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.