Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Iain Stewart Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be called to speak in this important Bill debate. May I, for completeness, first declare an interest, in that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on the future of transport, which has its secretariat funded by the Transport Systems Catapult? I also chair the all-party parliamentary group on smart cities, which has a range of public and private bodies funding its secretariat.

I had the great pleasure of serving on the Committee that considered the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill in the last Parliament. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) said that today’s Bill was a case of déjà vu. Perhaps the correct phrase is that it is a system upgrade to the previous Bill. This is a better Bill, because, as has been mentioned, a number of the genuine concerns that were expressed previously by Members on both sides of the House have been reflected in this Bill’s clauses. I should add that that Committee was a perfect example of how Bill Committees should work. We had a very cordial and courteous exchange of views; genuine concerns were raised, and they have, as I said, been taken on board.

I remain very supportive of the objectives in both parts of the Bill. As has been said, it is important that we in this country are ahead of the game. It is forecast that the intelligent mobility market will be worth £900 billion globally by 2025, and we have to make sure that our industry and our system of regulation are as up to date as possible to make sure we get a good share of that market.

I think the Government have taken the right approach. It is not possible for us today to predict the precise technology that will be innovated. I take a different approach from that just outlined by the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). I do not think we can prescribe too much at this stage. The legislation has to be enabling and then further qualified by secondary legislation at the appropriate time.

The potential advantages of autonomous and electric vehicles are huge. I will not detain the House by repeating the ones that have already been mentioned, but these vehicles will make transport more accessible to people with disabilities and people who are elderly or who do not have the means to afford a private car. That is a very important social objective.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Surely three things must be tackled by the manufacturing sector: the performance of electric cars, their price and the commercial relationship with the Government that will allow us to provide the charging points. If we do not have those three things in place, we do not have electric cars or a way forward.

[Iain Stewart]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I will expand on in my speech, the Bill provides a way for those things to happen. If he will bear with me, I will touch on those points later.

The other advantages, of course, are to do with the environment and making better and more efficient use of the limited resources we have. It is no mistake that the United Nations has as one of its top priorities dealing with the increasing urbanisation of the world, and the human race is going to have to find better ways of moving people and goods around to make that development sustainable.

In that regard, I should mention that my constituency is at the forefront of a lot of the innovation involved in this technology. We were today recognised in the UK Smart Cities Index 2017 as one of the top cities in the country.

Before I move on to the detail of the Bill, I should say that we had mention earlier of the importance of matching skills to this new technology. I very much welcome the Minister’s willingness to have a constructive dialogue in Committee, and more broadly with other Departments, to look at this issue. As a starting point, the Transport Systems Catapult recently published its “Intelligent Mobility Skills Strategy”, which identified that, by 2025, we will have a 750,000-job gap in skills, and there is an urgent need to address that point.

In my Second Reading speech and in Committee on the previous Bill, I raised several concerns, which were addressed to my satisfaction by the Minister. In my comments today, I just wish to get reaffirmation on those points and to raise a few additional concerns.

Clause 1 provides for the Minister to provide a list of vehicles deemed to have autonomous capability. I just ask a simple question: when this list is compiled and then updated, will it include the freight sector and the public transport sector, or are we simply looking at what are deemed motor cars today? It would be helpful to have that clarification.

As regards clause 2, we had extensive debates on the previous Bill about what would, to use an umbrella term, be classified as driver-assistance technology—lane guidance, cruise control and reverse parking guidance—and what constitutes a wholly autonomous vehicle. The Minister was very clear in Committee that driver-assisted technology is not the point of this Bill. When we have these gadgets in cars—there will be ever more as we go forward—they are there to assist the driver. They do not replace the driver, so the driver remains absolutely in control.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

Did the Committee look at the issue of the driver passing some kind of driving test? Is it envisaged that the whole Highway Code system will change? Will somebody getting a licence to drive an autonomous or a semi-autonomous vehicle have to sit a completely different test, and if so, when will it be phased in?

[Iain Stewart]

I am afraid that my memory is not as complete as it might be. I cannot recall whether that was discussed; I do not think it was. However, my right hon. Friend raises a very fair point, and I hope that it will be considered in Committee.

As regards the distinction between a wholly autonomous car where there are no driver controls whatsoever and driver-assist, there will be cases in the middle where the car has a dual function, with blurring as to when the technology is applied. I would still like Ministers to provide greater clarification for drivers and the industry on the point at which the transition occurs. We have heard talk about having road trains in future where a car may be driven under control up to a certain point and will then form part of a convoy on the motorway. There needs to be greater clarity, for the public in particular, about the point at which the changeover happens.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman’s comments. If we have totally automated vehicles end to end, and the whole purpose is to liberate people who would not otherwise be able to drive, is it not completely logical that they would not be subjected to any test whatsoever in the conduct of that vehicle?

[Iain Stewart]

Indeed. The shadow Secretary of State makes a perfectly fair point. We cannot predict what all these vehicles will be like. Some may have dual function, and we should prepare for that eventuality.

Clause 4 touches on where the liability lies if the software has been tampered with in some way. That could happen accidentally if the car was being repaired and an engineer did not upgrade or put the thing back together properly, or it could be deliberate. We have already had cases of cyber-attacks on autonomous and connected vehicles. We had reassurance in Committee previously that in the absence of further regulations, the current system would apply, and ultimately the Motor Insurers Bureau’s uninsured scheme would come into force. Does it remain the insurer of last resort? Sadly, given the huge number of scams we currently see in the insurance market with arranged accidents and so on, malevolent people will devise new ways of trying to scam how autonomous vehicles are insured. I urge the Minister to work with industry to make sure that we future-proof the systems and the regulations as much as possible to make sure that we can deal with these scams effectively as they arise.

Another point in clause 4 that still causes me some concern is subsection (1)(b), which refers to

“a failure to install safety-critical software updates that the insured person knows, or ought reasonably to know, are safety-critical.”

If there is such a failure, the insurer’s liability is diminished. I would like some further clarification as to what

“or ought reasonably to know”

actually means. At what point does the individual become liable for making sure that the software is upgraded? I am awaiting goodness knows how many updates for my iPhone; I am fearful of installing them because it will mess up my contacts list and everything else in it. That does not matter, because it is my phone and my choice, but if I am getting into a vehicle that is controlled by software, what is the point of liability at which I need to upgrade it? Will the upgrades have a limiting capability such that if it is not upgraded, the vehicle will not work? If so, where would that be specified? Subject to clarification on the points I have raised, I broadly welcome the general approach to insurance, as it will allow the industry to develop a variety of appropriate products. The market will change, and we need to give the industry the flexibility to develop.

With regard to part 2, on electric vehicles, again I welcome the general approach taken in the Bill. We cannot predict future technology, and it is therefore difficult to be specific, but equally we need to give industry and consumers confidence regarding concerns over range anxiety. Will charging points be harmonised? Will they work? Will there be enough of them at motorway services? Will there be sufficient time to recharge? All these points need to be dealt with to give consumers and industry some clarification.

We are seeing an increasing take-up of ULEV vehicles, particularly electric-only models. There have been developments with Volvo and others saying that all their new cars will be electric or hybrid in the very near future. However, there are a couple of broader concerns that are not entirely within the jurisdiction of the Department for Transport, but the Department needs to be in the lead in discussions with other Departments. First, there is the cost to Government in terms of lost revenue from fuel duty, and potentially from parking charges that local authorities levy on motor vehicles but are free for electric vehicles. One estimate is that if the Government do not make any changes, they will lose £170 billion in revenue by 2030 as people increasingly shift to electric vehicles. What does that mean for how we charge for our vehicles? I appreciate that that is a much broader issue that goes beyond this Bill, but it will have to be addressed at some point.

We also need to look at how we are going to power these cars. Atkins, drawing on a report by the Energy Technologies Institute, recently said that we need to understand when and where people will want to charge their cars. At the moment, it is likely to be in the early evening, particularly Sunday evenings as people have more leisure time then. That is forecast to add 10 GW of demand to the grid—a 20% increase at a time when it may be at its least resilient. How are we going to address that? I suspect that it will largely come down to the battery technology outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin).

As others have said, 30% of UK residents do not currently have off-street parking, living in flats, terraced houses and other places where it is not easy to just put a plug out of the window and attach it to the car. That will have to be addressed in our planning systems as we move forward.

We had a very good Bill prior to the election, and this Bill has been improved. It addresses many of the concerns that were raised. I have raised a few more tonight, and I very much hope that they will be picked up in Committee. We have to get it right. This is an important Bill and it has my full support.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (First sitting)

Iain Stewart Excerpts

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

[Karl Turner]

Q What would happen with an uninsured vehicle, then? At the moment, the Motor Insurers Bureau compensation scheme kicks in. Would that apply to automated vehicles? If not, should that be stated in the Bill?

Ben Howarth: We think it definitely should apply. I know that there have been discussions between the MIB and Department officials about the correct way to do that, and it will be interesting to see how the Committee approaches it. My understanding is that the reason for not having the MIB scheme in the Bill is that it is not in the Road Traffic Act 1988 either, so the existing system is not directly in primary legislation. I think the MIB will be assured so long as the Government confirm that it is still the ultimate fund of last resort, which it definitely should be. It does not necessarily need to be in the Bill, but we would like absolute clarity on how it will work.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Q I would like to follow up on Mr Turner’s point about clause 4 and the respective obligations of the manufacturer and the driver to update software. Clause 4(1)(b) refers to

“updates that the insured person knows, or ought reasonably to know, are safety-critical.”

That strikes me as very woolly. I would be grateful for your opinion on where the balance should lie. I accept that if someone has wilfully not installed updates or overwritten them, or something, they become liable. However, if the manufacturer has sent through an update, but the person has not taken it to the garage or downloaded the software—or whatever—at what point do they become liable? I have an update waiting for my iPhone, but I have not got round to doing it. That is not safety-critical, but is there a parallel? Do we need a tighter definition than “ought reasonably to know”?

David Williams: It is interesting that you mention the iPhone, because that is exactly the debate that we had in our early discussions. Currently, for most things you buy, you have the right to refuse a software update. You are allowed not to get round to doing your iPhone update; you can continue to bypass it. Our view was that when we are talking about a tonne of metal travelling at high speed on the road, people should lose that right, because it would enable them to take risks with other people’s lives. We think the updates should be implemented straight away, because we see them as being improvements. As for whether they are safety-critical or not, it would be a damn sight easier if all updates had to be implemented immediately and the responsibility fell on the manufacturer, but then you are drifting into trying to impose something in UK legislation that some European territories and motor manufacturers have probably not really thought through yet.

The idea of saying that people have to install safety-critical updates immediately is something that we recommend. As for the detail of how it should be dealt with in the Bill, I have to plead ignorance, but the reason for pushing for it is that we honestly believe that if a manufacturer has updated the software, it is to make the vehicle perform better. These are not iPhones that can only annoy other people; these are vehicles that can kill other people. Those updates should be mandatory in whatever way we can make them so.

[Iain Stewart]

Q Forgive me, but I am not clear how these updates would actually happen—whether you would have to take the vehicle into a dealership or garage.

David Williams: Tesla currently does them over the air.

[Iain Stewart]

Q If you were rushing out of the house at 9 o’clock and you got an email from the manufacturer that said, “Version 1.7 is now available and you need to install it”, and you thought, “I’m running late for a meeting—I’ll do it at the end of the day”, would that fall foul?

David Williams: I think the Bill is trying to allow for some delay, but a reasonable delay, and does not want people to deliberately and unnecessarily stall. If an update is coming through—if they have found a fatal flaw in the software that is likely to make your vehicle veer off the road—my view is that that vehicle should be immobile until the software update is implemented. The motor manufacturers would be able to build that into their technology and machines if they wanted to.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I think we have got the message.

[Iain Stewart]

Q This is just a supplementary question on your earlier point about Ireland and California having a harmonised payment mechanism. Did that come about just from the industry creating it or was there Government regulation or legislation?

Robert Llewellyn: Absolutely from legislation, yes. The system in California, which I am more familiar with, was chaotic. I do not know quite what happened in Ireland, but it was catastrophic. It was a simple bit of Government legislation from the Californian state legislature that insisted that there was one system, that you could use all public chargers. I believe it is a dongle rather than an app. That might have changed—I have not been there for a while—but it certainly was that.

[Iain Stewart]

Q So that is something you would like this Bill, or another piece of legislation, to do.

Robert Llewellyn: That would be an amazing change, and I think it would ease in a lot of people who have not adopted electric cars: “How do I charge it?” “You just walk up there and it charges.” That would be a big change.

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

Q It is great to be in the company of someone so evangelical about EVs. You have probably seen the ambition for the introduction of electric vehicles and the replacement of petrol and diesel by 2040, and an outright ban by 2050. Do you think we are being ambitious enough compared with other nations, and what it is that other nations are doing that perhaps we could learn from?

Robert Llewellyn: I was very pleased when I heard that announcement. Technology might overtake it. There is a strong argument for that among the evangelical electric vehicle users, from whom I try to stand one step back and be a little more objective. But it is such a hard thing to do. I have seen so many graphs to describe the uptake of new technologies and how this will be what happens with electric vehicles—the S-curve of adoption.

Our emotional relationship with cars is really complicated. It is deeper than our emotional relationship was with landline telephones or how television is viewed—all those things. It is more complex than that; I do not think it is quite as simple. I think you could be more ambitious. You could go with 2030, the technology is advancing so much.

The simple fact is that the car I have had the longest—a Nissan Leaf—has a 24kWh battery. There is now the new Nissan Leaf and the battery pack is exactly the same size and it is a 40kWh battery. That more than doubles the range of my very battered dirty old Nissan Leaf that I drove to the train station today. Sorry, no more piffle.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Second sitting)

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 31st October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Hayes]

Thank you.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Q Following up on the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, I have a question about the capacity of the grid to cope with the expected increase in demand, and in particular the timing of that demand. While researching for the Second Reading debate, I came across an Atkins report that draws on findings from the Energy Technology Institute that peak demand is likely to be in the early evenings—particularly Sunday evenings—and that that could increase demand on the grid by 10 GW, or 20%, at the time when it is least able to cope. Is that a finding that you recognise?

Marcus Stewart: One of the key things that affects the impact on the grid is people charging their cars. Smart charging is absolutely key to mitigating that. I will give you some examples from the work that we have published. We published our “Future Energy Scenarios” report in July. In a high-growth scenario that aligns with the Government’s target to ban sales of diesel and petrol engines in 2040, we would expect to see around 9 million electric vehicles in 2030. That would add something like 17% to peak demand, which occurs on a Monday or Tuesday evening in the winter, if there was not smart charging. If there was smart charging and people responded to that through time of use tariffs or other incentives, that could be reduced to around 6%. How people charge and how they are incentivised to do it has a real impact.

At the moment, the technology exists—the charging posts that have been put in have that technology—and we support the measures in the Bill to ensure that all charging points have that capability, which would make a significant difference to how easily electric vehicles are accommodated by the network nationally and locally. Smart charging is absolutely key, and we support the approach in the Bill.

[Iain Stewart]

Q Are you content, given the content of the Bill, that the industry will come up with those incentives itself, or will there be a requirement for further guidance or direction?

Marcus Stewart: I believe that the industry, in terms of energy suppliers, will offer smart tariffs. We have already seen that; OVO has published a proposed smart tariff that will actually support vehicle-to-grid when that becomes available. The market is likely to respond. There are also changes in the electricity market around billing for half-hourly meter reconciliation, which will drive the supplier to optimise their portfolio and to offer similar types of tariff. The mechanisms are there to make that happen. At the moment there are only 100,000 to 120,000 electric vehicles, so there is a very small impact, but when we get to millions of cars, we need to have that smart charging capability. People in the market are seeing that opportunity already and want to participate in that. Having the framework and rules that facilitate that and mandate the technology and infrastructure will go a long way to facilitating that.

Robert Evans: I would just like to add that on the one hand I am very reassured by my colleague’s contribution, which recognises that this is a market opportunity and that we have members who are very keen to provide the charging technology and the market mechanisms that would allow a motorist to make their electric energy—their battery—available, so that they do not charge at night, but they can provide power back to the grid when it is needed and manage those smart services.

We are concerned about mandating a specific technology. There is a context around the Bill that says it will mandate a certain technology or approach. We would like to see a recognition of the need to create a market rather than have a situation where, for example, a DNO can effectively turn off charging for somebody because they feel that that is necessary under certain conditions without involving the motorist or without market mechanisms coming in in the first place. We are particularly keen that this paves the way for a market-based approach. We welcome variable tariffs and vehicle-to-grid technology and we see the storage of electric vehicles as exactly what you need in an energy system with a high element of intermittency, as we add more and more renewables. The storage element is going to be a lot more valuable and there need to be market mechanisms to unlock that, rather than a mandated approach that is purely a situation where someone can turn off as they choose to, without the motorist or business—

[The Chair]

Thank you very much. Alan Brown.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Third sitting)

Iain Stewart Excerpts

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

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

I want to pick up the points made by the right hon. Gentleman. I was trying to think of parallels to try to understand this and imagine what it might be like in five or 10 years from now, and I guess I was likening it to the introduction of, say, cruise control and how that works with the insurance industry. If a driver instigates cruise control in an urban area and sets it at a speed that is in excess of the limit on that roadway, where would the responsibility and liability fall? The industry and technologies are improving at a pace. As was said in the Chamber on Second Reading, it is difficult to imagine where we will be, but I imagine that essentially the liability should be with the driver. If the driver has introduced the cruise control or automated driving system—in whatever form that may take—that is their choice just as it is their choice to manoeuvre from one lane to another today, which might ultimately result in an accident.

Perhaps I am not appreciating the fine nuance of the debate, but I would have assumed that, ultimately, the liability has to be with the driver. In the event of an accident, the telematics would be able to provide data to the insurance industry to prove things one way or another.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I rise simply to ask for a point of clarification from the Minister when he responds to the debate. I anticipate the answer to my question will be yes, but I would like to have it on the record. I anticipate that, as well as motor cars, the list of vehicles that the Secretary of State will compile and update will include lorries, buses, emergency services vehicles and other vehicles for which the driver would require an HGV licence or a public service vehicle licence. I would like clarification on that. For instance, I anticipate that, with technology, HGVs could be driven normally for a large part of a journey but then form part of some road train on a motorway with other similarly equipped vehicles. As I said, I would like clarification that the list will include those vehicles as well as private motor cars.

[Mr Hayes]

To paraphrase Bernard Shaw, I do not know whether I was born too early or born too late, but I do know that I was born to dare to dream of a future inspired—indeed shaped—by the past but not constrained by it; a future where we can achieve wonder. Part of that journey will be assisted by technological change. The technological change we are considering, as the Opposition spokesman said, could liberate many people who have not had easy access to private transport for a variety of reasons. That has extraordinary and wonderful prospects. As we consider the Bill, we should discuss it, as the shadow Minister did, in that context.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Sixth sitting)

Iain Stewart Excerpts

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

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

My main purpose in speaking to this clause and the amendment is to raise the same broad issue that I tried to raise on Second Reading. I have had a chance since then to talk to some of those involved in various elements of the industry and I am reaffirmed in my view that the scope of the regulations proposed in clause 9(1) and 9(2) is too limited.

It is clear that, if we take clauses 9 and 10 as a whole, they miss out a very important, critical element of the scene, without which we will not succeed in engendering the spread of electric vehicles that we seek. That is the assembly—many thousands in the one case and many hundreds of thousands in the other—of apartment blocks on one side and homes on the other side that do not have off-street car parking. In my own constituency, a very large proportion of the population does have off-street car parking because it is a rural area. Many suburban areas fall into the same category, but in our major cities there are many people who live in homes that do not have off-street car parking. Except at the very top end of the market, almost all people living in apartment blocks do not have full off-street car parking that is particularly associated with them. There may be a place where people park but it is not one that can be guaranteed to belong to a Mr or Mrs X. At the moment there is nothing in the Bill that mandates any off-street car parking under either of these circumstances.

My right hon. Friend the Minister may say, as he is wont to do in the Committee, “This Bill is only the beginning.” Yes, but it needs to be a beginning that is sufficient to bring about the largest part of what we seek to achieve. I urge him to talk to his colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to work out how, in connection with the clean growth strategy, he can provide, probably in the other place rather than on Report, although either would do, an amendment to clauses 9 or, conceivably, 10, or even a new clause, to provide powers for a Secretary of State—probably the one for Business rather than the one for Transport—to ordain that district network operators have to install off-street parking on some rational basis.

Clearly, a lot of consultation is needed with the manufacturers of the relevant equipment, as the shadow Minister said, but principally with the utilities themselves—the district network operators—to work out the best way through that. My feeling when I was involved in this as a Minister was that there is a great deal of difference between taking this in marginal steps as streets are being broken anyway for the purpose of repair or expansion of the network, and doing it all at once. Asking the DNOs to put in off-street car parking on all city streets and for apartment blocks that have not got it and where parking is permitted would be expensive and overplay what is needed in the first year or two. It is doable, but it is excessively costly for the consumer of electricity on whom the cost would fall—assuming it was allowed into the regulatory asset base, which it obviously needs to be. If, however, it is a programme of work that proceeds as streets are broken—I have done a little investigation, although the Minister’s counterparts in BEIS will be able to do much more, which suggests that over about a 10-year period almost all city streets would be able to have off-street charging installed at the same time as works went on—there will obviously be a marginal cost, but it is small.

I made an error in my remarks on Second Reading, because I thought at that time that the rational way to do this was to provide for fast charging off-street through what Hansard, with a delicious benevolence, transcribed as “free-phase charging”. That is a lovely idea, but I hope what I actually said, and I certainly meant to say, was 3-phase charging, which is fast charging. I thought that would be necessary off-street to provide for people to come home from work, charge off-street and then set out for supper or whatever. I have now been told by three different groups of manufacturers, so I begin to believe it, that that is not judged to be necessary and that low-voltage charging would do. That is because, in experience so far, almost everyone who engages in off-street parking or indeed any kind of charging at home does it overnight, in which case low-voltage does perfectly well.

That makes the proposition I am making considerably cheaper. If it is just a question of putting in lamp posts and bits of street furniture that have plugs, it is not complicated. It would be much aided if what the shadow Minister is requesting happened and there was a universalised plug system—but in any event it is perfectly doable at reasonably low cost if done over a period when streets are being broken anyway. If that does not happen, we will not see anything like the spread of electric cars that we would otherwise see, because about half the population does not have access to off-street parking, so it is a very important thing to do.

I want to anticipate one thing that I know from experience the Minister will be told by people in BEIS if his officials ask its officials. That is why I ask him to talk directly to our mutual friend, his counterpart Minister there, about it. He will be told that it is okay because Ofgem has powers within its current regulatory regime to modify licences in order to bring this about and it has powers to allow things to be charged to the regulatory asset base. Those propositions happen to be true, but I do not think that they are a good basis for not taking the power, because the next thing, which the Minister may or may not be told but is also true, is that Ofgem is an independent entity and one cannot guarantee that it will actually use the powers, because if we look at its duties in the underlying primary legislation, we see that it does not have the duty to promote the use of electric vehicles. It may interpret its duties to the electricity supply industry, in terms of balancing and economics, as meaning a large amount of renewables and the prospect of a large battery for the nation residing in its cars. It may interpret its duties as meaning that it ought to do this, but it might interpret its duties differently. It may say that the electricity consumer should not have to bear this cost, and therefore I think that Ministers need the powers directly. They may well never need to exercise them, because they may be able to say to Ofgem, “Look, we have a regulation-making power here. Rather than us using it, why don’t you just enforce this?” But one way or the other, I think that the power should be taken, and it could be taken in a form that allows a very moderate, slow roll-out over, say, a 10-year period. That would broadly do, because I do not think any of us imagines that tens of millions of our citizens will have these kinds of cars 10 years from now. We want there to be able to be tens of millions of our citizens with these cars 20 or 30 years from now, so it would do if this was done gradually as streets were broken.

I hope that that is clear and the Minister is willing to consider it, in conjunction with BEIS, between now and the final passage of the Bill through the other place.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I rise briefly to seek the thoughts of my right hon. Friend the Minister on clause 9(2), which deals with the potential regulations covering the payment methods for charging points. During an evidence session, one of the most powerful pieces of evidence that we got was from Robert Llewellyn, who pointed to the chaotic situation that existed in California and Ireland, where different providers had different payment cards and methods and there was no standardisation until they legislated for it. My reason for speaking is to hear a little more about what the Minister intends under clause 9(2). Is it his intention to seek a common payment mechanism, and if so, is the current wording of the clause sufficient? The evidence that we had from Robert Llewellyn was that the industry itself will not come up with a common payment mechanism and that will require Government intervention. The Minister may argue, and I will be perfectly happy to accept, that the clause as drafted does it, but perhaps he will wish to consider a slight alteration in the wording to set out that expectation.

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

I want to amplify the points made by the right hon. Member for West Dorset in talking about the opportunity we have—I think he was saying this—to be more ambitious and to mandate more for the provision of public charging points on our streets, and the challenge that we face particularly in urban areas. Many of us will appreciate the financial pressures that local authorities are under, and we need to look at introducing LED street lights, whereby we invest in order to save in the budgets employed by councils in the provision of street lighting. Linked to this is a huge opportunity for those authorities to invest in and provide street charging points, and for electric vehicles. I want to broaden the thinking. We are talking in the main about electric cars—that is the mindset we are focused on. However, particularly in urban areas, other forms of electric mobility will offer us a huge opportunity. We need to be cognisant of that, especially electric bicycles—I think that will be a huge growth area.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Could the Minister wait for Mr Stewart?

[Iain Stewart]

Forgive me if I was so mesmerised by the prospect of the competition that the Minister has just announced that I missed his comments, but can he clarify the point I asked about the common payment mechanism, which I think would be an important feature of the interoperability of these charging points?

[Mr Hayes]

Let me deal with that first. I wholly agree that the regulatory powers we have taken are designed to produce a common payment method. That is very important. As I offered a moment ago, we will engage with the industry to work to that end, but we could use these powers to oblige that. It is intolerable that people might turn up thinking they could charge their vehicle, find that the charge point was compatible because of the steps we have taken, and then find that they had to have pre-booked, prepaid or have a special card to do pay. It is probably right that we go for a pay-as-you-go method, but I do not want to be definitive about that. Let us have those discussions to achieve the end my hon. Friend suggests.

On the other matter, will the hon. Member for Hyndburn remind me what he said? I have now waxed so lyrical that I cannot remember.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Fifth sitting)

Iain Stewart Excerpts

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

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

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

First, regarding the phrase

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

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

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

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

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Following on from the points that my hon. Friend just raised, will the Minister clarify a couple of points regarding the phrase in clause 4(1)(b), which states:

“the insured person knows, or ought reasonably to know”?

I am concerned that the phrase “ought reasonably to know” is a little woolly. I am not a lawyer or an expert in parliamentary drafting. It may be that the phrase is a well-used one that the courts can easily interpret, but in the context of the new software I am a little uncertain as to what “ought reasonably to know” actually means. I can envisage a number of scenarios in which the driver may have had an alert from the manufacturer that says, “We need to install version 1.whatever of the software.” He gets the update at a quarter to nine in the morning. He is rushing out of the house, late for a meeting, and says, “I’ll do that later on,” and then the car he is driving is unsafe at that point. I am simply not clear where the onus lies and when that person should install the software. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point when he responds to this group of amendments, or he may wish to reflect on it and consider the matter further on Report. It is an area I have concerns about and we ought to get the drafting absolutely right.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to recommence the discussion of the Bill under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.

New clause 9, tabled in my name, states:

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

The new clause would require the Government to introduce regulations that require automated vehicles to be up to date in order for them to utilise automated functions on public roads. Under the current drafting, people would be able to drive their automated vehicles on the roads without having the latest up-to-date software, which could lead to safety risks. The new clause would ensure that the Government introduce regulations that require automated vehicles to be up to date in order for the automated function to be used. If a vehicle had a serious mechanical fault that could endanger the driver and others, we would not allow it on our roads. An automated vehicle would similarly present an increased safety risk if its operating system was not updated. Most people with a smartphone or computer are likely to have software that prevents it from being used until it is updated. I am not struck by any reason why a similar mechanism could not be included in automated vehicles. By preventing an un-updated vehicle from being used, we would achieve safer roads and cheaper insurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Transport Legislation and Maritime (Mr John Hayes)]

We continue with dedication our diligent perusal of these matters and our scrutiny of this Bill. I am grateful to the Committee for its continuing determination to get this right. When we first met, we said that this was an important and challenging piece of legislation because we debate it in rapidly altering circumstances. The technology is moving on apace and we are trying to tread a path between creating sufficient certainty to allow insurers to develop the products they will need as the technology comes on stream and predicting a future which, by its nature, is unpredictable. That is the path we tread. It is important to emphasise in that spirit, in relation to this clause and these amendments, that the Bill is a first step. It does not solve all the problems or answer all the questions. It is a modest Bill, though an important one, in those terms.

It is doubtless true that as this technology unfolds more work will need to be done. We are on the cusp of an important—indeed, one might say revolutionary—change in what we drive and how we drive it, but it is not for this Committee, Government or Minister to predict quite what that might look like in decades to come. The modest character of the Bill needs to inform all our scrutiny. We are not aiming to solve all the problems here. We are aiming to take a measured first step towards solving those problems and meeting those challenges.

However, it is right that we debate the issue of how motorists understand and update their systems so that they can use their automated vehicles safely, as the shadow Minister, the mover of the amendment, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and other contributors have said. A core part of that is to ensure that the regulatory framework is in place which compels manufacturers to bring to market systems that make this process as simple and effective as possible.

This is certainly not the place for that legislative process to occur. It is not the purpose of the Bill. The requirement for systems to update forms part of an international set of standards, which I mentioned earlier. Vehicle safety and technology are subject to international standards. Those standards are well established in respect of the vehicles we all typically drive, but they are emerging standards in respect of autonomous vehicles. Much work has been done by this Government and others to ensure that those standards are fit for purpose. They will form the basis of a new type of approval process. We are familiar with the existing means by which these things are assured. That will develop over time, as the type of approval process emerges as a result of the work that is being done. Until that type of approval process is fit for purpose, these vehicles will simply not be sold or driven on our roads. In addition to our domestic non-insurance regulatory programme, it is vital that we are mindful of those further developments.

Robust standards will be in place before the vehicles arrive to market. There is, therefore, a risk in acting unilaterally. I understand why people are suggesting that we might; it is a perfectly reasonable response to the debate and the Bill, and it is useful that we are airing these subjects here. However, we would not want to try to anticipate the development of those standards without a clear understanding of the ultimate design standards to which these vehicles will be held, as we would risk creating barriers to the use of this technology and inhibiting further research and development—indeed, possibly inhibiting the development of the insurers’ products that the Bill is all about. We are continuing to take part in the international negotiation shaping the standards, and developing domestic road traffic laws and guidance. We do not accept new clause 9 and the amendments to clause 4 that would compel us to act without a settled knowledge of how these systems will ultimately be configured.

Let me deal, however, with some specifics. A series of points have been made on these matters during our scrutiny. I have written to the Committee, as Members will know, dealing with some of the questions that were previously raised. I do not think that this is an appropriate point to go through those letters because they do not directly relate to the subject at hand, but there will be a chance—I think at clause 7—to revisit some of the issues that were dealt with when we looked at clause 1. I simply put that on the record, in case people were wondering why I was not immediately addressing some of the things that were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and others in earlier parts of the scrutiny.

In respect of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South, I am looking for the guidance that I might have received from another place—[Interruption.] Ah, here we are; it has winged its way to me. In the end, the courts will interpret the facts. If a person knew that they needed to update the software and failed to do so—that is, knowingly took a view that they did not need to update their software, rather as if someone knowingly drove a vehicle that was mechanically unsound—a judgment will of course be made about their responsibilities and whether they should have used the vehicle. If someone is negligent in respect of their vehicle’s fitness to be driven, clearly the courts will have to take a view about their responsibilities.

[Iain Stewart]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I can see that my hon. Friend is satisfied, but not entirely.

[Iain Stewart]

I agree that we cannot anticipate exactly what form the technology will take, or the form of the updates. My right hon. Friend mentioned that further regulations would be issued before these vehicles went on the road. Would those regulations include a clearer definition of the obligations on the driver regarding when they must install any updates to the software?

[Mr Hayes]

I will come back to that, because in a way it relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire. We anticipate that the majority of software updates will be delivered automatically over the air, as it were, so we would expect software to be updated over time in that way that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South suggests. I am mindful of the work that my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire has done on this—we have discussed it outside the Committee.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Iain Stewart Excerpts

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

[Karl Turner]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to push anything to a vote.

We agree with what the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said in Committee, which I just read out, and believe that the Government should take this opportunity to set out in the Bill their strategy for doing that.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I am happy to support Government new clause 1 and the consequential amendments.

I rise to make one point only on a matter that was discussed in Committee, particularly when we took evidence from witnesses before line-by-line consideration commenced. It follows on from the point the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), made about the need for the charging network to be as accessible and easy-to-use as possible, so that we can encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. One of the key requests was that we have a simplified payment system for use of the charge-points. There is evidence from Ireland and the state of California that some Government intervention was required to achieve a harmonised payment system, before which users were having to carry around a multiplicity of payment cards to use the system. New clause 1, in conjunction with clause 9, will give the Government sufficient powers to nudge the industry to achieve that. I just wanted to put on the record that that requirement will be integral to making the charging system and the uptake of electric cars as complete as we would like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I accept the hon. Lady’s point. What I said was factually correct; I was just trying to point out the disparity between areas. Good for Orkney, but this is about getting other areas to come along and invest to set up these infrastructures as well.

At present, there are multiple charging point operators across the UK, each with their own plugs, software, customer charges, billing systems and payment methods. That is clearly one of the issues that we are trying to address in the Bill and new clause 1. Critical to that is that the Government need to standardise charging infrastructure to make the network far more accessible. To draw a parallel, it is rather like the old mobile phones of the early days that some of us will remember. Mobile companies started moving into the sector and establishing their networks, with the investment that had to go with that. We realised that without a Government lead or a national infrastructure, pylons were starting to cluster in certain areas when in fact one pylon would have done, but with a different antenna fixed to it. We must try to avoid that sort of thing, so that we do not have little clusters on our streets or in our town centres when one will do.

It is crucial to ensure not only that we have charging points, but their interoperability for all types of vehicle. By way of parallel, I cite the fantastic thing that is the USB. We all know what it is like when we forget the charging cable for our mobile phones and find we have no means of recharging our phone, because we happen to have a product of a particular brand and a plug does not fit that phone. It is crucial that we not only legislate but work with other countries to ensure there is interoperability. Often when we have these debates, we are thinking about cars, but we also need to think about all the other sectors. That is why it is vital that we have a comprehensive approach to the electrification of all sectors relevant to mobility.

Those of us in London recognise just how much the bus network has improved over recent years. I was amazed to discover that a third of our famous red buses are now hybrid. Something like 73 are electric and about 10 are hydrogen buses. Those hybrid buses are super-quiet and relatively clean, with 30% or 40% less emissions. That has made a noticeable difference to air quality, as I remember how poor that was 30 years ago when I lived in London.

One of the businesses in my constituency is Volvo Buses, which has done a lot of work on electric vehicles and has had all sorts of issues. For example, it has invested heavily in trying to establish a network in Harrogate. The costs of getting the DNO connection have varied considerably, and the project has been extremely difficult. We have to recognise that these businesses are the first adopters. They are the ones trying to get new technologies established, so we need to make the process as easy as possible.

One issue with commercial vehicles and buses is the need for pantograph-type systems to charge vehicles from above. European manufacturers, including Mercedes, Fiat, Renault and Volvo, are looking at how to recharge those vehicles when they are at a bus stand or in a garage. We need to ensure that such infrastructure is generic and standardised across all manufacturers.

[Iain Stewart]

I absolutely agree that we need to look at the technology for charging buses and other vehicles en route. May I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the pilot scheme that has been running in Milton Keynes with an induction charging system for a bus route that is wholly electric? That could represent the technology for recharging, rather than expensive overhead line equipment.

[Matt Western]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his invitation, and I would certainly be delighted to take him up on it. That is one for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

It has been a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee and the predecessor Bill Committee and I agree with the comments made: this is an exemplar of how Committees should work. I thank the shadow Front-Bench team and all my colleagues in the Committee for what was a very constructive session.

As we prepare to send the Bill to the other place, I would like to say that the Government approach on the Bill is right in setting the general frameworks on issues such as insurance and the charging network. We do not yet know the full details of where the new technology will take us, so having the broad outline—we can fill in the details later—is the correct approach.

Although important in itself, the Bill and the role of the Department for Transport are only one part of the broader picture. This issue covers many different Departments. It involves the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: we must make sure that the grid has the capacity and that we have the skills base in the country to make the most of this technology. It covers the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government: we must make sure that local government involvement is correct and that when we plan our smart cities the Bill is part of a much broader framework. We also have to pick up some of the more detailed issues, such as the one my constituent Mark Nicholas raised. At present in Milton Keynes, there is an abuse of the parking spaces with charging points. He wants to see a higher penalty for drivers of combustion engines who use those spaces.

The issue involves the Home Office and the security services as they must consider data privacy issues and cyber-security. These automated networks will only be as secure as their weakest link. It also involves the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its broader clean air strategy and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport: we must make sure that we have the digital framework that will support the connectivity of all these vehicles.

This is a good Bill. I am proud to have been a part of its passage through this place and I wish it every success in the other place.