Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

9. Whether his Department can prevent a rail operating company from bidding to retain its franchise as a result of that company’s performance.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

All franchise operators are required to obtain a pre-qualification passport. The Department may suspend or withdraw a passport in the event that the passport holder triggers certain requirements within the passport application. This would place restrictions on or remove the passport holder from bidding for franchise competitions.

[Clive Efford]

I take it from that answer that it is possible for the Secretary of State to deny an existing franchise holder the right to rebid in a new tendering process. Govia, which has had the south eastern franchise for a long time, has consistently been a poor performer, so can he remove Govia from the service? If it were to get the franchise, what guarantees can he give to my constituents that they will get the improved service that they deserve?

[Chris Grayling]

In the case of the south eastern franchise, we will accept the bid that is going to deliver the best possible outcome for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, with longer trains and better services. This is a competitive process. I will not hesitate to remove a passport from a firm when that is required. I also have to operate within European procurement law—something that the Labour party is still very keen on—and that requires me to take a proportionate approach. I will always seek to do that and I will always seek to operate within the law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

At present, bus drivers must undertake licensing training to ensure that they are able to deal with people with not just visible disabilities but invisible disabilities such as sight loss. They cannot obtain their competency certificates without that training. I will ensure that the issue is followed up at local authority level, and if there is a gap, I shall be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to ensure that it is dealt with.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I recently undertook a journey on our Bexleyheath line service with a disabled person who was using a wheelchair, to demonstrate how inconvenient it will be when the Victoria line link is removed with the new franchise. She would then have to change at Lewisham, and she says that she would not undertake that journey. Is it right that we are designing disabled people out of our rail service? Will the Minister implore her colleagues to change their minds?

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this. It is not acceptable, but I believe that it is going to be addressed later on down the line at Charing Cross. I refer, too, to my earlier response: all train operating companies have to comply with the disabled people’s protection policy, and if they are unable to, they have to provide alternative transport for the passenger, such as an accessible taxi to the next station. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case, I will be more than happy to follow it up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

TfL has clearly demonstrated its ability to run efficient services and improve them in London, so will the Secretary of State enter into negotiations with the Mayor of London about south eastern suburban services before my constituents are forced to endure yet another bungled privatisation?

[Chris Grayling]

The first thing to remind the hon. Gentleman of is that London Overground is also a franchise—Labour always conveniently forgets that. It is run by Arriva. The other thing to say is that the document we published yesterday on the new south eastern franchise involves far greater additional benefits for passengers than was ever the case in the Mayor’s business plan for that franchise. The last point to make is that I have extended to TfL and the Mayor the same offer that I made and is now in force in the north for a partnership in operating, designing and managing the franchise, but that offer is yet to be accepted.

Rail Update

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

My constituents are used to travelling on trains where there is a link between those who run the track and those who run the rolling stock, but that body is the publicly run Transport for London, and the Secretary of State refuses to allow it to have anything to do with the south-eastern franchise based on the fact that we have a Labour Mayor. My constituents deserve better than his petty political grievances. Will he allow TfL to demonstrate that it is capable of running the franchise more efficiently than the private sector has done hitherto?

[Chris Grayling]

I would make two points. First, Transport for London does not run the track and the trains. The trains are run as part of a franchise by Arriva. Secondly, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that what we have outlined today—more services and longer trains on the south-eastern line—is a lot better than what TfL offered in its business plan. My concern is to deliver a better service for his constituents rather than unnecessary political shuffling.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Seventh sitting)

Clive Efford Excerpts

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

[Alan Brown]

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

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

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

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

(2) These regulations must make provision for—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I want to add one or two words to what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not know whether it is sensible to try to address this in regulations under the Bill, whether it is better to leave it to the courts to settle, or whether some other legislation is necessary, but the hon. Gentleman’s point, although it has its analogue in existing practice, is very serious. Of course there are effectively already convoys on motorways when they are very busy, with somebody at the head of it and, some miles behind, me chugging along in my car. All sorts of complicated things happen, and I am sure that the Minister will be advised to assure the Committee that the courts and insurers already have mechanisms for resolving between them how everything works, and that in principle it makes no difference whether an automated vehicle driving itself or a human-driven vehicle is at the head of the queue.

I see that point entirely, but the difference is that that only happens from time to time on our motorways at the moment. Although it is not at all certain, it is quite likely that motorways will turn into automated, semi-autonomous trains, and that people will basically go onto the motorway and lock into a system which they are then part of, perhaps then travelling hundreds of miles in convoy. The convoys themselves may be hundreds of miles long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Given that it is not our intention for platooning to be self-driving at this stage—the trials I am about to describe do not include autonomous vehicles—it seems that in allowing us to have this brief debate, Sir Edward, your generosity knows very few bounds indeed. None the less, it is a helpful debate.

As the hon. Member for Eltham knows, we started platooning trials in August. We are adopting a highly consultative approach, and the trials are ongoing. The hon. Gentleman is right that we will need to consider a range of issues not necessarily directly related to the Bill but not unconnected from it, one of which might be the gradual addition of autonomous vehicles into the platooning mode, as it were—that way of driving.

There are potential benefits to platooning, particularly for the movement of goods nationally, which is why we are trialling it. I accept that the insurance issues will need to be considered very carefully for reasons set out by the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. As a result of this very useful though short debate, I will be happy to ensure that we include in the consultation discussions with the insurance industry in anticipation of the addition of autonomous vehicles into the platooning field. It will, of course, already be considering the insurance issues relating to non-autonomous vehicles that are platooning. That is implicitly part of what that consultation is about. I am happy to commit to including autonomous vehicles in that.

I obviously cannot comment on individual cases; it would be quite wrong to do so. It is right to say that as an insurance framework develops from the Bill it must be sufficient to take into account the arguments made in the new clause. I will certainly ensure that that message is transmitted not only from this Committee but from the Government. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Eltham will withdraw the new clause.

[Clive Efford]

The Minister is in an extremely generous mood this morning. I am reassured by his comments that he will take these matters on board and consult on them in the future. There are some important issues here, but I am satisfied by what he has said, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16

Sharing of data to resolve liability disputes

“(1) Where an accident occurs under sections 2, 3 or 4, the insurer and other interested parties have the right to acquire data from the automated vehicle for the purpose of determining the extent of liability.

(2) The Secretary of State must set out in regulations a system for handling and sharing data generated in respect of accidents involving automated vehicles.

(3) These regulations must make provision for—

(a) the format and content of the data recorded by automated vehicles,

(b) identifying who is responsible for data collection,

(c) identifying which interested parties have the right to acquire data from the automated vehicle,

(d) how such data may be acquired by the insurer and other interested parties, and

(e) any limitation that should be placed on how that data can be shared or used.

(4) Prior to making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

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

(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section, that is not the first such instrument made under this section, is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”—(Karl Turner.)

This new clause would ensure that insurers and other interested parties have access to automated vehicle data for the purpose of resolving disputes on the extent of liability where an accident has occurred. This clause would give the Secretary of State power to make regulations on how such data should be handled and shared.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Karl Turner]

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

The new clause will ensure that insurers and other interested parties have access to automated vehicle data for the purpose of resolving disputes on the extent of liability when an accident event has occurred. The clause will give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations on how such data should be handled and shared.

An automated vehicle is likely to produce huge amounts of data on such things as car location, traffic information, weather information, its route, passenger information and even the parcels that it carries, if used commercially by a courier. Clearly, there are huge advantages to vehicles producing that data when resolving disputes on the extent of liability—for example, increasing the speed and quality of decisions. The data will be a valuable source of information for the insurer and other interested parties.

There are risks. The information gathered by the vehicles might be sensitive; information that needs to be kept private could be damaging if placed in the wrong hands. It is important that the Government ensure that the gathered data is secure, private and accessed only by relevant authorised parties.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (First sitting)

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Hayes]

As I say, the hon. Gentleman is a veteran of many Committees. We have rarely crossed swords, but we have certainly waved swords at each other from time to time. He makes a sound point which is precisely why we would need to address a range of those issues in further regulation. At this juncture, I do not think we can think about adding that to the Bill. I know he did not say we should, but he did say that we should think about those matters and look at how they relate to this Bill subsequently. He is absolutely right.

At the risk of opening up a new avenue for discussion—I hesitate to do that because I know we want to make reasonably rapid progress today—the hon. Gentleman might also have raised the issue of the interface between the driver and the road, and the technology on the road. As we move towards smarter roads, there will be an increasingly close relationship between the information received in the car from outside, as well as the information that is at hand within the vehicle. That is another area where there will be a connection to automated vehicles. We are already seeing the regular use of gantries across roads that provide information. The interaction between that information, the car, and the information that is available locally will, over time, become an increasing feature of driving.

This is another area in which regulation will—in exactly the way the hon. Gentleman described—need to address how that works for automated vehicles. The assurance I give him and others is that we recognise these challenges, we anticipate further work, we know that work is ongoing and it will be set out, both in the formation of international standards for a type-approval process that I mentioned, and in the regulation we will introduce that matches that development.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I would like to take the Minister back to his comment that this Bill was designed to protect insurers against drivers who fail, or refuse, to upgrade the software on their vehicles. I think that what he really meant to say was that the Bill is here to protect the consumer, and that unless the consumer is acting wilfully and refuses to upgrade the car, they cannot be held responsible, and the insurers cannot use this Bill to wiggle out of their responsibilities and paying whatever they are responsible for. The Minister is aware is that his comments, which go on record in this Committee, could be used to interpret an intent behind the legislation, so how we describe things is important.

[Mr Hayes]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

When the Minister sums up at the end of the debate, will he say how he envisages this provision working in practice? An accident occurs, and an injured party is making a claim; the aim of this Bill is to ensure that people are paid out speedily, but the clause describes a process that could be long and drawn out. How does that protect the consumer? Who pays in the first instance? As we have already heard in several debates around this Bill, we are adding more people who could have liability. Because of software upgrades, we are now including the manufacturers—the people who actually design the software. There is no requirement in the Bill for those writing the software to have their own insurance, should their software fail, so where do they come into this process? How do we ensure speedy pay-outs to the consumer when we have an increasingly complex network of people who may have liability in the aftermath of an accident? This clause seems to set out a labyrinth of different permutations that could arise in terms of liability, and that could take some time to resolve. Could the Minister say what is in the Department’s mind and how this will speed matters up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

I understand that better myself now, but do I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying? The person in the vehicle is the one insured and, in the first instance, it is their insurance that would pay out. If the vehicle is found to be at fault, whether it is automated or under that person’s control, they would pay out in the first instance, and subsequently the discussion we had on the previous clause would apply, where there is a sorting out of who is actually responsible—the manufacturer, the software designer, the driver of the vehicle or of the other vehicle. That will be sorted out following the initial payment from the driver of the vehicle that is found at fault.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I was following the hon. Gentleman until the very last words he spoke, because I think he means payment from the insurer of the driver, rather than from the driver.

[Clive Efford]

Yes.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

In that case, my answer is yes. As I understand it now, I think, the insurer who has insured the person who is sitting in the driving seat will pay the third party who has been damaged in the accident, regardless of whether the person sitting in the driving seat is driving the car or the car is driving itself. That is also regardless of whether the person sitting in the driving seat is the owner of the car, insured as the owner to drive that car, or is not the owner but is insured under some other policy to drive that car. In any of those cases—whether automated or not; whether the policy covers other cars or that car—the insurer of the person sitting in the driving seat at all times is liable to third parties, and then the insurer claims from whoever it wants to claim from, and is able to claim from in court, after the fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman’s specific question is about private and public land. The Bill and the products that emerge after it is enacted will follow the Road Traffic Act, which is clear about public roads and other public places. I see no distinction between what we have before us and what is in law now. Because I am not intoxicated by the exuberance of my own verbosity, I will end there.

[Clive Efford]

I did not hear the Minister—I must have missed it—respond to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East and the issue of hacking. We are discussing amendment 14, are we not, Mr Bailey?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The hon. Gentleman can decide whether he wishes to make his comments then or whether they would be more appropriate later.

[Clive Efford]

Are we discussing amendment 14?

[The Chair]

Yes.

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East has raised an important point. There might be a whole new area of insurance with clauses in the small print of an insurance policy that require people to be covered in the event of an automated vehicle being hacked. If the manufacturer and the designer of the software that drives the automated vehicle, and the insured party who is in control of the vehicle or in the vehicle—I am not sure whether we can say in control of the vehicle now—have all taken reasonable steps to prevent hacking and the software is hacked in some way, and that affects the vehicle’s operation and causes an accident, liability inevitably falls back on the person in the vehicle at the time of the accident, as set out by the right hon. Member for West Dorset.

I can foresee a circumstance where insurers say, “Every reasonable step has been taken to prevent hacking of this vehicle, so the manufacturer of the vehicle cannot be held liable, and nor can the people who wrote the software. It is unlucky, but it is your responsibility as the driver of the vehicle, because your vehicle has been hacked and has caused an accident.” It seems a considerable liability could be taken on by drivers. We have heard a lot about the safety aspect of automated vehicles, which is bound to reduce the number of accidents and therefore the number of claims, but what we can see here is a whole new area of insurance opening up where there are different sorts of claim being made as a consequence.

I think it is reasonable of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East to table an amendment requiring every step to be taken to protect the vehicles from hacking. It is right that it should be in the Bill because we need to protect consumers from that potential liability. What is the Department’s thinking? What consideration has it given to vehicles being hacked and liability in such circumstances? What are “reasonable steps” to prevent it happening? We all know that even though we have the highest level of security to protect the software or computers from being hacked, they still are. We have seen numerous examples in recent times, not least the successful hacking of some very high security systems, so we can imagine that this will present a challenge for some of those people who undergo that sort of criminal activity. It could put lives at risk and open people up to considerable liability, so I wonder what the Government’s thinking is about that.

[Mr Hayes]

Let me see if I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman by way of a brief intervention. I will then respond, as he invited me, to the shadow Minister when he comes to the new clause. The critical thing is to understand that an autonomous vehicle will, in practice, be a combination of sophisticated software and technology—the mechanical components of the car and the software that drives it. If the vehicle is deemed to be liable for an accident, that might be as a result of its software being faulty or because of a mechanical failure. From the perspective of those affected by the accident, that is immaterial because even if the software had been hacked the autonomous vehicle would still be responsible; the consumer’s position does not change. The consumer is protected, as it were, from the reasons why the autonomous vehicle was responsible and whether it might be as a result of a fault in the software.

[Clive Efford]

If I have followed the Minister correctly, and it is distinctly possible that I have not, the situation I am describing is slightly different. He says that there will be a vehicle that is at fault, that the person who is insured to be in the vehicle will pay out initially, and that there will then be consideration of who is liable.

[Mr Hayes]

Yes.

[Clive Efford]

That is fine, but if the vehicle has been hacked, the person paying out initially is opened up to a liability even though they are not at fault because they took all reasonable steps to prevent such hacking. However, no one else accepts responsibility because they too took reasonable steps to prevent the vehicle from being hacked. It is not unreasonable to require in the Bill that every measure be taken to prevent the liability from falling back on the insured person, whose vehicle has caused the accident even though they were not at fault. How do we ensure that the liability is not dumped on the consumer?

There is also the issue of the vehicles communicating with each other. If they are hacked and are communicating duff information, who will be responsible? Considerable liability could fall on consumers. Their vehicle is the cause of the accident but they are not responsible for it because of hacking. However, they are ultimately deemed responsible because no one else will accept responsibility.

[Mr Hayes]

I will make the point more emphatically; I was perhaps being a bit too understated. Understatement is a problem I constantly struggle with, as my right hon. and hon. Friends know.

The simple fact of the matter is that if the autonomous vehicle is “responsible” for the accident, and its software is at fault, whether that fault be caused by malevolence or some failure, the consumer’s interest will be unaltered. In the Bill, the consumer is protected in the way I have described, regardless of why the vehicle was at fault. That will then be a matter to determine during the course of the events, but it will not affect the person or persons affected by the accident.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

rose—

[Clive Efford]

I give way to the right hon. Member for West Dorset.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I think this is a conversation somewhat at cross-purposes. Use of the term “consumer” by the Minister is confusing the issue. Let us distinguish between the injured party and the insured party. The injured party is protected in the way my right hon. Friend the Minister and I have described, and the hon. Member for Eltham, my right hon. Friend and I are all in agreement that that is okay.

The hon. Gentleman is asking about the insured party. He is really asking whether anybody will be willing to buy an autonomous vehicle level 4 or 5 under circumstances in which, having taken out the insurance policy, the insurer then discovers that they are liable to some injured party. Then, having paid out to the injured party—tick—they come back to the insured party and say “Because the manufacturer had taken reasonable steps and because the hacking went on despite that, and because nobody including the manufacturer is responsible, and because your insurance policy excludes—you may not have noticed this—in the small print a hacked case, you, O insured party, are now responsible.” I hope I am correctly interpreting the hon. Gentleman.

[Clive Efford]

indicated assent.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Yes, good. He is raising a serious point. I do not know whether it is about the Bill, but it is certainly a serious point about what the Bill is trying to achieve, which is to get to a situation where people buy autonomous vehicles because they are able and willing to insure themselves to own them and drive them. They would not be if they thought this was a realistic possibility. Somehow, that problem needs to be solved, whether in the Bill or otherwise.

[Clive Efford]

Again, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have a feeling of déjà vu because he is putting my points better than I can. I have little to add to that. There is an issue there that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East has raised in his amendment that the Government should go away and consider.

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

It strikes me that there is potentially a grey area between the software company and their design and the hacker and where the responsibility begins and ends, and how any court or technical expertise will be able to determine where ultimate responsibility lies. A software company could readily say “We designed it. We were perfectly happy with it and there were all these protections and safeguards in place,” and they will blame the hacker, but who can determine if it was down to a hacker or the failing of the software designs? I just throw that out because sometimes these things are very difficult to determine and I am not sure where the responsibilities lie.

[Clive Efford]

I will finish on this point and I will not take much more of the Committee’s time. The Bill is designed to ensure that the injured party is paid out swiftly in the event of an accident, with blame subsequently apportioned either through agreement or by a court. In this case, however, there is another consumer—the insured party—who could be open to enormous liabilities through no fault of their own where nobody else can be found to be at fault because they have taken all reasonable steps. There is a grey area, as my hon. Friend has just said, where the Government need to go away and give that some further consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

The Minister says that the Bill is not the appropriate place for us to legislate on that, but that is exactly what new clause 18 says. It says that consultation should happen separately from the legislation and really only sets the timescale. On that basis, will he accept new clause 18?

[Mr Hayes]

I charged my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset earlier with being the hon. Gentleman’s spokesman and interpreter, but now the hon. Gentleman has put the boot on the other foot. He added further sophistication to my right hon. Friend’s argument in his last contribution. He is right that the Bill begins to address this issue; the point I was making is that, given the ongoing work I described through the agencies I mentioned, it would not be right to set that out in further detail in the Bill. I am arguing against an addition to the Bill, rather than what is in the Bill already.

There is another aspect to this that I want to add. It is very important that we work internationally. Of course, many of the manufacturers are, by their nature, multinational organisations that therefore work across national boundaries. We talked earlier about the development of standards, and how that is happening at UN level and as a result of international dialogue. There is an international dialogue as well on cyber-security, and it is important that we marry our conversations on vehicle standards with our conversations on cyber-security, to ensure a synergous approach to the two.

With those commitments, that absolute assurance of the Government’s understanding of the significance of this matter and my heartfelt support for the strength of the argument made by the shadow Minister and my right hon. Friend, I am delighted that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will not push his amendment to a vote. We will report back further as time goes on. I will commission the work across Government and, as I have said, I will make available to the Committee some of the documents we have already published.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Sixth sitting)

Clive Efford Excerpts

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

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, and one might say, paradoxically, that the challenge is both urban and rural. In many urban areas, people may not have convenient roadside parking, while in many rural areas people may live remote from main arterial routes and therefore major retailers. The Bill mentions major retailers, and I want to deal with that in greater detail. The point was made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun in considering the previous incarnation of the Bill—the first Bill that dealt with these matters, which never came to fruition because of the general election—that rural areas in the north of England and Scotland and elsewhere could be disadvantaged if charging points are focused on main routes and urban places. I want to deal with that in my remarks and the subsequent actions I take.

The hon. Member for Hyndburn is right that there is a technical challenge in making sure that the infrastructure is in place to deliver the charging points. There is also the planning challenge. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset describes the efforts of Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea as just the beginning. Those were not his words, but I want to ensure that no one felt he was being critical of those brave local authorities.

Yesterday, I met the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and discussed this with him. In two respects, planning is critical. It is very important that we ensure that, first, electric car charging points are part of any application for new housing—an implicit part of new developments—and secondly, in respect of local authorities, we achieve greater consistency in the provision of charging points for the very reason that my right hon. Friend gave. The numbers involved require all local authorities to consider them and act on those considerations, or we simply will not get enough charging points—or, just as seriously, we may get them clustered in certain places and absent in others. That will not build the confidence we require to encourage the purchase and use of electric vehicles.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I agree with the principle that we need to expand the infrastructure as quickly as possible to create the space for the development of these vehicles. However, when we legislate for these things, as we must, there is the risk of hidden consequences. For instance, in an area where there is a high demand for kerbside parking spaces, particularly in central London, if these parking spaces are exclusive to electric vehicles that reduces the number of spaces for other road users. That may be one of the reasons why some of the boroughs in central London are resistant to creating large numbers of spaces, because they are going to lose the revenue from the car parking on the kerbside and the parking meters. These are the hidden consequences and we have to consider how we roll this out, because it could inconvenience a great many people. It certainly would in my constituency.

[Mr Hayes]

Yes. It is possible, as the hon. Gentleman says, that there could be contradictory needs, and incentives and disincentives such as those which he describes. We need to be careful about how we put in place those additional requests and requirements. That is about the conversation we will have with the Department for Communities and Local Government. I am writing to the Secretary of State as a direct result of my conversation with him about this yesterday evening. I knew the Committee would want to know about it and I made sure I had it before we met today. I anticipated that the Committee would want reassurance, which I am now ready to offer, that I intend to take this as far as we need to go. This would be done not only by taking these pretty extensive powers, which allow us to make regulations to ensure the easy accessibility of charge points to a common access method as a minimum, but also through the work of other Government Departments. I include BIS, where I used to be a Minister—now called BEIS—and DCLG.

--- Later in debate ---

I have mentioned previously, and am happy to cement today into our consideration, the idea of a competition. We will launch a competition in December for an iconic design for publicly accessible electric vehicle charging points, which would be widely deployable across the United Kingdom. We have already attracted the interest of the Royal College of Art, the National Transport Design Centre and the Design Council, with whom we have had early meetings. I will describe the competition in greater detail when I launch it but it will happen in concert with and alongside the progress of the Bill, and certainly before the Bill fulfils its destiny and becomes a landmark Act, for which we will all take some credit, Sir Edward. I want the design competition to be launched and advanced, if not completed, by then.

[Clive Efford]

I welcome that competition. May I suggest that, if the points are to be easily distinguishable, they should be bright golden? If they were named after the Minister, they could be known as the bright golden Hayes. If one were put in a meadow, even better.

[Mr Hayes]

The Hayes hooks, as I think they were dubbed by a former Member of this House, now gone on to other—I will not say greater—things, are my only hope of emulating my predecessor Leslie Hore-Belisha with his beacons. I do see myself as a beacon, as you know, Sir Edward, and my charging points would be a lovely contribution to posterity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

I was going to speak on this matter under the next clause, but it seems more relevant to this debate, so I will get it out of the way. Clauses 9 and 10 overlap.

My starting point is this: why are we taking powers in clause 10 that impose requirements but are not imposing requirements in other areas? The Government have to go away and come up with an overall strategy that involves DCLG and BEIS in planning how to roll out charging points in a variety of places. Clause 10 refers to large fuel retailers, but in a sense their sites are not a logical place for vehicles to park for long periods. We will need charging points in more realistic, more strategic places where people park for long periods, which is large retail outlets and other sites. For instance, in workplaces we could put a surcharge on parking spaces that do not have electrical charging points, which could be hypothecated back into a grant that would allow businesses—

[The Chair]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman try to stick reasonably close to the amendment?

[Clive Efford]

It is about extending the number of charging places, Mr Leigh. We could look at a strategic approach from the Government.

[Matt Western]

One of the interesting things that came out of the evidence, particularly from the likes of National Grid and others, was the challenges they face in particular in their dealings with developers, whether it be for commercial or residential property, and the fact that they are very much driven by the price or cost envelope that they are being driven to. As the right hon. Member for West Dorset described, they were saying at the meeting—or perhaps afterwards, in the evidence—that they will only put in the minimal amount of cabling that is necessary. They are not thinking strategically; they are not forward-thinking, because they are commercial and are working within a budget envelope. That is why I believe this has to be mandated and we have to take that responsibility in this.

[Clive Efford]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the charging point operators need to have their toes held to the fire. For instance, we have spoken about the problems that may arise for council tenants who live in a tower block and are unable to access these points. Earlier, the Minister said that if charging points go in they have to be open access, so that anyone who needs a charging point can access one, but that can create problems. We all have parking areas in our constituencies around tower blocks where parking spaces are at a premium and fines are imposed on people who do not live in those properties who go and park there. If we start to lose parking spaces, we can foresee the conflicts that will arise, hence the need for what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Dorset proposed.

We need an explosion of charging points, so that we overcome competition for roadside parking spaces. It may be that we should talk to providers about how we use renewable energy. The top of a tower block could be a wonderful place for a wind turbine feeding into a power point downstairs for charging electric vehicles; perhaps we could make that accessible using the key fob to the tower block, so that the people from the block benefit. If those people are on low incomes, that brings back into play the whole social mobility issue that the Government have mentioned in regard to this Bill in the past.

There is a variety of ways that we need to look at expanding the provision of charging points. It needs to be part of an overall strategy that different Government Departments are signed up to—not just the Department for Transport but DCLG and BEIS. We need a sea change, to bring the benefits of electric vehicles and make a huge impact on the growing problem of air quality that we have to address.

[Mr Hayes]

I will be brief, because I need only to address two matters that have not been covered extensively already. It is absolutely clear what the Government’s intent is and what the Bill does to make that intent binding. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset raised a point about DNOs. All I will say to him is that we will certainly work with Ofgem, and I will facilitate that work as a result of this debate. We have already had conversations, but I will make sure that they are intensified with the network industry. I think that he is right that that must not become a barrier, even with local authorities’ enthusiasm growing, as was illustrated earlier, so I will certainly do that.

As for the point made by the hon. Member for Eltham, I am very happy to consider whatever approach is necessary to ensure that the infrastructure roll-out is as effective as it can be. I am mindful of the circumstances he described of someone who lives in a tower block and cannot get access to a charge point. I talked about the potential disparity between urban and rural areas, but there is also a disparity between people who live in houses with easy access to a street charge point or who have off-street parking or their own parking, and those as he described who may have none of those things. Are we really going to say to those people that they cannot have ready access to electric charge points and therefore remove their incentive to buy an electric vehicle? Of course not. So we certainly need to take his point into account, and we will.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Fifth sitting)

Clive Efford Excerpts

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

[Mr Hayes]

As I say, the hon. Gentleman is a veteran of many Committees. We have rarely crossed swords, but we have certainly waved swords at each other from time to time. He makes a sound point which is precisely why we would need to address a range of those issues in further regulation. At this juncture, I do not think we can think about adding that to the Bill. I know he did not say we should, but he did say that we should think about those matters and look at how they relate to this Bill subsequently. He is absolutely right.

At the risk of opening up a new avenue for discussion—I hesitate to do that because I know we want to make reasonably rapid progress today—the hon. Gentleman might also have raised the issue of the interface between the driver and the road, and the technology on the road. As we move towards smarter roads, there will be an increasingly close relationship between the information received in the car from outside, as well as the information that is at hand within the vehicle. That is another area where there will be a connection to automated vehicles. We are already seeing the regular use of gantries across roads that provide information. The interaction between that information, the car, and the information that is available locally will, over time, become an increasing feature of driving.

This is another area in which regulation will—in exactly the way the hon. Gentleman described—need to address how that works for automated vehicles. The assurance I give him and others is that we recognise these challenges, we anticipate further work, we know that work is ongoing and it will be set out, both in the formation of international standards for a type-approval process that I mentioned, and in the regulation we will introduce that matches that development.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I would like to take the Minister back to his comment that this Bill was designed to protect insurers against drivers who fail, or refuse, to upgrade the software on their vehicles. I think that what he really meant to say was that the Bill is here to protect the consumer, and that unless the consumer is acting wilfully and refuses to upgrade the car, they cannot be held responsible, and the insurers cannot use this Bill to wiggle out of their responsibilities and paying whatever they are responsible for. The Minister is aware is that his comments, which go on record in this Committee, could be used to interpret an intent behind the legislation, so how we describe things is important.

[Mr Hayes]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

When the Minister sums up at the end of the debate, will he say how he envisages this provision working in practice? An accident occurs, and an injured party is making a claim; the aim of this Bill is to ensure that people are paid out speedily, but the clause describes a process that could be long and drawn out. How does that protect the consumer? Who pays in the first instance? As we have already heard in several debates around this Bill, we are adding more people who could have liability. Because of software upgrades, we are now including the manufacturers—the people who actually design the software. There is no requirement in the Bill for those writing the software to have their own insurance, should their software fail, so where do they come into this process? How do we ensure speedy pay-outs to the consumer when we have an increasingly complex network of people who may have liability in the aftermath of an accident? This clause seems to set out a labyrinth of different permutations that could arise in terms of liability, and that could take some time to resolve. Could the Minister say what is in the Department’s mind and how this will speed matters up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

I understand that better myself now, but do I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying? The person in the vehicle is the one insured and, in the first instance, it is their insurance that would pay out. If the vehicle is found to be at fault, whether it is automated or under that person’s control, they would pay out in the first instance, and subsequently the discussion we had on the previous clause would apply, where there is a sorting out of who is actually responsible—the manufacturer, the software designer, the driver of the vehicle or of the other vehicle. That will be sorted out following the initial payment from the driver of the vehicle that is found at fault.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I was following the hon. Gentleman until the very last words he spoke, because I think he means payment from the insurer of the driver, rather than from the driver.

[Clive Efford]

Yes.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

In that case, my answer is yes. As I understand it now, I think, the insurer who has insured the person who is sitting in the driving seat will pay the third party who has been damaged in the accident, regardless of whether the person sitting in the driving seat is driving the car or the car is driving itself. That is also regardless of whether the person sitting in the driving seat is the owner of the car, insured as the owner to drive that car, or is not the owner but is insured under some other policy to drive that car. In any of those cases—whether automated or not; whether the policy covers other cars or that car—the insurer of the person sitting in the driving seat at all times is liable to third parties, and then the insurer claims from whoever it wants to claim from, and is able to claim from in court, after the fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman’s specific question is about private and public land. The Bill and the products that emerge after it is enacted will follow the Road Traffic Act, which is clear about public roads and other public places. I see no distinction between what we have before us and what is in law now. Because I am not intoxicated by the exuberance of my own verbosity, I will end there.

[Clive Efford]

I did not hear the Minister—I must have missed it—respond to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East and the issue of hacking. We are discussing amendment 14, are we not, Mr Bailey?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The hon. Gentleman can decide whether he wishes to make his comments then or whether they would be more appropriate later.

[Clive Efford]

Are we discussing amendment 14?

[The Chair]

Yes.

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East has raised an important point. There might be a whole new area of insurance with clauses in the small print of an insurance policy that require people to be covered in the event of an automated vehicle being hacked. If the manufacturer and the designer of the software that drives the automated vehicle, and the insured party who is in control of the vehicle or in the vehicle—I am not sure whether we can say in control of the vehicle now—have all taken reasonable steps to prevent hacking and the software is hacked in some way, and that affects the vehicle’s operation and causes an accident, liability inevitably falls back on the person in the vehicle at the time of the accident, as set out by the right hon. Member for West Dorset.

I can foresee a circumstance where insurers say, “Every reasonable step has been taken to prevent hacking of this vehicle, so the manufacturer of the vehicle cannot be held liable, and nor can the people who wrote the software. It is unlucky, but it is your responsibility as the driver of the vehicle, because your vehicle has been hacked and has caused an accident.” It seems a considerable liability could be taken on by drivers. We have heard a lot about the safety aspect of automated vehicles, which is bound to reduce the number of accidents and therefore the number of claims, but what we can see here is a whole new area of insurance opening up where there are different sorts of claim being made as a consequence.

I think it is reasonable of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East to table an amendment requiring every step to be taken to protect the vehicles from hacking. It is right that it should be in the Bill because we need to protect consumers from that potential liability. What is the Department’s thinking? What consideration has it given to vehicles being hacked and liability in such circumstances? What are “reasonable steps” to prevent it happening? We all know that even though we have the highest level of security to protect the software or computers from being hacked, they still are. We have seen numerous examples in recent times, not least the successful hacking of some very high security systems, so we can imagine that this will present a challenge for some of those people who undergo that sort of criminal activity. It could put lives at risk and open people up to considerable liability, so I wonder what the Government’s thinking is about that.

[Mr Hayes]

Let me see if I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman by way of a brief intervention. I will then respond, as he invited me, to the shadow Minister when he comes to the new clause. The critical thing is to understand that an autonomous vehicle will, in practice, be a combination of sophisticated software and technology—the mechanical components of the car and the software that drives it. If the vehicle is deemed to be liable for an accident, that might be as a result of its software being faulty or because of a mechanical failure. From the perspective of those affected by the accident, that is immaterial because even if the software had been hacked the autonomous vehicle would still be responsible; the consumer’s position does not change. The consumer is protected, as it were, from the reasons why the autonomous vehicle was responsible and whether it might be as a result of a fault in the software.

[Clive Efford]

If I have followed the Minister correctly, and it is distinctly possible that I have not, the situation I am describing is slightly different. He says that there will be a vehicle that is at fault, that the person who is insured to be in the vehicle will pay out initially, and that there will then be consideration of who is liable.

[Mr Hayes]

Yes.

[Clive Efford]

That is fine, but if the vehicle has been hacked, the person paying out initially is opened up to a liability even though they are not at fault because they took all reasonable steps to prevent such hacking. However, no one else accepts responsibility because they too took reasonable steps to prevent the vehicle from being hacked. It is not unreasonable to require in the Bill that every measure be taken to prevent the liability from falling back on the insured person, whose vehicle has caused the accident even though they were not at fault. How do we ensure that the liability is not dumped on the consumer?

There is also the issue of the vehicles communicating with each other. If they are hacked and are communicating duff information, who will be responsible? Considerable liability could fall on consumers. Their vehicle is the cause of the accident but they are not responsible for it because of hacking. However, they are ultimately deemed responsible because no one else will accept responsibility.

[Mr Hayes]

I will make the point more emphatically; I was perhaps being a bit too understated. Understatement is a problem I constantly struggle with, as my right hon. and hon. Friends know.

The simple fact of the matter is that if the autonomous vehicle is “responsible” for the accident, and its software is at fault, whether that fault be caused by malevolence or some failure, the consumer’s interest will be unaltered. In the Bill, the consumer is protected in the way I have described, regardless of why the vehicle was at fault. That will then be a matter to determine during the course of the events, but it will not affect the person or persons affected by the accident.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

rose—

[Clive Efford]

I give way to the right hon. Member for West Dorset.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I think this is a conversation somewhat at cross-purposes. Use of the term “consumer” by the Minister is confusing the issue. Let us distinguish between the injured party and the insured party. The injured party is protected in the way my right hon. Friend the Minister and I have described, and the hon. Member for Eltham, my right hon. Friend and I are all in agreement that that is okay.

The hon. Gentleman is asking about the insured party. He is really asking whether anybody will be willing to buy an autonomous vehicle level 4 or 5 under circumstances in which, having taken out the insurance policy, the insurer then discovers that they are liable to some injured party. Then, having paid out to the injured party—tick—they come back to the insured party and say “Because the manufacturer had taken reasonable steps and because the hacking went on despite that, and because nobody including the manufacturer is responsible, and because your insurance policy excludes—you may not have noticed this—in the small print a hacked case, you, O insured party, are now responsible.” I hope I am correctly interpreting the hon. Gentleman.

[Clive Efford]

indicated assent.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Yes, good. He is raising a serious point. I do not know whether it is about the Bill, but it is certainly a serious point about what the Bill is trying to achieve, which is to get to a situation where people buy autonomous vehicles because they are able and willing to insure themselves to own them and drive them. They would not be if they thought this was a realistic possibility. Somehow, that problem needs to be solved, whether in the Bill or otherwise.

[Clive Efford]

Again, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have a feeling of déjà vu because he is putting my points better than I can. I have little to add to that. There is an issue there that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East has raised in his amendment that the Government should go away and consider.

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

It strikes me that there is potentially a grey area between the software company and their design and the hacker and where the responsibility begins and ends, and how any court or technical expertise will be able to determine where ultimate responsibility lies. A software company could readily say “We designed it. We were perfectly happy with it and there were all these protections and safeguards in place,” and they will blame the hacker, but who can determine if it was down to a hacker or the failing of the software designs? I just throw that out because sometimes these things are very difficult to determine and I am not sure where the responsibilities lie.

[Clive Efford]

I will finish on this point and I will not take much more of the Committee’s time. The Bill is designed to ensure that the injured party is paid out swiftly in the event of an accident, with blame subsequently apportioned either through agreement or by a court. In this case, however, there is another consumer—the insured party—who could be open to enormous liabilities through no fault of their own where nobody else can be found to be at fault because they have taken all reasonable steps. There is a grey area, as my hon. Friend has just said, where the Government need to go away and give that some further consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

The Minister says that the Bill is not the appropriate place for us to legislate on that, but that is exactly what new clause 18 says. It says that consultation should happen separately from the legislation and really only sets the timescale. On that basis, will he accept new clause 18?

[Mr Hayes]

I charged my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset earlier with being the hon. Gentleman’s spokesman and interpreter, but now the hon. Gentleman has put the boot on the other foot. He added further sophistication to my right hon. Friend’s argument in his last contribution. He is right that the Bill begins to address this issue; the point I was making is that, given the ongoing work I described through the agencies I mentioned, it would not be right to set that out in further detail in the Bill. I am arguing against an addition to the Bill, rather than what is in the Bill already.

There is another aspect to this that I want to add. It is very important that we work internationally. Of course, many of the manufacturers are, by their nature, multinational organisations that therefore work across national boundaries. We talked earlier about the development of standards, and how that is happening at UN level and as a result of international dialogue. There is an international dialogue as well on cyber-security, and it is important that we marry our conversations on vehicle standards with our conversations on cyber-security, to ensure a synergous approach to the two.

With those commitments, that absolute assurance of the Government’s understanding of the significance of this matter and my heartfelt support for the strength of the argument made by the shadow Minister and my right hon. Friend, I am delighted that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will not push his amendment to a vote. We will report back further as time goes on. I will commission the work across Government and, as I have said, I will make available to the Committee some of the documents we have already published.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Fourth sitting)

Clive Efford Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 2nd November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

No, I am not raising the question of fault. I am raising the question of legal certainty about the circumstance. Clause 2 says that if the

“accident is caused by an automated vehicle when driving itself”

it is clear that

“the insurer is liable for that damage.”

It is equally clear, therefore, as a binary choice, that if the vehicle is not being driven by the vehicle itself, but by the driver, the driver is liable. Those two positions are perfectly clear. The insurer of the driver, who may or may not be a separate body from the insurer of the vehicle, takes on responsibility when the driver is driving. We are dealing here with the situation in which some combination of driver and vehicle has been the cause of the accident, during a transitional period from one to the other. The question arises, which of the two insurance policies is the relevant one? I do not believe that there is anything in clause 3 that solves that problem. If the Minister can point out something about the wording of clause 3, I hope you will allow him to do so, Mr Bailey, because it is definitely relevant to the point that the hon. Member for Eltham and I are raising.

My own view is that there is nothing in clause 3 that solves the problem, and therefore the courts will invent a solution. There is nothing wrong with that in general—the courts are very wise and may come up with a perfectly good solution—but the Minister’s purpose is not to say, “Let the courts invent a solution”. If that was his purpose, he would not need the Bill in the first place, because we have a common-law system. If there were no Bill, and if automated vehicles were to proceed and things were to go to court, the courts would find a solution. We would not need the Bill in the first place, if we were going to rely on the courts. The reason for having the Bill is to create legal certainty so that we are not simply trying to find out later, ex post, what the courts will make the law be. We are trying to make the law in advance, so that the insurance industry and the automated vehicle industry know how it will work. For that purpose to be realised, we have to be clear that the law covers all the possible circumstances—when there is a driver driving the vehicle, when the vehicle is driving the vehicle, and the circumstances between the two when somebody is handing over to the vehicle or the vehicle is handing over to the driver.

My point is that at the moment there is a gap; the Bill does not say what happens during that period. Incidentally, I do not think it matters terribly what the decision is; there just needs to be a decision, so that a case does not revolve around who the relevant insurer is under the circumstances of transition.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I know we are not debating clause 3, but since the Minister referred to it, let me point out that clause 3(2) makes it the driver’s responsibility if a vehicle is unsafely allowed to be driven automatically. A driver could be at fault if they cause an accident at the moment of transition by failing to respond when the vehicle tells them to take over, so clause 3 could actually make things worse for the driver.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Actually, I think the hon. Gentleman understates the problem with clause 3(2), which the Committee will consider in due course. During our consideration of clause 1 this morning, I made the point that unfortunately clause 3(2) contains the word “wholly”. It is therefore completely unclear what happens if an accident is not wholly due to the driver or to the vehicle, but is partly due to each, as it would be during the transition. That is a muddle, and the whole point of the Bill, which I applaud, is to avoid muddle. Muddle encourages courts to base decisions on common sense or common law, because the statutes do not tell them how to handle the circumstances. That is not what we are trying to achieve; we are trying to clarify and make certain.

We therefore need clause 2 to set out clearly the three possible situations. If the driver is driving, the driver’s insurer is liable. If the car is driving, the car’s insurer clearly has strict liability, novel though that concept is. But we need a decision—I do not really care what, so long as it is clear, definite and permanent—about what happens during periods of transition, however long they may be and under whatever circumstances they may arise. We cannot tell in advance how long the transition periods will be, and we should not take any advice from the industry that they will be only for 10 seconds and will always work perfectly—they will not.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before I call the next speaker, I gently remind Members that in debates of this nature they may speak more than once on the same amendment. If you are making an intervention, keep it short; if you wish to make long comments, it may be better to do so as a separate speech. Equally, will Members stand to make interventions rather than making them from a sedentary position? That helps both me and, I am sure, the Minister.

[Clive Efford]

Welcome back to the Chair, Mr Bailey. Do you intend to have a stand part debate? Should I forego my response and just contribute to that debate, or make my response now?

[The Chair]

Unless you want to cover something that has not been debated to date, you might as well do so now so that we do not need to have a stand part debate. If you want to go in a totally new direction, do not respond now and we will have a stand part debate.

[Clive Efford]

I will make my points now and then we can move on.

We need to go back to what we are attempting to do with the Bill. Why have it at all? Why not just let the insurance industry decide which vehicles they want to insure and make it up as they go along? We are not doing that; we are actually trying to create a framework to protect the public when these new types of vehicles go on to our roads. We have accepted in principle that we have to legislate to accommodate those vehicles, which are different from the vehicles that we currently have on our roads. The Bill must not allow insurance companies to determine what types of vehicles go on our roads. That is for us; that is why we are here. If the Bill offers the insurance industry too wide a scope, we may end up with vehicles on the roads about which people ask us, “Why did you allow this to happen?”

We heard conflicting comments from witnesses. Mr Wong told us that in an Audi, after a minimum of 10 seconds alarm bells would go off and, if the driver did not respond, the vehicle would eventually bring itself to a halt. That was a description of tier 3. Mr Gooding told us that we should not accept tier 3—we should not have it at all. Mr Boland told us that the service vehicles that he would test on city roads would be fully autonomous but, in the experimental stage, would have a steering wheel and a driver, who would take over immediately with no transitional period whatever, which research tells us is not possible. Even the pointy-headed technocrats who came to talk to us told us conflicting things about transition and how the technology works.

We have to be clear about the vehicles we enable to go on to our roads and the dangers that they may create. The transition issue is important, because the evidence is that it creates dangerous situations.

[Mr Hayes]

I think—to sound like a script from “Dad’s Army”—that the hon. Gentleman is going into the realms of fantasy a bit. His first point was that we need the Bill because the existing Road Traffic Act is not fit. I did not say that the existing Road Traffic Act was fit for the future, because it does not mention autonomous vehicles. The whole point is that it is fit for what it does but we need the Bill because autonomous vehicles are a growing reality and are likely to become so, as a result of research, at some speed in the coming years.

Secondly, of course it is true that the insurance industry has been involved in the work that led to the Bill; its representatives told us so in the evidence sessions. They not only welcomed the Bill; they have been involved through extensive consultations on what is necessary to build the framework to put the products in place. I think we can be clear about the fact that we need the Bill and that the insurance industry has helped create it, and likes it.

[Clive Efford]

I accept that the insurance industry is a necessary part of our transport system—we have to have properly insured vehicles—but what the Minister has said alarms me a bit. We have the poachers, not the gamekeepers, in charge of the legislation. Of course the insurance industry would not like to be tied up in knots and would want to be as free as possible to insure the vehicles that they choose to put on our roads, but I would argue that we should have more say.

The issue of transition is important. The right hon. Member for West Dorset put it well—I am in danger of saying that someone put a case for my amendment more eloquently than I am doing myself, but his point is important. At the point of transition, when the driver does not respond to all the warnings that Mr Wong talked about in his evidence, does it then come to the point when the people insuring the technology will say that the technology worked perfectly, but there was an accident, therefore it must be the driver’s fault? That scenario is not improbable and could come about. We would be wrong if we did not recognise that in the legislation.

The Minister also spoke about human error. It is quite right that everyone said that more than 90% of accidents are caused by human error, but it is an obvious point. As all vehicles are currently driven by humans, it is highly likely that when accidents occur, they are caused by humans. Some 5% are down to mechanical error. Although I accept that the safety aspect may reduce the number of accidents, when asked, the witnesses could not defend the suggestion that the proportion of accidents caused by mechanical failure—the failure of technology—will increase, and that 5% will go up. They were silent. We are dealing with an area of safety on our roads that is going to grow as a proportion of the accidents that occur.

The Chair may call me to order, but we have not dealt with the issue of platooning and connected vehicles. Which vehicle is going to take responsibility if an accident is caused by a vehicle in a platoon of vehicles going down a motorway and the vehicle that is behind them is insured by another company? We were told in the evidence that it is the lead vehicle that guides the other vehicles. There is a whole area to do with connected vehicles and vehicles transitioning between human control and computer control that will need regulating. The Bill is silent on that, which is a flaw. I do not intend to press my amendments to a vote, but I am sure that on Report—

[Mr Hayes]

Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said, it would perhaps be helpful to repeat what I said in response to him and to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. I am happy to clarify the issue of transition.

Moreover, at its very heart the Bill will not put vehicles on to the road that are not safe and appropriate, because that is part of what the regulatory environment guarantees. Furthermore, of course, the Bill obliges the Secretary of State to draw up a list of vehicles. The hon. Gentleman, in withdrawing his amendment, can be assured that a good deal of what worries him—and I understand those worries—will be dealt with in the way I have set out.

[Clive Efford]

I am grateful to the Minister. I am not convinced, but I will wait for further information from him. I will not push my amendment to a vote today, but these are subjects that we can return to on Report and possibly at even greater length in the other place, as is the tradition of this place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

[The Chair]

Before we do that, the hon. Gentleman said that the poachers were driving this legislation. In view of the geographical location of the Minister’s constituency, I hope you are not implying that he is the Lincolnshire Poacher?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Contributory negligence etc

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Third sitting)

Clive Efford Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 2nd November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Karl Turner]

It is always an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the Bill generally and to the amendments tabled in my name, to which I will come shortly.

This is an exciting opportunity for the Committee to speak about the potential to liberate many people currently excluded from access to rural transport. The Bill also provides opportunities to improve personal transport arrangements, as well as air quality, which is crucial given the dire state of the environment and its impact on health. I begin by thanking the Minister personally for his collegiate approach to the Bill, and for his co-operation and assistance in the preparation for this sitting. He even allowed my staff access to his officials. It is genuinely appreciated.

Amendment 1 would improve the Bill, and I know that the Minister is intent on improving it. It would require the Government to consult on and publish criteria for the definition of “automated vehicles” that the Secretary of State will use. As the Committee can see, clause 1 as currently drafted puts the onus on the Secretary of State to define, in his or her opinion, what constitutes an automated vehicle, without having to consult the sector. In my view, the Bill would be vastly improved by a requirement to consult on and publish the criteria by which “automated vehicles” will be defined.

Secondly, the amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from changing the criteria without consulting vehicle manufacturers, insurers and other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. We ask for that consultation and publication of the criteria because it is crucial that manufacturers, vehicle owners and insurers know them, whether they are making, buying, warning about or insuring an automated vehicle, and whether the scope of the legislation applies to their vehicle. In the evidence session, the insurance industry welcomed the Government taking on the responsibility of saying what is an automated vehicle, but we are still concerned that the Bill as drafted leaves the Secretary of State with total discretion on what is an automated vehicle. We therefore tabled the amendment to provide greater clarity and to help the Government by ensuring that the relevant persons and organisations will be sufficiently involved, to inform the Secretary of State’s list of automated vehicles.

The Opposition believe that the additional clarity provided by the amendment would help to create a more reassuring environment and to encourage the development and uptake of automated vehicles. As I said, the amendment would also prevent the Secretary of State from changing the criteria without further consultation, and guarantee that the criteria used will be up to date and as practical as possible in a very fast-moving sector. We have rehearsed these matters previously so I do not want keep the Committee on this point for too long.

I have had the opportunity to look at Hansard; in the Committee for the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, the Minister promised to go away, think about it and amend the Bill appropriately to tighten the definition, but that does not seem to have happened. I do not mean to criticise the Minister personally, but the Government have had six months to think about that. The only change that I can see is in clause 1(b) but that is just semantic. We intend to press the amendment to a Division.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Edward. I have had a number of informal chats with the Minister as we have bumped into each other while wandering around the House. I appreciate his approach to the Bill. My amendments are genuinely to try to probe the area, which I find fascinating, of the interaction between artificial intelligence and human behaviour. Nowhere more than in our transport systems will this become more prevalent over the coming years. My amendments are to probe the areas where I think that that comes into sharp focus.

When we boil it down, we are legislating for vehicles that are driven by computer software, as we heard in the evidence. We heard from the witnesses on Tuesday that we are legislating exclusively for tier 4 and tier 5 of the five tiers. The tiers start with driver-assisted systems such as braking, steering and parking, through to automated vehicles that can switch between being driven by a human and by software at tier 3, which overlaps into tier 4, and to tier 5, which is purely automated vehicles. The legislation really challenges us as legislators, because by simplifying the insurance system we are being asked to enable our roads to become laboratories to sharpen that technology. We heard clearly in the evidence that there were different attitudes to what is taking place. When asked about tier 5 technology, Mr Wong, from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said:

“As to when those level 5 vehicles without steering wheels are capable of performing end-to-end journeys—from my house in the village to my office in the city—that is anybody’s guess. That will probably be some time in the 2030s. It is quite complex.”––[Official Report, Automated and Electric Vehicles Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017; c. 43, Q98.]

However, we then heard from Mr Boland of Five AI, who told us that automated vehicles would be on our roads in 2019, albeit in an experimental fashion.

This is a big challenge for us. We need to consider the software in great detail, and the Secretary of State needs to be given the power to set and oversee certain standards. Mr Wong referred to the report written by the Ethics Commission on Automated Driving for the German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure. I am a bit of an anorak, so I have started reading that report, although I have not got through all of it in the last 48 hours. It makes fascinating reading. The commission’s approach is that the technology is there to improve safety, whereas our attitude seems to be that it is a technological advance to help industry, and that improving safety and social inclusion will be a by-product a long way down the line.

The operation of the software raises some ethical issues. I asked the witnesses about how the software would perform and take decisions when an accident is imminent. For instance, imagine a four-year-old toddler walking in front of a vehicle that cannot stop to prevent a collision. To the left is oncoming traffic, with the risk of a head-on collision; to the right are perfectly innocent bystanders on the pavement or at the bus stop—those are the vehicle’s options. Mr Wong noted that this was the “classic trolley problem” referred to in the German ethics commission’s report. The commission’s conclusion was that it is simple to make a decision when the choice is between property damage and human injury, but when the choice is between different types of injury to different road users or innocent pedestrians who are not part of the scenario, we move into a completely new area of morals and ethics. We have to be prepared for that; these situations will take place on our streets, and we need to legislate for them. We should give ourselves the opportunity to oversee this software before it is allowed on the streets. Amendment 8 would give the Secretary of State power over the software’s approval, and new clause 11 would set out the approval criteria.

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

Does not clause 1(1) already cover what amendment 8 seeks to achieve? Paragraph (b) requires that the Secretary of State be satisfied that vehicles are

“designed or adapted to be capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving themselves.”

In making that decision, surely the Secretary of State would take into account the nature of the software.

[Clive Efford]

We would hope so. In the general terms in which the Bill is drafted, that is quite possible. Amendment 8 is a probing amendment, and I will not press it to a vote, but this is an area that as legislators we need to scrutinise. The software is key. That is what will be making the decisions and that is what will be driving the vehicle.

We seem to have started this discussion in terms of this being a mechanical problem about how to develop a piece of technology that can read all the different scenarios on our roads and react accordingly, but looking at the research—vehicles’ different speeds, any delay in the transition between a driver and an automated vehicle—an awful lot of the issue around the software is not referred to in the Bill. I am attempting to draw attention to that and to put in the Bill that it is the crucial area of the technology and we should pay attention to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am grateful, Chair. I will leave it at that so far as clause 3(2) is concerned, but I will no doubt come back to it.

Finally, if it were the intention of the Minister to add to clause 1(1), rather than to do something to clause 2 or clause 3, which we will come to later, it would be important to establish whether the view taken by Mr Wong—that these machines will always be designed in such a way that they decide on a safe basis whether to take over—is a consensual view across the industry in every country or a happenstance view of some particular technologist.

[Clive Efford]

Again, the right hon. Gentleman is touching on the area of ethics—it is covered in the excellent document written by the German Transport Ministry—which is about freedom of choice and the question of whether the individual driving the car should succumb to the superior knowledge of the software that has been put in the vehicle and have control of the vehicle taken away from them in certain circumstances. We have not discussed that issue, but it could arise as a consequence of the Bill. That is why I suggest we look carefully at the software. There is a major question about the freedom of choice of an individual driving their car if we allow the technology to take decisions away from the driver.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sharing his anorak tendencies, I too have been interested in the German case. In fact, I spent some while talking to German officials and motor manufacturers about the issue. Actually, I think there is a serious problem—this is the final point I want to raise—with clause 1(1)(b), which relates specifically to the questions of ethics that he raised. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the word in clause 1(1)(b), “safely”. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

That is a very big question indeed. It is the one that, in a sense, was first raised by the hon. Member for Eltham in the evidence session and on Second Reading, when he painted the picture of a scenario where a human being faces an ethical dilemma while driving. I will paraphrase the example for the sake of brevity: a child runs into the road and the driver has the choice of hitting the child or swerving and possibly causing a more catastrophic accident. That is a momentary judgment that any driver makes. In the end, it is a practical and ethical judgment, is it not? We could have a very long debate. My hon. Friend on my right, the Whip, may be my former Parliamentary Private Secretary, but he will not be entirely indulgent of me if I engaged in that very long debate, because of course one could extend it—

[Clive Efford]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

Ah! We are indeed going to extend it.

[Clive Efford]

Let me invite the Minister along that path a little. The right hon. Member for West Dorset raised an important question—I did not word it as succinctly as he did, but he has more experience of drafting legislation than I have, so that is no surprise. If morals or ethics are not specifically referred to in the legislation, a sharp-witted lawyer may later argue that the issue is not ethics or morals, but safety, and that it is therefore ultra vires to use the legislation to regulate that area of the technology. I urge the Minister to look at this issue again and consider amending the Bill to address it.

[Mr Hayes]

Let me try to answer the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset in two ways. First, I draw attention to something that Mr Wong said in evidence on Tuesday:

“May I point something out? I mentioned autonomous emergency braking. It has been demonstrated that the technology is improving all the time. Previously, autonomous emergency braking worked perfectly at 30 mph, which is urban speed, but it is becoming increasingly sophisticated. AEB can work well even at 50 mph. It would not surprise me if the technology improved in years to come”.––[Official Report, Automated and Electric Vehicles Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017; c. 44, Q103.]

The technology is improving so rapidly and dramatically that in the scenario painted by the hon. Member for Eltham, an automated vehicle is likely to change lanes and—as in Mr Wong’s example—brake to ensure safety.

The representatives of the insurance industry stated in their evidence that the industry believes there will be fewer accidents, because the judgment of an autonomous vehicle will outpace that of a human being. I use the word “judgment” for technology with caution, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset used the word “ethics” with caution, but the judgment of the software driving the automated vehicle will be more acute and, in the end, safer. These machines are likely to be less prone to error than human beings, so there will be fewer accidents; the vehicles will be safer and therefore easier and cheaper to insure. We heard that point repeatedly in the evidence session. We can be confident that that is the direction of travel—I apologise for using that rather hackneyed phrase in this context—but we cannot be sure how quickly we will get there or exactly what it will look like. I would be a very bold man if I made such a prediction.

--- Later in debate ---

Liability of insurers etc where accident caused by automated vehicle

[Clive Efford]

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 2, page 1, line 22, at end insert—

“or by an automated vehicle when transitioning between driving itself and being driven by a person,”

This amendment would ensure that the liability for accidents caused by an automated vehicle that is transitioning between driving itself and being driven by a person would be the same as the liability for accidents caused by an automated vehicle when driving itself.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“or by an automated vehicle when transitioning between driving itself and being driven by a person,”

This amendment would ensure that the liability for accidents caused by an automated vehicle that is transitioning between driving itself and being driven by a person would be the same as the liability for accidents caused by an automated vehicle when driving itself.

[Clive Efford]

I hope we will not take as long on these two amendments as we took on the previous group, although it was a fascinating discussion. The amendments follow on from that, because they relate to the transition period and the third of the five tiers that go from driver-assisted systems to full automation. Tier 3 is where the vehicle can transition from being fully automated to being driven by the driver, and vice versa.

Various pieces of research into the issue have come to different conclusions. In the evidence sessions, we heard that Audi had carried out some research at different speeds and come to the conclusion that there should be a minimum of 10 seconds in that transition period. The Venturer research came to slightly different conclusions, but all the research points to the fact that this is a problematic area in automated vehicle technology. It can take a deal of time for a driver to become alert. Mr Wong described to us various alarms that alert the driver to a vehicle request for the driver to take back control of the car; if those various alarms do not alert the driver, the vehicle will then slowly come to a halt. I am sure that we can all imagine the sort of disruption that could be caused if that happened on a motorway. He even described how the car prepared for an accident by tightening the driver’s seat belt just before the vehicle came to a halt, in case the driver had passed out or was so fast asleep that the alarms did not wake them up. There are various scenarios involving the transition that cause alarm.

Mr Gooding of the RAC Foundation felt that we should not even entertain tier 3 because it is unsafe and does not make any sense, and because the legislation is about moving straight to tiers 4 and 5. Clearly, if people giving us evidence are saying that, I suggest to the Minister that it should cause the Government some alarm, and that perhaps we should be legislating to say that we do not want to allow this on our roads. There are issues being raised about the clear dangers of tier 3 transition.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I, too, note what was said about tier 3, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not underplaying his own point. What he referred to in the transition phase also applies to tier 4. It is only at tier 5 that it disappears.

[Clive Efford]

My understanding of tier 4, as Mr Wong said in his evidence, is that it is only at tier 4 that the human is removed from the equation; I think that those were his exact words. I must admit that that seems to be a contradiction. Tier 5, as I understand it, is a fully automated vehicle with no steering wheel, totally under the control of technology. One wonders what tier 4 is. If tier 3 is the transition between human and vehicle and tier 5 is a fully automated vehicle with no steering wheel whatever, what is tier 4? Is it a lesser tier 5 or a greater tier 3? I will give way to the Minister, who is going to enlighten us.

[Mr Hayes]

I suggest that I drop a note to the Committee setting out what each tier means; otherwise, we will have this debate time and again. I can anticipate Members across the Committee querying it. I have asked my officials already.

[Clive Efford]

That would be helpful. I have looked at it, but as has been demonstrated in our exchanges, the difference between tier 5 and tier 4 is not entirely clear. From the descriptions of the people who gave evidence to us, in tier 4, the human is removed entirely from the equation.

We need to consider this issue. The evidence that I read said that the Venturer experiment at the Bristol testing centre discovered that drivers, when they first took over, tended to be over-cautious and drive at slower rates, which could increase congestion. There was also the potential for danger in vehicles suddenly slowing down, and Mr Gooding said in his answers to our questions that he felt that that issue was more important than congestion.

There are some important considerations raised by the issue of transition, particularly in tier 3. We asked witnesses, “When will the vehicle decide whether it is safe for the vehicle to drive or whether the vehicle should be handed back to the human driver?” They said that it depended on road conditions. That suggests that it will happen in the same locations on our roads: for instance, as vehicles leave motorways and enter more built-up areas, where there are more potential hazards and dangers for vehicles, it is likely that the vehicles will transition back to being driven by the driver. If that will happen regularly in the same location, it could create accident black spots. We could create a considerable new hazard on our roads.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

We eagerly await the Minister’s note, but due to the wonders of modern technology, one can look it up on the web. Level 4 is clearly described as fully autonomous and

“designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip.”

However,

“it’s important to note that this is limited to the ‘operational design domain’ of the vehicle—meaning it does not cover every driving scenario.”

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the transition question arises in relation to level 4 when vehicles move from one driving scenario to another.

[Clive Efford]

I accept that entirely and agree. It comes back to my point that it is likely to happen regularly in similar locations, and that patterns of behaviour will occur in particular spots where transition occurs because the technology requires it. We need to be aware of that. The testing is telling us that that is happening, but we are not taking it into consideration in the Bill, as we should.

I suggest to the Minister that we need to take that away and consider it. Safety must be the aspect most prevalent in our minds. There is also the moral or ethical issue of driver autonomy: will the driver be in charge of the vehicle, or will the technology be in charge of the driver? In the debate on previous amendments, he said that the technology is superior; he did not use that word, but he said that it is safer than a human in the event of an accident, even suggesting that a vehicle would make better or quicker choices than a human. That points us down a road, if Members will pardon the pun, of having roads operated in the way that our railways or underground service are controlled. Why not have fully automated vehicles of which drivers do not have control at all?

[Mr Hayes]

Let me be clear about that. We will not have time to complete our consideration of this group of amendments, so I feel that intervening might be helpful. What I said was that I drew that conclusion from the evidence that we received. The insurance industry and other witnesses said that they thought that the vehicles would be safer, and that insurance premiums might decrease over time; they said so because they believe that autonomy will make vehicles safer. It is implicit that they gauge the autonomous driving mode to be safer.

[Clive Efford]

My experience has been that many people who come to give evidence to us as MPs assure us that a technological advance will deliver X, Y and Z, take us far forward and lead us to a promised land where things are safer and much improved, yet we find that due to the law of hidden consequences, we face a whole different set of scenarios. The one that I am pointing to here is that the transition between driver and technology is already throwing up potential hazards on our roads, even before we have let the vehicles on our roads. We know that the issue exists, because it has shown up in the testing. Therefore, we should legislate for it. I have asked the Minister to take on board those arguments, and I can see that the Whip is itching to get to his feet.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—Andrew Stephenson.