Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (First sitting)

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[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.

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. This applies most critically to GPS, where there may be changes to roads or whatever. The automated vehicle would need to know where it is going and whether there had been some ad hoc intervention in the road layout that meant that the GPS was inaccurate. Clearly, there would need to be an update. Does he share my view that updates should be regular and frequent, because they are part of the safety process?

[Karl Turner]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point when he talks about GPS systems. Without the new clause, people would be able to take un-updated vehicles on our roads, without being absolutely sure that they are safe. A primary benefit of AVs is that they reduce the likelihood of human error. However, one of the few areas in which the scope for human error remains—the responsibility for ensuring that software is updated—would not be addressed, even though it would not be difficult to do so. I cannot find any reason why it is not possible to legislate for this. The new clause addresses that obvious issue and I trust that the Government will consider it carefully.

[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 (Alan Brown), 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 is 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.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 2

Ayes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 6

[Karl Turner]

Mr Bailey, when can we vote on new clause 9?

[The Chair]

That is voted on separately at the end.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Right of insurer etc to claim against person responsible for accident

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I would not want to accuse the hon. Gentleman of misunderstanding, so I will perhaps say that I did not make it sufficiently clear in my opening remarks. For it is better to blame oneself than other people. The purpose of the clause is to supplement clause 2, in that it will ensure that victims do not potentially have to pursue major manufacturers through the courts. This is to avoid both the unreasonableness of having to do that and the delays suggested by the hon. Gentleman. It is designed to protect the consumer. At the end of the day, the consumer is our principal concern, as he said in an earlier intervention.

We want the system to operate in a way that is as quick, straightforward and comprehensible as possible for the consumer. That is actually what the clause does, by supplementing clause 2. The business of the relationship between the insurer and the manufacturer will be going on behind the scenes. The consumer will not need to know about that, and will get a speedy and satisfactory resolution of the event in the way that they do now. If there was a difference at all, that is where it lies.

[Karl Turner]

I have listened carefully to what the Minister says and he makes a very salient point. We do not have any objection to the clause.

[Mr Hayes]

Before we move on, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire raised the issue of enforceable agreements, and I did promise—with your indulgence, Mr Bailey—to respond, in my normal spirit. I am told that the agreement must be legally binding and therefore enforceable in court. Whether that satisfies my right hon. Friend, I do not know, but that is all I have to say, so he is not going to get any more out of me.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Application of enactments

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

[Mr Hayes]

Briefly, clause 6 ensures that the new system of liability being created by the Bill preserves and is joined up with various forms of liability in other parts of legislation, and is straightforward in that respect. In creating a new form of liability in the Bill, that is vital. Where those liabilities exist in other legislation, they should remain unaffected. For example, the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 provides for a victim’s dependents to be able to recover damages in spite of the victim’s death, if the death was caused by

“wrongful act, neglect or default”.

That type of liability has been preserved and linked to the Bill’s system of liability so that the provisions of the 1976 Act are brought to bear. Not doing that would create gaps and risk leaving victims and their dependents with incomplete cover.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Interpretation

[Karl Turner]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 7, page 5, line 15, at end insert—

“(c) an automated vehicle may be listed, under section 1, as being capable of driving itself “safely” if the vehicle is designed and manufactured to be—

(i) capable of driving itself in a manner unlikely to cause damage to the automated vehicle or another vehicle, or injury to a person, on the road or surrounding area, and

(ii) protected from hacking risks that the manufacturer knew, or ought reasonably to have known, are likely to cause damage to the automated vehicle or another vehicle, or injury to a person, on the road or surrounding area (see section (Cyber security and hacking of automated vehicles)).”

This amendment would define what is meant by an automated vehicle being capable of driving itself “safely”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 18—Cyber Security and hacking of automated vehicles—

“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, consult with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate on what steps will be required for the effective cyber security of automated vehicles listed under section 1 to protect those vehicles against accidents caused by hacking.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report within 12 months what steps would be required to protect automated vehicles from accidents caused by hacking.

[Karl Turner]

Clause 7 sets out when a car is deemed to be driving itself, or in automated mode, but there is no mention of what happens if the vehicle is designed or manufactured in a faulty way or is hacked due to a failure by the manufacturer to install adequate protective software.

How would our amendment improve the Bill? While we all welcome the opportunities that the new technology will bring, we also have to recognise that it will bring risk. A lot of those risks will be around the software used, and they therefore may be harder to pick up than in a conventional vehicle. We all know the risks of hacking in computer systems. We have had experience in this House relatively recently of a cyber-attack—a hacking event—on Members’ emails. That experience is commonplace in workplaces across the country. When hacking and cyber-crime can result in serious consequences, we need to be extremely cautious.

We have the opportunity to put safeguards into the Bill now to give protections in this area, rather than doing that later down the line. The Minister has repeated constantly that this is a modest Bill that is merely a skeleton and that regulation will have to come as technology improves. Indeed, given the uptake of these vehicles and the number of them being purchased, action will clearly be required where the technology changes, but there is a real risk in not legislating now, when we have the opportunity to ensure the safety of these things.

Our amendment would definitely tighten up this area of the Bill by setting out when an automated vehicle is capable of driving itself safely. That would give the driver protection with regards to liability, if it was proved that there was a manufacturer’s fault or if the vehicle had been hacked. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote; its purpose is to start a discussion about this area, in particular the hacking element. The issue of cyber-security and vehicles being hacked has been discussed previously, in the predecessor to this Committee. I have read the Hansard report of those discussions and there was some very detailed debate, but it is important to look at it again now. I stand to be corrected, but the Minister previously said he would come back with potential changes in this area. However, I think he simply wrote to members of the previous Bill Committee.

New clause 18 would do exactly what we intend it to do. We now have the opportunity, and I hope that the Government will listen carefully.

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

I want to talk about clause 7(1)(b), which deals with the interpretation of what it is for a vehicle to be insured. That takes us back to the discussion we had in the Committee’s previous sittings. I am grateful to the Minister for providing access to his officials in the interim. I am satisfied that the issues I was raising are handled in the Bill, but want to set out how I now understand that to be the case, so that the Minister can give us an assurance that I have got this right and we know for the future that that is how the Bill is meant to work. It is a little sad that we have to do quite a lot of interpretative work to understand how the Bill is working, but I understand that that is caused by the fact that it is trying to piggyback on the Road Traffic Act 1988.

It turns out that clause 7(1)(b) is critical to the whole structure, because it defines a vehicle as being insured if there is a policy in force in relation to the use of it. Whereas one might think, under clause 2(1)(b), that when the Bill says the vehicle is “insured” at the time of the accident, it means the vehicle is insured at the time of the accident—indeed, I fell into the trap of thinking that that is what clause 2(1)(b) meant, because that is what it says—in fact clause 2(1)(b) has to be read in the context of clause 7(1)(b). Therefore, it is not actually the vehicle that is insured; it is the person who is, or may be—but maybe isn’t—the driver whose policy is the relevant policy and is actually insured to drive that vehicle. That is what I now understand clause 2(1)(b), in the light of clause 7(1)(b), to mean.

What clause 2(1)(b) is actually trying to say is that, as long as there is a person in the vehicle who, one way or another, is insured to drive the vehicle, then the insurer of that person is liable for the accident, even if the vehicle is driving itself. It follows from that that even if the driver, who is not driving at the time when the vehicle is driving itself, is not the owner but is insured to drive the vehicle on a policy that gives him insurance to drive other cars, it is also the case that the insurer of that person, not of the owner or the vehicle but of the person who is the driver—or would have been, if he was driving—is the insurer who is liable for the crash caused by the vehicle when it is driving itself. If I have at last understood all that correctly, it follows that the problems that I and several Committee members foresaw, about things such as transition, disappear, given that it is always the same insurer who is liable both when the car is in automated mode and when the car is being driven, because it is the insurer of the driver—or crypto-driver—regardless of whether he is driving or the car is driving itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I understand that Karl Turner wants to speak to new clause 18 separately.

[Karl Turner]

Very briefly.

[The Chair]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

One of the delightful things about the House of Commons, and indeed about Committees such as this, is that there is always expertise that one did not know about previously and that emerges as a result of the discourse. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his expert advice on that particular subject. The point raised by the hon. Member for Eltham is that he wants to be certain that an innocent party is not adversely affected by the development of products that do not afford the same kind of protection that people now routinely rely upon.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s view. My view is straightforward: it would be intolerable for a situation to develop in which people, through no fault of their own, and with no negligence or irresponsibility in what they have planned or done, were to find themselves uninsured because of the development of some perverse policy. In the end, that is a matter for the insurance industry, but I have made my views clear and put them on the record, and they reflect the views of the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, who, among his many distinguished and eminent achievements, has today added another: becoming a spokesman—or perhaps I ought to say the interpreter—for the hon. Member for Eltham. And so it is that such unions are formed in Committees such as this.

[Karl Turner]

I want to speak briefly to new clause 18. Before doing so, I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister’s officials for the work they have done with my office. They have been extremely helpful.

New clause 18 covers the issue of cyber-security and the hacking of automated vehicles. It would require the Secretary of State to consult with such persons as he considers appropriate within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I am not planning to push the new clause to a vote; its purpose is mainly to probe a little deeper to ensure that the Government properly and widely consult in this area. I would be grateful if the Minister indicated how that has already been done. I know that a great deal of work has gone on behind the scenes; will he assist the Committee by setting out who the Department has consulted with thus far?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I actually do not think that this matter can be dealt with in the Bill, but I agree with the shadow Minister that we should seek an assurance from the Government that they will spend the time that needs to be spent, once the Bill is out of this House, trying to deal with what is a very, very big problem.

It is easy to imagine that this is just science fiction, but it is not. It is more than imaginable that, as part of the convergence of networks and as the transport system becomes automated, the single biggest security vulnerability of the UK—and, while we are at it, of any other advanced economy—will be the ability of state or non-state actors to intervene in a whole series of its convergent networks. Obviously, there may also be threats from exogenous things such as space weather, which may affect convergent networks, including electricity, transport, communications and so on, but state actors and some non-state actors are employing serious and highly developed methods to intervene in our cyber-security, as the Government are well aware.

The capacity to do damage to the UK by bringing the transport system to a grinding halt, amidst thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of simultaneous crashes, is a delicious prospect. I absolutely guarantee the Minister, although I am sure that he does not need my guarantee to believe it, that someone sitting somewhere—if not several people sitting in several places—is planning that kind of offensive cyber-activity at this very moment. Many of those people have access to many of the people who will be involved in developing the software that will be used in the very machines that we want to be used on our roads.

That is an irony of the globalised world. This is not like the 18th century, when people sat behind huge national barricades and we did not use their technologies but they tried to use them against us. We are now in a position where the people who may use our technologies against us supply some of those technologies to us. That creates a degree of risk out of all proportion to anything we have witnessed before. I am a believer in automated vehicles—I do not think that we can resist this trend—but we need to ensure that an immensely higher level of cyber-security is built in from the start than we might think necessary under other circumstances.

I want to make one further point. This is one of those cases where externalities will not be internalised. It is not in the interests of particular manufacturers to worry very much about this issue. If I am a specific manufacturer of a specific automated vehicle, my interest is in producing something that is good to drive, cheap and normally safe, because that is the way I will sell the maximum quantity of it. If somebody tells me that I could make it safer from hacking, which is unlikely to occur, in the sense that there is a one-in-1,000 or one-in-10,000 or whatever chance of it being hacked, by making it significantly more expensive, my natural and commercial response will be not to add that protection, because it would make me less competitive. I am not particularly worried that Britain may be brought to a halt, because I am not Britain; I am a manufacturer, and I am answerable to my shareholders, not to the electors of the UK.

There is a clear area of intrinsic market failure here, where, however pure a free marketeer one is, Adam Smith principles apply and it is for the state to ensure that the externalities are internalised by legislating or regulating, or by reaching agreement with manufacturers. As I say, I do not believe that the Bill can be the vehicle for creating a whole new structure of invigilation of the cyber-security standards of automated vehicles, but the Minister, in conjunction with Ministers in parallel positions in other jurisdictions, needs to get to work on that rapidly. If that is not done, the Bill will be useless, because it will provide a framework for something that no rational Government will ever allow to occur.

We cannot allow the UK’s transport system to be put in peril by being easily accessible to hackers in a way that could cause hundreds of thousands of accidents simultaneously. It is a necessary concomitant to the Bill that there should be a serious attempt to create that degree of universal cyber-security for level 4 and level 5 vehicles. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he is at this very moment getting the plane tickets to go and talk to all the other relevant Ministers and set up the international systems required to do something similar to the protocols that govern the GSM standard, which make it not unhackable, but much less hackable than previous mobile systems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

I have listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say and to the discussion between right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the Committee. I am satisfied that the Minister will do everything he can to achieve what the amendment hoped to achieve. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

My instinct is that the issues in clause 7 have been fully debated, so I will now put the Question.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Definitions

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

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Fifth sitting)

Karl Turner Excerpts

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

[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.

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. This applies most critically to GPS, where there may be changes to roads or whatever. The automated vehicle would need to know where it is going and whether there had been some ad hoc intervention in the road layout that meant that the GPS was inaccurate. Clearly, there would need to be an update. Does he share my view that updates should be regular and frequent, because they are part of the safety process?

[Karl Turner]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point when he talks about GPS systems. Without the new clause, people would be able to take un-updated vehicles on our roads, without being absolutely sure that they are safe. A primary benefit of AVs is that they reduce the likelihood of human error. However, one of the few areas in which the scope for human error remains—the responsibility for ensuring that software is updated—would not be addressed, even though it would not be difficult to do so. I cannot find any reason why it is not possible to legislate for this. The new clause addresses that obvious issue and I trust that the Government will consider it carefully.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 2

Ayes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 6

[Karl Turner]

Mr Bailey, when can we vote on new clause 9?

[The Chair]

That is voted on separately at the end.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Right of insurer etc to claim against person responsible for accident

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I would not want to accuse the hon. Gentleman of misunderstanding, so I will perhaps say that I did not make it sufficiently clear in my opening remarks. For it is better to blame oneself than other people. The purpose of the clause is to supplement clause 2, in that it will ensure that victims do not potentially have to pursue major manufacturers through the courts. This is to avoid both the unreasonableness of having to do that and the delays suggested by the hon. Gentleman. It is designed to protect the consumer. At the end of the day, the consumer is our principal concern, as he said in an earlier intervention.

We want the system to operate in a way that is as quick, straightforward and comprehensible as possible for the consumer. That is actually what the clause does, by supplementing clause 2. The business of the relationship between the insurer and the manufacturer will be going on behind the scenes. The consumer will not need to know about that, and will get a speedy and satisfactory resolution of the event in the way that they do now. If there was a difference at all, that is where it lies.

[Karl Turner]

I have listened carefully to what the Minister says and he makes a very salient point. We do not have any objection to the clause.

[Mr Hayes]

Before we move on, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire raised the issue of enforceable agreements, and I did promise—with your indulgence, Mr Bailey—to respond, in my normal spirit. I am told that the agreement must be legally binding and therefore enforceable in court. Whether that satisfies my right hon. Friend, I do not know, but that is all I have to say, so he is not going to get any more out of me.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Application of enactments

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

[Mr Hayes]

Briefly, clause 6 ensures that the new system of liability being created by the Bill preserves and is joined up with various forms of liability in other parts of legislation, and is straightforward in that respect. In creating a new form of liability in the Bill, that is vital. Where those liabilities exist in other legislation, they should remain unaffected. For example, the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 provides for a victim’s dependents to be able to recover damages in spite of the victim’s death, if the death was caused by

“wrongful act, neglect or default”.

That type of liability has been preserved and linked to the Bill’s system of liability so that the provisions of the 1976 Act are brought to bear. Not doing that would create gaps and risk leaving victims and their dependents with incomplete cover.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Interpretation

[Karl Turner]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 7, page 5, line 15, at end insert—

“(c) an automated vehicle may be listed, under section 1, as being capable of driving itself ‘safely’ if the vehicle is designed and manufactured to be—

(i) capable of driving itself in a manner unlikely to cause damage to the automated vehicle or another vehicle, or injury to a person, on the road or surrounding area, and

(ii) protected from hacking risks that the manufacturer knew, or ought reasonably to have known, are likely to cause damage to the automated vehicle or another vehicle, or injury to a person, on the road or surrounding area (see section (Cyber security and hacking of automated vehicles)).”

This amendment would define what is meant by an automated vehicle being capable of driving itself “safely”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 18—Cyber Security and hacking of automated vehicles—

“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, consult with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate on what steps will be required for the effective cyber security of automated vehicles listed under section 1 to protect those vehicles against accidents caused by hacking.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report within 12 months what steps would be required to protect automated vehicles from accidents caused by hacking.

[Karl Turner]

Clause 7 sets out when a car is deemed to be driving itself, or in automated mode, but there is no mention of what happens if the vehicle is designed or manufactured in a faulty way or is hacked due to a failure by the manufacturer to install adequate protective software.

How would our amendment improve the Bill? While we all welcome the opportunities that the new technology will bring, we also have to recognise that it will bring risk. A lot of those risks will be around the software used, and they therefore may be harder to pick up than in a conventional vehicle. We all know the risks of hacking in computer systems. We have had experience in this House relatively recently of a cyber-attack—a hacking event—on Members’ emails. That experience is commonplace in workplaces across the country. When hacking and cyber-crime can result in serious consequences, we need to be extremely cautious.

We have the opportunity to put safeguards into the Bill now to give protections in this area, rather than doing that later down the line. The Minister has repeated constantly that this is a modest Bill that is merely a skeleton and that regulation will have to come as technology improves. Indeed, given the uptake of these vehicles and the number of them being purchased, action will clearly be required where the technology changes, but there is a real risk in not legislating now, when we have the opportunity to ensure the safety of these things.

Our amendment would definitely tighten up this area of the Bill by setting out when an automated vehicle is capable of driving itself safely. That would give the driver protection with regards to liability, if it was proved that there was a manufacturer’s fault or if the vehicle had been hacked. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote; its purpose is to start a discussion about this area, in particular the hacking element. The issue of cyber-security and vehicles being hacked has been discussed previously, in the predecessor to this Committee. I have read the Hansard report of those discussions and there was some very detailed debate, but it is important to look at it again now. I stand to be corrected, but the Minister previously said he would come back with potential changes in this area. However, I think he simply wrote to members of the previous Bill Committee.

New clause 18 would do exactly what we intend it to do. We now have the opportunity, and I hope that the Government will listen carefully.

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

I want to talk about clause 7(1)(b), which deals with the interpretation of what it is for a vehicle to be insured. That takes us back to the discussion we had in the Committee’s previous sittings. I am grateful to the Minister for providing access to his officials in the interim. I am satisfied that the issues I was raising are handled in the Bill, but want to set out how I now understand that to be the case, so that the Minister can give us an assurance that I have got this right and we know for the future that that is how the Bill is meant to work. It is a little sad that we have to do quite a lot of interpretative work to understand how the Bill is working, but I understand that that is caused by the fact that it is trying to piggyback on the Road Traffic Act 1988.

It turns out that clause 7(1)(b) is critical to the whole structure, because it defines a vehicle as being insured if there is a policy in force in relation to the use of it. Whereas one might think, under clause 2(1)(b), that when the Bill says the vehicle is “insured” at the time of the accident, it means the vehicle is insured at the time of the accident—indeed, I fell into the trap of thinking that that is what clause 2(1)(b) meant, because that is what it says—in fact clause 2(1)(b) has to be read in the context of clause 7(1)(b). Therefore, it is not actually the vehicle that is insured; it is the person who is, or may be—but maybe isn’t—the driver whose policy is the relevant policy and is actually insured to drive that vehicle. That is what I now understand clause 2(1)(b), in the light of clause 7(1)(b), to mean.

What clause 2(1)(b) is actually trying to say is that, as long as there is a person in the vehicle who, one way or another, is insured to drive the vehicle, then the insurer of that person is liable for the accident, even if the vehicle is driving itself. It follows from that that even if the driver, who is not driving at the time when the vehicle is driving itself, is not the owner but is insured to drive the vehicle on a policy that gives him insurance to drive other cars, it is also the case that the insurer of that person, not of the owner or the vehicle but of the person who is the driver—or would have been, if he was driving—is the insurer who is liable for the crash caused by the vehicle when it is driving itself. If I have at last understood all that correctly, it follows that the problems that I and several Committee members foresaw, about things such as transition, disappear, given that it is always the same insurer who is liable both when the car is in automated mode and when the car is being driven, because it is the insurer of the driver—or crypto-driver—regardless of whether he is driving or the car is driving itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I understand that Karl Turner wants to speak to new clause 18 separately.

[Karl Turner]

Very briefly.

[The Chair]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

One of the delightful things about the House of Commons, and indeed about Committees such as this, is that there is always expertise that one did not know about previously and that emerges as a result of the discourse. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his expert advice on that particular subject. The point raised by the hon. Member for Eltham is that he wants to be certain that an innocent party is not adversely affected by the development of products that do not afford the same kind of protection that people now routinely rely upon.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s view. My view is straightforward: it would be intolerable for a situation to develop in which people, through no fault of their own, and with no negligence or irresponsibility in what they have planned or done, were to find themselves uninsured because of the development of some perverse policy. In the end, that is a matter for the insurance industry, but I have made my views clear and put them on the record, and they reflect the views of the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, who, among his many distinguished and eminent achievements, has today added another: becoming a spokesman—or perhaps I ought to say the interpreter—for the hon. Member for Eltham. And so it is that such unions are formed in Committees such as this.

[Karl Turner]

I want to speak briefly to new clause 18. Before doing so, I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister’s officials for the work they have done with my office. They have been extremely helpful.

New clause 18 covers the issue of cyber-security and the hacking of automated vehicles. It would require the Secretary of State to consult with such persons as he considers appropriate within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I am not planning to push the new clause to a vote; its purpose is mainly to probe a little deeper to ensure that the Government properly and widely consult in this area. I would be grateful if the Minister indicated how that has already been done. I know that a great deal of work has gone on behind the scenes; will he assist the Committee by setting out who the Department has consulted with thus far?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I actually do not think that this matter can be dealt with in the Bill, but I agree with the shadow Minister that we should seek an assurance from the Government that they will spend the time that needs to be spent, once the Bill is out of this House, trying to deal with what is a very, very big problem.

It is easy to imagine that this is just science fiction, but it is not. It is more than imaginable that, as part of the convergence of networks and as the transport system becomes automated, the single biggest security vulnerability of the UK—and, while we are at it, of any other advanced economy—will be the ability of state or non-state actors to intervene in a whole series of its convergent networks. Obviously, there may also be threats from exogenous things such as space weather, which may affect convergent networks, including electricity, transport, communications and so on, but state actors and some non-state actors are employing serious and highly developed methods to intervene in our cyber-security, as the Government are well aware.

The capacity to do damage to the UK by bringing the transport system to a grinding halt, amidst thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of simultaneous crashes, is a delicious prospect. I absolutely guarantee the Minister, although I am sure that he does not need my guarantee to believe it, that someone sitting somewhere—if not several people sitting in several places—is planning that kind of offensive cyber-activity at this very moment. Many of those people have access to many of the people who will be involved in developing the software that will be used in the very machines that we want to be used on our roads.

That is an irony of the globalised world. This is not like the 18th century, when people sat behind huge national barricades and we did not use their technologies but they tried to use them against us. We are now in a position where the people who may use our technologies against us supply some of those technologies to us. That creates a degree of risk out of all proportion to anything we have witnessed before. I am a believer in automated vehicles—I do not think that we can resist this trend—but we need to ensure that an immensely higher level of cyber-security is built in from the start than we might think necessary under other circumstances.

I want to make one further point. This is one of those cases where externalities will not be internalised. It is not in the interests of particular manufacturers to worry very much about this issue. If I am a specific manufacturer of a specific automated vehicle, my interest is in producing something that is good to drive, cheap and normally safe, because that is the way I will sell the maximum quantity of it. If somebody tells me that I could make it safer from hacking, which is unlikely to occur, in the sense that there is a one-in-1,000 or one-in-10,000 or whatever chance of it being hacked, by making it significantly more expensive, my natural and commercial response will be not to add that protection, because it would make me less competitive. I am not particularly worried that Britain may be brought to a halt, because I am not Britain; I am a manufacturer, and I am answerable to my shareholders, not to the electors of the UK.

There is a clear area of intrinsic market failure here, where, however pure a free marketeer one is, Adam Smith principles apply and it is for the state to ensure that the externalities are internalised by legislating or regulating, or by reaching agreement with manufacturers. As I say, I do not believe that the Bill can be the vehicle for creating a whole new structure of invigilation of the cyber-security standards of automated vehicles, but the Minister, in conjunction with Ministers in parallel positions in other jurisdictions, needs to get to work on that rapidly. If that is not done, the Bill will be useless, because it will provide a framework for something that no rational Government will ever allow to occur.

We cannot allow the UK’s transport system to be put in peril by being easily accessible to hackers in a way that could cause hundreds of thousands of accidents simultaneously. It is a necessary concomitant to the Bill that there should be a serious attempt to create that degree of universal cyber-security for level 4 and level 5 vehicles. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he is at this very moment getting the plane tickets to go and talk to all the other relevant Ministers and set up the international systems required to do something similar to the protocols that govern the GSM standard, which make it not unhackable, but much less hackable than previous mobile systems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

I have listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say and to the discussion between right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the Committee. I am satisfied that the Minister will do everything he can to achieve what the amendment hoped to achieve. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

My instinct is that the issues in clause 7 have been fully debated, so I will now put the Question.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Definitions

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

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Fourth sitting)

Karl Turner Excerpts

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

[Mr Hayes]

I had forgotten for a moment that it was an intervention. Those who seek perfection on earth are invariably either extreme zealots or delusional, or both. Perfection exists only in heaven, as my right hon. Friend knows. The insurance industry does not claim that there would be no accidents in any circumstances as a result of automated vehicles, but it told us in the oral evidence sessions that it thought there would be fewer. It said that that would have an effect on the insurance marketplace because of the effect on safety—that is the exchange we enjoyed earlier—that comes about because the fallibility of men and women as drivers means that 95% of accidents, or a figure close to that, are caused by human error of one kind or another. We are clear about that.

We can also be clear that the Bill is welcomed by the industry because we were told so by Mr Howarth in the oral evidence sessions. He said:

“I think it is very clear that the legislation and broadly the development of automated driving are something that insurers are genuinely enthusiastic about.”––[Official Report, Automated and Electric Vehicles Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017; c. 7, Q11.]

The insurance industry thinks that the Bill is an important first step, of the kind I described earlier, in establishing a framework, but it is a framework and further changes will be necessary as technology develops. Those changes will have to be dealt with in a regulation or subsequent measures.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I will, but I want to finish this bit otherwise I will get mixed up in my responses.

In respect of the intervention by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, to be clear, the Bill covers only cars in autonomous mode, because there is an existing insurance framework born of the Road Traffic Act that triggers insurance when the driver is at least partly at fault and establishes liability. I dealt with this issue earlier. Insurers look at what the causation is, the causation is linked to establishing fault and insurance kicks in accordingly. That is why the Road Traffic Act is relevant because that is where we are already. If we did not have a framework, we would not have a series of insurance products—they would be based on nothing. They are based on the existing law.

[Karl Turner]

Is not the right hon. Member for West Dorset making a point about interpretation? The Bill as currently drafted could be a lawyers’ charter. Lawyers will be scrapping in court, arguing about various definitions, because the Bill simply is not clear enough on those points.

[Mr Hayes]

That is a good point. As the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, I would not want to second-guess him.

[Karl Turner]

I have never been that type of lawyer.

[Mr Hayes]

A former lawyer, I should say. Of course Governments always look during scrutiny at the wording of Bills and at what can be tightened, changed or improved. That is part of the business that we are engaged in today. That is why we are having these debates; that is why we believe in the parliamentary process; that is why I started by saying that my intention was not to blindly drive the Bill through unaltered, but to listen, consider and reflect. That is the approach that I adopt.

The risk in this particular case, and with this kind of Bill, lies in trying to do too much. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset will say, “Yes, but it has to be sufficient,” and of course he is right. The point that he made at the beginning of his remarks was that if we are seeking clarity—and the case that we are making for the Bill is clarity—we cannot end up with something that is not clear. Otherwise, ipso facto, we are not fulfilling our ambitions. This debate is about that clarity.

Let me put this on record and see if it helps. It is likely that the first automated vehicles to reach the market will be usable in automated mode only in specific situations or use cases; we talked about that previously. They will probably be used, in the first instance, on motorways, for obvious reasons. In those terms, to put it in a way that most of us should find easy to grasp—I certainly find it easy to grasp, and if I find it easy, that is fair enough—it is a bit like a combination of what we have now. We have cruise control, which we might use on a motorway, but we probably would not use on a small side road in a rural area. We might use other driver-assist mechanisms currently available that are not automated, but have been developed over time to make driving more straightforward. We use assisted parking only when we are parking or reversing. There is a relationship between developing technology and actual use. That, I think, is how it will be at the beginning of the process—the journey, the road, the mountain; I do not mind which simile I use—that we are embarking on.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

[Karl Turner]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 3, page 3, line 4, at end insert—

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

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

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I do not intend to keep the Committee terribly long on this issue. As the Bill is drafted, the

“insurer or owner of an automated vehicle is not liable”

where the event was caused by a person allowing the vehicle to drive itself

“when it was not appropriate to do so.”

The Bill does not define when it is and is not “appropriate to do so”. Our amendment requires the Government to provide regulatory guidance on when it is and is not appropriate for a person to allow an automated vehicle to drive itself.

This goes to points made previously by members of the Committee, not least the right hon. Member for West Dorset. It would clearly not be appropriate in some circumstances for vehicles to drive themselves. For example, early automated vehicles might be deemed safe to use only on motorways and not on some urban roads; or, for example, a software issue might arise such that using the automated function at that point would be absolutely inappropriate. It appears to me that the true intent of subsection 2 was to focus on bimodal vehicles, because it does not seem to apply to fully automated vehicles. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the position in his response.

One of the primary purposes of part 1 of the Bill is to provide a framework to give insurers, manufacturers and potential users greater clarity, providing confidence and encouraging progress on automated vehicles. However, it is still not clear from the Bill what the Government have in mind about when use of those vehicles would be inappropriate. I do not propose to press the amendment to a vote at this stage; I think the Minister has got the point I am making. It has been made and reiterated several times by members of the Committee. We are simply asking for regulations that better define those circumstances to be brought forward, because we cannot afford any confusion here. People must be absolutely clear where their obligations lie if we are to see the growth of the industry, which is something we all want. We do not want to leave these issues hanging over us.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I will address the points the shadow Minister has raised in a moment. Before I do, I want to come back to a fundamental point about the drafting of clause 3(2)—if you will allow me to do so now, Mr Bailey, rather than in a stand part debate—because it is relevant to the rest of the question. My concern relates to the word “wholly” in subsection (2). We discussed this point earlier today. My right hon. Friend the Minister said to me and the Committee that clause 3(2) was meant to solve the problem that I am worried about, which is that there are circumstances under which strict liability for the insurer of the machine is inappropriate, because the driver may do something either immediately before or some while before handing over to the machine that means he or she should not have handed over to the machine. Those are the very circumstances that the shadow Minister is also concerned about.

The Minister directed my attention to clause 3(2) as the solution. I pointed out then—I will now expand on the point—that if subsection (2) is intended as a solution, it is in desperate need of redrafting. The word “wholly”, which I assume has been inserted mindfully by parliamentary counsel, has a very definite meaning: it means “wholly”. Courts know perfectly well what to do with that when they come across a statute that very unusually—this is not something that we normally find—says that a contributory agency is not contributory, but absolute, and the person in question is wholly responsible. The court will interpret that very strictly, and rightly so, otherwise what on earth are we doing drafting Bills and Acts of Parliament?

There could be a circumstance under which the driver was wholly the cause of the accident. Incidentally, I cannot quite think what that might be. It is a pretty remote circumstance, and I would be interested to know whether the Minister can think of an example, but I accept the possibility of such a thing. Most of the time, however, it will be jolly tricky to work out who is actually responsible.

Let me go back to my example of leaving the motorway, but this time the driver was awake and flicked a switch that specifically made the machine take over. Let us imagine that the technology allowed that—it might or might not, we heard conflicting evidence on that, but suppose that it did—and the driver thought that the circumstances were such that the machine could take over and the machine thought, and that is probably an appropriate word to use, given that it is artificial intelligence, that it was appropriate for the machine to take over. However, they were both wrong. The machine was not good at handling the circumstance and it crashed. The machine got it wrong because it should not have taken over, and the driver got it wrong because they should not have asked the machine to take over. Who has caused the accident? I do not know. I am absolutely sure that there are people who will make millions and millions of pounds, and they are the QCs who will argue such cases in court, along with the rafts of solicitors and the enormous apparatus that goes with that. They will all be arguing about who is responsible.

If we lose the word “wholly”, we eliminate that argument, which I assume is the point of putting it in, because, as clause 3(2) is drafted, it says, “If there is the slightest doubt about whether the machine was in any scintilla of a way responsible for the crash, the driver is not wholly responsible and therefore the machine is wholly responsible, so there is strict liability for the insurer of the machine.” It may be that that is what the Minister wants to do, but it is a very odd thing to do, because the costs of insuring these machines would go up compared with what they would otherwise be. Under circumstances in which the driver was a heavy contributor to the cause of the accident by handing over inappropriately, the insurer of the machine would nevertheless be strictly liable because the machine made one millionth of the contribution to the cause of the accident. That is the effect of clause 3(2) as drafted, and I do not believe that that can be the Minister’s intention. That needs looking at.

Turning to the point made by the shadow Minister on regulations and clarification, I agree that it should be perfectly possible to handle the question of when it is appropriate or not to hand over through secondary legislation. I suspect that it will not be the kind of secondary legislation that we have been used to in the main hitherto. It will be very complicated legislation, because it may have to specify processes rather than results. I do not believe that the technology is likely to develop in a way that will make it obvious to the driver in advance, by reading some kind of guide, when the driver is meant to hand over and when not. I suspect that will be interactive and dynamic, and I suspect that the Minister’s successors—the Secretaries of State who will do such things in regulation—will have to find some way of compelling the manufacturers to create an apparatus that tells the driver in a dynamic and interactive way, as they are driving along, whether, as a matter of fact, it is safe to hand over to the machine or not.

One way in which that could happen is the way we were presented with in the evidence sessions. The machine invites the driver to take over and then there is a simple double rule: only machines that invite drivers, as opposed to giving them instructions, are allowed on the road—and, while we are at it, only those certified by the Secretary of State as being safe when they offer the chance to take over are allowed—and, moreover, the driver is never allowed to hand over to the machine except when it does offer that. That is a possible configuration. That would be quite a complicated piece of secondary legislation, because it would have to be accompanied by a series of quite complicated technical codes that ensure that it is put into practice and that the cars manufactured fulfil all those requirements.

There are of course many other models, but it is terribly important to recognise that if the Minister wants to achieve clarity here—as I think he does, and rightly so—as well as getting the drafting of clause 3(2) right, so that it is clear under what circumstances there really is liability for the insurer of the machine when there is a mixture of causation, he needs to recognise that there will need to be either a quite large superstructure of regulation that gives us clarity about the circumstances under which handover is appropriate or, at least, processes that make it unnecessary to have such clarity in a set of rules. I hope that he will recognise in his closing remarks that even if the Bill does not give new powers to do that—because he believes he has somehow got them already—he will consider all those questions anon, as well as looking at the drafting of subsection (2).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I will reflect on that. It is clear to me when clause 3(1) and clause 3(2) do apply, but it is a reasonable question to ask where the clause does not apply—as my right hon. Friend has described—and what would apply in those circumstances. I am perfectly prepared to reflect and to come back with a clear answer. I am now certain to what he was referring, and that will help in the process of trying to satisfy him.

I was not able to be as short as I had hoped—I began this brief contribution by saying just how brief it would be. In respect of the shadow Minister, I think I have been clear that it is likely that the first autonomous vehicles will be used, as I said, in particular circumstances —earlier I talked about geofencing. It is likely that the global regulations that will be used to type approve autonomous vehicles will reflect those limited cases. It is therefore not yet clear that we will need to make matching regulatory changes in our domestic framework, as I have also said.

We do have the powers under the Road Traffic Act, as I said in response to an earlier intervention, to revise or create new road vehicle construction and use regulations. In that sense, the amendment would duplicate existing powers so really it is superfluous. Its intention is good, because it intends to do what I have just described, but I am not sure that for this purpose it is the right vehicle— I hesitate to use that term because, as so often in the debate so far, we are speaking about roads, journeys and vehicles. None the less, I am confident that we have enough powers and are taking enough powers, through the application of the regulations that I have said will ensue, to satisfy what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East intends. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

[Karl Turner]

I am happy to confirm that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Andrew Stephenson.)

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Third sitting)

Karl Turner Excerpts

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

[The Chair]

I will say a few words before we start. Obviously, everybody should turn off their mobile phones and devices. The selection list for today is available in the room and on the Bill’s webpage. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together generally deal with the same or similar issues. The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first; other Members are then free to catch my eye if they want to speak on all or any of the amendments within that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.

At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a Division. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment or new clause in a group to a vote, they need to let me know.

I shall work on the assumption that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments if any are tabled. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order that they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. In other words, debate occurs according to the selection list; decisions are taken when we come to the clause affected by the amendment. I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following the debates on the relevant amendments. I hope that this explanation is helpful.

Clause 1

Listing of automated vehicles by the Secretary of State

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

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

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

(1B) The Secretary of State may not change the criteria without consulting vehicle manufacturers, insurers and other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 8, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State may only add a vehicle to the list if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the vehicle’s software has been approved for safe use on roads or in other public places in Great Britain.”

This amendment would ensure that vehicles cannot be listed as automated vehicles by the Secretary of State unless he or she is satisfied that the vehicle’s software has been through an approval process (see NC11).

New clause 11—Approval of automated vehicle software—

“(1) The Secretary of State must set out in regulations a system for approving automated vehicle software.

(2) These regulations must, in particular, make provision for—

(a) the criteria to be used in the approval process to determine whether automated vehicle software is safe for use on roads or other public places in Great Britain, including, but not limited to the way in which the vehicle is programmed to—

(i) deal with moral judgements, and

(ii) transition between driving itself and being driven by a person.

(b) the process by which manufacturers of automated vehicles may apply for software approval, including, but not limited to, any inspection and testing that the vehicle may be required to undergo, and

(c) the process by which manufacturers of automated vehicles may appeal if their software is not approved.

(3) In this section, a “moral judgement” refers to any situation where an automated vehicle has, and makes, a choice of action during an accident while the vehicle is driving itself.

(4) In this section and section 2, the definition of transition of an automated vehicle “between driving itself and being driven by a person” may be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.

(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 regulation under this section, that is not the first such regulation made under this section, is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Government to establish a system for approving automated vehicle software. The approval process would include an opportunity for manufacturers to appeal against a failed approval process. Criteria for approval would include consideration of the way in which the vehicle was programmed to deal with moral judgements.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Safe and ethical. I have received advice; I like taking advice and not taking it. Before I make that my definitive position, I want to reflect a bit. If we were to say no to the advice that was not safe and ethical, I want to be absolutely clear what ethical means. We know what safe means. We can draw on existing practice in respect of type approval. We know what measures of safety are about, but when we get to measures of ethics, we are in an altogether more challenging area. That is why I will reflect a bit on the characteristics. This is an incredibly interesting debate, by the way, and very useful.

[Karl Turner]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I will give way briefly, but I must make progress or I will get into real trouble.

[Karl Turner]

I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. Will he concede that the right hon. Member for West Dorset and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham are absolutely right that there is huge potential for legal argument about what is actually safe driving? There will be a debate around that that could end in litigation. No?

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, I agree. I think that is precisely right. As I said a moment ago, that is the significance of the debate. We are now at one in that there needs to be a list and that needs to be qualified. We have made some changes, which I will deal with in a second, since we first debated these matters. In his first contribution to our consideration, which now seems a long time ago, the hon. Gentleman spoke of consultation. I do not want to constrain the identification process or be too precise about the criteria, for the very reason that we have all been discussing, but it is right that a consultation is an implicit part of the continuing consideration of this. I am happy to say that that has to be part of it. As the technology develops, given what I have said about dynamism, there would have to be ongoing communication about the change in character of the technology and what that meant.

The safe functioning criteria are more straightforward. This is about a marriage between software and the machine. The machinery certainly needs to be safe. We drive machines now with internal combustion engines that are not fundamentally different from their early ancestors. So we know that the machine needs to be safe. The existing provisions in the Bill are clear that the list can comprise at present only vehicles that can be legally used on the roads. Having reflected briefly, I will reflect more—I am in reflective mode, as the Committee can tell. Perhaps it is about what we do in regulations. There might be an opportunity to qualify or clarify through regulation how the list develops.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

I accept that the Bill is the mechanism for getting the ball rolling, but the more I listen to the debate, the more I am persuaded that we need something on the face of the Bill to ensure that there is consultation and criteria.

[Mr Hayes]

I always try to avoid contumely—I think that is a well-known fact about me—but I have said I will reflect on what the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said. I have said that consultation is an implicit part of this process. I implore the hon. Gentleman to avoid contumely and withdraw his amendment.

[Karl Turner]

I will not withdraw the amendment. With your leave, Sir Edward, I will press it to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Second sitting)

Karl Turner Excerpts

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

[The Chair]

Welcome to our afternoon session. We will now hear oral evidence from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the RAC Foundation, the Petrol Retailers Association and the Institute of the Motor Industry. We have until 3 pm, when there may be votes. Would the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

Steve Nash: I am Steve Nash, chief executive of the Institute of the Motor Industry.

Brian Madderson: I am Brian Madderson, chairman of the Petrol Retailers Association, which is part of the Retail Motor Industry Federation.

Steve Gooding: I am Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation.

David Wong: I am David Wong, senior technology and innovation manager of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

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

Q 87 Thank you very much indeed for attending. The Minister suggested on Second Reading that the Bill would deliver a cost saving to people who are insured on automated and autonomous vehicles, because they will be safer. Do you think that that is correct? Will insurance be cheaper?

Steve Nash: I will kick off, if you like. Right now, electric vehicles can cost anything up to 50% more to insure than comparable vehicles that are not electric. There are couple of reasons for that. An element of that is the cost of the vehicle, but a large part of it is the relative lack of skilled people to work on them. The insurers, naturally, load the premium because they expect to pay a higher cost to get the vehicles repaired, but provided the right mechanisms are in place to ensure a competitive market to service and maintain those cars, there is no reason they should be more expensive. In fact, if you take it to its logical conclusion, with sufficient fully autonomous cars on the road, accidents should go down.

Steve Gooding: May I echo that? It is a question of penetration—the number of autonomous vehicles out there. In the transition, when there are still a lot of conventional vehicles, someone in a driverless car might be a lot safer but will still face the risk of someone colliding with them. In the early stages, because of the technology built into the vehicle, that might be quite an expensive accident, which might put premiums up. In the longer term, however, as Steve says, as we see greater penetration, a lot of the human error that is the cause of crashes on the roads today will be ironed out by the technology.

David Wong: On the basis that 94% of all crashes involving a fatality are put down to human error, and that the modelling we published two years ago suggests that connected and autonomous vehicles are expected to save 2,500 lives and contribute to the avoidance of 25,000 serious crashes between 2014 and 2030, we certainly hope that with autonomous vehicles, insurance premiums will go down.

[Karl Turner]

Q Thank you. Do you think that there is a necessity for licensing and accreditation for technicians? Should that be in the Bill?

Steve Nash: I feel very strongly that there should be, on a number of counts. First, we have electricity at work legislation that was put in place at a time when electric vehicles were virtually non-existent, although it does refer to electric vehicles—believe it or not, it actually tells people to talk to my organisation about them. But it is patently obvious that there is an inconsistency in regulating people who work on mains electricity, which is 240 V, while being happy for anybody to work on a vehicle that could be between 600 V and 1,000 V if we include commercial vehicles. To be really clear and specific, I am not talking about general licensing. I am talking about regulating people to work on the high voltage elements of these cars, not to change the tyres or to do the mundane stuff. These vehicles are wholly different to internal combustion engine vehicles. In the fullness of time, and it will not be that long, quite large numbers of them will start to come out of warranty and find their way into the open market. Right now, only 1% of those who work on the maintenance of vehicles in the whole country are actually qualified to work on the high voltage electrics and they pretty much all work for franchised dealers. Putting a regulation in place would open up the market to the wider industry and provide a standard that everybody could recognise.

[Karl Turner]

Q Why can you not just let the industry get on with it? Why does it need to be in the Bill?

Steve Nash: Because it will not happen. I have been in the industry for 40 years. We have a great deal of support for this from huge independents such as Halfords, from a lot of manufacturers and a great many independent garages. When we talk about the independent sector, it is an indeterminate number, roughly 40,000 businesses, we estimate, but we do not know exactly who is working on cars, because they do not belong to a body. It could be anyone; there is nothing to stop anybody setting themselves up to service and repair these things tomorrow. It will only be when somebody kills themselves—there have been incidents outside this country already of people being killed or seriously electrocuted working on these things. Don’t get me wrong, they are perfectly safe to ride in and operate, but once you get under the skin, if you do not know what you are doing, you are in just as much danger as you ever would be playing around with mains electricity without knowing what you are doing, except that it is potentially more fatal, because it is direct current and it will not throw you off, it will just keep electrocuting you.

It would definitely help the market, because manufacturers will do what they have to do to sell the cars and make sure that their own people are competent, but it will not automatically happen. It is a coin-operated business outside the main dealers. We have investigated what happened when Corgi or Gas Safe were put into place, similarly with the electricity at work legislation. Very quickly you would undoubtedly have had a lot of practitioners who should not have been doing what they were doing back in those days, but very quickly the industry raises to that level and it becomes a competitive market again and you do not get unreasonable costs introduced. We believe that is the right thing to do here. It establishes a common currency across the industry for knowing what competence means.

[Karl Turner]

With Sir Edward’s permission, does any other witness want to comment?

[The Chair]

It is not necessary for all the witnesses to answer all the questions. I am anxious as many colleagues as possible get in. I know the Minister is anxious for his voice to be heard, which we await with alacrity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

Q This is probably more to Mr Madderson. You touched on mandating or not mandating particular solutions. Do you have any assessment, either anecdotal or based on research, from your members? The big retailers may well be able to adapt over time and have different types of fuel supply, charging points, conventional fuels and so on. What is your assessment of the ability to adapt of smaller local retailers of fuel, or your feeling about the impact?

Brian Madderson: They are all extremely interested in this new technology and we, in fact, are providing a route to market for many of the charging point suppliers. They come to our regional forums—Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales—and they appear in our market review book, so there is a thirst for knowledge.

The real problem with the Bill as it is currently written is that in mandating motorway service areas and, indeed, large fuel retailers there is a key missing ingredient, and that is the carrot I referred to before. There is funding for charging points at home, on the street, in the workplace and in other public areas but there is no funding available for the fuel retailers who would like to embrace this technology in order to provide a diverse range of refuelling options for their customers. It is the big rump of the medium to small-sized filling stations right across the country that will find this more difficult, because the investment decision at the present time is not something that banks would support. There is almost no money to come back on a perceived return-on-investment basis. So they are the ones who will be holding back the growth of charging points right across the country—it is not just city-centric.

[Karl Turner]

Q To be honest, I think Mr Madderson has answered the question I was about to ask: what are the carrots? He said it was all stick and no carrot.

Brian Madderson: It does have to be some form of funding, because if you go to your bank and say that you want to put in a charging point that might cost you a lot of money, you will immediately be asked, “What do you see as the return on investment? I’ve got to get my interest back.” They have no idea at the moment, because the market is in such a state of flux. New systems are coming on. I heard of one relatively recently called ZapGo. I do not know whether it is a big runner, but it is looking at putting storage tanks into a traditional forecourt with charging posts, and being able to meter out the electricity on a basis that I am told Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would enjoy because you might be able to get fuel duty back on it. This is relatively new. There are all kinds of development in the marketplace, and I think it would be precipitous to ask them to invest 100% of the money now—they could not do it.

[Karl Turner]

Q Could I ask what the average cost is? Am I right to say £50,000?

Brian Madderson: It can be up to £50,000 per instalment. What has been happening is that certain companies have gone along and said, “Look, we will take over that cost but we want from you two parking bays for 30 years on a lease basis.” If you are thinking about 30 years, that is a very long time. It precludes you, as the owner of that freehold property, from perhaps expanding your shop or putting up a new car wash— indeed, from perhaps even selling the property to someone else. So most of them have opted away from that style of investment.

[Mr Hayes]

Q To jump back to your point, Brian—it is nice to see you again, by the way—you will know how supportive I am of small and medium-sized business of the kind you represent. Is it fair to say that the Bill begins a process of spreading the number of charging points by picking on and mandating those larger retailers, but that to get the coverage we all seek there will need to be other mechanisms, because in rural areas, for example, where many of you are based, there might be no large retailer conveniently situated? Can you see the Bill as a welcome start?

Brian Madderson: First, I do not agree at all with any form of mandating because this is interventionist by the Government in a market that is so new and in such a state of flux that there should not be mandating. This is a perfect example of where market conditions should encourage investors to invest in the product that is right for them at the time. Mandating may make them make a false decision, which would prove very costly and certainly not be beneficial for the consumer.

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

Q Obviously, you represent the motor manufacturers, and I am concerned about the shape and size of vehicles going forward and the adequacy of the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull here has, I think, a Twingo—do you have a Twingo?

[Karl Turner]

A Twizy.

[Graham P. Jones]

Twizy—that is it. I notice even on the continent, particularly in urban areas, we are getting smaller and smaller electric vehicles and cars driving around. Is the legislation adequate for the type and size of electric vehicle that might come on to the market? What changes do you see, for example? How will an automated vehicle work when you add a trailer to it or make some other changes to it? The shape, size and form of vehicles is probably going to change, as you are well aware, so will the legislation be adequate for those vehicles to be on the road when they are automated—of course, when they are operated by an individual manually, there is a human choice—and the automation is making choices?

Steve Gooding: I will start with a very short answer, as the Chairman seeks, which is no. But that is because this is a very immature market. We do not even have the vehicles in the marketplace yet. Having also driven a Twizy, which is great fun, I think the construction and use standards, based on a mechanical testing of roadworthiness, should be sufficient for most of the concerns you are voicing, but they are certainly not sufficient for guaranteeing the roadworthiness of the autonomous software systems; you are going to need something new for that.

When it comes to the size of the vehicle, again, their crash-worthiness, for example, needs to be tested in the circumstances in which the vehicle will be used. Maybe then there will need to be something in addition either to prevent or constrain what other purposes—whether it be towing a trailer, a caravan or whatever—are appropriate for that vehicle.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q We will continue our session by hearing oral evidence from National Grid, the UK Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Association and UK Power Networks. Will you please introduce yourselves and say where you are from?

Robert Evans: I am Robert Evans. I am chief executive officer of Cenex and chair of the UK Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Association.

Suleman Alli: Good afternoon. My name is Suleman Alli. I am director of strategy for UK Power Networks. We distribute electricity to 8.2 million homes and businesses in the east of England, London and the south-east.

Marcus Stewart: Hello. My name is Marcus Stewart. I am head of energy insights for National Grid. We are responsible for the balancing of the electricity and gas networks, and for managing all the energy across the UK.

[Karl Turner]

Q On charging infrastructure, we have just heard evidence from the Petrol Retailers Association, which is very worried about being mandated to have charging points on the forecourts of its members. What is your prediction of what would happen if we did not mandate them to do that? If it was not required by law physically to invest and have them on their forecourts, would they bother?

Marcus Stewart: At the moment, the majority of people who own electric vehicles charge them at home, but there is a limit to how many houses have off-street parking. About 43% of properties do not have access to off-street parking, therefore other forms of charging facilities need to be available. They could be a mixture of charging types at destinations, workplaces, supermarkets, and so on.

From the evidence that we have gathered when we have talked to and interviewed people, key locations on the motorway and strategic network are seen as key enablers for the roll-out of electric vehicles and will help to remove some of the concerns around range anxiety which is seen as one of the main barriers to the take-up of electric vehicles at the moment. Charging and plus charging in particular at key locations across the country will facilitate the roll-out. If you do not have that, it is likely that the roll-out will be slower.

Suleman Alli: I support that. I would say that there is going to be a paradigm shift. It is a bit like when we used to get water from a well and we now get it from a tap in our home. In the same way, I do not think that petrol forecourts will be the only place where we will recharge our vehicles in the future. In our engagement with the marketplace, we are seeing major supermarkets looking at how they can offer fast charging to be a key differentiator for their customers. We are seeing hotels considering the same and local authorities looking to explore how on-street charging can be part of the solution. Based on the engagement we have done, I believe that it will be a much more diversified charging environment: it will not just be petrol forecourts.

Robert Evans: We have members who are very interested to install charge points at these locations. They see them as locations where there will be high utilisation rate and a good economic case for those charge points to be used. We are also talking here about an insurance policy—it is not a mandating per se. If the market does not deliver, the Act gives Government the ability to step in. It is not by definition a mandating until you pass additional legislation.

The members are very interested in installing in these locations, but they are other people’s land. Part of the issue here is the ability to encourage landowners to install charge points at their locations. In some cases it is a fuel supplier, in other cases it is one of the three main companies that operate motorway service areas. You have to recognise that there is a desire to install in those locations, but you cannot put your asset on someone else’s land.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Q I am delighted to hear what you say and absolutely agree with you. If the problem of range anxiety is addressed or partially addressed by fast charging at service stations and so on, we are still left with—I think you said—40% of homes that do not have off-street car parking. Have you done any assessment of the kinds of costs involved for the distribution network operators if over the period between now and 2040 there was a roll-out of universal charge points on the street in towns and cities—probably not all areas—where there is lawful parking?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Welcome. Would you like to introduce yourselves, please?

Stan Boland: I am Stan Boland. I am the CEO of a start-up company called FiveAI. We are building a driverless car system, which we hope to trial in London by the end of 2019.

Denis Naberezhnykh: My name is Denis Naberezhnykh. I am head of ultra low emission vehicles and energy at the Transport Research Laboratory. We work with industry and Government to help to introduce new technologies such as electric and automated vehicles.

[Karl Turner]

Q I have one really quick question on safety. What are the safety implications for blind pedestrians, runners and people of that nature?

Stan Boland: Safety is the start and finish of whether we can bring these cars on to the streets. A huge amount of attention will be focused on making these vehicles safe, in our case, for use in urban environments, where we will have all sorts of obstacles and agents with all sorts of different behaviours. That really centres on having systems that are able to perceive what is in the scene accurately in 360° and three dimensions and classify what those objects are.

This also talks to predicting what will happen next. We actually have to predict human behaviour, and we have to learn what those behaviours might be ahead of time. Our vehicles will certainly have to be state of the art for perception, but they will also have to be very good at predicting human behaviours. In the case where we identify an object and can tell, just like a human can, that this person, cyclist or whatever it turns out to be has a certain type of behaviour, we will have learnt those ahead of time, and if we are not sure, we will have to propagate that uncertainty through our software and slow down.

The behaviour of these vehicles will be slightly different to that of human drivers, but it will be possible to attain the levels of human safety, and in the long term surpass them, by applying technology. Our systems can pay attention in 360° all the time, and that makes it a bit different to human drivers.

[Clive Efford]

Q What will be the limit of the speed that your vehicles can travel at in an urban area?

Stan Boland: We are kind of hoping that we can operate at normal driving speeds. To be able to do that, it is important that we can predict behaviours. We cannot have a system that is collision-avoidance only, because that would result in frozen robots all over the city and would make congestion worse. What we humans do is anticipate human action. We actually run more than one world in our heads, and are constantly looking to see whether that world is turning into reality or some other world is going to happen. That allows us to merge on to full lanes of traffic, for instance. We cannot just have a system that is collision-avoidance only, because we would make traffic worse. The idea is that we are operating in normal streets with normal road signs at normal road speeds and obtaining and exceeding human levels of safety.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (First sitting)

Karl Turner Excerpts

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

[Mr Hayes]

Q So the legislation is welcomed by the industry.

Ben Howarth: Yes, it is very welcomed by the industry. I think it is very clear that the legislation and broadly the development of automated driving are something that insurers are genuinely enthusiastic about. In terms of the work we do in the ABI, it is one of the areas where we get the most engagement and interest from our members.

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

Q Off the back of the Minister’s question, clause 1(1) defines “autonomous”, or rather the vehicles that could be classed as “safely driving themselves”. That does not seem very tight to me. Does the definition not need to be tighter? Does it not give the Secretary of State an awful lot of power? I do not know whether you have a copy of the Bill in front of you. Clause 1(1) states that autonomous vehicles

“are in the Secretary of State’s opinion designed or adapted to be capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving themselves.”

The clause allows the Secretary of State to come up with a list of vehicles that he or she thinks are capable of being driven safely without being operated manually at all. The definition does not seem tight to me.

Ben Howarth: I would make two points on that. On the one hand, we would obviously want to see robust and good consultation on how that list is put together. We would want it to be transparent and we would want the opportunity as an industry to feed into that. The wording does have an advantage in that it clearly states “safely driving themselves”. One of our views is that we want a clear and unambiguous distinction between cars that are completely hands-off—maybe not for the whole of the journey, but for parts of the journey—versus cars where the manufacturer might be saying, “You can do a lot with the automated functions, but you need to be there hovering over the steering wheel as a backstop.” We do not want those things to be blurred, and the definition in the Bill does that.

If I can make one further point, being on the list is clear—there is a definition—but there will also be a role for insurers to play in thinking about, “We have a claims history and car A is brilliant and has a really good safety record, while car B might not be a very good functioning car, but it has got itself on to the list.” Insurers will want to take a view on that in terms of how they approach those vehicles in offering products.

[Karl Turner]

Q Thank you very much for that answer. Clause 4 describes vehicle software updates. It concerns me that—if this is a vehicle that is completely autonomous—the onus is put on the passenger, if you will, to update the software. They have to agree manually to update software. Is that the right position? Should it not be automatically updated?

Ben Howarth: I think the onus to do those software updates should definitely be on the manufacturer. They should ensure that the system works, and I think that links back to part 1. The Bill says that where a wilfully negligent person deliberately ignores what the manufacturer wants them to do and finds a way around the manufacturer’s systems and still takes the car on the road, it would be unreasonable to say that that person is still a victim. I think you need this protection in the Bill, but you also need robust measures to ensure that people cannot override the safety-critical updates.

I think “safety-critical” is the key phrase. That places a strong incentive on the manufacturer to say, “If the update is safety-critical, you have to ensure that the driver knows.” We have got to be absolutely clear that there is a distinction between “nice to have” upgrades, that perhaps involve a slight improvement in the maps functionality or something like that, and an upgrade where if you do not have it, the car is potentially unsafe and we have a problem.

[Karl Turner]

Q Finally, while I have you here, the current situation for vehicle insurance is driver-centric. The driver of the vehicle is the insured person. The Bill provides for a situation where the vehicle is insured. Is that definitely the way we should be going? Should there be some more provisions?

Ben Howarth: I think what we have in the Bill is the right way. When these cars first come to road, most users/drivers will probably use the automated function for 10% or 20% of the journey. That is why we want to keep to a system with an all-in-one approach. The Government have described this as

“a rolling programme of regulatory reform”,

so if we really move to having cars without steering wheels or genuinely A-to-B autonomous cars we probably need to look again at what the right approach to insurance is, but I think the technology is a long way from that.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

Q I declare my interest as a member of Unite, the GMB and the RMT. I wonder whether you have any concerns about the skills gap and training. Should there be something in the Bill about forcing or encouraging manufacturers to train people?

Diana Holland: I think it is absolutely essential that there is the transport skills infrastructure body that exists at the moment. I was looking at its terms of reference—

[Karl Turner]

I am grateful that the Minister is nodding very enthusiastically.

[Mr Hayes]

It is a good point.

Diana Holland: I was quite concerned when I looked at those terms. Although there is some implication about developments in technology, it seemed that we would need to look at the way it is worded to ensure that it properly reflects this. Otherwise, the Bill will not provide the opportunities that it needs to. So yes, that is a really important point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kerr]

Q So is there anything that needs to be addressed in the Bill?

Robert Llewellyn: Sorry, yes, that was your question. There is one crucial thing that I think could be addressed. It has been addressed in other countries. Ireland and California are two places that I know about where there is one system for paying for electricity. Everyone who uses an electric car is happy to pay for the electricity, but the system is so complex. I could get the collection of cards out of my wallet that I need to be able to use all the chargers, and very often I do not have the specific card for that charger. In Ireland there is one system, an app that you have, and you can use any charger. It is operated by many different companies. They all get paid for it, but you just have one thing. A combination of either that or touch to pay should be addressed.

You can buy a bag of crisps with touch to pay, but you cannot buy electricity from a charger. I know there are complexities and legal difficulties and expense, but that would really make a huge difference. The most common complaint I hear is, “I haven’t got a wallet big enough to hold all the cards.” And you need membership and subscriptions. All that needs to go so that you literally go up to a charger, pay for the electricity you are using and move on. You do not have to join a club to use a Shell petrol pump. You just pay for it. That is a really essential thing.

[Karl Turner]

Q You have described very well the problems that we have. I declare an interest as the owner of an electric vehicle. Finding somewhere to charge it is often extremely difficult. One of the other problems is home charging and the requirement for off-street parking. I noticed very recently Hackney Council’s lamppost charging. What do you think about that? Do local authorities need to do more to support councils to provide charging points?

Robert Llewellyn: That is a very good system by Ubitricity, a German company. My primary enthusiasm about it is that it is incredibly easy to use. You drive up to it and plug your wire in. The wire has a box that communicates and tells the company how much electricity you use. You plug the other end into your car and it starts charging. You do nothing. We need that frictionless ability to do that.

I cannot remember the figures, but there are many hundreds of thousands of suitable lampposts. One of the aspects of the technological change we are seeing is when a lamppost is converted to LED lights. It has extra juice—electricity—that you can take off it without blowing anything up. It does not need any other infrastructure changes. It is a very simple system. It requires lampposts that are on the kerb side of a pavement, which not all lampposts are, but there are certainly hundreds of thousands of them. They have fitted a great deal of them and they have been very popular.

[Karl Turner]

Q I suppose my point is that the cost to install this will be reduced. It will probably be a lot less costly.

Robert Llewellyn: It is in the hundreds rather than thousands.

[Karl Turner]

Q It is, but we have a situation where local authorities are cash-strapped. Not every local authority has a lot of electric vehicles; I think Hull City Council has two charging points. They are hoping to get to the dizzying heights of 70 at some point before 2020, and they are doing their best. Should we not encourage local authorities with incentives—crudely, I mean cash incentives—to ensure that the equipment is available for everybody?

Robert Llewellyn: That would be ideal. One of the other problems is that the technology is changing so fast. I recently drove over a strip of road just outside Paris that has an induction-charging strip set in it. I do not think that is going to happen, because I cannot imagine the cost of putting that in the M1—it would be in the billions—but these induction plates for static charging, so when you are parked the car starts charging, are quite common now. That technology is getting cheaper.

It is really difficult—I would feel nervous suggesting that anybody invest an enormous amount. There have been failures in public-invested charging points: they are in the wrong place, they break down, they are not maintained or they are not run by the company that set them up. There have been plenty of examples of that. This is a rapidly emerging technology that keeps changing. Take even the wire you use. Finally, a bit like phones, there is a standardised type 2 connector that goes in every socket and goes in every car, but even that was a mystery a while ago. I would have a certain reluctance in saying, “Yes. Make all councils install thousands of chargers,” because they might be the wrong ones in the wrong place.

An organic development is happening with private companies, including supermarkets, that are starting to put them in car parks. Shell is now putting rapid chargers in its forecourts. It is happening, but quite slowly. I think it is probably chicken and egging like that—so there are more cars, then more chargers, then more cars, then more chargers. I would not know how to suggest where to put them.

[Karl Turner]

Q Finally, the Bill makes it mandatory for fuel stations to provide charging points. Does that need to be in the Bill?

Robert Llewellyn: I think that is a really good idea. If there is one group of fuel suppliers that could probably afford it without too much stress, it is the garage chains. They seem quite keen to do it. I think they can sense a change in public attitudes, which is why Shell has gone ahead and has done what it is doing. I know BP is doing the same. I do not know about any other companies, but it makes sense. All I would beg them to do is to put in nice chairs, wi-fi and reasonable coffee, because you tend to be in the garage a bit longer with an electric car than you are with a petrol car.

[The Chair]

Before I call the Minister, I have him, Graham Jones, Iain Stewart, Matt Western, Scott Mann and Matt Rodda indicating that they wish to ask questions. Are there any more? No. Well, you can do the maths as well as I can. Will Members be as brief as possible with their questions? And Robert, we really enjoy your eloquence and insight, but if you could be as pithy as possible in responding, that would be helpful.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Karl Turner Excerpts

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

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

I start by putting on the record my sincere thanks to the Minister—and I do not say that entirely for the benefit of his family in the Gallery; he always co-operates with the Opposition. We greatly welcome his collegiate approach, and we share his objective of making this the best Bill it can be as it passes through the House. We would, however, have liked more time between First Reading and today for Members properly to scrutinise the Bill. It is true that some of these issues were rehearsed during our debates on the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, but we have new Members since the election, and they should have been given more opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. I accept, though, that that is not the Minister’s doing but another symbol of the Government’s weakness in having to push their non-contentious Bills to the fore.

We broadly support the Bill but have some concerns about the impact of some of its measures. We will press the Government on those and table appropriate amendments in Committee, but the Bill is crucial and we wish to support it. Part 1 deals with automated vehicles and insurance. Ultra-low emission and autonomous vehicles will play an important role in our country’s transport in the years to come, so it is right that the Government seek to address some of the issues relating to them. Last year, the UK automotive industry added £18.9 billion in value to the UK economy and supported 169,000 people directly in manufacturing and 814,000 across the industry and throughout the supply chains. Forecasters have estimated that the overall benefits of ULEVs and autonomous vehicles will be in the region of £51 billion a year and that they could create an additional 320,000 jobs. In the light of Brexit, supporting this industry will be vital to the future of our economy.

The uptake of ULEVs will also play an important role in tackling the air quality crisis, which reportedly leads to 50,000 premature deaths each year and hundreds of thousands of cases of respiratory illnesses. It is an air quality crisis that is choking many of our towns and cities but which the Government have failed properly to address. Labour in government would do better and—it is fair to mention, given the Mayor of London’s announcement on toxic vehicle charges today—does do better. These vehicles will also be vital to the UK meeting its climate change objectives, for which the Government currently lack a clear plan.

It is vital that we introduce the legislation needed to facilitate and encourage investment, innovation and the uptake of vehicles of this kind, but if that is to be possible, a definition of autonomous vehicles will be necessary. At present, there is no clear distinction in UK policy, standards and legislation between advanced driver assistance systems and fully automated driving technology. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to prepare, keep up to date and publish a list of all motor vehicles to be used on roads in Great Britain that are deemed to be capable of safely driving themselves without having to be monitored by an individual for some or part of a journey, and the definition of an automated vehicle will be a vehicle that is included in the list drawn up by the Secretary of State. We are concerned that this gives the Secretary of State the power to define what is and is not an automated vehicle. There is clearly a need for collaboration between the Government, manufacturers, insurers and consumers to develop a viable and practical system of classification to identify whether a vehicle should be deemed “automated” or “autonomous”.

The dividing lines between automated and autonomous vehicles are not always completely clear. The Government must give more details of the plans to classify vehicles as automated, and consult widely on the definition and criteria for adding to the list of AVs in the Bill. In Committee, we will press for that to be subject to secondary legislation. Resolving the issue of how automated vehicles can be insured is also essential if they are to become a feature on our roads, and we support the Government’s action to ensure that vehicles’ insurance policies facilitate that in the future.

We are, however, concerned about the potential cost to policyholders, and the contention over liability between manufacturers and insurers. It is imperative that, in the event of a technological failure in an AV, it is easy for consumers to establish quickly where liability rests, and to make a claim as appropriate. At present, insurance law in the United Kingdom is driver-centric: drivers must have insurance in order to provide compensation for third parties for personal injury or property damage. The Government intend to emphasise that if there is an insurance event, the compensation route for the individual is still within the motor insurance framework rather than through a product liability framework of a manufacturer.

[Clive Efford]

May I pursue the issue of insurance policies and who will be liable? In the event of a collision between a human-driven vehicle and a vehicle that is being driven by its computer technology, will the insurance company assume, given that 95% of accidents are due to human error, that the computer is right and the human is wrong and is therefore at fault?

[Karl Turner]

That is a salient point. I understand that responsibility for the fully automated vehicle would rest with the manufacturer.

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

The hon. Gentleman is presenting a series of very good arguments, but why does he assume that responsibility for the error would rest with the designer rather than, for instance, the software designer or the programmer, or perhaps even the ethicist who informed the design?

[Karl Turner]

The hon. Gentleman is right to correct me. The claim will lie with the insurer. However, as other Members have pointed out, the position is not entirely clear. The Association of British Insurers is concerned about the likelihood that existing insurance practices would need to be significantly changed to deal routinely with road traffic accidents involving automated vehicles. The Government acknowledge that in their impact assessment for the Bill, saying that it might result in increased administrative and procedural costs for insurers. Although the Bill does enable them to claim from the manufacturers when the vehicle is in automated mode and deemed at fault for an incident, the Government also acknowledge that there could be significant teething problems with the system, particularly given early disagreements about liability between the parties. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

It is difficult to estimate how different insurance premiums will be when automated vehicles are fully functional on the road. The roll-out and proliferation of autonomous vehicles should produce significant safety benefits, with driver error being either significantly reduced or eliminated. Although that should lead to reduced premiums, a great deal of work will be necessary, as we prepare for this new environment, to better assess whether that will in fact be the case. If there were increased procedural and administrative costs for insurers, there could be higher premiums, in which case there would be a severe impact on the uptake of AVs in the UK, making the Government’s actions self-defeating. We believe that the Government must review at regular intervals how the insurance for AVs is working, so Labour will press for a review date to be included in the Bill.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman is making some extremely important points, and I hope that he will forgive me for interrupting him again. On that very issue of insurance, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) made the very good observation that human error is the greatest cause of accidents nowadays. It is likely—although we cannot be 100% sure of anything—that the arrival of driverless vehicles would reduce the number of accidents, thus reducing the amount of insurance required and, as a result, reducing insurance premiums as well. Would that not, in many ways, liberate drivers rather than hampering them?

[Karl Turner]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I think that I made the same point myself.

[Geraint Davies]

Does my hon. Friend think that there is any risk of interference with the software by someone malicious—even a terrorist—to make some of these automated devices dangerous?

[Karl Turner]

That is a valid point, and I know from my discussions with the Minister that the Government are considering it and taking it very seriously.

The second part of the Bill relates to electric vehicles, charging and infrastructure. At this point I should declare an interest, as the proud owner of an entirely electric vehicle. It is a little tiny Renault, a Renault TWIZY. I like to think that it is the Tesla for the many, not the few, because it is really quite affordable.

Electric and alternatively fuelled vehicles are key to reducing air pollution and meeting the UK's climate change objectives, as well as presenting economic opportunities. The uptake of electric, hybrid and alternatively fuelled vehicles is already underway and increasing. However, the Government are still 1.5 million vehicles short of their 1.6 million ULEV target for 2020, so it is imperative that action is taken to encourage their uptake.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Is not the current problem with some of the smaller electric vehicles the range that they have? I very much doubt that the hon. Gentleman’s own vehicle would get him from here to Hull without stopping for a recharge. Hopefully, that difficulty will disappear as battery technology progresses.

[Karl Turner]

The right hon. Gentleman, who represents a constituency very close to mine, is absolutely right. The current range of my vehicle in London is about 50 miles, so it would take me several days to travel to Westminster in it; however, the technology is improving constantly. I think I am right in saying that the range of the current model of the Nissan LEAF is about 90 miles, but it is about to increase to 235 miles. That would suit me very well, because I think that the distance between my home address and Westminster is about 230 miles.

[Mr John Hayes]

Partly as a result of the overtures from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and partly to alleviate any fears that the hon. Gentleman may have, I can announce that from next summer, when we begin the refurbishment of the underground car park at the House of Commons, we will provide 80 new electric charge points.

[Karl Turner]

I am sure the House is very pleased to hear that.

The section of the Bill on EV-charging infrastructure is largely about enabling secondary legislation, and will not have significant impacts in the short term, but we agree that if the UK intends to be a global leader, we need to take broader action sooner rather than later. Given the importance of future-proofing the legislative framework in this area, the Opposition recognise the need to use secondary legislation, but we will seek commitments from the Government to consult properly and widely throughout the process. We will also be seeking assurances and a review from the Government of how the provisions of the Bill fit within a broader strategy for reducing harmful vehicle emissions and promoting a switch to ULEVs and EVs. If uptake is to be encouraged, electric vehicles need to be practical, affordable and convenient for users, which means providing the necessary infrastructure.

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the infrastructure is essential. What thought has he given to what we need to do to prevent the situation that we have with broadband? There is very good coverage in certain places but there are notspots in others, and that has really disadvantaged some areas.

[Karl Turner]

My hon. Friend is right; we have discussed this point, and I will come to it again a little later in my remarks.

[Mr John Hayes]

Given the points the hon. Gentleman and hon. Lady have made, they will want to know that we are so determined to ensure this facility is spread as widely as possible that last week we announced a further £4.5 million to make charge points available for those without off-street parking.

[Karl Turner]

I thank the Minister for that information.

There are currently nearly 12,000 charging points for electric vehicles in the UK, but at present there are multiple charging point operators, each with their own plugs, software, customer charges, billing systems and payment methods. They are also unevenly distributed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) has said. For instance, there are more charging points available in the Orkney islands than in Blackpool, Grimsby and my own fair city of Hull combined, although I had the opportunity today to speak briefly to the chief executive of my local authority area and he assures me that, there are currently 32 charging points in Hull while in the not too distant future we expect there to be 70.

It is therefore welcome that the Bill seeks to increase the number of charging-point facilities and address their harmonisation and standardisation. The Bill will allow the Government to require co-operation and the sharing of facilities and information from operators if necessary, allowing the Government to ensure interoperability for charging regardless of the specific EV a person might have.

Clause 11 gives the Secretary of State the power to introduce regulations that require operators to provide information about public charging points, such as location, operating hours, cost and interoperability, and these, too, are very welcome. It is right, of course, that this legislation should be put in place, but it will not be enough on its own to successfully encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. It was counterproductive of the Government to slash the grants available for ultra-low emissions vehicles and electric vehicles, and to cut the plug-in grants for EVs and for home charging. In May last year, the grant for purchasing an electric vehicle was cut from £5,000 to £4,500, and the grant for hybrids was cut from £5,000 to £2,500. The electric vehicle home-charging scheme grant was cut from £700 to £500 per installation.

There are further issues that are not addressed by the Bill, which the Government must get right. They must ensure that the grid is capable of meeting the additional demands that electric vehicles will bring. I heard what the Minister said about that in his remarks, but that must be planned for and closely monitored as electric vehicle use becomes more common. The Government must also develop a strategy to tackle the skills gap, because without training the necessary personnel, we as a nation will not be able to support the growth of this new generation of vehicles and could miss out on the benefits that presents.

[Mr Hayes]

As this is the second time this has been raised, and rightly so, let me say that I am very happy to agree now to initiate discussions during the passage of the Bill with the Department for Education, which is responsible for developing apprenticeships, and with other Departments, so that we can begin, at least, to address this issue of skills. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that again.

[Karl Turner]

I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention.

[Helen Goodman]

On the point about skills, as I have said I bought a Nissan Leaf, and I was struck by the fact that the men in the garage were not good at explaining how it worked. Of the 20 people employed there, I think that only one really understood it. The sales forces also have to understand how these things work.

[Karl Turner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there must be proper training for sales personnel as well.

On infrastructure more broadly, the Government must ensure that regulatory divergence does not develop between the UK and the EU as a result of Brexit; this is a very important issue. We must absolutely ensure that regulation and standards are maintained after Brexit. That is essential if the UK is to be the vehicle manufacturers’ location of choice for the development, testing and deployment of automated and electric vehicles. However, if the Government continue to mess up Brexit, any positives this Bill brings in terms of encouraging the automated and low emissions vehicles industries will be completely negated.

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend will be aware that Volvo and some other companies are getting rid of petrol and diesel production entirely and are focusing their fire more on France and Germany, which are going to stop diesel and petrol vehicles by 2030, as opposed to 2040, and where infrastructure development is also moving much faster. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to go at least at the pace of our European counterparts in providing the range of infrastructure needed to encourage the private sector in Britain to get a move on?

[Karl Turner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

We will table amendments in Committee, but the Opposition are very broadly supportive of the Bill.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Of course, the big question is about the expansion of slots at Heathrow airport in particular, which will be a matter for the Government both to negotiate and agree. Right at the top of our priority list in allocating slots—and we have committed to this in what we have said about the proposed expansion of Heathrow airport—is that we reserve slots for regional connectivity. One of the key benefits of Heathrow airport expansion is the global connections it will provide to cities across the whole United Kingdom. Whatever approach we take, we need protection for those regional links.

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

The Secretary of State may be in denial, but the Chancellor has finally fessed up to the fact that, if there is no Brexit deal, it is conceivable that flights between the UK and the EU might be grounded. Is it not time for the Government to get their finger out and give the reassurances that the aviation sector so badly needs?

[Chris Grayling]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, an experienced lawyer, did not read everything the Chancellor said. The Chancellor said that that was not going to happen and that, therefore, he will not spend a lot of money preparing for it. The actual reality is that we are doing a lot of preparatory work for all eventualities but, of course, the reason the Chancellor said what he said is that, as he says, that is not going to happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I am absolutely confident that after we have left the EU there will be an open skies agreement with the United States. I have had discussions with my US counterpart; there is an absolute desire on both sides of the Atlantic to make sure that the aviation arrangements remain as they are at the moment.

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

Can the Minister clarify that on leaving the EU we will remain members of the European Aviation Safety Agency, so as to maintain and grow our passenger capacity in accordance with our economic needs?

[Chris Grayling]

Obviously the details will come out in the negotiations, but we want to continue to collaborate with our European partners on air safety issues, just as we do with other organisations around the world, such as the US Federal Aviation Administration, and I see nothing to suggest that that will change after we leave.

[Karl Turner]

But have we not already seen this Government’s shocking acceptance of departing from EASA safety standards by condoning the wet-leasing of Qatar Airways services to replace the poverty-paid British Airways mixed-fleet crews, in which the substitute crews’ hours will not be subject to the safety standards prescribed by EASA?

[Chris Grayling]

I am sure that all the international airlines that operate into and out of the United Kingdom maintain proper safety standards. They are subject to regulation at European and international levels, and they would not be able to use UK airports if we were not confident that they were safe airlines to fly with.

Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill

Karl Turner Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 2, in page 1, line 13, at end insert—

“(4) The Government must publish a review within one year of this Act receiving Royal Assent on the impact on UK consumers using EU-based companies affected by changes to consumer protection introduced by this section.”

This amendment requires the Government to review the impact of provisions under this section to ensure that they are not adversely affecting UK consumers using EU-based companies.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 1 stand part.

[Karl Turner]

The amendment would require the Government to review the impact of clause 1 to ensure that it does not adversely affect UK consumers using EU-based companies. Essentially, the clause updates ATOL—the air travel organisers’ licence—to ensure that it is harmonised with the 2015 EU package travel directive. The provision therefore extends ATOL to cover a wider range of holidays and protect more consumers. UK travel companies, we are told, will be able to sell more seamlessly across Europe, as they will need to comply with protections based not in the country of sale, but the country in which they are established. Those are the objectives that the Government seek to achieve. There is no difference of principle between the Government and the Opposition on this matter. Indeed, it is due to the package travel directive that it has been necessary to put such a provision into the Bill.

However, we seek clarification on some issues, which was why we tabled amendment 2. The amendment would provide a guarantee that the Government will review the impact of the ATOL revisions to ensure that they do not adversely affect UK consumers using EU-based companies. The whole idea of the clause is to improve the range of protections available. The broad substance of the changes to ATOL are necessary and are broadly welcome. As I said, they will harmonise UK law with the latest EU package travel directive, and that should have many benefits. A wider range of operators, including more dynamic package providers, are likely to be covered by the changes. That will hopefully bring protection to many more UK holidaymakers who are not covered under existing ATOL provisions.

For UK travel companies, standards will have to be in line with those of the country in which the company is established, rather than the place where the company sells the holiday. That should mean that companies established in the UK can sell far more seamlessly across Europe by simply adhering to the widely respected ATOL flag. However, the changes at the EU level could have adverse effects for UK consumers who purchase their holiday or travel from EU-based travel companies, rather than British companies that sell into other European countries.

Amendment 2 would address that issue. The changes made through the directive will now mean that EU-based companies selling in the UK will have to adhere to ATOL-equivalent insolvency protections laid out in the member state where the business is based. In practice, that could lead to unintended consequences and, more significantly, costs for UK consumers. Processes and timescales for recompense may be distinctly different from what many travellers would expect under the current ATOL provisions, which are in many ways regarded as the gold standard.

The impact assessment warns:

“If consumers purchase a trip from a business established elsewhere in the EU and the company becomes insolvent there may be some costs to the consumer of processing a claim with a non-UK insolvency protector.”

Based on the latest Civil Aviation Authority figures, this will affect not just a relatively small number of holidaymakers. If this goes wrong, more than 500,000 passengers could be compromised, so a significant number of people could be adversely affected. It is therefore important that the Government take steps to anticipate and prepare for any possible negative impacts.

Amendment 2 would achieve that by requiring the UK Government to monitor the impact on UK consumers using EU-based companies. That would help to inform whether the UK Government should consider issuing further guidance, or co-operating with consumers and member states to ensure that protections are adequate.

The changes envisaged by the clause clearly make sense and are in line with what is required under the package travel directive. There is no doubt that when UK-established companies are selling into other countries, the consumers in those countries will have the benefit of the gold standard of ATOL protection. However, we are concerned about the protection given by EU-based companies selling in the UK. We hope that it will be equivalent to that under ATOL, but it will be subject to the rules and regulations of the EU country concerned. We are nervous about whether UK holidaymakers could lose out, so we are asking the Government to consider the issue and to monitor the situation properly.

As with so many other things, the environment is changing, particularly in relation to Brexit. ATOL will still be there post-Brexit, but we will explore possible changes when we discuss the next group of amendments. The package travel directive will no doubt still be there for those states that will still be members of the EU. What is uncertain at this stage is what the interface will be between the two things post-Brexit.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I have been following the hon. Gentleman’s line of thought carefully. He seems to be seeking full protection for UK consumers buying in the EU. The EU package travel directive applies while we are still a member of the EU, but when we cease to be a member, the repeal Bill will have put its provisions in UK legislation, so surely the hon. Gentleman’s argument is unnecessary.

[Karl Turner]

With respect, we do not know that yet, and nor do we know what the insolvency arrangements will be for companies abroad. The Government must address this real issue.

[Stephen Hammond]

rose—

[Karl Turner]

I will not give way.

We ask the Government to get the ball rolling within a year of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, but a regular review is also needed, particularly in the light of Brexit. Our amendment is supported by the Association of British Travel Agents and other travel organisations. Despite ministerial assurances, we want our amendment to be made to the Bill, so we will press it to a Division.

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

I welcome the spirit in which the Opposition have gone about their business on these provisions. We have had measured and sensible exchanges, first when we started to explore the issues in the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill earlier this year, before the election, and subsequently in last week’s Second Reading debate on this Bill. There is a determination across the House to get these matters right and a recognition that the protections that these measures offer travellers are important. Furthermore, as the Opposition spokesman made clear a moment or two ago, there is a recognition that we need to maintain the fitness for purpose of these arrangements to take account of changing circumstances in the travel market.

We must remember the context in which we are considering the amendment. The whole House shares the view that it is right for ATOL to continue and to respond to changing market conditions, and that the Government must do their part by ensuring that the necessary framework is in place. In respect of the amendment, I can go even further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I am extremely grateful, Mr Hoyle.

I will address my hon. Friend’s remarks later in my brief speech. She is right, of course, that it is too early to know how the package travel directive will lead to changes in purchasing behaviour across borders. That was a point that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East made, too. We hope—

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I think this might make the hon. Gentleman’s point even better than it would be otherwise. I described earlier the desire of the Europeans essentially to—I hate to use this word, because it is so often a loaded term when it emanates from the EU, but I will—harmonise arrangements across Europe, but he is right to say, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), that we do not know.

[Karl Turner]

That is the precise reason we need a review.

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, which is why I have said that, in principle, I agree. I will come to how I am going to satisfy the hon. Gentleman by assuaging his fears. He has already declared his intent to divide the Committee, Mr Hoyle, but I might be able to persuade him not to. I might be able, in the generous remarks that I am about to make, to discourage him from that course of action. We shall wait to see. If I do not, I am not going to blame myself. Just so you know, Mr Hoyle, there will be no self-blame here; I will blame it on the hon. Gentleman. But let me do my best.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is not clear how this will work out. If other member states implement as they are required to, consumers will be able to purchase across Europe knowing that the protection offered will need to meet the improved standards in the new directive. In practice, that should see insolvency protection across the EU improved to levels, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) said, that are broadly in line with ATOL.

There is also an increased onus on member states to ensure that businesses in their own territory have effective protection in place, but if the Civil Aviation Authority or trading standards has doubts or concerns about traders based overseas, it will be able to contact designating bodies in other member states to check compliance. We will ensure—I say this directly to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East and to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald)—that compliance in other member states is a matter that the CAA monitors, and that it makes contact with its like in those member states to ensure that proper practice is being observed. But—

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister is an eminently sensible man, but the point is that I can only wonder why he is resisting yearly reviews which he has told us already happen. If they already happen, why not write them into this piece of legislation, if for no other reason than to reassure passengers as we face a post-Brexit world? I know he is an honourable man, and I urge him to reconsider and accept the amendment.

[Karl Turner]

The Minister is a terribly generous chap, but his attempts to pacify the Opposition with his promise of a letter to ATIPAC simply are not enough. That does not cut the mustard, so we will push the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Hayes]

I can satisfy the hon. Lady entirely. I fully intend to ensure exactly what she asked for: full consultation and a comprehensive impact assessment in respect of any regulations to be made under these measures. On that basis, I hope she will withdraw the amendment. If she does not, she will look rather daft.

[Karl Turner]

We will press amendment 3 to a Division. We seek a commitment that the Minister gave in the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill Committee—that the Government would conduct a thorough impact assessment and consultation before implementing the power. Clause 2 relates to the Air Travel Trust, which is the legal vehicle that holds the money that is then used to refund consumers under ATOL protections. It gives the Secretary of State the power to define separate trust arrangements to reflect different market models, prefiguring some of the changes in the package holiday market mentioned by the Minister.

Amendment 3 would require the Government to undertake a full and proper review, and public consultation, before introducing any of the changes that would be enabled under the powers in clause 2. Unlike clause 1, clause 2 does not seem directly relevant to harmonising EU and UK regulations. Instead, it is a dormant power that the Government will retain in order to make considerable changes to ATOL, and particularly to the Air Travel Trust. That is where Brexit comes in because, were such changes to happen, they would most likely be in the event of the UK leaving the European Union.

During one of the VTAB Committee evidence sessions, Richard Moriarty of the Civil Aviation Authority—a trustee of the current Air Travel Trust—said that he recognised the possible merits of separating the trust to reflect the variations of products in the market. However, he explained that we simply are not there yet, and that it would be wrong for the Government to use the Bill as a means of making wholesale changes without due consultation. The Minister made it clear in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) that changes would be made only through the affirmative procedure, yet the Bill does not account for any further consultation as part of this measure.

The Government’s impact assessment explicitly states that it

“does not consider proposals for ATOL reform, beyond what is required”

in the package travel directive. It would therefore be rather inappropriate for the Minister to go beyond that, without providing assurances that proper consultation and scrutiny will take place if the Government are minded to go beyond changes that were already envisaged.

During the VTAB evidence session, Mr Moriarty said that he hoped the Government would

“follow the practice that they have followed today: consult with us, consult the industry, do the impact assessment, and so on.”

Amendment 3 simply says that. It is fair and reasonable and would guarantee scrutiny of further changes that may come down the track regarding ATOL protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Hayes]

As I did with the amendments, I start by saying that I fully endorse, and indeed support, the purpose of the new clause. By the way, I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for withdrawing her earlier amendment following the assurances that I gave her. I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) that I am fully committed to full consultation and a full impact assessment on the regulations as they are rolled out as a result of the Bill.

The point is that the ATOL legislation is not dependent on the package travel directive. The Bill will harmonise ATOL with the package travel directive in the immediate term. As I made clear earlier, ATOL legislation and protection will remain in place as we leave the European Union. They are made by, framed in and supported by domestic legislation.

Although I understand the point that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran makes, I have to tell her that the new clause is unnecessary, because ATOL is enshrined in an Act of this Parliament, and only this Parliament can change that. Mindful of that; mindful of the assurances that I have given about consultation, further review and impact assessments, which I repeat; mindful of the fact that, as I have mentioned, there will be a review of all these matters; and given what I have said about ATIPAC, I hope that she might withdraw the new clause.

[Karl Turner]

New clause 1 seems eminently sensible. These consumer protection measures require an assessment, so we will support the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

The Labour party supports the Bill, and we will vote in support of it. There are, however, some concerns about the impact of some parts of it, which we expressed when the clauses were first debated as part of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill and again throughout the passage of this Bill. We hope that the Minister has taken on board the points raised by Labour and echoed by the Scottish National party, who re-tabled Labour’s amendments to VTAB in Committee. As the House will know, the Prime Minister has asked the Opposition to help the Government by providing some policy suggestions. However, it seems that SNP Members are not even asking for help, but are simply taking Labour’s policy ideas as their own. We should probably take that as a compliment.

We support the Bill because it brings ATOL up to date and will ensure that it is harmonised with the latest European Union package travel directive, extending to a wider range of holidays and protecting more consumers, as well as allowing United Kingdom travel companies to sell more seamlessly across Europe. While we harbour some real concerns over whether UK consumers will be sufficiently protected by EU-based companies, as they will no longer be subject to ATOL but to member state equivalents, we welcome changes that will ultimately help to protect more holidaymakers.

The implications for ATOL after Brexit are also a cause for concern. Hidden in the Bill are proposals that the Secretary of State should require only an affirmative resolution to significantly reform ATOL and the air travel trust fund. Labour recognises the merits of some reforms, but we believe that an impact assessment, full consultation and full scrutiny should have been required before any fundamental changes are made to these consumer protections.

These issues bring to the forefront uncertainties over the future of UK aviation following the decision to leave the EU. The Labour party has been clear that, whichever framework is chosen by the Government, we should prioritise retaining an essentially unchanged operating environment. They should prioritise air service agreements as part of exit negotiations. As is customary, such agreements should be negotiated separately from, and prior to, the UK’s negotiations on trade with the EU. The Government must not waste the opportunity this Bill presents to clarify their intended future arrangements for our aviation industry.

The UK aviation sector is the largest in Europe and the third largest in the world, supporting 1 million jobs and bringing £9 billion into the Treasury in tax receipts. Over a quarter of a billion passengers were transported in 2015. But aviation also provides a network infrastructure that enables other industries to do well. Half a million jobs in the UK tourism industry are supported by aviation, and 40% of UK imports and exports by value go via UK airports. The EU is the UK’s single biggest destination, accounting for 49% of passengers and 54% of scheduled commercial flights. Airlines that operate from within the UK are able to rely on the EU single aviation market, which allows any airline owned and controlled by EU nationals to operate freely in the EU without restrictions on capacity, frequency or pricing.

Additionally, EU carriers are able to take advantage of the traffic rights contained in the many air services agreements that the EU has negotiated on behalf of all member states with non-EU countries. Significantly, this includes the EU-US open skies agreement which enables airlines from the EU and the US to fly between the EU and the US. If Britain leaves the EU without retaining any form of European common aviation area membership, airlines will need to negotiate new rights to operate freely within the EU and operate transatlantic routes. This means that there will be no legal framework that allows airlines to fly to those destinations from the UK. So UK airlines would also lose the right to operate within the remaining EU27, and EU airlines might lose the right to fly UK domestic routes as well.

Aviation is legally unique: it is separate from trade agreements and does not form part of the World Trade Organisation system. Instead, countries negotiate bilateral or multilateral air services agreements to provide airlines with the legal rights to fly to certain places. To ensure the continuity of connectivity, the UK will need to negotiate a new air services agreement with the EU and countries such as the US. If there is no such agreement by the time the UK leaves the EU, the UK’s connectivity will be undermined and its ability to trade will be more difficult. So it is imperative that the Government prioritise retaining an essentially unchanged operating environment. That is why they should prioritise air services agreements as part of Brexit negotiations.

While the measures in this Bill are important and will provide additional security to UK holidaymakers, it is strange that the Government thought it necessary to debate the Bill in a Committee of the whole House. The measures in the Bill were included in VTAB, which had passed through its Committee stages before the Prime Minister decided to call the unnecessary snap general election. I think I am right in saying that these provisions in that Bill were debated in no more than 45 minutes in Committee. The Government have not made changes to their proposals and the Opposition supported them as part of VTAB in the last Parliament, so we simply do not understand why the decision was taken for this small, agreeable and largely non-contentious niche Bill to take up time in the Chamber, other than to try to disguise the fact that this chaotic Government have a threadbare legislative programme for this Parliament.

[Mr John Hayes]

As a result of that scrutiny—which the hon. Gentleman should not disparage because he has played an important part in making it real—we have had a good debate on the issues of review, of impact assessments and of further consultation. He will have heard what I have said about all those things, which are matters close to his heart, so actually the debate has served a really useful purpose.

[Karl Turner]

The Minister makes a fair enough point, but with respect, it has been a terrible waste of time debating this matter in the Committee of the whole House when it was previously dealt with in 45 minutes in Committee upstairs. For the sake of appearances, VTAB has been broken up into its component parts and is now being given undue time for debate in this Chamber.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

It is never a waste of time to discuss anything pertaining to the whole of the UK in this House or in a Committee of the whole House. This gives me the opportunity to remind the Minister that we have three airports in Northern Ireland. We are the only part of the United Kingdom that is physically connected to another EU member state—the Republic of Ireland—and it is really important, as has been stated in the debate, that we do not lose air traffic and business from Northern Ireland to airports such as Dublin.

[Karl Turner]

The hon. Lady makes her point on behalf of her constituents, and she makes it well, but I do not think that it requires a response from me.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

This is a bit of an occasion, really, because when legislation is debated in this place, the Opposition traditionally complain that it is not given enough time, that the Government have tried to rush it through or that there has been insufficient examination of the provisions. The shadow Minister seems to be setting a precedent here today, in that he seems to be complaining that the Bill has been given too much time. Why is that?

[Karl Turner]

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I will make the point in a moment that important issues were debated in VTAB that are not now going to be discussed or made into legislation.

As a result of breaking up VTAB, measures that were previously included have been dropped, and measures that could have been included to improve this legislation through new clauses and amendments can no longer be added because they are no longer within the scope of forthcoming Bills. The proposal to make the shining of lasers at vehicles or control towers an enforceable criminal offence, which was strongly supported by those on this side of the House and which we would still be happy to support, has been dropped altogether. That is clearly concerning. We do not want to see avoidable disasters brought about by the malicious use of laser pens, and neither does the Minister, so will he explain why he has dropped these crucial plans, and whether or indeed when he proposes to legislate to tackle this serious problem?

There is also nothing in the Bill on the inclusion of much-needed regulations on drones—a matter previously caught by VTAB. The Government will respond to the consultation on drones in the next few weeks, but they should have made much more progress already, including making decisions on whether the UK should follow other countries by establishing a compulsory registration scheme and getting systematic geo-fencing in place to physically prevent drones from getting near airports and other places where they have the potential to be so dangerous.

It makes no sense for the Government to have abandoned the Bill in which action on drones could have been included. These are decisions that will make aviation less safe than it should be. The latest figures show that 33 such incidents were confirmed in the first five months of this year, and 70 last year, whereas there were 29 in 2015 and just 10 in the preceding five years. We need legislation to regulate the use of drones in order to tackle the worrying trend of near misses with planes. The aviation industry has been clear that it needs the Government to act on these concerns now. The Opposition have been pressing the Government on this issue for many years. Without action, it is a question of when, rather than if, a passenger plane is involved in a drone-related incident, so will the Minister explain why the proposal has been dropped and what plans he has to put this right?

We are just one month into this new Parliament and the Government are already running out of steam, which is why we have been debating this Bill on the Floor of the House rather than upstairs in Committee. The Prime Minister is attempting to crowd source policy ideas from the Opposition, and we can assist in this instance. The Government need to bring forward legislation on the misuse of lasers and on the regulation of drones and to provide clarity and certainty for UK aviation post-Brexit. We would welcome the Government adopting those policies, and they will have our full support if they do so. Labour broadly supports the Bill, because it extends protections to many more holidaymakers, but we want clarity on how EU-based companies, which will no longer be subject to ATOL but rather their respective member state equivalents, will provide protection to UK consumers. We want the best possible framework to ensure that the sector flourishes, but that means adequately preparing ourselves for the many implications that Brexit will have for ATOL and our aviation sector as a whole.

[Patricia Gibson]

I end where I began by welcoming and supporting the Government’s measures to update the ATOL scheme to provide more protection for passengers when they go on holiday and to align it with the latest EU directives. I welcome the progress made in this evening’s debate, but I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) complain that today’s process has taken too long. If he sees that as a problem, I suggest that he perhaps contributed to it with his extensive remarks. I am sure that we all enjoyed them, but he seems to have contributed to the problem that he identified.

[Karl Turner]

I did not complain that the process was taking too long; I simply made the point that time in this House is incredibly important. An awful lot of things that were discussed during the proceedings on the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill could have made this legislation, but time has been wasted. These matters took 45 minutes in Committee. That was my point.

[Patricia Gibson]

I believe that the Minister has taken on board the legitimate concerns expressed tonight about how consumers are to be protected and have their current rights guaranteed as we head towards a post-Brexit world. There must be no diminution or stagnation of passenger rights as society and technology advance. It has been heartening to see how the Bill has proceeded through the House, and I have been delighted to be a part of these debates.