Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Graham P Jones and Iain Stewart

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 31st October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Iain Stewart]

Q If the upgrade is so safety-critical that the car will not function without it having been installed, is that something we should put in the Bill?

David Williams: My understanding is that that sounds very good in principle, but how do you define that extent? Many upgrades might have a degree of safety- critical improvements in their nature. How would you define the seriousness of the upgrade?

Ben Howarth: Clause 4(6)(b) is a definition—that feels to me like it means that it is unsafe to use. If you started saying at this stage a car must be immobilised, we would potentially be legislating for things that we do not know the manufacturers will do in every circumstance. There might be times when the car could move. It might be safe to move it at 20 miles per hour or so—I am just speculating. Is it right to put it in the Bill at this stage? I would definitely say that it is something that needs to be carefully defined and thought about when you create the list of automated vehicles. I know we keep coming back to “the list is everything”, but I think the list is the mechanism by which many of the potential problems of the Bill will get solved.

[Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Q I am interested in the collection, retention and distribution of data and also the issue that has just been raised by my colleagues about the software prescription; whether it will be prescribed that software must be updated and all the problems that might ensue from that.

Let me lay out an example and ask your view of the Bill. If somebody switches to manual from automated and is involved in an accident while in excess of 30 miles per hour. What happens next? How much of that data becomes available in the case that ensues? For instance, I presume that speed would be used, but what about the on-board cameras or anything else? How much of this data will be kept, retained and used from the functions of the vehicle for a case in which there is an accident with a driver in manual mode? Does the Bill provide a robust framework for accidents and insurance claims and what about road safety? Will it enhance road safety or are we stopping at legitimate information for insurance companies? Should the Bill also include data made available so that road safety is improved?

Iwan Parry: The basis of the question is around the availability of data. My technical background is in forensic accident investigation and in order to investigate accidents—to get to the root cause—we need to start at the before-accident period and understand as much as we can. We are limited today to things such as skid marks, as David referred to earlier, as the tools to reconstruct those accidents. The kinds of data that are potentially available from electronic vehicles increase the amount of data significantly. With the cameras, radar, lidar—light detection and ranging—and ultrasonic sensors we can get a very clear picture of what was going on around the vehicle at the time of an incident. When we look at the consequences of an incident, we can put the two together and have a very clear understanding from establishing liability and whether that indicates that the vehicle in some way behaved unreasonably—or that the driver, pedestrian or cyclist that it was interacting with behaved unreasonably given the context of the situation. That gives us the information that would allow us to make a determination on liability. I think that is critical to insurers, to police investigating such incidents and to road safety in the future.

To advance the future legislation on autonomous vehicles, we will need a method to understand what is going wrong in the real world. We will also need a method to use that information to improve our understanding of vehicle functioning in the real world and how that can be improved by manufacturers or by legislators applying the right tools to ensure that vehicle performance is improved over time.

Ben Howarth: If I could add the insurance perspective on that, for what we need to do for this Bill—to establish whether the car was in automated or manual mode—we need a fairly limited amount of data. You mentioned speed, but we do not necessarily need speed to do that. We just need to know whether it was in automated mode. There are potentially lots of other uses for car data for the police and for accident investigators. In a disputed claim with contradictory evidence in court, you could find it a lot easier to solve cases with data, but I would draw a distinction between the data that insurers need to make this Bill operational and the data from cars that would be useful to understand claims. That might be a valid concern for vehicles not covered by this Bill; as cars get more technically sophisticated with more assisted functions, you might want to understand more about how it works for any car. I think whether it is reasonable to ask for data is still best managed via a judge.

It is also important, if we want the data, that manufacturers record it. My understanding is that at the moment, if you hit a pedestrian in an accident, you will not necessarily trigger an airbag so the data that the car keeps on a rolling basis are not automatically recorded or stored and they would not be available. As part of the work to define an automated car, we need more clarity about what data are recorded and stored and about the process to ensure that the data are sent to the right people at the right time. An insurer is one party that would want some of the data.

Whitsun Recess

Debate between Graham P Jones and Iain Stewart

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Graham Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the service is undermined from within, it will eventually collapse, and that is what is happening with Sure Start, certainly in Lancashire, and, I believe, in his area of north Wales.

Ministers must stand at the Dispatch Box and be honest about this, because it is affecting the people we represent, including some of the most vulnerable. They should tell the truth about the Sure Start services that are being provided, not just give the headline figures on the number of centres that are being kept open, although I believe that that number is diminishing as well.

In 2009, the Prime Minister himself came to Lancashire and said, “This is the beginning of the Conservative fight-back in the north”, but now all these services are being undermined. To my knowledge, the Prime Minister has not been back to Lancashire, and I presume that following the local elections he has probably written us off. The damage that has been done since 2009 is irreparable. People are extremely unhappy about how some of their services are being treated and feel that there should be a better way that is not just about a message of austerity.

Another aspect of the situation in Lancashire is the local enterprise partnership, which I am deeply concerned about, and the programme for rural broadband. Not only are Lancashire residents being let down by the county council in terms of adult social care, Sure Start and other initiatives, but the Conservatives in Lancashire are obsessed with rural broadband, on which they are spending £32 million. When I asked for the figures on the number of beneficiaries per borough in Lancashire, they refused to provide them, but I acquired them for my constituency, where it appears that only some 4,000 people out of 80,000 will benefit from the upgrade to the rural broadband service. That £32 million will mean faster internet shopping for millionaires; it will not generate business in rural communities. Many people in rural communities in Lancashire, such as the Ribble valley, already run businesses. That is why they live in the Ribble valley, and they do not operate from home.

The rural broadband policy in Lancashire will not provide additional businesses or create jobs. It will certainly not mean that businesses will be opened down country lanes that take two hours to drive down and are a long way from the urban centres. This is just about faster internet shopping for wealthy people. [Interruption.] I will say it whether people like it or not. In most cases, the urban areas in Lancashire are already connected to fast broadband. There is simply no need for this investment, which could go towards improving urban infrastructure such as rail and road links rather than towards providing rural broadband for some farm 25 miles—

[Iain Stewart]

I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman’s points with interest. Given his comments, one would think that there was no investment in rail infrastructure in the north of England, but the Government have just given the go-ahead to the northern hub, which will revolutionise public transport in that part of the country.

[Graham Jones]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but, as he knows, the northern hub covers Manchester and Liverpool, whereas I am talking about east Lancashire. He will be aware that his colleague, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), is pleading for an upgrade of the east Lancashire line between Rawtenstall and Bury. Members on his own side of the House are pleading for infrastructure projects.

[Graham Jones]

That point was relevant to the intervention from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). Not only do Labour Members disagree with his comments, so are organisations such as the Skipton-East Lancashire Rail Action Partnership, which wants to extend the line from Colne into Yorkshire. Infrastructure investment is needed because communities and constituencies such as Pendle are isolated. Such projects require substantial amounts of money.

[Iain Stewart]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that next month, or in July, we will have the next round of investment in the rail system, with the next five-year period of high-level output specification projects. The projects to which he has referred may well get the go-ahead.

[Graham Jones]

I will be watching to see whether the east Lancashire line, which I support, along with the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen, receives funding. I am sure that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South will join me and the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen in the chorus calling for investment in the east Lancashire line. I am deeply grateful for his support if he is saying that that should go ahead alongside the rural broadband investment. However, if it turns out that we are investing in rural broadband at the expense of infrastructure projects, I will come back to him and suggest politely that he was wrong in his intervention.

I am deeply concerned about the health reforms and their impact on my constituency. We seem to have had a metropolitan or London-centred conversation about choice that does not reflect the situation in east Lancashire. East Lancashire has a monopoly provider in the East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust. It is futile to argue that general practitioners have choice when there is only one hospital trust, with its two major hospitals in Burnley and Blackburn, that people in the area want to use. There is no choice.

I met the chair of the clinical commissioning group for east Lancashire to discuss several issues, which I will draw to the House’s attention. Some £70 million of funding from the primary care trust is being transferred to Lancashire county council for the health and wellbeing board. As I have said, Lancashire is being let down by Lancashire county council. I have deep concerns about where that money will be spent. One of my initial concerns is that Lancashire county council, which is based in Preston, is far removed from the constituents whom the 14 or 15 MPs in Lancashire represent. I have deep concerns that the public will not fully understand, be engaged with or be able to respond to the funding that is being spent by the health and wellbeing board at county hall. There will be little accountability.

We have no choice in NHS services, and yet GPs are shaping the services. The health and wellbeing board will be spending an awful lot of money, but it is not clear how it will be held accountable for where that money is spent. My concern, again, is that the deprived corridor from Chorley to Hyndburn and on to Pendle will be left behind. We will see what we traditionally see from Lancashire county council: white middle-class and upper-class areas will get the money and deprived, working-class areas will have money removed from them. That is true of rural broadband. A similar thing is happening nationally.

Lancashire’s residents are being let down by Lancashire county council. How does the Deputy Leader of the House feel about how local people feel and about how they are responding through the ballot box? How does he feel about the concerns that I and others have expressed about the disproportionate spending, with services being directed to white, middle-class people in wealthier areas, which makes working-class people feel that they have been left behind? That concern is also expressed nationally. Age, rather than deprivation, is to be used as one of the indices for the allocation of health funding.