may intervene, to avoid the need for another speech by me—which is probably unnecessary, although it would be widely welcomed. I do commit to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Global regulations will develop. Such discussions are happening worldwide, of course, and the manufacturers are international in both their reach and their location. We will introduce regulations that are in tune with those regulations. Let us not forget that the Bill is about insurance—about a first step in establishing enough legislative work to allow insurance to be put in place. We will commit to taking further necessary steps along the way.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister is very persuasive. He has made things very clear. Although I feel some disappointment that we are not dealing with the matter now, his unequivocal commitment to bringing forward regulations at some later stage terminates the discussion as far as I am concerned. I am grateful for what the Minister has told us, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Accident resulting from unauthorised alterations or failure to update software

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out “operating system” and insert “software”.

This amendment replaces “operating system” which is too narrow a term. A vehicle may have firmware which is software in non-volatile memory, an operating system which is software in volatile memory, and application software.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Regarding the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, I said earlier today and again this afternoon that the essence of our intention with the Bill is to provide a starting point by getting right the insurance provisions for automated vehicles. It is important that we do so with precision. His case is that if we do not get the technical language right, we risk failing to achieve our policy objective. Getting the language wrong would risk insurers not being able effectively to exclude liability in instances where we wish them to be able to do so. Conversely, it would also allow insurers to limit liability in circumstances where we do not intend them to be able to. Although we are working closely with the insurance industry and, as I said this morning before you joined us, Ms Ryan, the industry welcomed the Bill during our evidence sessions on Tuesday, it is important that the signal we send to them and the underpinning legislation reflect the certainty that my hon. Friend advocated in his amendments and his speech in support of them.

The Opposition have tabled amendments in the same area and, I think, recognise that the issue raised by my hon. Friend is significant. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Middlesbrough is going to speak on those amendments—he may choose to. In essence, the message that I want to broadcast is that although we will not accept these amendments today, we recognise their salience. My hon. Friend’s case is certainly well made and well understood by us. He invited us to consider the issue further, and I commit to doing so.

[Andy McDonald]

I was not sure whether we were dealing with amendment 20 now, because it speaks to exactly the same area.

[The Chair]

At the moment, we are debating amendments 1 to 8.

[Andy McDonald]

Although we are in the same territory, I will defer my comments, Ms Ryan.

[Mr Baker]

Given that the Minister wishes to consider the issues and return to them, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 4, page 3, line 15, leave out “vehicle’s operating system” and insert

“application software related to the vehicle’s automated function”.

This amendment makes clear that insurance liability is limited or excluded where damage is suffered following an accident as a result of failure to update the application software related to the vehicle’s automated function, rather than the whole operating system.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 21, in clause 4, page 3, line 17, at end insert

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

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

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

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

This amendment ensures that manufacturers have made all reasonable efforts to provide an update to the vehicle’s system for the owner before placing liability on the owner for not updating the software.

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.

[Andy McDonald]

As we have a software engineer in the room, I bow to his superior knowledge, but I think he has already acknowledged that ours is a bold and perhaps even decent attempt to narrow the definition to the very function—not bad for an old personal injury solicitor. I recognise that we are all trying to be specific about the what the software is intended to do, so I will not detain the Committee long on amendment 20 but rather move on to amendment 21, which is in the same territory but not on the same point. It would add a proviso to exclusions and limitations on an insurance policy, because, as drawn, the policy would simply be void in the event of failure to install the software.

We discussed this subject during our evidence sessions, and I think we were all quite fascinated by how software would ultimately be installed, but we think it proper to oblige the manufacturer to attempt to notify the vehicle’s owner, provide the update and arrange for its installation. If an automated vehicle is to be able to drive itself, it is critical to safety that the software responsible for the driving operation be up to date. No one doubts that.

I do not know whether everyone can say with certainty that their mobile phone or home desktop computer has the latest version of the software installed. If a smartphone or computer is out of date, that is pretty poor, but significant consequences are unlikely; if an automated vehicle’s software is not up to date, the consequences could be catastrophic.

[Mr Baker]

This is a sensible amendment, but I think it suffers from defining in terms of operating systems rather than software. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether the definition needs to be in the Bill, or whether updates could be required under the policy and it should be for insurers to determine how software updates should be installed.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the necessary correction. My concern is that there is nothing in the Bill that requires software to be updated. I find that somewhat difficult to understand. These vehicles will be available for use and there will be several iterations of the software updates, so I am staggered that there is nothing to require that to happen. It is almost an assumption—the nature of the beast is such that of course it will be part of the debate—but there is no obligation.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Many businesses have insurance for business disruption based on their updating cyber-security software for their accountancy models and so on. I am not entirely sure why the hon. Gentleman feels that such a provision is needed in the Bill when it works alongside the insurance element, so in reality the insurance company would provide that check.

[Andy McDonald]

I am not entirely sure that, as a matter of course, insurers would check whether the software on all the vehicles they insure is up to date. They might demand that at the outset but I am not sure what mechanism would make sure of it, other than to warn people that otherwise policies would be voided.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Would not that in many ways be similar to servicing vehicles? My insurance policy, like many others, requires me to service my vehicle, which is about as non-electronic as it is possible to get these days, pretty regularly. The insurance company will not have checked in advance, but if they later find out that an accident was caused because the vehicle was not in a roadworthy condition because I did not maintain it properly, my insurance is invalid. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but not why he believes it should be in the Bill, rather than leaving it to insurance companies to manage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I think there is a distinction between ordinary, conventional vehicle maintenance arrangements, with which people are familiar, and the requirements of this brand-new environment, where if software fails because critical updates were not installed or it has been infected in some way—I am not an engineer—the consequences can be catastrophic. Mechanical failures may not be picked up, but we have MOT tests and warranties and it may be starkly obvious that something is fundamentally wrong with the vehicle; software failure may not manifest itself so clearly.

[Rob Marris]

Is not part of the problem that we have several players on the scene? We have the manufacturer, the supplier of the vehicle—the main dealer for example—the insurance company, the owner of the vehicle and the driver. Part of the problem is that the owner of the vehicle may not have any contractual nexus with the manufacturer and may not know that the update is available for their software, just as many people may not know that their smartphone can be upgraded from Android Marshmallow to Android Nougat.

[Andy McDonald]

The point is well made, so I will not expand on my hon. Friend’s intervention but simply accept it.

In short, that the manufacturer should notify the owner of a vehicle of the need for an update of the vehicle’s operating system or whatever term we settle on, provide the relevant update to the owner or insured person, and arrange for the installation of the update, are reasonable expectations. We are shifting into a completely different model of vehicle ownership. We have already embraced the principles of personal contract plans and everyone in this room will be aware of the potential to migrate to bundled services, which might not be about one person with one vehicle; they might have a variety of options—a small vehicle for the home and a more comfortable vehicle to make longer journeys, such as touring the Scottish highlands.

We are getting into new territory, and it occurs to me that if we want motor vehicles to be sustainable, rather than rapidly obsolescent, it might be eminently sensible if, rather than someone owning and maintaining a vehicle, such maintenance were part of the services they received and the vehicle was ultimately returned to the manufacturer or retailer. We get into issues about extensions on product liability. With every iteration, there are issues around that. We heard from Mr Wong on Tuesday that the manufacturers will no longer support vehicles beyond a particular time. He did not expect the support to carry on for ever. If it was my Toyota Previa with 163,000 miles on the clock after 17 years it would be unsupported, but there we go.

[Rob Marris]

I bet that went round the highlands.

[Andy McDonald]

Yes, it did, several times. It is still running, but it is partly rusted to death. The point is that the measure fits in with the new modelling and is entirely consistent, but it must be underpinned by the obligation to take reasonable steps to update the software. Otherwise, we have difficulties. The amendment would not put the manufacturer behind the eight ball if people are determined to avoid updates or interfere with them—far from it—it just sets out a framework that there should be an obligation on them. I recommend the amendment.

New clause 9 is directly related to the amendment. It requires the Secretary of State to make regulations preventing automated vehicles from being operated in automated mode on public roads unless the software for that function is up to date. We addressed the importance of updating earlier in the Committee, so I will not repeat those arguments, but I underline the seriousness of ensuring that the software is up to date. Out-of-date software can present safety risks. Because of the issues surrounding liability, it should not be beyond the wit of man or too difficult to prevent un-updated vehicles being on our roads, and it would make sense to do that. If a vehicle had a serious mechanical fault that could endanger the driver and others, we would not allow it on our roads. It makes sense that an automated vehicle would similarly present an increased safety risk if its operating system was not updated.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I find the hon. Gentleman’s new clause a bit absolute. My experience of updating software is that some updates are critical and some are quite nice to have and may not relate to safety. For instance, with an autonomous car, there might be a software update that tells the car to take a particular angle of bend at a slightly more comfortable speed. That has an impact on comfort; it does not necessarily have an impact on safety. My reading is that the new clause would rule out that car from being authorised to be on the road unless it had that update.

[Andy McDonald]

I think there is a difference. The new clause says that the car has to be up to date and fit with the current requirements, but it does not say it has to be the latest software. A software product may have several versions—we are now getting into nice-to-have mode and additional facilities—and the one someone has in their car may be safe and up to date without being the latest. What I am trying to address with the new clause is software that is updated on safety grounds and essential changes to the programming.

Without the new clause, people would be able to take un-updated vehicles on to our roads, either by accident or on purpose. Insurance companies would surely factor the increased risk into premiums, which would be higher as a consequence. For reasons of affordability, it would be sensible to include the new clause in the Bill.

The amendment proposes that the Secretary of State should introduce regulations to prevent an automated vehicle from being operated on public roads unless the application software relating to the vehicles’ automated functions is up to date—not the latest available, but up to date. From a technical standpoint, that should not be too difficult to achieve. Most people with a smartphone or computer are likely to have software that prevents it from being used until it is updated; I am not struck by any reason why a similar mechanism could not be included in automated vehicles. By preventing un-updated vehicles from being used, we would achieve safer roads and cheaper insurance.

One primary benefit of AVs is that they reduce the likelihood of human error, yet one of the few areas in which scope for human error remains—the responsibility for ensuring that software is updated—would not be addressed, even though it would not be difficult to do so. The new clause would address that. I trust that it will have the Committee’s support.

[Mr Baker]

I rise to make two points, one at slightly more length than the other. The first is that the amendment mentions application software. At the risk of labouring this point, there is a stack of software in the car: firmware at the low level, the operating system, which makes the low-level devices usable, and application software on top. We have reached the point where we are all agreed that all the software needs to be up to date.

The second point is one that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire just made: not all the software is safety-critical. That is an important point, so I will take a moment to consider it. Safety-critical software will almost certainly have been derived from formal specifications, proved safe as it is manufactured and then tested comprehensively before it is deployed. I would hope and expect that any responsible engineer, before putting an automated car out on the road, would have a very high level of confidence that the software was in fact safe to use.

The issue then is that there are often bugs in software, so it is not inconceivable that a safety-critical update might be required, but I would like to think that it would be an edge case. If we were to prevent all cars with an automated function from being on the roads because some software update was required, we might end up defeating our purpose. On one hand, I think it reasonable that all safety-critical software must be up to date; on the other, I think that the amendment probably would not achieve the purpose intended.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is focusing, quite correctly, on “safety-critical”, but is not the software relating to the automated function by definition safety-critical?

[Mr Baker]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire in a moment if he wishes, but I think that he put his finger on the point very well, not least because he drives a semi-automated car. Imagine my hon. Friend’s Volvo, which requires him to keep his hands on the wheel when it is in semi-automated mode. There could be a software update that allowed him to take his hands off the wheel for an additional five seconds. That is not safety-critical; it is just a variation on the length of time during which it is not necessary to hold the wheel. The point is that such an update would not be critical to the safety of the car’s ability to drive itself—I am grateful to him for indicating assent—but it would be an update related to the software related to the automated function. That is where the amendment falls down. It is possible to conceive of updates that are related to the safety-critical software but not safety-critical. That is where the issue lies.

The other point is that if I have understood correctly, the overall thrust of the Bill, which I welcome, is to be permissive but absolutely clear where liability lies. Drivers know that they are insured whether or not the vehicle is in automated mode. That is the crucial point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough began this part of our discussion by claiming that he was courageous and then admitting that he was imprecise. Courtesy obliges me to emphasise his courage and not his imprecision, although he also said that he recognised that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe has expertise in this field. I have already said that I agree that it is important that we address the issues dealt with in these amendments, which were also highlighted by the comments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West. It seems to me that we can look again at whether this part of this Bill needs the proposed improvements.

In respect of new clause 9 and amendment 21, I suppose the obvious point—I will go on to make less obvious points, or at least I hope they will be less obvious—is that manufacturers should and will ensure that they update software in a way that guarantees safety. That seems to me to be fundamental, but I just do not think that this Bill is the right legislation to do that.

Perhaps I can make a less obvious point—

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister heard the evidence from Mr Wong on Tuesday, in which he made it abundantly clear that it would be impractical and totally uneconomic for a manufacturer to maintain software support ad infinitum; there has to be a limit. To assume that there is a manufacturer out there that will just do that forever is perhaps a little dangerous.

[Mr Hayes]

Or even innocent, perhaps, not to say naive. I did not say that, though, did I? What I said was that manufacturers should and will update software so as to guarantee safety. Where safety would be compromised by any change that a manufacturer might make, or where safety was not the result of the original incarnation of what a manufacturer issued, clearly that would be unacceptable, and it would be covered by vehicle standards and other regulatory and legislative mechanisms. It is absolutely right that if a vehicle comes to market, the software, like the other parts of the vehicle—for example the mechanics—is of a kind that passes the necessary tests allowing the car to be sold, purchased and driven safely, and any changes to that vehicle should comply with those core requirements. The idea that we, or indeed the law, would allow a manufacturer to update software in a way that compromised safety is clearly not sensible; we simply would not allow that.

The hon. Gentleman says that a manufacturer might not choose to update software ad infinitum. Indeed, a customer might not want their vehicle changed forever, and as long as the vehicle can be driven safely, that would be a matter for the driver; it is not a matter for us. A vehicle that can be driven safely but does not have all the latest mechanical gadgets or software is not a matter for the Bill, or even for the Government, beyond the existing legislative requirements. It is certainly not something that I would want to address in this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Minister seek that reassurance from the motor manufacturing sector? If he says that will happen, that would make life an awful lot easier.

[Mr Hayes]

I think it would be reasonable for me to say to the manufacturing sector what I have said to the Committee: that a core part of the work on updating systems is ensuring that a framework is put in place that compels manufacturers to bring to market systems that make the process as simple and effective as possible. That is perfectly reasonable. We will certainly have that discussion. I think that regulations are bound to be the consequence of that later; I just do not think that this is the time or the place to do that.

I said this morning, and I will say again—this is so important that I make no excuse for repeating it—that we accept that as this technology develops there will be a need to return to the House, to develop subsequent regulation and consult further. That is very much part of our approach. Of course, in our ongoing discussions about that later regulation I am more than happy to put the case that has been articulated across the Committee.

[Andy McDonald]

I think it falls to me to deal with all of the amendments and the new clause, if I am following the procedure correctly.

[The Chair]

You can state your intention on the new clause.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful for that guidance, Ms Ryan. I will turn to amendment 20 and, if I can, encapsulate it with new clause 9. It is my intention to seek leave to withdraw the amendment and the new clause, for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Wycombe. I think we are as one across the Committee about the need to get the wording absolutely accurate. There is consensus on that, which feeds into the new clause and the amendment. It also has an impact on amendment 21.

I wish to clarify that we are talking about trying to have some balance. Clause 4 describes circumstances where liability may be excluded, which includes a failure to install software. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun rightly outlined, it is without any consequence and there is no balance to this if it is left as drawn. There is no obligation upon the manufacturer to take any reasonable steps to ensure that the software is updated. It would strike any reasonable observer as entirely out of kilter if it remains as it currently is. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his undertaking to seek assurances from the industry that it will express a view on the clause and develop a conversation about its obligations to install software. I accept that assurance and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

I will be brief, Ms Ryan. The first part of the clause title is:

“Accident resulting from unauthorised alterations”.

I am perfectly comfortable with the contents of the clause that relate to the owner or driver making alterations themselves, but on Second Reading I flagged up my concern about where the liability lies if an external alteration is made either deliberately or accidentally. By deliberate, I mean the computer system being hacked in some way, the installation of malware or similar problems, and accidental alteration could arise from the car being serviced and the garage mechanic somehow messing up the system. I would like some clarification about where the liability lies in such circumstances. The Minister kindly honoured his promise on Second Reading to write to me.

[Andy McDonald]

I wonder whether the answer to the scenario that the hon. Gentleman has described—the realms of uninsurance—is that the Motor Insurers Bureau’s uninsured scheme would come into play. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, it would be the same insurer who stepped in to resolve the damage suffered by third parties.

[Iain Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was about to say, because the Minister kindly honoured his promise to write to me and gave me the clarification I needed. He said that although future regulations may be made, the current system will apply and ultimately the courts will decide where the liability lies if there was an external intervention. The Motor Insurers Bureau happily resides in my constituency and I visited it a couple a weeks ago, and we discussed that very point. I want to put on the record that the concerns I expressed on Second Reading have been addressed, and I am perfectly content with the clause as it is currently drafted.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (First sitting)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Steve, we had better move on, as we have only three or four minutes left.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Q I will be very brief. The Bill introduces the new concept we are moving to—the exposure to manufacturers’ liability. Has the Bill got it right in terms of the balance between insurers’ and manufacturers’ liability? Secondly, Mr Wong talked about accessibility cost. The cost of insurance will be key. Is the insurance industry ready for this? Clearly, premiums should be cheaper if we are getting errorless driving, but is the insurance industry sophisticated enough and ready enough to make that offer to consumers in the first instance? Lastly, on the issue of updates, does that present fresh exposures to manufacturers for the duration of the life of that vehicle on every software update iteration? Have you given any thought to how that plays in the context of current consumer protection legislation and issues of limitation? Does that now cause us to revolutionise the way we look at people purchasing vehicles? Are they going to be out there forever with software with little or no control? Any thoughts or comments?

David Williams: I think the Bill does have the balance right. It focuses on the road user. That is why we have got the Road Traffic Act 1988. Therefore the Bill has to focus on the safety of road users rather than insurers and manufacturers. As an insurer, we can price for anything. You have a balance with regard to how much liability finally rests with the motor manufacturer. That can develop over time, and they have definitely got some skin in the game. If they are negligent they will be called to account and will need to indemnify the insurer; so I think the balance is right.

With regard to whether the insurance industry is ready, in the past I do not think we have been, for things like this, but the fact that we already have the Autonomous Driving Insurance Group, which meets regularly and is very well attended, that the Thatcham motor vehicle research institute is all over it, and that AXA alone is involved with three of the Government-backed consortia means we are ready—we will be ready.

David Wong: On software updates, we believe that the “state of the art” defence principle applies here, which means at the point when the vehicle, together with the systems, including software and firmware, are being developed, the manufacturer has done its utmost to ensure that it is completely secure and, based on the scientific knowledge and the technology at that point in time, has done its very best. Of course, software updates are always, basically, a moving target; it changes every hour—but the “state of the art” defence applies in this case.

Steve Gooding: I think the motor industry will have to answer for this, because if you think of your home computer, every now and then you get a message saying “Your software is going out of support”. I think we need a bit of reassurance from the auto sector that we are not going to find that a vehicle we buy next year, and then in seven or eight years’ time is in the second-hand market, gets the message that “this vehicle is going out of support” and is therefore judged in some sense to be no longer roadworthy.

David Wong: It is reasonable to expect that vehicle manufacturers will continue updating, upgrading and patching the software, as do computer manufacturers and software manufacturers. However, even as Microsoft has decided, after a while, to discontinue the support for Windows XP and Windows Vista, one must not expect vehicle manufacturers to continue supporting particular software 20 years’ down the road, even if the vehicle is still roadworthy.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Q Within its scope, does this Bill do enough to position the UK as a global leader in vehicle technology? If not, what is missing? If you do not have the time to answer, maybe you can email me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

Q Mr Evans in an earlier answer described the purpose of the Bill being to take reserve powers to allow stepping in to stimulate the right kind of infrastructure where the market does not provide it already. May I press you a little more on what that is, and on whether the Bill is hitting the right target? The stress within the Bill is on the provision of charging infrastructure by what it describes as “large fuel retailers.”

A lot of the discussion we have had so far has been about the importance of having rapid availability of charging points, and sometimes smart charging points, in a much more dispersed area than what might be described as large fuel retailers—typically, the motorway service areas. Is the emphasis on that right? If it is not the right emphasis, do those powers need to be applied more broadly? If those reserved powers are applied more broadly, what safeguards need to be in the Bill to ensure that unreasonable regulatory requirements are not put on a whole dispersed range of potential electricity suppliers?

Robert Evans: That is a good point. The powers that we are looking at are primarily around the provision of information to the user, the ability to have smart charging should you need it, and the interoperability. Those sorts of questions are dealt with in the Bill and are key topic areas for the industry. On the question of where infrastructure is located, supermarkets are an interesting one. We have a situation in which not everybody has off-street parking. When one comes to a place such as London, it is not practical to put charging all down London streets. Supermarkets become an extremely practical, pragmatic place for charging to be accessible, along with retail shopping centres, in a crowded city such as London. The consideration of that, along with motorway service areas, which is about allowing people to travel distances across the UK, are two strategic priorities. That is not to say that there are not other areas. The Government have provided incentives for the deployment of infrastructure in other locations and have obviously taken a view that maybe the market can deliver in those locations.

Quentin Willson: However, technology does exist that would allow you to charge at a street lamp post, although admittedly that could be for slow charging at night. For people who do not have parking within their house and have to rely on the street, this facility could be available on every single lamp post in the UK.

[Andy McDonald]

The whole discussion has been predicated on the basis of saving the planet. What about reducing emissions? In the context of automated vehicles and vehicles generally, it is all about their obsolescence, not about sustainability. Given that we have talked about the updating of automated vehicles and the relationship of manufacturers with the end user throughout the duration, are we missing a trick here? Though there is nothing in the Bill that requires software updates, necessarily there will be that relationship.

Should we not be thinking about a new way of using automated and electric vehicles across the piece? Should we be having people owning vehicles, or should we be making the offer for that relationship to be maintained so that it is a sustainable product that can be revisited? At the moment there is going to be an obligation to keep in touch with these automated vehicles for their lifetime. We heard in earlier evidence that there will come a point where that is cut off. Are we talking about an opportunity for a whole new way of using the services provided by an independent, personal mode of transport?

Quentin Willson: This is the big cycle of change now, like televisions, aeroplanes and the internet. We will see car ownership decline and will be buying or leasing vehicles as a service, not a product. The long-term vision is that this is going to be based largely on electricity and some on fuel cell, and that we will be calling driverless vehicles on our phones to come and collect us. They will then drive to our destinations in what is known as a green wav; they will be hooked up and connected to junctions, to the road system and to traffic lights. These zero-emission, automated, self-driving cars will drive in platoons and, it is hoped, eliminate congestion and pollution. That is the superordinate goal, which perhaps is as near as 2040. But it will always be powered by electricity. The whole structure of who owns what is changing. As we are seeing with consumer habits now, they are buying cars on personal contract plans; they do not own things anymore. That is what the long-term future looks like.

[Andrew Selous]

Beginning with Quentin Willson, we are aware of the 2050 date that the Government have for all cars and vans to be zero-emission. My understanding for why that date was picked is that it is linked to the need to decarbonise the UK. To what extent do you think the legal issues that the United Kingdom is having with air quality at the moment mean that there might be a case for revisiting the speed with which we try to electrify the market? At the same time, I would be interested in your comments on what is happening internationally. I mentioned Norway and China earlier. There are different models and approaches that may not be suitable for the United Kingdom, but I would be interested if you could speak to air quality and the international perspective on these issues.

Quentin Willson: I had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport in January to tell him exactly this. The brutal fact of the matter is that possibly only 10% of consumers in the UK have driven an electric car; the vast majority are still hanging on to what I call the Clarkson effect—all that baggage about electric cars being slow, hopeless and driven by people who read The Guardian and hug trees. That has set the whole electrification of UK roads back enormously. We do not have a way of connecting with consumers when it comes to electric cars. We are informed, and the respondents to the consultation are informed, but I have been talking to groups of consumers for the past five years at test-drive events, and you would be surprised how few of them have actually even sat in an electric car.

I believe that there is potential here for the Government, and that is what I told Chris Grayling. I believe that there is potential for us to have national test-drive events whereby people can go to supermarkets, drive electric cars and undergo what I call the transformational moment, the damascene moment, when they get into the car with all their accumulated baggage about how bad it is and how unfeasible for their lifestyle, and then they come out as a completely converted person, who goes on to convert other people. It must be an extremely important part of the Government’s strategy to talk to the consumers out there who have little or no faith in the electric car industry and obsess about charging and infrastructure, when actually 90% of all EV drivers charge at home. We must not miss this essential point to move forward and to engage people with the process of electric cars.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Second sitting)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear oral evidence from the Association of British Insurers and the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record, starting with Mr Forbes?

Iain Forbes: My name is Iain Forbes. I am head of a team called the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles, which is a policy team based in the Department for Transport and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Ben Howarth: I am Ben Howarth. I am policy adviser for motor insurance at the ABI. As part of that I have led all our work on the Automated Driving Insurance Group and drafted our response to the CCAV consultation that pre-empted the Bill.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Q Good afternoon, gentlemen. Thanks for coming. I have a number of questions. At the beginning of the Bill, we are told that automated vehicles are what the Secretary of State says are automated vehicles. Clearly, some thought has gone into the criteria for so-designated vehicles. What are your own thoughts and observations on how we can be sure we are getting that set of criteria correct?

Ben Howarth: From an insurance perspective, that is one of the clauses we particularly welcomed when we saw the Bill. One of our concerns in advance was that it would not be clear to the customer what cars needed this new insurance system, so the clarification that the Government are going to take responsibility for doing that is really welcome. It means basically that we know what cars we need to have this new insurance for, and the customers will know that as well.

In terms of criteria, it is relatively simple. It is more about the user than the technology. I think the technology might not move that much, but it is the point where the user can feel confident that, when the car is in automated mode, it can deal with everything. Thinking about the worst-case scenario of an accident, if the car senses it is going to go into emergency mode, the car is able to do something to deal with that, which does not require the driver to come back in. We feel that if there is any point where the driver needs to come back in, it is not really an automated car. It is that tipping point where the car is completely capable of dealing with every situation. It might not carry on driving, but, at the very least, it would do an emergency stop and get you into a safe stop manoeuvre. That is the tipping point, or distinction, that we see.

Iain Forbes: Just to underline that, the measures in the Bill are designed to deal with the sorts of situations where a vehicle can drive itself in automated mode and not require the oversight of a human when the driving test is being operated. The particular mechanism by which those vehicles are going to be certified is an active topic of discussion at international regulatory forums. We have actively participated in those discussions, but we felt it was important to flag at the outset of the Bill that that would be clear to people in the insurance industry and elsewhere, to make sure they were able to understand which vehicles these measures apply to and which ones they do not.

Ben Howarth: In practice, we would be hoping that, from an insurer’s perspective, it is pretty easy to find that out, just by looking at the licence plate or the VIN number. There would be a clear definition that this is a car with automated functionality.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Of course, we are now entering a major shift, because we have to have insurers who are going to be picking up the tab for accidents involving automated vehicles. Presumably, as we progress, we will be getting errorless driving in automated vehicles. That is the objective, and incidents will result. Therefore, we should be looking forward to cheaper insurance policies, but that may not automatically be the case, if you pardon the pun. How progressed or how ready is the insurance industry to deliver products that would make fully automated vehicles accessible to people in terms of costings, including the cost of insurance?

Ben Howarth: We are very advanced as an industry, particularly in the UK. Because of the clear message that the Government have given, we are perhaps ahead of our contemporaries in other countries. The two really important criteria in terms of the cost of insurance will be the volume of accidents. We are fairly confident—Thatcham Research has done quite a bit of research that suggests the number of accidents is going to come down a lot once we get automated driving. That will obviously reduce the number of insurance claims, which will inevitably have an impact on the cost of insurance.

One factor that we probably do not know about at this point is the actual cost of the vehicles themselves, and how much they cost to repair. We might have considerably fewer claims, but very high costs associated with repair might have an impact. That said, that is something that is happening already. Vehicle technology is changing a lot already, so it is not a case of a huge tipping point in technology once we switch to fully automated cars. The technological change will happen more steadily, so I am very confident that the insurance industry is ready to deliver competitive insurance products that will be affordable, will help people and will make them want to take up this technology.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Will you help me on another matter? When an accident is caused by an automated vehicle, we are told in the Bill that the insurer is liable for the damage, but when the automated vehicle is involved but is not insured, it is the owner of the vehicle who is responsible for the damage. I am wondering what your view is on whether that ought that to be the person in charge of the vehicle, rather than the owner. We might have the perverse situation of a stolen vehicle being involved in an accident but, according to this, the owner of the vehicle would be in the frame. Do you understand?

Ben Howarth: I think I know what clauses you are referring to and my understanding of them is that that covers publicly owned vehicles and Crown Estate vehicles. They would not have insurance because they do not need them. In those cases, where it is a publicly owned vehicle, the liability would fall on the public body. It is a separate arrangement for genuinely uninsured driving—private cars that are uninsured.

[Andy McDonald]

That is really helpful.

Iain Forbes: That is exactly right. That clause covers publicly owned vehicles. We anticipate the situation being similar to the situation at the moment for conventional vehicles. It is often the case that they self-insure, rather than going through an insurance company.

[Andy McDonald]

Q I do not know what your handle is on this, and that was terrific clarification, but do you not see that it is possible to interpret it in the way I did? A vehicle that has been stolen is not insured, but the owner of the vehicle is picking up the cost, not the person who stole it.

Iain Forbes: Certainly, our legal team has been through the regulations to effect that as the policy aim, but if the Committee has comments, we have to look at it.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Finally from me, we are in the world of upgrades, which will present opportunities for manufacturers to continue to engage with the vehicle, in effect. I was wondering whether you had applied your minds to any future product liability exposures with the advent of new software. What does that mean in terms of those future liabilities and in terms of limitation, because current liability, once you part with the vehicle, has a 10-year limitation, although we have got some issues around extensions for people with disability insurance and so on? But if it is a product liability issue, there could be a succession of products that could give rise to liability. Is that factored into your thinking? Is it relevant? Have you dismissed it?

Ben Howarth: That is very relevant. When the consultation first came out, one of the questions was, “Do we bolt product liability into the motor insurance policy?” We looked at it in quite a lot of detail, and that was our initial assumption for how it would work. When we thought about it, those issues that you referred to and the fact that product liability lasts for only 10 years made it feel like too much of a change for product liability to be put directly into a Road Traffic Act situation. That is why we came to the conclusion that it should be a primary motor insurance policy, with the option then to recover from manufacturers.

Our conclusion is that you probably do not need to change the product liability, as it is kind of a backstop and it will not affect the original claimant. There might be a case on some occasions, if it is an older vehicle. We do not know quite how the market is going to develop—whether cars will be on the road for 10 years or longer in this situation, or maybe the product liability will renew itself every time there has been an upgrade. Let us assume that it does not, and you do expire at 10 years. My understanding is that there will still potentially be the option for a civil liability claim, so you might be able to argue that the manufacturer is not product liable, but they are in effect acting as the driver, so there is another claim that you might be able to bring.

[Andy McDonald]

Q You could be caught with a person with a disability, or a child, who is not subject to ordinary limitation; it would be from the date of their majority. There could be an action on the attaining of that majority and your product liability recompense from the manufacturer is effectively null and void.

Ben Howarth: Yes. I think that is factored in. The Bill means that that is a problem for the insurer, rather than the victim. I suppose part of the calculations that insurers will make is how many of those claims they will be likely to face. Are they insuring vehicles that are over 10 years old? That might have an impact. What is important in the Bill is that it makes that a problem for us as an industry. It will not affect, say, a disabled person who is using these vehicles. I think that is the insurance we need at the moment.

[Mr Hayes]

Q On this insurance issue, there has been quite a lot of speculation about what might happen to the products that the industry offers, which will clearly have to evolve. We were told that again this morning. Is it your estimation that that will affect premiums? One would expect premiums to fall, given the fact that these cars will be safer; many of your claims are related to human error, after all. Is that how you see things developing? However, we are also told that many people who cannot currently drive will now be able to—the infirm, the elderly, some disabled people. In a way, that is the most exciting thing about this development. How would that affect your assessment of premiums?

Ben Howarth: On the first case, I would think of it more in terms of claims costs than actually speculating on what the premiums would be. Obviously, if the number of accidents comes down dramatically, that is going to have a significant impact on the costs that insurers face. Motor insurance is very competitive, and it is inevitable that, if we see a significant reduction in costs, we will see a significant reduction in the premiums charged. So I think we can be pretty confident of that. As far as we know, it is still four or five years before these products will come to market.

Looking ahead to the cars you are referring to, where, say, there is a severely disabled person who possibly cannot drive at all at the moment, we are probably thinking about a level 5 car that can go from A to B in fully autonomous mode. It is fair to say that this legislation is primarily aimed at cars that will be manual for some of the time, automated for the rest: more of a level 4 car. Once you get to level 5, that is probably the point at which the insurance system is going to have to change more significantly.

Where the Bill is really helpful is that it allows us to learn from the first developments, get an insurance function in place and see that that system works. It is probable that we are going to have to evolve further once we get to a fully automated car. David Williams, who was one of your witnesses this morning, is one of the insurers involved in trials of fully automated technology. There is a significant degree of interest from insurers in the next generation of technology as well; but it is probably fair to say that this Bill is more around a level 4 car. I prefer to think of it as a binary distinction between automated and not-automated. I am not completely convinced about the levels and how useful they will be for consumers. It is probably fair to say that we think of it as level 4.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

It makes up about 50% of insurance profits in the UK.

Ben Howarth: I am sure that individual insurers will look at the potential impact on other parts of the market, but we have not.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Returning to the issue of software, clause 4 devotes a lot of attention to when insurers will not be picking up the can—something that we are familiar with. Can you say a little bit about how you are expecting software to be updated? What is the process for doing that? We all update our phones; we plug them in and press “install”, and the phone tells us when it is done. What is the current state of knowledge? Where are we, scientifically, on achieving that?

Linked to that, what responsibilities should there be on manufacturers to provide updates and tell the owners or users of vehicles that those updates have to be made? As I read it, there is nothing in the Bill that places any obligations on manufacturers to do that. A lot of time is devoted to when the software has not been updated, but where is the principal obligation for the manufacturer to do it? There are a lot of questions, but I am wondering whether that loops back to the definition and whether that needs attention to ensure that we have addressed the obligation. So how is it done and what are the obligations on the manufacturer?

Iain Forbes: Those are good questions. To answer the second one first, what is important about this Bill is that it is looking just at the insurance regime for these vehicles. It will have to work in concert with other parts of the law, including the system by which vehicles are approved for sale. You might imagine that if vehicles that operated automated systems were to be approved for sale there would be a close look at what would be necessary to ensure that the systems were updated where necessary to take account of any changes that were important to ensure safety.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Have we got this the wrong way around, then? Surely you have to establish how something happens before you start dealing with its insurance consequences. This is putting the cart before the horse, isn’t it?

Iain Forbes: We are focusing on this now because this is an area where in consultation people told us that it was important to set out a framework now to allow insurers and manufacturers to have those discussions about what might be necessary to inform the products that come to market when these vehicles do in four or five years’ time. In the meantime, we need to be working very hard to ensure that the appropriate approval regime for these vehicles is also in place. The vehicles will not come to market without that, so this will have to work in concert with another part of the law, which will say how these vehicles will be approved for sale.

Ben Howarth: If I can add one other thing, I think that the Bill is intended to do a new thing by protecting someone who is in the driving seat as, because they are not in control of the vehicle at the time of the incident, they are being treated as a victim. If they have done something to the car that means that they are responsible for the accident—perhaps they have not maintained it properly—it is reasonable to put it into their insurance policy that that is not something that they could claim for, as they would not be a victim. That is what these policies are broadly intended to do. I take your point that we absolutely need to define what updates need to be made and who is responsible for them, but if you turn it the other way by insuring the person in the driving seat and ensuring that they can claim if they are injured, the situation changes if they caused their own injuries.

[Andy McDonald]

Q If we are getting into a discussion on clause 4 about failures to update software, where is your starting point? You are basically telling me, “Ah, we’ll do that somewhere else separately. We will have to get those regulations on board.” All that I am suggesting is that that is out of sync and we should be looking at the processes first, at least for what we are expecting, before we start dealing with the insurance consequences.

Iain Forbes: To answer the first part of your question about how this is done, that is likely to develop over time as new systems come to market. It is already the case that some manufacturers upgrade software systems by asking customers to take their vehicles to a dealer and some do it over the air, in a similar way to how a phone is updated, for example. That is an area that is currently the subject of international discussions, and indeed the UK is co-chairing the international regulatory group that is having a look at how over-the-air updates will function in future.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Really, what the manufacturer would say is that if a vehicle has not been updated for one reason or another, or if they discover some other technical reason to shut it down, they will make sure that vehicle does not shift. Is it within the contemplation of the industry to take it that far?

Iain Forbes: What we need is systems that are transparent to people who are using them and that provide appropriate protections so that they feel confident using them. That is part of the discussion that we are having internationally at the moment.

[Kit Malthouse]

Q I have a couple of questions. We have a problem in this country with uninsured cars. Given that these cars are likely to be connected to the matrix in some way, do you think that it would be sensible for the Government to take a power to require that the car has to check whether it is insured before it moves? When I go and buy my tax disc, the system checks that the car is insured before it allows me to do so. Should these cars be required to do the same?

Iain Forbes: We are at too early a stage in the development of the technology to be able to consider that, but it is certainly something we could look at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

Q Good afternoon, gentlemen. Could you help me with the issue of shining or directing a laser at a vehicle? The Bill as drafted states that it will be an offence to direct

“a laser beam at a vehicle which is in the course of a journey, and…the laser beam dazzles or distracts a person with control of the vehicle.”

I am concerned about that, because I have never flown a plane and I have never, to my knowledge, had a laser shined at me. I am just thinking the matter through. Is that the totality of the thing that concerns you all, or are there other instances short of being dazzled or distracted that would cause you concern and cause you to think that something ought to be an offence? Also, although such an activity may have taken place, the driver or person in control of the vehicle might have no knowledge whatsoever of it having happened. I do not understand the experience. Does someone who is in control of a vehicle experience it only when their eyes are actually dazzled, or is there another perception of the event having taken place?

Steve Landells: From a British airline pilots’ point of view, our main concern is the distraction as well as the dazzle. As it stands, the dazzle has to be part of the offence. Our view is that it would be better to have the offence being just the pointing of a laser at a vehicle, because from an aviation point of view, if you cannot prove the dazzle and distraction—if it is not reported or the police do not know where the aircraft is going—you may not end up with the second part of that offence.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Would you even have to know that it has happened for an offence to have taken place?

Steve Landells: From our point of view in BALPA, no. It is about the act of shining a laser at the aircraft. If we see it, it will be reported, but if we do not see it, we would still like to see an offence there. The problem is that as the power of lasers gets greater and greater, there is a higher chance of injury occurring.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Thank you for that. Does anybody else want to comment on that aspect of this offence?

Paul Watts: From a helicopter perspective, again the dazzle and the distraction are the main concern, especially as helicopters operate in a much lower-level environment than airliners, and we rely on flying visually and visually avoiding other aircraft, buildings and obstructions. We also share the concern about the power of lasers and the frequency range—the fact that it may be possible in the future to have lasers that are not even visible. Again, we would like to see it being about somebody attempting to shine a laser at an aircraft, rather than having to show that it dazzled and distracted the pilot.

Martin Drake: It is possible to sustain an injury from a highly collimated laser—one where the beam is very narrow. It is possible to sustain an injury from that laser without having the dazzle and distract element. If it comes through your aircraft windscreen at a 90° angle, the dazzle and distract can be reduced, but if the pilot were to have that go into his eye, he could get retinal damage without getting the dazzle and distract element. I would say that that was fairly rare at the moment, but as the power of the lasers goes up and the frequency of the lasers changes, that is a concern that we have.

Simon Bray: Obviously the dazzling and distracting is the effect on the driver, pilot or whoever is in the cab. That is where the harm and the potential danger are. As well as having a victim, the legislation enables us to investigate more readily to prove an offence. If it were merely in the general direction of a vehicle, that would be more tricky to prove unless we were at the other end of that particular laser and had an opportunity to get into more of an investigation at that end of it.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Although we are not specifically restricting this discussion to aviation, because it could be another vessel, I think BALPA has suggested in evidence to the Committee that it is equally important and significant when lasers are shone at air traffic control towers. Have we got a history of that happening? Is it a significant risk? Would you prefer to see the legislation embrace air traffic control towers, rather than just vehicles, as currently described?

Martin Drake: There certainly is history of it in the USA, and I can think of a couple of times in the UK where a laser has been shone at the air traffic control tower. For an air traffic controller working the tower—that is the control bit that does the final approach and the controlling of the aircraft as they depart, so it is within close proximity of the airport—most of that is done visually. If his or her eyes were to be affected, it could reduce their capability of seeing aircraft close to the airport. They would then have to come off duty and be replaced fairly rapidly. It is not as common as shining at aircraft, but it does happen.

Steve Landells: Can I expand on that slightly? It depends on the airport’s procedures, but I know of one airport where, if a laser is shone at the visual control tower, they take the visual controllers out of that tower. You effectively shut down the airfield.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am sorry; what did you say?

Steve Landells: They take the visual controllers out of the tower to protect them, and if that happens, the airport is effectively shut down.

[Andy McDonald]

Q What do you think should be happening to better control the availability of the devices themselves? What restrictions would you prefer to see in place to stop the devices being acquired?

Simon Bray: There have been discussions about whether to deal with some of these items as offensive weapons. Clearly, if there is an intent to shine and to harm someone’s eyesight with one of these devices, you can deal with them in that way, provided you get the evidence behind it that demonstrates possession of an offensive weapon with intent to cause harm; likewise if you assault someone with a laser. The difficulty is investigating and proving those instances.

What the Bill does do is provide blanket legislation that is suitably serious—more so than the different sorts of legislation that we are having to use at the moment. It is an advance on what we have currently got. I definitely take the point that were we to have additional powers restricting sale and possession, it would be easier for us to deal with things before they take place.

Richard Goodwin: Colleagues I have been working with in the Department for Transport are working with colleagues in the Department responsible for business employment, looking at potential import restrictions and some of the issues around how we control the sale of some of these lasers. That work has been going on for seven or eight years, and during that time the availability and power of lasers has increased and the cost has come down. There is a Department looking at that control now, and clearly we support that.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Finally, changing tack totally, can the police officers help me with an unrelated matter in the Bill about diversionary courses for road traffic offenders? Have you come prepared to speak about that at all? Could you give some indication of your experience of those courses, how effective they are and, just as importantly, the evidence base that you may or may not have on whether they are effective and reduce repeat offending? Are you able to comment on that?

Simon Bray: It is not my area of expertise and I have never had to undergo one of those courses myself. There is a good look at diversionary methods at the moment. There are certainly plans to streamline the various diversionary methods and out-of-court disposals around the country. Clearly, that would fit in that overall picture, but it is not specifically traffic.

[Mr Hayes]

Q As you know, gentlemen, the CAA says that many of the incidents involving lasers are unreported and it is probable that there are many more than those of which we currently know. Is it your view that it is a growing problem? How do you think the proposed legislation will help with reporting? If you think it does not do enough, what more could it do?

Paul Watts: I am from the National Police Air Service and we saw it as a growing problem, probably about three or four years ago. Over the last three years, we have averaged out at about 100 incidents a year, so it seems to have plateaued somewhat, but it has gone from a low level to a very high level. We would welcome any legislation that makes it easier to catch an offender, but we would also still like to see a reduction in the availability.

We did see a tailing off of offences after the first few prosecutions for endangering an aircraft came into play. Over London, there was a reduction in the number of times a laser was used and less of the casual targeting of an aircraft. That seems to have tailed off and we seem to be back to a level of use that seems fairly stable and fairly high. On average, about 100 offences a year are reported through our safety system.

Simon Bray: I do not know whether Richard wishes to comment on the Met figures.

Richard Goodwin: We took a view that this matter was so serious that, despite the fact that it is not currently a reportable and recordable offence under Home Office counting rules—the legislation will change that—on 1 April last year we started reporting all lasers reported to us as crimes in London. I know that colleagues in Scotland have done the same thing. Across the year, we are averaging around 100 to 120 incidents within London being reported to us. The CAA figures are slightly higher.

Colleagues from BALPA did a survey of their members, which indicates that the figures are drastically underreported. We can get into the reasons for that, but some of it could be the perception that as pilots they were not being treated as victims and the matter was not being taken seriously. The legislation will give the degree of gravity that we think the offence deserves and it will have an impact on the aviation community, pilots and captains. It will show them that we as the police will take it seriously, because we will have a consistent recording of all offences, particularly across aviation.

Richard Moriarty: We at the Civil Aviation Authority would strongly support the measures. Our figures show that laser incidents are at about 1,500 a year. That is probably an underestimate, for reasons that have been suggested by other panel members. To put that in perspective, that is three or four incidents a day in and around UK airports. We have talked before about injury to pilots and often these attacks are during their peak workload—either landing or take off, in and around airports—so there is a real aviation and public safety aspect, which it is very important to get right. We would strongly support it for those reasons.

Beyond the Bill, we are interested in continuing to work with other authorities and Departments on other measures to complement this, whether through import controls or working with the police on offensive weapons. The good news is that the provisions in the Bill will send a very strong signal that we all take this risk very seriously.