Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Sixth sitting)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Hayes]

I never want to be locked in anywhere—I do not know how the hon. Gentleman feels about that—but he is right. As he implies, there is a balance to be struck between getting the absolute protections that we want for our consumers who travel overseas, and allowing our businesses to move forward with certainty in planning their growth and development. To clarify, when I described my occasional visits to the Co-op travel agents in Spalding, I rather suggested that I journeyed abroad recreationally a great deal, but most of my family holidays are actually spent on the east coast of England. I do not really like moving far from the east coast—from Northumberland down to Kent. That is quite sufficient for me. I am a man of simple tastes. None the less, there are those who travel widely and regularly, and it is important that they are protected by the Government supporting the industry by underpinning an already strong system. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is our intention.

The Civil Aviation Act 1982 already confers a power on the Civil Aviation Authority to obtain information from persons, businesses and practice to determine whether there is a need to hold an ATOL licence. This is based around the existing scope of the scheme, which focuses on holidays offered to consumers in the UK. Clause 20 will extend the scope of the information powers to bring in the new scope of the ATOL scheme introduced through clause 18. Essentially, clause 20 reflects clause 18 in those terms, and is certainly consequential to it. In effect, the Civil Aviation Authority will have the power to obtain information from all businesses that are selling flight holidays in the UK, which is the existing scope, and UK-based operators selling to consumers in Europe, which is the extended scope. The practical effect of the clause is to make it easier for the Civil Aviation Authority, as the regulatory authority, to ensure that businesses selling holiday packages have the required consumer protection in place.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West is right to say that, as we go through Brexit process, it is important that the improvements that we believe will come from the new European approach to these matters are not compromised. In a way, the improvements bring other countries in Europe up to a standard that we have enjoyed without any diminution of the protection offered here. That will probably be the net effect of that new regulatory environment. It is important that our departure from the European Union does not compromise that.

It would be well beyond my pay grade and outside my orbit to anticipate what the negotiations we are about to enjoy with the European Union will mean in respect of Brexit, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield and others on this Committee would not expect me to do so. However, it is clear to me that there is strong mutual interest across the European Union in maintaining a system that is consistent, reliable and comprehensible. Those seem to me to be the things that underpin the regime that Europe has been working to try to bring about and that Britain has long had. While I cannot anticipate the outcome of those negotiations, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield mentioned in his opening remarks, I can stress our determination to ensure that, for us and others, those protections will remain in place. Certainly we would not want to be in a circumstance where any holidaymaker from the United Kingdom was worse off than they are now.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Powers to designate premises for vehicle testing and to cap testing station fees

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 21, page 16, line 5, at end insert—

“(c) must be accompanied by an assessment of how the designation would affect existing DVSA testing facilities and staff.”

This amendment requires the Government to review and report how any new designated premises may adversely impact existing DVSA testing facilities and staff.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Ryan. We move seamlessly to the issue of vehicle testing, and in particular the testing of lorries, buses, coaches and heavy goods vehicles, and the proposed move from centres under the control and ownership of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to authorised testing facilities, with independent examiners remaining in the employ of the DVSA. That is the context, and I am assisted in that regard by the explanatory notes. I noted during the debate on the previous clause that, at the bottom of page 12, we have a paragraph 66 and then another paragraph 66—too many sixes. I wonder whether the devil is in the detail.

The Labour party does not have an issue in principle with the contents of the clause. However, we have concerns about the effects on existing DVSA testing facilities and staff of the increased movement from Government-owned testing facilities to privately owned sites. Our amendment therefore would ensure that the Government reviewed and reported on how any new designated premises or authorised testing facilities may adversely impact existing DVSA testing facilities and staff.

I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me specifically about this and for providing a reassurance that the Government will not close any DVSA sites unless other suitable local testing sites are available; that tests will continue to be conducted by DVSA examiners; and that the DVSA will still employ the examiners who deliver vehicle tests at private sector sites. However, that is not the entire story. We have been in contact with Prospect, the union that represents DVSA vehicle testing staff. Prospect supports our amendment, and it shared with us its members’ concerns about the Bill. It is clear that industrial relations have been far from perfect. Matters came to a head at the end of 2015 when industrial action was taken in a dispute about terms and conditions. Prospect states that the way in which the DVSA has conducted negotiations with staff working in vehicle testing centres has had

“an impact on existing staff and the attractiveness to potential new entrants”.

In the light of the Government’s intention in the Bill to migrate towards a new system, I urge the Minister to take those issues on board, because they have depleted staff numbers and resulted in the DVSA’s technically qualified staff being diverted from their roadside enforcement work to cover annual testing of heavy vehicles.

Peter Hearn, the DVSA’s group service manager for vehicle and testing services, explained to the Transport Committee in November 2015 that DVSA staff members working in vehicle testing had been forced to work overtime to manage workload while maintaining standards. Since the agency ended the practice of diverting roadside technical enforcement staff away from their work at the beginning of this year, the staff shortage has reached what Prospect calls a “critical point”, which has resulted in staff in northern areas of Great Britain being redirected to undertake annual testing activities in the south.

It is Prospect’s belief that, despite its members’ extraordinary efforts, the DVSA is paying authorised testing facilities compensation on account of failing to meet its contractual obligations to provide them with the staff to carry out testing. Accordingly, there is some concern that, in order to deal with the shortfall in staff numbers for ATFs, the DVSA is considering allowing delegated testing. There is a concern as to where that might lead. As was stated in the Transport Committee report into the work of the Vehicle and Operators Service Agency, the DVSA’s predecessor:

“The UK’s HGVs and PSV road safety record is testament to the high standards of VOSA’s testing staff and we would not like to see this undermined in any way”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and reassurances. I am curious about the capital receipts that may flow from the disposal of 96 DVSA sites; they will be considerable. There will also be a saving on renovation costs, which seems eminently sensible. I am reassured by what he said about delegated testing requiring primary legislation and, furthermore, about the Government having no intention of bringing that forward.

The Minister commented on the peripatetic use of inspectors; that underpins my remarks about the good will that has been deployed, in terms of the staff’s willingness and ability to go the extra mile—literally, because they have been deployed around the country. I am not entirely enthusiastic about seeking leave to withdraw my amendment, but I have heard a great deal from the Minister. He has reassured me that the issue has been properly considered in DVSA’s future planning and strategy, and perhaps more importantly, he has given his undertaking to meet with staff, and if they and he jointly conclude—or one or other concludes—that this sort of mechanism is worthy of reconsideration, we could revisit this, if it were thought necessary.

[Mr Hayes]

Having sent a minor shockwave through my officials—they did not know that I was going to offer to meet the staff—maybe they need another one: I think we should do that before the passage of this Bill is concluded, as it is absolutely right that the hon. Gentleman and the staff should be aware that the engagement we have with them on these changes is meaningful. I happily commit to that, too. I do not want to meet them at some distant future point; we want to do so in the context of these changes.

[Andy McDonald]

I am extremely grateful, and that tips it: with those reassurances and remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Offence of shining or directing a laser at a vehicle

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 22, page 16, line 39, leave out from “and” to end of the subsection and insert

“or

(b) he or she shines or directs a laser beam at a fixed installation involved in traffic control.”

This amendment would ensure the act of shining a laser itself is the offence without the need for explicitly proving persons with control of a vehicle were dazzled. The replacement lines also ensure that it is an offence for persons shining a laser at traffic control towers.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 10, in clause 22, page 17, line 9, leave out “five” and insert “ten”.

This amendment would increase the maximum term of imprisonment from five years to 10 years for conviction on indictment for the offence of shining or directing a laser at a vehicle.

Amendment 26, in clause 22, page 17, line 17, after “take-off,” insert “including during taxiing”.

This amendment clarifies that shining a laser at a plane while it is being taxied around an airport is covered under the offence.

Amendment 27, in clause 22, page 17, leave out lines 19 to 23.

Consequential amendment following amendment 25 to Clause 22.

New clause 15—Power of constable to stop and search: lasers—

In section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, after subsection 8C insert—

“(8D) This subsection applies to any article in relation to which a person has committed, or is committing or is going to commit an offence under section 22 of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill.”

This new clause would give the police the power to stop and search persons who they believed were carrying lasers that have been, or are intended to be, used to commit an offence of shining or directing a light at a vehicle.

[Andy McDonald]

Labour is fully supportive of the aims of this clause and welcomes Government action to tackle laser attacks—a crime that could have absolutely catastrophic consequences, and that has unfortunately become increasingly prevalent in recent years as access to lasers has become easier. We have tabled a number of amendments, which would clarify certain definitions, increase the scope of the offence, and grant enforcement officers powers to enable them to tackle effectively the perpetrators of laser attacks.

In amendment 25, we seek to delete subsection 1(b) and in its place insert a new subsection concerning the shining of laser beams at fixed installations involving traffic control. As has been seen in the written evidence provided by the British Airline Pilots’ Association, and as we heard last week in oral evidence from BALPA’s Captain Martin Drake, it is not only drivers of vehicles but those working to control vehicular traffic in fixed installations who are vulnerable to laser attacks. As BALPA’s written evidence puts it,

“a laser attack on an Air Traffic Control Tower could cause substantial disruption and could even result in a major airfield being closed for the duration of an attack. The financial and commercial implications of this type of event would be significant.”

I thought it was important to widen the provision, given the evidence that we heard, because such an installation is of course a ready-made target for any mischievous individual.

It should be noted that the amendment does not restrict the offence to laser attacks on air traffic control towers; fixed installations involving traffic control of modes of transport other than aviation could be subject to a laser attack. Clear examples are the port of London’s vessel traffic service control centres on the River Thames and in the estuary. These two centres—the Thames Barrier navigation centre in Woolwich and the port control at Gravesend—oversee maritime navigation in one of the largest and most diverse vessel traffic service areas in the UK, covering some 600 square miles of waterway, spanning 95 miles, from Teddington to the North sea. A laser attack on one of those fixed installations could have catastrophic consequences for safe navigation on the Thames.

The new paragraph that would replace subsection (1)(b) would ensure that the act of shining a laser at a vehicle in the course of a journey, or at a traffic control installation, was itself an offence, regardless of whether the driver or drivers of the vehicle, or the person or people controlling traffic in the fixed installation, were dazzled by the laser, whereas under the Bill it is a requirement that they be dazzled; Opposition Members think that is restrictive and could cause difficulties. We believe that an attempted laser attack in which a perpetrator shines a laser at a vehicle or traffic control installation but is not successful in dazzling a potential victim should be considered an offence in any event, and that the offence of committing a laser attack ought not to be restricted to those occurrences in which the perpetrator is successful in dazzling a victim.

On amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Wycombe, Labour is satisfied with the current maximum term of imprisonment of five years following conviction for the offence of perpetrating an attack, so we do not agree with the amendment. We do not believe that doubling the maximum term of imprisonment is the correct approach, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me as I explain why. In our interpretation—unless we are guided otherwise—the perpetrator of any laser attack that can be proven to be attempted murder or manslaughter will receive a sentence appropriate to the crime. As we set out in new clause 15, which I will speak to shortly, the emphasis should be placed on enforcement and the policing of laser attacks, but I look forward to hearing what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Through amendment 26, we seek clarification of what constitutes an aircraft’s first movement. It will not have escaped your attention, Ms Ryan, that a person

“commits an offence if…he or she shines or directs a laser beam at a vehicle which is in the course of a journey”.

That is causing us—well, not concern, but we would like clarification. What constitutes the first movement for the purpose of take-off? We want to ensure that a laser attack on an aircraft that is taxiing to take off, or indeed to its position for passenger disembarkation, is covered by the legislation. This is our anxiety. The Bill as it stands could be construed as stating that a laser attack on an aircraft would be an offence only if the laser aimed at an aircraft in the air, or on a runway in the process of taking off, but not if it was taxiing towards a runway or on its post-landing journey to its parked position.

We believe that aircrafts taxiing—that is, in the stage between being in a position of rest and take-off—should be explicitly included in the definition of aircraft that are in flight, as should those on the post-landing journey to the parking position. The amendment was tabled to include that in the definition, and to avoid any confusion or ambiguity, which could be exploited by a defendant; we can imagine a scenario in which they, interpreting the Bill to the letter, say, “I don’t fall within that description.” The amendment would cover a scenario in which someone outwith the airport perimeter, for mischief and mayhem, seeks to cause disruption in this way, because they consider a taxiing aircraft to be the easiest of targets, as it travels at a much slower speed than one in the air.

Amendment 27 is a tidying-up exercise; if amendment 25 is accepted, lines 19 to 23 become superfluous. Finally, new clause 15 would give the police the power to stop and search persons who they believed were carrying lasers that had been, or were intended to be, used to commit an offence of shining or directing a light at a vehicle or fixed installation involved in traffic control. BALPA’s written evidence stated:

“We strongly believe that this new offence”

of laser attacks

“must be accompanied with appropriate stop and search powers for the police. Without it we doubt the deterrent effect will be enough to deter attacks.”

BALPA went on:

“This is the one area that we believe must be addressed to enable law enforcement officers to bring the perpetrators of laser illumination offences before the courts. We would strongly urge the committee to amend the Bill to cover this point.”

Without the insertion of this new clause, a police officer who responds to a report of a laser attack but does not catch an offender in the act of shining a laser will not be in a position to carry out stop and search and, accordingly, will not be able to arrest the offender. We therefore think it is critical that this new clause makes its way into the Bill, so that the police are given these stop and search powers and, crucially, the offence of shining a laser at a vehicle or fixed installation involved in traffic control can be properly enforced.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

In tabling amendment 10, my intention was to probe the Government’s position on the seriousness of this offence, and to ensure that the Committee had an opportunity to discuss the same. Very simply, the amendment doubles the sentence from five to 10 years. In oral evidence, I picked up the issue of the seriousness of the offence, and in replying to me, Richard Goodwin talked about the difficulty of proving a person’s intent:

“if somebody shines a laser and a plane crashes, there is a lot of injury to a lot of people; the consequences at that end are obviously catastrophic.”

I picked that theme up and asked BALPA whether it is possible that an attack with a laser could cause the loss of an aeroplane. Martin Drake replied, “Oh yes, absolutely.” He went on to explain that laser attacks happen during finals for aeroplanes, when pilots are carrying out essential and, in some cases, obvious checks, such as checking whether the wheels are down. He said:

“The vast majority of these strikes happen at night, and you are using all lights. Your instruments are lit up. We have mostly cathode ray tube or LED instrumentation on the flight deck; there are very few aircraft still flying around with the old-fashioned dial-type instruments. The potential for a pilot to confuse whether he is looking at the centre line or a side set of lights—particularly in a crosswind, when you are canted over to deal with that—is huge. It is quite conceivable that if both pilots were affected by the dazzle effect at a critical stage of flight, they could attempt to land down the side of the runway, rather than down the centre of it.”

I asked him to remind us of the maximum capacity of the largest aeroplanes, and he said:

“You could end up with about 520 on an A380.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 74, Q171-173.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

This has been an interesting, short debate on an important subject. The Government are responding to a threat by legislating. It is not yet clear how extensive the threat is, but it is certainly serious and probably growing. A small number of people have been convicted thus far under existing legislation.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the existing powers, which deal in part with the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe about aircraft. It is already illegal to cause risk or endanger safety or life in respect of aircraft. The existing legislation allows the forces of law to apprehend anyone who does that by whatever means, including through the use of the technology under discussion. However, the Government clearly feel that we need to go further, which is why we are introducing the new provisions.

Before I move to the substance, the semantics matter and I will consider the points made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West. Those would be small, technical drafting changes, and I will make further inquiries about whether they are necessary. My inclination is that his second suggestion is probably not necessary, but I will look at both of them. He is always diligent and assiduous in concentrating on such matters, and that deserves a reasoned and reasonable response.

On the business of taxiing, I want to be clear that the wording of the proposed legislation mirrors that in the Air Navigation Order 2016, which includes taxiing. The reference to

“a vehicle being in the course of a journey”

includes taxiing aircraft because that is part of the course of its journey. We are advised that the application of the provisions would not be in doubt.

[Andy McDonald]

I hear what the Minister says, but will he turn his attention to clause 22(6)? It states:

“For the purposes of subsection (5)(a) an aircraft is in flight for the period…ending with the moment when it next comes to rest after landing.”

As we heard in evidence—right hon. and hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong—there are various moments in the aircraft’s journey when it has landed that it can come to rest. Many of us will have experienced sitting on an aircraft when it has first landed, waiting for a gate to be made available. We need to be precise about that. I want to ensure that when it comes to rest after landing, the aircraft gets safely to its berth at the point of disembarkation, and that it does not just sit on a landing strip or, having taxied so far, still have a journey to make. If that is the existing definition, I respectfully suggest that it requires some thought and attention, because it is not clear to me. We are here to try to make things crystal clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Yes. I do not want to examine this matter exhaustively. Those are all well-made points. Our desire is to ensure that, whatever we do, the provision works in concert with existing law, is fit for purpose, does what it is supposed to and takes account of a range of eventualities in which mischievous or, more worryingly, seriously malevolent activity may take place. I will think about the exact semantics and speak to parliamentary draftsmen. I hope hon. Members will bear with me while I do so.

This is a new area of work, though it builds on good existing practice. I have mentioned the legislation, the navigation orders and so on, and the Aviation Security Act 1982, to which I referred when I spoke about the existing offence of any person unlawfully or intentionally endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight. By the way, I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe that the penalty under that Act is life imprisonment. It is, of course, a very serious offence, for the very reasons that several hon. Members have offered. Its consequences could be dire. All crime is serious and violent crime more so, but this could be a crime of catastrophic proportions. It is important, therefore, that we give it serious attention and concentrated and diligent scrutiny, which this Committee has.

Let me now speak about the amendments. I can tell by the way they are written and have been spoken to that they are designed to improve the legislation. I do not think there is any doubt about that. We all understand that this matter requires the Government’s and Parliament’s attention.

Amendment 25 creates two freestanding offences. First, it would make the act of shining or pointing a laser at a vehicle an offence in itself. Secondly, its subsection 1(b) would bring into the scope of the clause a new offence of shining a laser at fixed installations, such as traffic control towers. The effect of amendment 25 would be that prosecutors did not need to prove that the person in control of the vehicle had been dazzled or distracted; it would make the act of pointing or shining a laser at a vehicle an offence in itself.

I offer this not to be excessively critical but to be analytical about the amendment. The amendment might inadvertently capture the directing of lasers at driverless vehicles, such as with automated light meter systems. In such a circumstance, it would be difficult to prove harm because the person would not physically be at the controls of the vehicle. A further effect would be that the amendment captured those who did not seek to cause harm. I qualify that by echoing what the hon. Member for City of Chester said—I have rarely known him contribute to a Committee of this House without doing so sensibly. It is hard to imagine a circumstance in which someone would shine a laser at a vehicle without at least mischievous intent. That is why I chose the word that he used. Whether they would be intending to do harm is, from a legal perspective, a slightly different matter but, as he suggested, it is certainly fair to say that they would not be there to do good.

I can understand why the amendment has been tabled, but I want to emphasise that, in introducing this provision, we are mindful of the need for clarity in terms of enforcement. To some degree, we are breaking new ground—albeit on a base of good legislative foundations—and I want to be confident that we could enforce the measure. There can be no room for anything that is not tightly drawn or carefully directed.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister describes a circumstance in which the amendment would inadvertently draw people into this offence. Is the answer to his query not in subsection (2), which states that it is a defence for a person charged under this section to show that they did not intend to commit the offence?

[Mr Hayes]

If we imagine that someone is using a laser to attract attention in a way that is not designed to be malevolent, it is not inconceivable that, if we drew up the legislation in a broad way, they might be captured by its scope. There has to be proof of malevolence at the heart of what we do. That is why the proposals are—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

As we were enjoying this interesting debate, I wrote that to learn to speak takes a couple of years for most of us, and to learn to listen takes a lifetime for almost all of us. I am inclined to share this with the Committee. Listening to other people’s perspective on this will help me to frame my own. That is how Committees should be. I have always taken the view that in this House, the purpose of democratic exchange is to help shape the thinking of Ministers and governments. Governments who fail to know that fail to learn it over lifetimes, and one might say that their lifetimes are the worse for it so I am, of course, mindful of the sense of what has been said.

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I will, but I do want to move on to the substance, otherwise my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock will think I am not being pithy, and then I will get into all kinds of trouble.

[Andy McDonald]

I will be as pithy as I can possibly be. I am trying to help the Minister here. With the reintroduction of the concept of dazzling, we are back in the conundrum that existed in previous legislation, with the concept of endangerment. That was the difficulty; commentators were saying that the offence is committed by simply doing it. To have to establish endangerment is a bar too high, and it removes the very scenario that I am trying to describe. Hence my suggestion of the removal of the concept of dazzling.

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, but there are two things to say about that. I will move to the substance. By the way, the dividing line here can be shortened as a result of the length of my own introductory remarks. The dividing line is where there is a real potential for harm. We do not want to capture instances in which harm is not likely to arise, whether as a result of malevolence or recklessness. We have not heard evidence that police find it difficult to show that someone has been dazzled or distracted. Indeed, the opposite is true. The police are clear that they can identify when someone has been dazzled or distracted, almost ipso facto.

I will now move to the amendments. If there is time at the end then I shall be more than happy to take further interventions, but my generosity has been proven by the number that I have taken so far. I do not need to re-prove it. This group of amendments relates to the offence covering the misuse of lasers, as we have said. I will now speak directly to amendment 25 because it speaks to the principal focus of the clause, which is to protect transport operators and the public. The Government’s priority is, I have made clear, to ensure that we maintain high levels of transport safety across all modes of transport in the UK, and that is what we propose to do. Clause 22 addresses an important gap in legislation, and seeks to improve the ability of police and prosecuting authorities to investigate and prosecute the misuse of lasers. That much is clear.

Article 225 of the Air Navigation Order 2016 makes it an offence to

“shine any light…so as to dazzle or distract the pilot”.

The police are concerned that this provision does not provide the necessary power to tackle and adequately investigate an offence. I will explain further. As a summary offence that is triable in a magistrates court, it provides the police with powers of arrest only. It does not provide the powers to search a person or property after arrest, nor enter a property for the purposes of an arrest. Together with the fact that there is no specific offence covering the use of lasers against other modes of transport, those are the gaps that we are seeking to address here. This both extends the police’s powers in a measured but what seems to me apposite way, and covers other modes of transport. We have heard about some of those. They can be almost as wide as there are modes of transport.

The offence that we are creating gives police the powers needed to investigate an offence, enabling them to use powers to enter a property for the purposes of arrest and to search a person or property after arrest. The Government believe that, while amendment 25 seeks to address the problem, it goes further than is appropriate. The offence we are creating would specifically address the risk of harm—that is the point I made a few moments ago—as a result of shining a laser that dazzles or distracts the person physically operating a vehicle. The British Airline Pilots’ Association, which we heard from in evidence, said that in the case of aviation, the illumination of a cockpit from the act of pointing or shining a device, and by dazzling or distracting a pilot, creates the risk of an accident.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister. We have made some progress and we might simply have a different approach in amendment 25, because, as I said at the outset, we are not talking simply about shining a laser and dazzling pilots and other people. This is principally a strict liability offence. Paragraph 76 of the explanatory notes says that it will be a strict liability offence, and that is repeated in paragraph 77. I am in difficulties in that regard in seeking leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 27 ties in with amendment 25; one follows inevitably on the other.

On amendment 26 and definitions of taxiing, I am greatly reassured by what the Minister had to say. He has given an undertaking to look at the exact wording and very sensible observations have been made by a number of Members on both sides of the Committee. I recognise that there must be consistency between what we say here and what is in the air navigation order.

As for new clause 15, the Minister has explained that powers are currently available to police in pursuit of those in possession of offensive weapons, but I think he entirely understands the point and the representations that were made in evidence and has given an assurance that the consideration of the matter will include Home Office colleagues and the police. I shall not press new clause 15 or amendment 26 to a vote, for the reasons I have outlined, but in the circumstances I do want to proceed to a vote on amendment 25.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Fourth sitting)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out “owner of the vehicle” and insert

“person in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident”.

This amendment ensures that the person who was in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident is liable, rather than the owner of the vehicle who may not necessarily have been in the vehicle at the time. However “person in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident” can also include the owner of the vehicle if they were in charge of it at the time.

It is a pleasure, Ms Ryan, to serve under your chairmanship. We had a thorough debate this morning and perhaps took a little bit longer than we anticipated. I promise to be exceptionally quick on this amendment, which seeks to clarify who would be liable in the event that an automated vehicle is not insured, and relates not to the owner of the vehicle but to the person in charge.

I tabled the amendment because it appeared to me that we run the risk that a thief of a vehicle would get away scot-free if that vehicle was not insured; the owner would be liable, which would be a perverse outcome. We had some helpful information from Mr Howarth at our evidence session when I put that scenario to him. He correctly pointed out that the clause relates to Crown Estate vehicles, local authority vehicles, police and ambulance vehicles and so on and that the current insurance arrangements will apply to automated vehicles. That is clear, but I wonder whether the Minister considers that matters would be even clearer if the word “and” were to be inserted in clause 2(2)(b). That is not included in my amendment, which I intend to withdraw, but does the Minister think that that addition would bring further clarity to the Bill, because at first blush, I think there could be some perverse outcomes.

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

The shadow Secretary of State has made it clear that he intends to withdraw the amendment, so I will be very brief and straightforward about clause 2. It mirrors the Road Traffic Act 1988, which, as the hon. Gentleman has said, allows some public bodies and the Crown itself to insure the use of conventional vehicles. In effect, they take the role of the insurer in terms of paying compensation to an innocent victim in the event of a collision.

Just as clause 2(1) places a first instance liability to pay compensation on insurers, clause 2 (2) places it on the public body or the Crown, as the hon. Gentleman has said, if they choose to self-insure a vehicle. That will ensure that innocent victims would have quick and easy access to compensation, and mirrors the arrangements under the Road Traffic Act, where a public body or the Crown self-insures a conventional vehicle.

The risk with the amendment is that it might confuse that policy intent, as the driver of the vehicle may not have sufficient financial resources to pay compensation at all, let alone in a timely manner. I know that that is not the intention of the amendment but it might be its effect.

There is also a question of fairness. One can imagine that in a large public sector body, it would be unlikely that the driver of an automated vehicle would be the person who made the decision whether or not it should be self-insured. Also, the driver may not have contributed in any way to causing the collision. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to press his amendment, but my fear about it is that it may actually confuse all the issues in respect of the relative responsibility of the body and the driver. I will certainly look at the semantic point that he raised; the addition of a single word is a modest request, and inevitably as the Bill progresses a series of minor and technical changes will be made. If his suggestion is helpful, we will of course consider it. I absolutely understood that the intent of the amendment was not to do what I said, but I think that might be its effect.

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ryan. I have a couple of minor points for the Minister.

First, on line 5 of page 2, the first three words of subsection (1)(c) are “an insured person”. I tried to clarify this, I think with the Association of British Insurers, during our oral evidence session two days ago, but my understanding is that the insurance architecture for automated vehicles is changed by the Bill. Rather than the driver being covered by a policy of insurance, which is the existing situation, for an automated vehicle pursuant to clause 2 it will be the vehicle itself that is insured. Unlike now when negligence is alleged in a road traffic collision, the claim legally will be against the tortfeasor, the wrongdoer, not against the insurance company, although legislation from the 1930s enables the insurance company to step in at present. Under the Bill, were there to be legal proceedings, the person on the other side would be the insurance company directly, not, as now, indirectly, in lay terms.

If that is the case, there is no insured person on the scene, unless “person” in that context somehow means the insurance company as a legal person. The way the clause appears to be worded, the policy of insurance is carried not by the driver, the human being, but by the vehicle itself. In which case, if I am reading the Bill correctly, there is no insured person. I am hoping that the Minister will clarify that today or in writing to me later. I fully accept that he might say that I have misinterpreted it.

Secondly, on lines 19 and 20 of page 2, subsection (3) includes a definition of “damage”, but that definition does not include what used to be called special damages and have since 1998, I think, technically been called financial losses and expenses. For example, if someone is injured in a road traffic collision and loses pay at work as a result, that is liquidated damages, but it does not seem to be covered in the definition of damages in that subsection. That might be deliberate and might come in somewhere else, but I hope that the Minister will clarify the wording.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point about special damages. As he knows all too well, special damages in any given case could dwarf the compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, so it is a hugely important point, which I want to support. I hope that the Minister can clarify it.

[Rob Marris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. For someone who has to have two years off work, is earning £50,000 a year and so on, that can be a loss of money. I fully concede to the Minister that I may have overlooked something, or it might be covered somewhere else or not need to be covered, but I would find it helpful were he able to explain to the Committee why special damages, as they used to be called, are not included in the clause. Will he also explain why we have “an insured person” in subsection (1)(c)?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 3, page 3, line 6, at end insert—

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

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

Our amendment would allow the Secretary of State to define by regulations when it is appropriate for a person in charge of a vehicle to allow it to drive itself, because under subsection (2), the insurer or owner

“is not liable under section 2 to the person in charge of the vehicle where the accident that it caused was wholly due to the person’s negligence in allowing the vehicle to drive itself when it was not appropriate to do so.”

We are talking about the realm of automated vehicles, so this issue warrants some discussion. It should always be appropriate to allow the vehicle to drive itself—that is the whole purpose, but perhaps we can explore it.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that if, when someone gets into an automated vehicle, a dashboard warning light said, “Software error: do not move”, and they ignored it, that would indeed be a case where they should not have proceeded to use the vehicle?

[Andy McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We will consider in what situations it would be inappropriate to continue in that mode. If he bears with me, I will come to that. A great advantage of automated vehicles is to allow people with disabilities and without capacity to enjoy the same freedoms as we do. If they are in that environment, it would be somewhat difficult, as I am sure he would concede, to impose an obligation on certain individuals to do the very thing that he is suggesting, so I would be grateful if he bears with me.

As the clause is drafted, whether or not it was appropriate for the person in charge of a vehicle to allow it to drive itself has a consequence for negligence, but the Bill does not outline when it is appropriate or not for a vehicle to be used in automated mode—it talks about it, but it does not tell us. I accept that it might not be appropriate in some circumstances for vehicles to drive themselves. For example, early automated vehicles might be deemed safe to use only on motorways and not on some urban roads. Perhaps a known fault with the software that manages the function might have come to people’s attention, so using it would be inappropriate. I wonder whether the true intent of subsection (2) was to focus on bi-modal vehicles, because to my mind it is a bit of a nonsense to apply it universally to fully automated vehicles.

One of the primary purposes of part 1 of the Bill is to provide a framework to give insurers, manufacturers and potential users greater clarity, providing confidence and encouraging progress on automated vehicles. However, it is still not clear from the Bill what the Government have in mind about when their use would be inappropriate. I do not propose to press the amendment to a vote at this stage, but I think the Minister has got the point I am making. We are asking for regulations to be brought forward that better define those circumstances, because we cannot afford to have any fudging or confusion. People must be clear where there obligations lie. If we are to see the growth of the industry as we all wish, we do not want to leave this issue hanging over it.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It just occurred to me when the hon. Gentleman mentioned manufacturers that some of the conditions or stipulations for when the vehicle should not be driven should derive from the manufacturers rather than Government regulations, although I am not sure how that could be worked in with his amendment.

[Andy McDonald]

That is an excellent observation. That could form part of the regulations, so that the obligation sits with the manufacturer to ensure that the situation we are describing is avoided. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which highlights the lack of clarity about describing the circumstances in which it is inappropriate for the vehicle to drive itself. Somebody could get into the vehicle, fully anticipating it to be totally automated and expecting to be free to eat their fish and chips or make the cup of tea that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West referred to with impunity. If that is not the case, we need clarification of when those circumstances arise, especially when we talk about issues concerning capacity, capability and so on.

[Mr Hayes]

GK Chesterton said:

“The centre of every man’s existence is a dream.”

To dare to dream is to drive us beyond the prosaic towards the sublime. For me, the achievement of the sublime is indispensable from a redistribution of advantage in society. To redistribute advantage we must seize opportunities where they do not exist, in exactly the way that the hon. Gentleman described. To seize the opportunity to travel for those to whom, for no other reason than their incapacity, it is currently unavailable would indeed be the achievement of a dream leading to the sublime, so he is right that we need to get the circumstances in which people can achieve that right now, but we also need to be mindful of the fact that as the technology develops there will be a need to do more.

Therefore, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for further regulation. There will certainly be a need to look at Road Traffic Acts, because of what he queried in respect of the obligations of very vulnerable people. We will certainly need to look at that. That is a matter for future standards and Road Traffic Acts rather than the Bill, but I fully acknowledge that that will need to be a part of the legislative package that is bound to emerge as a result of these changes.

The Bill is very much a first step, as we have all acknowledged. It is a first step that, rather strangely, as he pointed out, begins with insurance. It does not begin with insurance because of any philosophical or doctrinal belief that insurance matters most, but it certainly matters enough to stop further investment and development. That is why insurance is the beginning of the process. In the end, the other adjustments to law and the publication of regulations will be necessary to achieve some of what he has described. We therefore recognise entirely the need to put in place a proper regulatory framework in this area. This is about the safe deployment and safe use of automated vehicles. It is also about public confidence, which was raised this morning by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, who is not now in his place. By doing what he said subsequent to the Bill, and through the passage of the Bill, we will send a signal to the industry and the wider public that we are indeed at the beginning of that journey, which I hope might lead us to the sublime.

Perhaps it is worth pointing out by way of illustration that we consulted on changes to The Highway Code and the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 to support remote parking systems, because there are also Highway Code issues associated with the changes. We are looking at how the existing regulatory framework will need to be amended, leading up to a series of incremental changes that will take us to the place where full automation will become accepted by the public and available through the industry.

I must not compliment the hon. Member for Middlesbrough so much so early, because not only might that encourage him to believe that I will do so throughout our consideration—at some point I might no longer wish to do so—but also because it might make him a trifle big-headed, and I would not want to do that. However, he is also right about the likely first stages of the development. He is right to point out, as has been written elsewhere, that automated vehicles might initially be used in particular circumstances in particular modes. Some of the developments that manufacturers are researching, considering and rolling out are likely to be for use on motorways, as he said, or in particular driving conditions. As part of the incremental change I have described, it is possible that automated vehicles will be used in specific situations, or what are sometimes called “use cases”. This would involve a kind of geo-fencing of vehicles, defining when and where they are used—perhaps in part of a city or something of that kind, or perhaps on high-speed roads exclusively.

It is also important to point out that we are not considering this matter in isolation. The development of the technology is international and, as I described earlier, international regulations will create a set of safety standards leading to type approvals that may reflect that limited case use. It is also likely that those regulations will contain requirements for the vehicle to be able to detect where it is, so that the system can be used only in those situations that are designated or defined. It is not clear whether we need to make matching regulatory changes in our domestic framework, but if we do, we could use existing legislative vehicles. We typically use the Road Traffic Act 1998 to revise existing or create new road vehicle construction and use regulations to reflect and reinforce those international regulations.

I acknowledge also that the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that further work will need to be done. I am not sure that the Bill is the right place to do that—by the way, I do not think he is suggesting that—but it is the right place to ask that question. I freely acknowledge that the issues he raised about obligations, specificity—how a vehicle might be used in what circumstances—and so on will require further consideration, consultation and regulatory measures. With that assurance I hope we can move on in the spirit of harmony and agreement to which I have attempted to add by my not excessive but generous compliments.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister, who has been very kind and generous. However, I do not want to misquote him, but he seems to have set out a strong argument for a regulatory framework, the better to describe the circumstances in which it would be unsafe to allow a vehicle to be conducted in the automated mode. In fact, he set out a number of circumstances where that would be relevant.

The Minister also referred the Committee to international standards and to international regulatory application in this case, but we have no information before us about how that would address the current situation in an evolving market for an evolving technology. I am struggling to understand where the deficit would be if we were to commit to a regulatory framework to address the issues—not by saying, here and now, what would be in it, but simply by saying “That is what we are going to do. We recognise it needs to be done.” I am not persuaded that this is not the right time and place to do that very thing.

[Mr Hayes]

Perhaps I may intervene, to avoid the need for another speech by me—which is probably unnecessary, although it would be widely welcomed. I do commit to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Global regulations will develop. Such discussions are happening worldwide, of course, and the manufacturers are international in both their reach and their location. We will introduce regulations that are in tune with those regulations. Let us not forget that the Bill is about insurance—about a first step in establishing enough legislative work to allow insurance to be put in place. We will commit to taking further necessary steps along the way.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister is very persuasive. He has made things very clear. Although I feel some disappointment that we are not dealing with the matter now, his unequivocal commitment to bringing forward regulations at some later stage terminates the discussion as far as I am concerned. I am grateful for what the Minister has told us, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Accident resulting from unauthorised alterations or failure to update software

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out “operating system” and insert “software”.

This amendment replaces “operating system” which is too narrow a term. A vehicle may have firmware which is software in non-volatile memory, an operating system which is software in volatile memory, and application software.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Regarding the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, I said earlier today and again this afternoon that the essence of our intention with the Bill is to provide a starting point by getting right the insurance provisions for automated vehicles. It is important that we do so with precision. His case is that if we do not get the technical language right, we risk failing to achieve our policy objective. Getting the language wrong would risk insurers not being able effectively to exclude liability in instances where we wish them to be able to do so. Conversely, it would also allow insurers to limit liability in circumstances where we do not intend them to be able to. Although we are working closely with the insurance industry and, as I said this morning before you joined us, Ms Ryan, the industry welcomed the Bill during our evidence sessions on Tuesday, it is important that the signal we send to them and the underpinning legislation reflect the certainty that my hon. Friend advocated in his amendments and his speech in support of them.

The Opposition have tabled amendments in the same area and, I think, recognise that the issue raised by my hon. Friend is significant. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Middlesbrough is going to speak on those amendments—he may choose to. In essence, the message that I want to broadcast is that although we will not accept these amendments today, we recognise their salience. My hon. Friend’s case is certainly well made and well understood by us. He invited us to consider the issue further, and I commit to doing so.

[Andy McDonald]

I was not sure whether we were dealing with amendment 20 now, because it speaks to exactly the same area.

[The Chair]

At the moment, we are debating amendments 1 to 8.

[Andy McDonald]

Although we are in the same territory, I will defer my comments, Ms Ryan.

[Mr Baker]

Given that the Minister wishes to consider the issues and return to them, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 4, page 3, line 15, leave out “vehicle’s operating system” and insert

“application software related to the vehicle’s automated function”.

This amendment makes clear that insurance liability is limited or excluded where damage is suffered following an accident as a result of failure to update the application software related to the vehicle’s automated function, rather than the whole operating system.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 21, in clause 4, page 3, line 17, at end insert

“, provided that the vehicle manufacturer has made all reasonable efforts to—

(i) notify the owner of a vehicle about the need for an update of the vehicle’s operating system,

(ii) provide the relevant update of the vehicle’s operating system to the owner or insured person, and

(iii) arrange for the installation and update of the vehicle’s operating system.”

This amendment ensures that manufacturers have made all reasonable efforts to provide an update to the vehicle’s system for the owner before placing liability on the owner for not updating the software.

New clause 9—Updates to software and operation of automated vehicles—

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

This new clause would require the Government to introduce regulations that require automated vehicles to be up to date in order for them to utilise automated functions on public roads.

[Andy McDonald]

As we have a software engineer in the room, I bow to his superior knowledge, but I think he has already acknowledged that ours is a bold and perhaps even decent attempt to narrow the definition to the very function—not bad for an old personal injury solicitor. I recognise that we are all trying to be specific about the what the software is intended to do, so I will not detain the Committee long on amendment 20 but rather move on to amendment 21, which is in the same territory but not on the same point. It would add a proviso to exclusions and limitations on an insurance policy, because, as drawn, the policy would simply be void in the event of failure to install the software.

We discussed this subject during our evidence sessions, and I think we were all quite fascinated by how software would ultimately be installed, but we think it proper to oblige the manufacturer to attempt to notify the vehicle’s owner, provide the update and arrange for its installation. If an automated vehicle is to be able to drive itself, it is critical to safety that the software responsible for the driving operation be up to date. No one doubts that.

I do not know whether everyone can say with certainty that their mobile phone or home desktop computer has the latest version of the software installed. If a smartphone or computer is out of date, that is pretty poor, but significant consequences are unlikely; if an automated vehicle’s software is not up to date, the consequences could be catastrophic.

[Mr Baker]

This is a sensible amendment, but I think it suffers from defining in terms of operating systems rather than software. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether the definition needs to be in the Bill, or whether updates could be required under the policy and it should be for insurers to determine how software updates should be installed.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the necessary correction. My concern is that there is nothing in the Bill that requires software to be updated. I find that somewhat difficult to understand. These vehicles will be available for use and there will be several iterations of the software updates, so I am staggered that there is nothing to require that to happen. It is almost an assumption—the nature of the beast is such that of course it will be part of the debate—but there is no obligation.

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

Many businesses have insurance for business disruption based on their updating cyber-security software for their accountancy models and so on. I am not entirely sure why the hon. Gentleman feels that such a provision is needed in the Bill when it works alongside the insurance element, so in reality the insurance company would provide that check.

[Andy McDonald]

I am not entirely sure that, as a matter of course, insurers would check whether the software on all the vehicles they insure is up to date. They might demand that at the outset but I am not sure what mechanism would make sure of it, other than to warn people that otherwise policies would be voided.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Would not that in many ways be similar to servicing vehicles? My insurance policy, like many others, requires me to service my vehicle, which is about as non-electronic as it is possible to get these days, pretty regularly. The insurance company will not have checked in advance, but if they later find out that an accident was caused because the vehicle was not in a roadworthy condition because I did not maintain it properly, my insurance is invalid. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but not why he believes it should be in the Bill, rather than leaving it to insurance companies to manage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I think there is a distinction between ordinary, conventional vehicle maintenance arrangements, with which people are familiar, and the requirements of this brand-new environment, where if software fails because critical updates were not installed or it has been infected in some way—I am not an engineer—the consequences can be catastrophic. Mechanical failures may not be picked up, but we have MOT tests and warranties and it may be starkly obvious that something is fundamentally wrong with the vehicle; software failure may not manifest itself so clearly.

[Rob Marris]

Is not part of the problem that we have several players on the scene? We have the manufacturer, the supplier of the vehicle—the main dealer for example—the insurance company, the owner of the vehicle and the driver. Part of the problem is that the owner of the vehicle may not have any contractual nexus with the manufacturer and may not know that the update is available for their software, just as many people may not know that their smartphone can be upgraded from Android Marshmallow to Android Nougat.

[Andy McDonald]

The point is well made, so I will not expand on my hon. Friend’s intervention but simply accept it.

In short, that the manufacturer should notify the owner of a vehicle of the need for an update of the vehicle’s operating system or whatever term we settle on, provide the relevant update to the owner or insured person, and arrange for the installation of the update, are reasonable expectations. We are shifting into a completely different model of vehicle ownership. We have already embraced the principles of personal contract plans and everyone in this room will be aware of the potential to migrate to bundled services, which might not be about one person with one vehicle; they might have a variety of options—a small vehicle for the home and a more comfortable vehicle to make longer journeys, such as touring the Scottish highlands.

We are getting into new territory, and it occurs to me that if we want motor vehicles to be sustainable, rather than rapidly obsolescent, it might be eminently sensible if, rather than someone owning and maintaining a vehicle, such maintenance were part of the services they received and the vehicle was ultimately returned to the manufacturer or retailer. We get into issues about extensions on product liability. With every iteration, there are issues around that. We heard from Mr Wong on Tuesday that the manufacturers will no longer support vehicles beyond a particular time. He did not expect the support to carry on for ever. If it was my Toyota Previa with 163,000 miles on the clock after 17 years it would be unsupported, but there we go.

[Rob Marris]

I bet that went round the highlands.

[Andy McDonald]

Yes, it did, several times. It is still running, but it is partly rusted to death. The point is that the measure fits in with the new modelling and is entirely consistent, but it must be underpinned by the obligation to take reasonable steps to update the software. Otherwise, we have difficulties. The amendment would not put the manufacturer behind the eight ball if people are determined to avoid updates or interfere with them—far from it—it just sets out a framework that there should be an obligation on them. I recommend the amendment.

New clause 9 is directly related to the amendment. It requires the Secretary of State to make regulations preventing automated vehicles from being operated in automated mode on public roads unless the software for that function is up to date. We addressed the importance of updating earlier in the Committee, so I will not repeat those arguments, but I underline the seriousness of ensuring that the software is up to date. Out-of-date software can present safety risks. Because of the issues surrounding liability, it should not be beyond the wit of man or too difficult to prevent un-updated vehicles being on our roads, and it would make sense to do that. If a vehicle had a serious mechanical fault that could endanger the driver and others, we would not allow it on our roads. It makes sense that an automated vehicle would similarly present an increased safety risk if its operating system was not updated.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I find the hon. Gentleman’s new clause a bit absolute. My experience of updating software is that some updates are critical and some are quite nice to have and may not relate to safety. For instance, with an autonomous car, there might be a software update that tells the car to take a particular angle of bend at a slightly more comfortable speed. That has an impact on comfort; it does not necessarily have an impact on safety. My reading is that the new clause would rule out that car from being authorised to be on the road unless it had that update.

[Andy McDonald]

I think there is a difference. The new clause says that the car has to be up to date and fit with the current requirements, but it does not say it has to be the latest software. A software product may have several versions—we are now getting into nice-to-have mode and additional facilities—and the one someone has in their car may be safe and up to date without being the latest. What I am trying to address with the new clause is software that is updated on safety grounds and essential changes to the programming.

Without the new clause, people would be able to take un-updated vehicles on to our roads, either by accident or on purpose. Insurance companies would surely factor the increased risk into premiums, which would be higher as a consequence. For reasons of affordability, it would be sensible to include the new clause in the Bill.

The amendment proposes that the Secretary of State should introduce regulations to prevent an automated vehicle from being operated on public roads unless the application software relating to the vehicles’ automated functions is up to date—not the latest available, but up to date. From a technical standpoint, that should not be too difficult to achieve. Most people with a smartphone or computer are likely to have software that prevents it from being used until it is updated; I am not struck by any reason why a similar mechanism could not be included in automated vehicles. By preventing un-updated vehicles from being used, we would achieve safer roads and cheaper insurance.

One primary benefit of AVs is that they reduce the likelihood of human error, yet one of the few areas in which scope for human error remains—the responsibility for ensuring that software is updated—would not be addressed, even though it would not be difficult to do so. The new clause would address that. I trust that it will have the Committee’s support.

[Mr Baker]

I rise to make two points, one at slightly more length than the other. The first is that the amendment mentions application software. At the risk of labouring this point, there is a stack of software in the car: firmware at the low level, the operating system, which makes the low-level devices usable, and application software on top. We have reached the point where we are all agreed that all the software needs to be up to date.

The second point is one that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire just made: not all the software is safety-critical. That is an important point, so I will take a moment to consider it. Safety-critical software will almost certainly have been derived from formal specifications, proved safe as it is manufactured and then tested comprehensively before it is deployed. I would hope and expect that any responsible engineer, before putting an automated car out on the road, would have a very high level of confidence that the software was in fact safe to use.

The issue then is that there are often bugs in software, so it is not inconceivable that a safety-critical update might be required, but I would like to think that it would be an edge case. If we were to prevent all cars with an automated function from being on the roads because some software update was required, we might end up defeating our purpose. On one hand, I think it reasonable that all safety-critical software must be up to date; on the other, I think that the amendment probably would not achieve the purpose intended.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is focusing, quite correctly, on “safety-critical”, but is not the software relating to the automated function by definition safety-critical?

[Mr Baker]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire in a moment if he wishes, but I think that he put his finger on the point very well, not least because he drives a semi-automated car. Imagine my hon. Friend’s Volvo, which requires him to keep his hands on the wheel when it is in semi-automated mode. There could be a software update that allowed him to take his hands off the wheel for an additional five seconds. That is not safety-critical; it is just a variation on the length of time during which it is not necessary to hold the wheel. The point is that such an update would not be critical to the safety of the car’s ability to drive itself—I am grateful to him for indicating assent—but it would be an update related to the software related to the automated function. That is where the amendment falls down. It is possible to conceive of updates that are related to the safety-critical software but not safety-critical. That is where the issue lies.

The other point is that if I have understood correctly, the overall thrust of the Bill, which I welcome, is to be permissive but absolutely clear where liability lies. Drivers know that they are insured whether or not the vehicle is in automated mode. That is the crucial point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough began this part of our discussion by claiming that he was courageous and then admitting that he was imprecise. Courtesy obliges me to emphasise his courage and not his imprecision, although he also said that he recognised that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe has expertise in this field. I have already said that I agree that it is important that we address the issues dealt with in these amendments, which were also highlighted by the comments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West. It seems to me that we can look again at whether this part of this Bill needs the proposed improvements.

In respect of new clause 9 and amendment 21, I suppose the obvious point—I will go on to make less obvious points, or at least I hope they will be less obvious—is that manufacturers should and will ensure that they update software in a way that guarantees safety. That seems to me to be fundamental, but I just do not think that this Bill is the right legislation to do that.

Perhaps I can make a less obvious point—

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister heard the evidence from Mr Wong on Tuesday, in which he made it abundantly clear that it would be impractical and totally uneconomic for a manufacturer to maintain software support ad infinitum; there has to be a limit. To assume that there is a manufacturer out there that will just do that forever is perhaps a little dangerous.

[Mr Hayes]

Or even innocent, perhaps, not to say naive. I did not say that, though, did I? What I said was that manufacturers should and will update software so as to guarantee safety. Where safety would be compromised by any change that a manufacturer might make, or where safety was not the result of the original incarnation of what a manufacturer issued, clearly that would be unacceptable, and it would be covered by vehicle standards and other regulatory and legislative mechanisms. It is absolutely right that if a vehicle comes to market, the software, like the other parts of the vehicle—for example the mechanics—is of a kind that passes the necessary tests allowing the car to be sold, purchased and driven safely, and any changes to that vehicle should comply with those core requirements. The idea that we, or indeed the law, would allow a manufacturer to update software in a way that compromised safety is clearly not sensible; we simply would not allow that.

The hon. Gentleman says that a manufacturer might not choose to update software ad infinitum. Indeed, a customer might not want their vehicle changed forever, and as long as the vehicle can be driven safely, that would be a matter for the driver; it is not a matter for us. A vehicle that can be driven safely but does not have all the latest mechanical gadgets or software is not a matter for the Bill, or even for the Government, beyond the existing legislative requirements. It is certainly not something that I would want to address in this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Minister seek that reassurance from the motor manufacturing sector? If he says that will happen, that would make life an awful lot easier.

[Mr Hayes]

I think it would be reasonable for me to say to the manufacturing sector what I have said to the Committee: that a core part of the work on updating systems is ensuring that a framework is put in place that compels manufacturers to bring to market systems that make the process as simple and effective as possible. That is perfectly reasonable. We will certainly have that discussion. I think that regulations are bound to be the consequence of that later; I just do not think that this is the time or the place to do that.

I said this morning, and I will say again—this is so important that I make no excuse for repeating it—that we accept that as this technology develops there will be a need to return to the House, to develop subsequent regulation and consult further. That is very much part of our approach. Of course, in our ongoing discussions about that later regulation I am more than happy to put the case that has been articulated across the Committee.

[Andy McDonald]

I think it falls to me to deal with all of the amendments and the new clause, if I am following the procedure correctly.

[The Chair]

You can state your intention on the new clause.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful for that guidance, Ms Ryan. I will turn to amendment 20 and, if I can, encapsulate it with new clause 9. It is my intention to seek leave to withdraw the amendment and the new clause, for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Wycombe. I think we are as one across the Committee about the need to get the wording absolutely accurate. There is consensus on that, which feeds into the new clause and the amendment. It also has an impact on amendment 21.

I wish to clarify that we are talking about trying to have some balance. Clause 4 describes circumstances where liability may be excluded, which includes a failure to install software. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun rightly outlined, it is without any consequence and there is no balance to this if it is left as drawn. There is no obligation upon the manufacturer to take any reasonable steps to ensure that the software is updated. It would strike any reasonable observer as entirely out of kilter if it remains as it currently is. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his undertaking to seek assurances from the industry that it will express a view on the clause and develop a conversation about its obligations to install software. I accept that assurance and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

I will be brief, Ms Ryan. The first part of the clause title is:

“Accident resulting from unauthorised alterations”.

I am perfectly comfortable with the contents of the clause that relate to the owner or driver making alterations themselves, but on Second Reading I flagged up my concern about where the liability lies if an external alteration is made either deliberately or accidentally. By deliberate, I mean the computer system being hacked in some way, the installation of malware or similar problems, and accidental alteration could arise from the car being serviced and the garage mechanic somehow messing up the system. I would like some clarification about where the liability lies in such circumstances. The Minister kindly honoured his promise on Second Reading to write to me.

[Andy McDonald]

I wonder whether the answer to the scenario that the hon. Gentleman has described—the realms of uninsurance—is that the Motor Insurers Bureau’s uninsured scheme would come into play. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, it would be the same insurer who stepped in to resolve the damage suffered by third parties.

[Iain Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was about to say, because the Minister kindly honoured his promise to write to me and gave me the clarification I needed. He said that although future regulations may be made, the current system will apply and ultimately the courts will decide where the liability lies if there was an external intervention. The Motor Insurers Bureau happily resides in my constituency and I visited it a couple a weeks ago, and we discussed that very point. I want to put on the record that the concerns I expressed on Second Reading have been addressed, and I am perfectly content with the clause as it is currently drafted.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Third sitting)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I welcome the Committee to line-by-line consideration of the Bill; I hope we have a pleasant and uncontroversial time. Perhaps I can lay down a few rules straightaway. I tend to the conservative—with a small c, of course—side on such matters, so I will apply the same rules of dress and conduct as we have in the Chamber. In particular, if anybody’s phone goes off, they will be banished from the room with no further ado, so please ensure that they are turned off.

We have one or two new Members with us, so if the Committee does not mind, I shall give a short seminar on how we will conduct our business. You have the list of amendments in front of you; it will be available in the room in all events. You will see that amendments of a similar nature and subject are grouped together. Any Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in the group may speak to move it. I hope that is reasonably clear. After that, other Members can catch my eye and speak in favour of or against an amendment. Any Member may speak to an amendment more than once. For the sake of time, that might not be encouraged, but Members are perfectly entitled to speak more than once if they so wish.

At the end of a debate on a particular group, I will call the Member who moved the amendment to speak again. Before they sit down, they have to tell me whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or press it to a Division. If any other Member wants to press other amendments or new clauses in a group, they should let me know informally—by passing me a note or telling me—and I will make that possible. I shall work on the presumption that the Minister wishes to move all the Government amendments.

For those who are new to Committee work, it is important to remember that the amendments are not voted on in the order in which they appear on the selection list or are debated, but in the order in which they appear in the Bill. An amendment may well be grouped with a later clause, so it will be voted on when we get to that clause during the ordinary process of the Bill.

We will probably not have many stand part debates—the debate that happens on a particular clause—as the preference is to debate the clause with the amendments instead. Occasionally, if we have not had that opportunity, I may suggest that we have a stand part debate, but such debates often take up time. I hope that is all reasonably clear.

Clause 1

Listing of automated vehicles by the Secretary of State

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 17, 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 themselves without having to be monitored by an individual.

(1B) The Secretary of State may not change the criteria until further consultation has taken place with 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.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in this Committee, Mr Gray—although, we were together at the evidence session on Tuesday. I am delighted to speak to the Bill generally, as well as to my amendment, because we are now entering the age of automation, which has the incredible and immense potential to liberate many people who are excluded by dint of age, skill, capacity or ability. It heralds a new era of inclusivity for personal transport and can address geographical, social and economic isolation.

The economic dividends of the transformation in our personal transport arrangements, in terms of air quality and climate change, could be immense, as could the industrial and technological advances. I am thinking particularly of the potential road safety benefits, the impact on our national health service and the health dividends, and the reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads.

This is an exciting era, and the idea of us entering into a discussion about automated vehicles is terribly exciting, until we realise that part 1 of the Bill is about insurance. To some degree, we seem to be coming at the issue from the wrong end of the telescope, but we will have to put all the exciting stuff to one side for now and concentrate on the framework. [Interruption.] Yes, insurance is riveting, and it is right that the Government have sought to set out a framework to enable the sector to develop. On that logic, it is the right thing to do.

I thank the Minister at the outset for his approach to the Bill. As you rightly say, Mr Gray, we find ourselves in largely uncontested territory—not exclusively, but very largely—and a great deal is to be welcomed. I thank the Minister for his approach, his co-operation and his assistance in preparing for the sitting.

There are times when we have to be detached from our technology, as you rightly said, Mr Gray, and there are times in our daily lives when we want to be removed from it, so I was a little disappointed that an email was sent to me at 9.02 pm last night with the policy scoping notes, which I did not look at until this morning. They are enormously helpful and they speak to the amendment, but I rather wish we had them a little earlier. I just make that gentle point.

The amendment would require the Government to consult on and publish the criteria for the definition of automated vehicles that are to be used by the Secretary of State. That goes right to the heart of what an automated vehicle is. We are asking for that consultation and publication of criteria because it is crucial for manufacturers, vehicle owners and insurers to know whether they are making, buying, loaning on or insuring on an automated vehicle, and whether the scope of the legislation applies to their vehicle.

In Tuesday’s evidence session we heard that the insurance industry welcomed the Government taking on the responsibility to say what an automated vehicle is, so providing clarity, but we have concerns that the Bill as drafted leaves the Secretary of State with total discretion as to what qualifies as an automated vehicle. We have therefore tabled the amendment to provide greater clarity and to ensure that relevant persons and organisations—stakeholders, as we sometimes call them—would be sufficiently involved, allowing that to inform the Secretary of State’s list of automated vehicles.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that, on reflection, his amendment is otiose? Surely it beggars belief that the Secretary of State would not consult. Any good Secretary of State must consult in such circumstances.

[Andy McDonald]

It is also about the publication of criteria; we have to arrive there and there has to be a journey to get to the establishment of the criteria, and we could explore how we might share some consensus around that. I do not suggest for one minute that Secretaries of State will rush off and include on their list of vehicles devices that are wholly and utterly outwith the contemplated legislation, but it is useful to consult on and establish the criteria against which we judge automated vehicles. I hope that will become clear from the rest of my contribution, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

The significant production of automated vehicles is still some years away. We are preparing the ground for an environment that we know will come but does not yet exist. However, there has already been an increase in assistance systems and partial automation introduced over the years to support drivers. The Bill assumes a clear distinction between advanced driver-assistance systems and fully automated driving technology in UK policy and legislation. As such, there is a need for collaboration between the Government, manufacturers, insurers and consumers to develop a viable and practical system of classification to identify when a vehicle is deemed to be automated or autonomous.

The clause requires the Secretary of State to

“prepare, and keep up to date, a list of all motor vehicles that…are or might be used on roads or in other public places in Great Britain, and…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 without having to be monitored by an individual.”

By introducing a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult on the criteria used to reach that opinion, the amendment would ensure that all automated vehicles were covered by those criteria. The requirement for the criteria to be published would provide greater clarity for all concerned.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware—the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire might be, because he is sometimes referred to, perhaps unfairly, as a petrolhead—of whether the current homologation criteria for vehicles on the road are published?

[Andy McDonald]

If I knew what “homologation” meant, I might have a chance. My goodness, we get an education here.

Because we are entering new territory, we need to agree what we mean by automated vehicles. We have it fixed in our minds that the definition covers only end-to-end journeys, but there are also journeys of which parts are under the direct control of the vehicle and not of the person who occupies it. We already have autonomous braking systems—the Committee explored those on Tuesday—and our shared view is probably that they fall outside the definition of an automated vehicle, because they do not cover every function; the person occupying the vehicle is still required to intervene. There are also devices to ensure that drivers do not stray into another lane. Those are all welcome assistance measures, but they do not fall within the definition of an automated vehicle as I understand it. I do not think that it is asking too much to suggest that we go through the process of establishing the criteria.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman draws my attention to the word “monitored” in clause 1(1)(b). It is an interesting word to use in relation to whether a vehicle is autonomous. I can monitor myself driving but not be in control. Is not the essential point whether the individual controls the vehicle? I wonder whether he has any observations about the word “monitored”.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. That is indeed the word used, but I find it a little difficult to reconcile with the rest of the Bill, because it might suggest some engagement and involvement. He is right to point that out, and I am sure that the Minister will want to pick up on his well-made observation.

The Opposition believe that the additional clarity provided by the amendment would help to create a more reassuring environment that encouraged the development and uptake of automated vehicles. The amendment would also prevent the Secretary of State from changing the criteria without further consultation. It has been pointed out that such consultation would happen in any event, as a matter of course, but I suggest that it would be helpful for that to be made abundantly clear in the Bill. The amendment would ensure that the criteria used remain up to date and as practical as possible in a fast-moving world, and that they provide a device to allow all interested parties to engage fully.

Finally, let me refer to our helpful scoping notes, for which I am grateful. We are told that in practice the Secretary of State would need to have regard to whether the vehicles or types of vehicles have met international or domestic standards on the safe functioning of automated vehicles. That is very useful, but I suggest that it is merely a part of the criteria that could be established. We need to think about the whole range of functionality that automated vehicles can deliver. Although that information is helpful, it is not the complete picture, which is why my amendment suggests a consultation and the establishment of criteria.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I look forward to our consideration of the Bill in Committee being electrifying, but never too highly charged. The shadow Secretary of State made some important initial comments about why the Bill matters, and with your indulgence, Mr Gray, I will speak to that before moving to the specifics of his amendment.

The shadow Secretary of State is right that the changes the Bill envisages—in some ways, I hope it facilitates change and allows it to continue—are significant. I was delighted that he highlighted the effect that those changes might have on the wellbeing of all kinds of people who in future could travel, but who cannot travel now. He made a profound point about the effect those changes will have on their lives. It is true that many infirm, elderly and disabled people will have the ability to travel in a way that they do not have now, with all the opportunities that brings. In a way, for me that is perhaps the most exciting part of the journey that we are all travelling on as a Committee; on the Government side, we are travelling as a Government; and as Parliament, we are travelling as the representatives of those people. I am delighted that he chose to highlight that point in particular in his introductory remarks.

Most men—by “men”, I am using the inclusive generic term—know that they cannot dictate the future, but some think that they can define it. Can we prepare for an unknown future? What we certainly can do is lay the ground to ensure that we can embrace what we think will be efficacious and resist that which might not be. That is our responsibility. The tightrope we have walked—the balance we have tried to strike in the Bill—is doing sufficient so as to continue to support developments in this technology while simultaneously not constraining those developments and not trying to determine or dictate what that future might look like. As the shadow Secretary of State said, it is far too early to say exactly how this technology will develop, or indeed at what pace.

We have consulted widely on these matters, as the Committee knows, and I continue to discuss them regularly with those involved in the motor industry. The discussions we have had suggest that changes might happen sooner than many people expect. The shadow Secretary of State was also right to say that they might take the form of a series of incremental changes, rather than a single step. In a way, that is what we have enjoyed over the past few decades. Cars have become increasingly likely to assist us in the way we drive. We have already talked about parking assistance, which is a common feature of most of the cars we buy. A combination of the technological changes that assist drivers in that way, and the data that are now available—through things such as real-time data, sat-nav and other technology—has changed the driver’s experience in a way that would have been unimaginable only a few decades ago. The essence of the changes that the Bill envisages are altogether different in their effect.

I will turn to the amendment, which will allow me to explore some of the other points that the hon. Gentleman made—sorry, the right hon. Gentleman.

[Andy McDonald]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Hayes]

He is honourable, certainly, and in my estimation, deserving of so much more.

Clause 1 compels the Secretary of State to create a list of automated vehicles. That is to provide clarity to industry and the public on which vehicles will be captured by the provisions—we need to define what kinds of vehicles are affected by the Bill. The Secretary of State will do that by applying the definition in subsection 1(a), to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and subsection 1(b). In those provisions we see the means by which the Secretary of State will create that list.

It is important to define the difference between driver assistance and automation, as the hon. Gentleman asked us to do. We are defining automated vehicles—the hon. Gentleman asked for this clarification—as those vehicles that have the capability to drive themselves without human oversight or intervention, for some or all of the journey. An automated vehicle might not be automated for the whole of the journey, but for at least part of it, and perhaps for the whole, it will not require the person driving it to intervene.

[Mr Hayes]

No, they would not be on the list because, although it is true that the cars we typically buy now might well have assistance with parking—I mentioned them a moment ago—the oversight of that remains with the driver. Automation is the transfer of that oversight or responsibility.

It is important to point out that the driver retains responsibility for the performance of the vehicle, but will not have oversight of the functions that are automated. I suppose that in the world we are now imagining, it would be possible for a driver to be doing something else while the car was being driven.

The best parallel here, and one with which we are all pretty familiar, is aeroplanes. When we fly on a jet, as some of us no doubt have and will again, for some of the journey the plane will be switched to automatic pilot, although it is true that the responsibility remains with pilots and co-pilots. We are quite familiar with that; the plane will essentially be flying itself. As I said, that means that the capability moves from the pilot to the plane, and in the case of a car, from the driver to the vehicle. So the vehicle will become capable of driving itself in an automated way.

[Andy McDonald]

Can I just take the Minister back to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bedford about the word “monitored”? I am trying to think through what is required of a driver when a vehicle is going through its process of self-parking. If we are saying that that individual has to be on notice and ready to intervene should something occur, I am not sure that the word “monitored” properly addresses that concern. If the word “intervention” was used, I could see how things would stack up. It really comes back to the criteria that I am talking about, and for the avoidance of any doubt, I am not in any way suggesting that there should be control over the list itself; it is the criteria by which vehicles are adjudged to be automated. I hope that is helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

That is a well-made point. The list’s purpose is not solely to provide the platform that insurers need to continue to develop appropriate products. It will also be available for consumers and manufacturers; in a sense, that is why it is here. It is in part to do what I said, but of course it will be a public document. People will know what vehicles are on it and they will be able to scrutinise it. It is in law not just for the practical purposes I described, but for the public purposes that the hon. Gentleman advertises. That is going to be necessary, because there will be uncertainties. We will no doubt talk about behavioural change and how people anticipate the effect of this technology, and there will be a need to provide reassurance about safety. That is why I emphasised safety so strongly this morning, and why it is underpinned by what we are doing in the Bill. I accept that there is work to be done in ensuring that the list provides the reassurance that he and I both seek.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West and I exchanged views about tests. If there is a safety issue with one of these vehicles, it will be recalled. Let us be clear that there is no suggestion that these vehicles will be subject to anything less than rigour in the way they are tested. As I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, they can be removed from the list.

An interesting point was raised about prototypes. I suspect that the insurers will have a view about the policy they might offer in respect of a prototype vehicle. They do now, as right hon. and hon. Friends will know. There are particular insurance products for particular kinds of prototype vehicles—which often restrict their use, by the way. When a very new product is being introduced, it is probable that the manufacturers will designate it in that way and that the insurance industry will respond accordingly. However, it is a well-made point; I may make further inquiries about it and write to the Committee, because I think such an important area requires further clarification. I have drawn from discussions and consultations we have already had with the insurance industry, and I suspect that it is as I describe: existing policy and practice in respect of prototypes will probably be reflected in this particular area of technology.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford took us to the stars. Too many Frank Sinatra lyrics at this early stage in our consideration are probably superfluous—as I said, we could play among the stars together. He raised an interesting semantic point about clause 1(1)(b) and the question of whether a vehicle is monitored or controlled. I will ask more about it and, when I write to the Committee, I may write on that, too, with the Chair’s agreement. I was considering it as my hon. Friend was speaking—as good Ministers should, because we learn from these Committees, do we not?—and I will return to it.

I am mindful of the need not to be too narrow in what we say, but to be sufficiently clear. It is important to strike a balance between absolute clarity and a specificity that would hem us in too tightly in all of these matters. We are trying to strike that balance—to walk that tightrope, in a sense—but I hear what my hon. Friend says and I will write to the Committee on the subject.

I think that hope is an important part of the work of politicians, Governments and members of the Committee. In that spirit, I hope that the combination of absolute assurances I have given—on consultation; the willingness to listen and learn from what has been said; the need for absolute clarity, and the stated and restated determination to deliver it; and the reassurance we have had from the industry that it is comfortable with where we have got to and that it is right and sufficient for its purposes—will not merely be a matter of tone, to quote the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, but also a matter of substance. After a healthy but long debate, although not exhaustibly so, I hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough will withdraw his amendment.

[Andy McDonald]

We have had a thorough and useful discussion. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South for taking us back to the days of “Tomorrow’s World”, Raymond Baxter—a few hon. Members will remember—and James Burke by talking about motor trains on the motorway. We did not think that would happen; it has only taken more than 40 years to get to this position. He is right to draw that out.

I am grateful to the Minister. I actually thought at one point that he was speaking in support of my amendment, but I think what he actually did was give me the assurances I was seeking, and I am grateful to him for that. He has assured us that the conversations will continue and that that will be a continuous feature, and importantly, that there will be a publication and that he will write to the Committee on the criteria. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jackie Doyle-Price.)

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (First sitting)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Steve, we had better move on, as we have only three or four minutes left.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Q I will be very brief. The Bill introduces the new concept we are moving to—the exposure to manufacturers’ liability. Has the Bill got it right in terms of the balance between insurers’ and manufacturers’ liability? Secondly, Mr Wong talked about accessibility cost. The cost of insurance will be key. Is the insurance industry ready for this? Clearly, premiums should be cheaper if we are getting errorless driving, but is the insurance industry sophisticated enough and ready enough to make that offer to consumers in the first instance? Lastly, on the issue of updates, does that present fresh exposures to manufacturers for the duration of the life of that vehicle on every software update iteration? Have you given any thought to how that plays in the context of current consumer protection legislation and issues of limitation? Does that now cause us to revolutionise the way we look at people purchasing vehicles? Are they going to be out there forever with software with little or no control? Any thoughts or comments?

David Williams: I think the Bill does have the balance right. It focuses on the road user. That is why we have got the Road Traffic Act 1988. Therefore the Bill has to focus on the safety of road users rather than insurers and manufacturers. As an insurer, we can price for anything. You have a balance with regard to how much liability finally rests with the motor manufacturer. That can develop over time, and they have definitely got some skin in the game. If they are negligent they will be called to account and will need to indemnify the insurer; so I think the balance is right.

With regard to whether the insurance industry is ready, in the past I do not think we have been, for things like this, but the fact that we already have the Autonomous Driving Insurance Group, which meets regularly and is very well attended, that the Thatcham motor vehicle research institute is all over it, and that AXA alone is involved with three of the Government-backed consortia means we are ready—we will be ready.

David Wong: On software updates, we believe that the “state of the art” defence principle applies here, which means at the point when the vehicle, together with the systems, including software and firmware, are being developed, the manufacturer has done its utmost to ensure that it is completely secure and, based on the scientific knowledge and the technology at that point in time, has done its very best. Of course, software updates are always, basically, a moving target; it changes every hour—but the “state of the art” defence applies in this case.

Steve Gooding: I think the motor industry will have to answer for this, because if you think of your home computer, every now and then you get a message saying “Your software is going out of support”. I think we need a bit of reassurance from the auto sector that we are not going to find that a vehicle we buy next year, and then in seven or eight years’ time is in the second-hand market, gets the message that “this vehicle is going out of support” and is therefore judged in some sense to be no longer roadworthy.

David Wong: It is reasonable to expect that vehicle manufacturers will continue updating, upgrading and patching the software, as do computer manufacturers and software manufacturers. However, even as Microsoft has decided, after a while, to discontinue the support for Windows XP and Windows Vista, one must not expect vehicle manufacturers to continue supporting particular software 20 years’ down the road, even if the vehicle is still roadworthy.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Q Within its scope, does this Bill do enough to position the UK as a global leader in vehicle technology? If not, what is missing? If you do not have the time to answer, maybe you can email me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

Q Mr Evans in an earlier answer described the purpose of the Bill being to take reserve powers to allow stepping in to stimulate the right kind of infrastructure where the market does not provide it already. May I press you a little more on what that is, and on whether the Bill is hitting the right target? The stress within the Bill is on the provision of charging infrastructure by what it describes as “large fuel retailers.”

A lot of the discussion we have had so far has been about the importance of having rapid availability of charging points, and sometimes smart charging points, in a much more dispersed area than what might be described as large fuel retailers—typically, the motorway service areas. Is the emphasis on that right? If it is not the right emphasis, do those powers need to be applied more broadly? If those reserved powers are applied more broadly, what safeguards need to be in the Bill to ensure that unreasonable regulatory requirements are not put on a whole dispersed range of potential electricity suppliers?

Robert Evans: That is a good point. The powers that we are looking at are primarily around the provision of information to the user, the ability to have smart charging should you need it, and the interoperability. Those sorts of questions are dealt with in the Bill and are key topic areas for the industry. On the question of where infrastructure is located, supermarkets are an interesting one. We have a situation in which not everybody has off-street parking. When one comes to a place such as London, it is not practical to put charging all down London streets. Supermarkets become an extremely practical, pragmatic place for charging to be accessible, along with retail shopping centres, in a crowded city such as London. The consideration of that, along with motorway service areas, which is about allowing people to travel distances across the UK, are two strategic priorities. That is not to say that there are not other areas. The Government have provided incentives for the deployment of infrastructure in other locations and have obviously taken a view that maybe the market can deliver in those locations.

Quentin Willson: However, technology does exist that would allow you to charge at a street lamp post, although admittedly that could be for slow charging at night. For people who do not have parking within their house and have to rely on the street, this facility could be available on every single lamp post in the UK.

[Andy McDonald]

The whole discussion has been predicated on the basis of saving the planet. What about reducing emissions? In the context of automated vehicles and vehicles generally, it is all about their obsolescence, not about sustainability. Given that we have talked about the updating of automated vehicles and the relationship of manufacturers with the end user throughout the duration, are we missing a trick here? Though there is nothing in the Bill that requires software updates, necessarily there will be that relationship.

Should we not be thinking about a new way of using automated and electric vehicles across the piece? Should we be having people owning vehicles, or should we be making the offer for that relationship to be maintained so that it is a sustainable product that can be revisited? At the moment there is going to be an obligation to keep in touch with these automated vehicles for their lifetime. We heard in earlier evidence that there will come a point where that is cut off. Are we talking about an opportunity for a whole new way of using the services provided by an independent, personal mode of transport?

Quentin Willson: This is the big cycle of change now, like televisions, aeroplanes and the internet. We will see car ownership decline and will be buying or leasing vehicles as a service, not a product. The long-term vision is that this is going to be based largely on electricity and some on fuel cell, and that we will be calling driverless vehicles on our phones to come and collect us. They will then drive to our destinations in what is known as a green wav; they will be hooked up and connected to junctions, to the road system and to traffic lights. These zero-emission, automated, self-driving cars will drive in platoons and, it is hoped, eliminate congestion and pollution. That is the superordinate goal, which perhaps is as near as 2040. But it will always be powered by electricity. The whole structure of who owns what is changing. As we are seeing with consumer habits now, they are buying cars on personal contract plans; they do not own things anymore. That is what the long-term future looks like.

[Andrew Selous]

Beginning with Quentin Willson, we are aware of the 2050 date that the Government have for all cars and vans to be zero-emission. My understanding for why that date was picked is that it is linked to the need to decarbonise the UK. To what extent do you think the legal issues that the United Kingdom is having with air quality at the moment mean that there might be a case for revisiting the speed with which we try to electrify the market? At the same time, I would be interested in your comments on what is happening internationally. I mentioned Norway and China earlier. There are different models and approaches that may not be suitable for the United Kingdom, but I would be interested if you could speak to air quality and the international perspective on these issues.

Quentin Willson: I had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport in January to tell him exactly this. The brutal fact of the matter is that possibly only 10% of consumers in the UK have driven an electric car; the vast majority are still hanging on to what I call the Clarkson effect—all that baggage about electric cars being slow, hopeless and driven by people who read The Guardian and hug trees. That has set the whole electrification of UK roads back enormously. We do not have a way of connecting with consumers when it comes to electric cars. We are informed, and the respondents to the consultation are informed, but I have been talking to groups of consumers for the past five years at test-drive events, and you would be surprised how few of them have actually even sat in an electric car.

I believe that there is potential here for the Government, and that is what I told Chris Grayling. I believe that there is potential for us to have national test-drive events whereby people can go to supermarkets, drive electric cars and undergo what I call the transformational moment, the damascene moment, when they get into the car with all their accumulated baggage about how bad it is and how unfeasible for their lifestyle, and then they come out as a completely converted person, who goes on to convert other people. It must be an extremely important part of the Government’s strategy to talk to the consumers out there who have little or no faith in the electric car industry and obsess about charging and infrastructure, when actually 90% of all EV drivers charge at home. We must not miss this essential point to move forward and to engage people with the process of electric cars.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Second sitting)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear oral evidence from the Association of British Insurers and the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record, starting with Mr Forbes?

Iain Forbes: My name is Iain Forbes. I am head of a team called the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles, which is a policy team based in the Department for Transport and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Ben Howarth: I am Ben Howarth. I am policy adviser for motor insurance at the ABI. As part of that I have led all our work on the Automated Driving Insurance Group and drafted our response to the CCAV consultation that pre-empted the Bill.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Q Good afternoon, gentlemen. Thanks for coming. I have a number of questions. At the beginning of the Bill, we are told that automated vehicles are what the Secretary of State says are automated vehicles. Clearly, some thought has gone into the criteria for so-designated vehicles. What are your own thoughts and observations on how we can be sure we are getting that set of criteria correct?

Ben Howarth: From an insurance perspective, that is one of the clauses we particularly welcomed when we saw the Bill. One of our concerns in advance was that it would not be clear to the customer what cars needed this new insurance system, so the clarification that the Government are going to take responsibility for doing that is really welcome. It means basically that we know what cars we need to have this new insurance for, and the customers will know that as well.

In terms of criteria, it is relatively simple. It is more about the user than the technology. I think the technology might not move that much, but it is the point where the user can feel confident that, when the car is in automated mode, it can deal with everything. Thinking about the worst-case scenario of an accident, if the car senses it is going to go into emergency mode, the car is able to do something to deal with that, which does not require the driver to come back in. We feel that if there is any point where the driver needs to come back in, it is not really an automated car. It is that tipping point where the car is completely capable of dealing with every situation. It might not carry on driving, but, at the very least, it would do an emergency stop and get you into a safe stop manoeuvre. That is the tipping point, or distinction, that we see.

Iain Forbes: Just to underline that, the measures in the Bill are designed to deal with the sorts of situations where a vehicle can drive itself in automated mode and not require the oversight of a human when the driving test is being operated. The particular mechanism by which those vehicles are going to be certified is an active topic of discussion at international regulatory forums. We have actively participated in those discussions, but we felt it was important to flag at the outset of the Bill that that would be clear to people in the insurance industry and elsewhere, to make sure they were able to understand which vehicles these measures apply to and which ones they do not.

Ben Howarth: In practice, we would be hoping that, from an insurer’s perspective, it is pretty easy to find that out, just by looking at the licence plate or the VIN number. There would be a clear definition that this is a car with automated functionality.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Of course, we are now entering a major shift, because we have to have insurers who are going to be picking up the tab for accidents involving automated vehicles. Presumably, as we progress, we will be getting errorless driving in automated vehicles. That is the objective, and incidents will result. Therefore, we should be looking forward to cheaper insurance policies, but that may not automatically be the case, if you pardon the pun. How progressed or how ready is the insurance industry to deliver products that would make fully automated vehicles accessible to people in terms of costings, including the cost of insurance?

Ben Howarth: We are very advanced as an industry, particularly in the UK. Because of the clear message that the Government have given, we are perhaps ahead of our contemporaries in other countries. The two really important criteria in terms of the cost of insurance will be the volume of accidents. We are fairly confident—Thatcham Research has done quite a bit of research that suggests the number of accidents is going to come down a lot once we get automated driving. That will obviously reduce the number of insurance claims, which will inevitably have an impact on the cost of insurance.

One factor that we probably do not know about at this point is the actual cost of the vehicles themselves, and how much they cost to repair. We might have considerably fewer claims, but very high costs associated with repair might have an impact. That said, that is something that is happening already. Vehicle technology is changing a lot already, so it is not a case of a huge tipping point in technology once we switch to fully automated cars. The technological change will happen more steadily, so I am very confident that the insurance industry is ready to deliver competitive insurance products that will be affordable, will help people and will make them want to take up this technology.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Will you help me on another matter? When an accident is caused by an automated vehicle, we are told in the Bill that the insurer is liable for the damage, but when the automated vehicle is involved but is not insured, it is the owner of the vehicle who is responsible for the damage. I am wondering what your view is on whether that ought that to be the person in charge of the vehicle, rather than the owner. We might have the perverse situation of a stolen vehicle being involved in an accident but, according to this, the owner of the vehicle would be in the frame. Do you understand?

Ben Howarth: I think I know what clauses you are referring to and my understanding of them is that that covers publicly owned vehicles and Crown Estate vehicles. They would not have insurance because they do not need them. In those cases, where it is a publicly owned vehicle, the liability would fall on the public body. It is a separate arrangement for genuinely uninsured driving—private cars that are uninsured.

[Andy McDonald]

That is really helpful.

Iain Forbes: That is exactly right. That clause covers publicly owned vehicles. We anticipate the situation being similar to the situation at the moment for conventional vehicles. It is often the case that they self-insure, rather than going through an insurance company.

[Andy McDonald]

Q I do not know what your handle is on this, and that was terrific clarification, but do you not see that it is possible to interpret it in the way I did? A vehicle that has been stolen is not insured, but the owner of the vehicle is picking up the cost, not the person who stole it.

Iain Forbes: Certainly, our legal team has been through the regulations to effect that as the policy aim, but if the Committee has comments, we have to look at it.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Finally from me, we are in the world of upgrades, which will present opportunities for manufacturers to continue to engage with the vehicle, in effect. I was wondering whether you had applied your minds to any future product liability exposures with the advent of new software. What does that mean in terms of those future liabilities and in terms of limitation, because current liability, once you part with the vehicle, has a 10-year limitation, although we have got some issues around extensions for people with disability insurance and so on? But if it is a product liability issue, there could be a succession of products that could give rise to liability. Is that factored into your thinking? Is it relevant? Have you dismissed it?

Ben Howarth: That is very relevant. When the consultation first came out, one of the questions was, “Do we bolt product liability into the motor insurance policy?” We looked at it in quite a lot of detail, and that was our initial assumption for how it would work. When we thought about it, those issues that you referred to and the fact that product liability lasts for only 10 years made it feel like too much of a change for product liability to be put directly into a Road Traffic Act situation. That is why we came to the conclusion that it should be a primary motor insurance policy, with the option then to recover from manufacturers.

Our conclusion is that you probably do not need to change the product liability, as it is kind of a backstop and it will not affect the original claimant. There might be a case on some occasions, if it is an older vehicle. We do not know quite how the market is going to develop—whether cars will be on the road for 10 years or longer in this situation, or maybe the product liability will renew itself every time there has been an upgrade. Let us assume that it does not, and you do expire at 10 years. My understanding is that there will still potentially be the option for a civil liability claim, so you might be able to argue that the manufacturer is not product liable, but they are in effect acting as the driver, so there is another claim that you might be able to bring.

[Andy McDonald]

Q You could be caught with a person with a disability, or a child, who is not subject to ordinary limitation; it would be from the date of their majority. There could be an action on the attaining of that majority and your product liability recompense from the manufacturer is effectively null and void.

Ben Howarth: Yes. I think that is factored in. The Bill means that that is a problem for the insurer, rather than the victim. I suppose part of the calculations that insurers will make is how many of those claims they will be likely to face. Are they insuring vehicles that are over 10 years old? That might have an impact. What is important in the Bill is that it makes that a problem for us as an industry. It will not affect, say, a disabled person who is using these vehicles. I think that is the insurance we need at the moment.

[Mr Hayes]

Q On this insurance issue, there has been quite a lot of speculation about what might happen to the products that the industry offers, which will clearly have to evolve. We were told that again this morning. Is it your estimation that that will affect premiums? One would expect premiums to fall, given the fact that these cars will be safer; many of your claims are related to human error, after all. Is that how you see things developing? However, we are also told that many people who cannot currently drive will now be able to—the infirm, the elderly, some disabled people. In a way, that is the most exciting thing about this development. How would that affect your assessment of premiums?

Ben Howarth: On the first case, I would think of it more in terms of claims costs than actually speculating on what the premiums would be. Obviously, if the number of accidents comes down dramatically, that is going to have a significant impact on the costs that insurers face. Motor insurance is very competitive, and it is inevitable that, if we see a significant reduction in costs, we will see a significant reduction in the premiums charged. So I think we can be pretty confident of that. As far as we know, it is still four or five years before these products will come to market.

Looking ahead to the cars you are referring to, where, say, there is a severely disabled person who possibly cannot drive at all at the moment, we are probably thinking about a level 5 car that can go from A to B in fully autonomous mode. It is fair to say that this legislation is primarily aimed at cars that will be manual for some of the time, automated for the rest: more of a level 4 car. Once you get to level 5, that is probably the point at which the insurance system is going to have to change more significantly.

Where the Bill is really helpful is that it allows us to learn from the first developments, get an insurance function in place and see that that system works. It is probable that we are going to have to evolve further once we get to a fully automated car. David Williams, who was one of your witnesses this morning, is one of the insurers involved in trials of fully automated technology. There is a significant degree of interest from insurers in the next generation of technology as well; but it is probably fair to say that this Bill is more around a level 4 car. I prefer to think of it as a binary distinction between automated and not-automated. I am not completely convinced about the levels and how useful they will be for consumers. It is probably fair to say that we think of it as level 4.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

It makes up about 50% of insurance profits in the UK.

Ben Howarth: I am sure that individual insurers will look at the potential impact on other parts of the market, but we have not.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Returning to the issue of software, clause 4 devotes a lot of attention to when insurers will not be picking up the can—something that we are familiar with. Can you say a little bit about how you are expecting software to be updated? What is the process for doing that? We all update our phones; we plug them in and press “install”, and the phone tells us when it is done. What is the current state of knowledge? Where are we, scientifically, on achieving that?

Linked to that, what responsibilities should there be on manufacturers to provide updates and tell the owners or users of vehicles that those updates have to be made? As I read it, there is nothing in the Bill that places any obligations on manufacturers to do that. A lot of time is devoted to when the software has not been updated, but where is the principal obligation for the manufacturer to do it? There are a lot of questions, but I am wondering whether that loops back to the definition and whether that needs attention to ensure that we have addressed the obligation. So how is it done and what are the obligations on the manufacturer?

Iain Forbes: Those are good questions. To answer the second one first, what is important about this Bill is that it is looking just at the insurance regime for these vehicles. It will have to work in concert with other parts of the law, including the system by which vehicles are approved for sale. You might imagine that if vehicles that operated automated systems were to be approved for sale there would be a close look at what would be necessary to ensure that the systems were updated where necessary to take account of any changes that were important to ensure safety.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Have we got this the wrong way around, then? Surely you have to establish how something happens before you start dealing with its insurance consequences. This is putting the cart before the horse, isn’t it?

Iain Forbes: We are focusing on this now because this is an area where in consultation people told us that it was important to set out a framework now to allow insurers and manufacturers to have those discussions about what might be necessary to inform the products that come to market when these vehicles do in four or five years’ time. In the meantime, we need to be working very hard to ensure that the appropriate approval regime for these vehicles is also in place. The vehicles will not come to market without that, so this will have to work in concert with another part of the law, which will say how these vehicles will be approved for sale.

Ben Howarth: If I can add one other thing, I think that the Bill is intended to do a new thing by protecting someone who is in the driving seat as, because they are not in control of the vehicle at the time of the incident, they are being treated as a victim. If they have done something to the car that means that they are responsible for the accident—perhaps they have not maintained it properly—it is reasonable to put it into their insurance policy that that is not something that they could claim for, as they would not be a victim. That is what these policies are broadly intended to do. I take your point that we absolutely need to define what updates need to be made and who is responsible for them, but if you turn it the other way by insuring the person in the driving seat and ensuring that they can claim if they are injured, the situation changes if they caused their own injuries.

[Andy McDonald]

Q If we are getting into a discussion on clause 4 about failures to update software, where is your starting point? You are basically telling me, “Ah, we’ll do that somewhere else separately. We will have to get those regulations on board.” All that I am suggesting is that that is out of sync and we should be looking at the processes first, at least for what we are expecting, before we start dealing with the insurance consequences.

Iain Forbes: To answer the first part of your question about how this is done, that is likely to develop over time as new systems come to market. It is already the case that some manufacturers upgrade software systems by asking customers to take their vehicles to a dealer and some do it over the air, in a similar way to how a phone is updated, for example. That is an area that is currently the subject of international discussions, and indeed the UK is co-chairing the international regulatory group that is having a look at how over-the-air updates will function in future.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Really, what the manufacturer would say is that if a vehicle has not been updated for one reason or another, or if they discover some other technical reason to shut it down, they will make sure that vehicle does not shift. Is it within the contemplation of the industry to take it that far?

Iain Forbes: What we need is systems that are transparent to people who are using them and that provide appropriate protections so that they feel confident using them. That is part of the discussion that we are having internationally at the moment.

[Kit Malthouse]

Q I have a couple of questions. We have a problem in this country with uninsured cars. Given that these cars are likely to be connected to the matrix in some way, do you think that it would be sensible for the Government to take a power to require that the car has to check whether it is insured before it moves? When I go and buy my tax disc, the system checks that the car is insured before it allows me to do so. Should these cars be required to do the same?

Iain Forbes: We are at too early a stage in the development of the technology to be able to consider that, but it is certainly something we could look at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

Q Good afternoon, gentlemen. Could you help me with the issue of shining or directing a laser at a vehicle? The Bill as drafted states that it will be an offence to direct

“a laser beam at a vehicle which is in the course of a journey, and…the laser beam dazzles or distracts a person with control of the vehicle.”

I am concerned about that, because I have never flown a plane and I have never, to my knowledge, had a laser shined at me. I am just thinking the matter through. Is that the totality of the thing that concerns you all, or are there other instances short of being dazzled or distracted that would cause you concern and cause you to think that something ought to be an offence? Also, although such an activity may have taken place, the driver or person in control of the vehicle might have no knowledge whatsoever of it having happened. I do not understand the experience. Does someone who is in control of a vehicle experience it only when their eyes are actually dazzled, or is there another perception of the event having taken place?

Steve Landells: From a British airline pilots’ point of view, our main concern is the distraction as well as the dazzle. As it stands, the dazzle has to be part of the offence. Our view is that it would be better to have the offence being just the pointing of a laser at a vehicle, because from an aviation point of view, if you cannot prove the dazzle and distraction—if it is not reported or the police do not know where the aircraft is going—you may not end up with the second part of that offence.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Would you even have to know that it has happened for an offence to have taken place?

Steve Landells: From our point of view in BALPA, no. It is about the act of shining a laser at the aircraft. If we see it, it will be reported, but if we do not see it, we would still like to see an offence there. The problem is that as the power of lasers gets greater and greater, there is a higher chance of injury occurring.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Thank you for that. Does anybody else want to comment on that aspect of this offence?

Paul Watts: From a helicopter perspective, again the dazzle and the distraction are the main concern, especially as helicopters operate in a much lower-level environment than airliners, and we rely on flying visually and visually avoiding other aircraft, buildings and obstructions. We also share the concern about the power of lasers and the frequency range—the fact that it may be possible in the future to have lasers that are not even visible. Again, we would like to see it being about somebody attempting to shine a laser at an aircraft, rather than having to show that it dazzled and distracted the pilot.

Martin Drake: It is possible to sustain an injury from a highly collimated laser—one where the beam is very narrow. It is possible to sustain an injury from that laser without having the dazzle and distract element. If it comes through your aircraft windscreen at a 90° angle, the dazzle and distract can be reduced, but if the pilot were to have that go into his eye, he could get retinal damage without getting the dazzle and distract element. I would say that that was fairly rare at the moment, but as the power of the lasers goes up and the frequency of the lasers changes, that is a concern that we have.

Simon Bray: Obviously the dazzling and distracting is the effect on the driver, pilot or whoever is in the cab. That is where the harm and the potential danger are. As well as having a victim, the legislation enables us to investigate more readily to prove an offence. If it were merely in the general direction of a vehicle, that would be more tricky to prove unless we were at the other end of that particular laser and had an opportunity to get into more of an investigation at that end of it.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Although we are not specifically restricting this discussion to aviation, because it could be another vessel, I think BALPA has suggested in evidence to the Committee that it is equally important and significant when lasers are shone at air traffic control towers. Have we got a history of that happening? Is it a significant risk? Would you prefer to see the legislation embrace air traffic control towers, rather than just vehicles, as currently described?

Martin Drake: There certainly is history of it in the USA, and I can think of a couple of times in the UK where a laser has been shone at the air traffic control tower. For an air traffic controller working the tower—that is the control bit that does the final approach and the controlling of the aircraft as they depart, so it is within close proximity of the airport—most of that is done visually. If his or her eyes were to be affected, it could reduce their capability of seeing aircraft close to the airport. They would then have to come off duty and be replaced fairly rapidly. It is not as common as shining at aircraft, but it does happen.

Steve Landells: Can I expand on that slightly? It depends on the airport’s procedures, but I know of one airport where, if a laser is shone at the visual control tower, they take the visual controllers out of that tower. You effectively shut down the airfield.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am sorry; what did you say?

Steve Landells: They take the visual controllers out of the tower to protect them, and if that happens, the airport is effectively shut down.

[Andy McDonald]

Q What do you think should be happening to better control the availability of the devices themselves? What restrictions would you prefer to see in place to stop the devices being acquired?

Simon Bray: There have been discussions about whether to deal with some of these items as offensive weapons. Clearly, if there is an intent to shine and to harm someone’s eyesight with one of these devices, you can deal with them in that way, provided you get the evidence behind it that demonstrates possession of an offensive weapon with intent to cause harm; likewise if you assault someone with a laser. The difficulty is investigating and proving those instances.

What the Bill does do is provide blanket legislation that is suitably serious—more so than the different sorts of legislation that we are having to use at the moment. It is an advance on what we have currently got. I definitely take the point that were we to have additional powers restricting sale and possession, it would be easier for us to deal with things before they take place.

Richard Goodwin: Colleagues I have been working with in the Department for Transport are working with colleagues in the Department responsible for business employment, looking at potential import restrictions and some of the issues around how we control the sale of some of these lasers. That work has been going on for seven or eight years, and during that time the availability and power of lasers has increased and the cost has come down. There is a Department looking at that control now, and clearly we support that.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Finally, changing tack totally, can the police officers help me with an unrelated matter in the Bill about diversionary courses for road traffic offenders? Have you come prepared to speak about that at all? Could you give some indication of your experience of those courses, how effective they are and, just as importantly, the evidence base that you may or may not have on whether they are effective and reduce repeat offending? Are you able to comment on that?

Simon Bray: It is not my area of expertise and I have never had to undergo one of those courses myself. There is a good look at diversionary methods at the moment. There are certainly plans to streamline the various diversionary methods and out-of-court disposals around the country. Clearly, that would fit in that overall picture, but it is not specifically traffic.

[Mr Hayes]

Q As you know, gentlemen, the CAA says that many of the incidents involving lasers are unreported and it is probable that there are many more than those of which we currently know. Is it your view that it is a growing problem? How do you think the proposed legislation will help with reporting? If you think it does not do enough, what more could it do?

Paul Watts: I am from the National Police Air Service and we saw it as a growing problem, probably about three or four years ago. Over the last three years, we have averaged out at about 100 incidents a year, so it seems to have plateaued somewhat, but it has gone from a low level to a very high level. We would welcome any legislation that makes it easier to catch an offender, but we would also still like to see a reduction in the availability.

We did see a tailing off of offences after the first few prosecutions for endangering an aircraft came into play. Over London, there was a reduction in the number of times a laser was used and less of the casual targeting of an aircraft. That seems to have tailed off and we seem to be back to a level of use that seems fairly stable and fairly high. On average, about 100 offences a year are reported through our safety system.

Simon Bray: I do not know whether Richard wishes to comment on the Met figures.

Richard Goodwin: We took a view that this matter was so serious that, despite the fact that it is not currently a reportable and recordable offence under Home Office counting rules—the legislation will change that—on 1 April last year we started reporting all lasers reported to us as crimes in London. I know that colleagues in Scotland have done the same thing. Across the year, we are averaging around 100 to 120 incidents within London being reported to us. The CAA figures are slightly higher.

Colleagues from BALPA did a survey of their members, which indicates that the figures are drastically underreported. We can get into the reasons for that, but some of it could be the perception that as pilots they were not being treated as victims and the matter was not being taken seriously. The legislation will give the degree of gravity that we think the offence deserves and it will have an impact on the aviation community, pilots and captains. It will show them that we as the police will take it seriously, because we will have a consistent recording of all offences, particularly across aviation.

Richard Moriarty: We at the Civil Aviation Authority would strongly support the measures. Our figures show that laser incidents are at about 1,500 a year. That is probably an underestimate, for reasons that have been suggested by other panel members. To put that in perspective, that is three or four incidents a day in and around UK airports. We have talked before about injury to pilots and often these attacks are during their peak workload—either landing or take off, in and around airports—so there is a real aviation and public safety aspect, which it is very important to get right. We would strongly support it for those reasons.

Beyond the Bill, we are interested in continuing to work with other authorities and Departments on other measures to complement this, whether through import controls or working with the police on offensive weapons. The good news is that the provisions in the Bill will send a very strong signal that we all take this risk very seriously.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Carry-over motion: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

We were here last week debating the Bus Services Bill, when I said that another transport Bill would be along in a minute—and here it is. I thank the Secretary of State for his summary and account, and I wholeheartedly agree that the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill—VTAB from now on—presents an opportunity to put the UK ahead of the curve on transport, will encourage research and innovation that will shape how we travel in the future and will create the high-skill jobs that our economy needs, as well as tackling our environmental and climate change challenges.

Let me take this opportunity to place on record the Opposition’s thanks to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), for his collegiate attitude and co-operation. We share his objective of making this the best possible piece of legislation as it passes through the House. The Opposition are not opposed to the Bill; we are broadly very supportive of it. There are, however, some concerns about the impact of some parts of the Bill, so we shall press the Government on some issues and table amendments in Committee. Of course, the Bill alone is no substitute for the wider policy framework required for the UK to take advantage of the opportunities presented to us, but it is an important Bill that we wish to support.

Part 1 deals with automated vehicles and insurance. We expect ultra-low emission and connected and autonomous vehicles to play an important role in our country’s transport in the years to come, so it is right that the Government are seeking to address some of the issues relating to autonomous vehicles. Last year the UK automotive industry added some £18.9 billion in value to the UK economy. It supported 169,000 people directly in manufacturing, and some 814,000 across the industry and throughout supply chains. Forecasters have estimated that the overall benefits of ULEVs and autonomous vehicles are in the region of £51 billion a year, creating an additional 320,000 jobs.

If we are to build on that—which is increasingly important following the UK’s decision to leave the EU—it will be necessary for the UK to take advantage of the economic and social benefits that those vehicles present. Their uptake will play an important role in the tackling of the air quality crisis which leads to 40,000 premature deaths each year as well as hundreds of thousands of cases of respiratory illnesses, which is choking many of our towns and cities, and which the Government have hitherto failed to address. Such vehicles will also be vital to the UK’s meeting of its climate change objectives, for which the Government currently lack a clear plan.

In recent years, the Government have failed to reduce the number of casualties on our roads, against a backdrop of cuts in road policing and the scrapping of road casualty targets introduced under Labour. Those are pressing issues which the Government need to address here and now, but the potential 25,000 casualties a year that could be avoided by 2030 represent a significant opportunity to make our roads safer.

It is vital for us to introduce the legislation that is 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 between advanced driver assistance systems and fully automated driving technology in UK policy, standards and legislation. 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.

There is a need for collaboration between the Government, manufacturers, insurers and consumers to develop a viable and practical system of classification to identify when a vehicle is deemed to be “automated” or “autonomous”. The dividing lines between automated and autonomous vehicles are not always completely clear. The Government must give more details of their 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 be pressing the Government for that to be subject to secondary legislation.

Resolving the issue of how automated vehicles can be insured is essential if they are to become a feature on British roads. We therefore support the Government’s action to ensure that vehicle insurance policies facilitate that in the future. We are, however, concerned about the potential costs to policyholders, and contention over liability between manufacturers and insurers. It is imperative that, in the event of technological failure in an AV, it is easy for consumers to establish quickly where liability rests, and are able to make a claim as appropriate. At present, insurance law in the UK is driver-centric. Drivers must have insurance in order to provide compensation for third parties for personal injury or property damage.

The Government’s intention is to emphasise that if there is an insurance event, the compensation route for the individual remains within the motor insurance framework rather than through a product liability framework against a manufacturer. However, the Bill does provide insurers with the capability to claim against manufacturers of vehicles if the automated vehicle was driving itself and was deemed to be at fault for the incident. But this is not clear-cut, and the Association of British Insurers has expressed concerns that existing insurance practices would need to be significantly altered to deal routinely with road traffic accidents involving automated vehicles. The Government themselves acknowledge this in their impact assessment for the Bill and say this might result in increased administrative and procedural costs for insurers.

Although the Bill does enable insurers to claim from the manufacturers where the vehicle is in automated mode and deemed at fault for an incident, the Government acknowledge that there could be significant teething problems with this system, particularly with early disagreements between the parties about liability. As such, it is difficult to estimate how different insurance premiums will be when automated vehicles are fully functional and 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. While that should consequently 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 are increased procedural and administrative costs for insurers, there could be higher premiums. If that is the 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 be pressing for a review date on the face of the Bill.

Let me now move to the second part of the Bill relating to electric vehicles, charging and infrastructure. Electric vehicles 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 under way and increasing, yet we note that 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.

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 if the UK intends to be a global leader, we agree that we need to take broader action sooner rather than later. Given the importance of future-proofing the legislative framework in this area, Labour recognises the need to use secondary legislation, but we will be seeking 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. For uptake to be encouraged, electric vehicles need to be practical, affordable and convenient for users, which means putting in place the necessary infrastructure. 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 reported in The Times last September, there are more charging points available on the Orkney islands than in Blackpool, Grimsby and Hull combined. It is therefore welcome that this Bill seeks to increase the number of charging point facilities and to address their harmonisation and standardisation. The Bill will allow the Government to require co-operation and the sharing of facilities, and information from operators allowing the Government to ensure interoperability for charging regardless of what specific EV a person might have, if necessary.

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 welcome. Of course it is right that this legislation should be put in place, but it alone will not be enough successfully to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. It was counterproductive of the Government to slash the grants available for ultra-low emission 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 charge 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. 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 will miss out on the benefits that they present. 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, and that regulation and standards are maintained. This 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.

The third section of the Bill relates to aviation, and Labour broadly welcomes the proposals to strengthen the role of the Civil Aviation Authority in respect of seeking licence modification changes. We recognise the need to implement the ATOL reforms in order to comply with the EU package travel directive. We also note that stakeholders are supportive of the proposals in the Bill. The proposed changes will allow the Civil Aviation Authority to modify licences more quickly. This is in line with recommendations from a report on NATS and will give NATS greater financial certainty. However, we are keen that the Government restate their commitment that the licensee will not find it unduly difficult to finance its activities and that these proposals will not be a subtext for the sell-off of NATS.

Clause 18 will bring ATOL up to date and ensure that it is harmonised with the latest EU package travel directive, extending to a wider range of holidays and protecting more consumers as well as allowing UK travel companies to sell more seamlessly across Europe. Labour welcomes the extensions, which will ultimately help to protect more holidaymakers, but we want clarity on how UK consumers will be protected by EU-based companies, as they will no longer be subject to ATOL but to member state equivalents. The implications for ATOL after Brexit are also a cause for concern. Hidden in the Bill are proposals that the Secretary of State will 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 will be required before any fundamental changes are made to this well respected consumer protection.

These issues bring to the forefront uncertainties over the future of UK aviation following the decision to leave the European Union, and Labour has been clear that whichever framework is chosen, the Government should prioritise retaining an essentially unchanged operating environment. They should prioritise air services agreements as part of the exit negotiations, and, as is customary, such agreements should be negotiated separately from and prior to the UK’s negotiations on trade with the EU.

On the three miscellaneous clauses in part 4 of the Bill, I shall deal first with clause 21, which relates to powers to designate premises for vehicle testing and to cap testing station fees. In principle, we do not oppose the changes that would allow Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency testing to take place on private premises, but we believe that the Government should provide further details as well as reassurances that the changes will not adversely impact existing testing facilities and staff. While an increase in the number of testing facilities across the country is to be welcomed, and while the Government have intimated that existing public sector facilities will not disappear before alternative facilities are available in the vicinity, we want more detailed assurances.

Secondly, in part 4 of the Bill, we are pleased to see in clause 22 that the Government are now beginning to tackle the dangers of lasers that present hazards and the offence of shining or directing a laser at a vehicle, which could result in terrible consequences if left unaddressed. It has proved too difficult to enforce the existing offence of endangerment by shining a light, so we support the creation of a new offence for the act of shining a laser beam, which could carry a maximum penalty of a fine and five years’ imprisonment. While that is to be welcomed, we encourage the Government to look at the ready availability of such devices and how that might be curtailed. When we heard from the Secretary of State, there was some confusion about the change of offence from endangerment to the act of shining a light, so it would be appreciated if the Minister clarified that.

On aviation safety, the lack of action on drones in this Bill is a concern, as hon. Members have already indicated. There were 70 reported near misses with aircraft in 2016. The Government are not addressing the problem at the required pace, and Labour will seek to amend the Bill in Committee to regulate drones in order to address aviation safety concerns.

Turning to clause 23 and the courses offered as alternatives to prosecution, Labour broadly agrees with the Government’s proposed measures on diversionary courses, which clarify the basis on which diversionary courses can be used as alternatives to fixed penalty notices and be charged for. However, the Government should bring forward an assessment and review the effectiveness of such courses. It is imperative that there is some basis on which to establish that the programme is worth pursuing, but there appears to be little evidence at the moment. It is important to remind the Government that legislation alone is not enough to keep our roads safe at a time when police traffic officer numbers have been cut by a third and when progress on reducing deaths and casualties on our roads has ground to a halt.

In conclusion, Labour broadly supports the Bill, which marks the beginning of an exciting new era in transport technology. We are committed to securing the best possible framework to ensure that the sector flourishes.

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Andy McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I begin by placing on the record my relief that the Bus Services Bill is finally having its day in the House of Commons. We have been waiting for this piece of legislation for some time—and you know what happens, Mr Deputy Speaker, you wait an age for a Bill and then another one comes along in a minute, namely the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill.

I would like to thank all those involved in the passage of this Bill so far—the noble Lords on both the Government and Opposition Benches, members of staff and Clerks of the House, as well as my Labour colleagues, of course, both Front and Back Benchers, who have campaigned relentlessly for better bus services and have paved the way for the Government’s change in policy and this Bill.

The original Bus Services Bill has been expertly scrutinised and amended, leaving us with a much improved piece of legislation. Labour supports the Bus Services Bill, and we welcome the changes made in the Lords, which we hope to retain as the Bill goes forward.

Buses are an integral part of the UK’s economy and social life. Sometimes, a disproportionate amount of attention is paid to our railways and to aviation, but it is buses that play by far the most important public transport role for the greatest number of people. This is clear when looking at the number of passenger journeys alone. For example, there were 1.7 billion passenger journeys on our railways last year, a figure dwarfed by the 5.2 billion passenger journeys made by bus. Whether people are travelling to work or school, visiting family or attending a hospital appointment, it is more likely that they will do so by bus than by any other form of public transport. Buses provide a vital service to people in all areas of the country, supporting local economies, tackling congestion, combating social exclusion, and lessening environmental and climate change impacts.

This is why we want to see local authorities empowered and enabled to support thriving bus services, and to reverse the long-term decline of bus services that was brought about by the disastrous deregulation of bus services in England outside London by the Conservative Government in 1986. This Bill is an acknowledgment that the deregulation of bus services has not worked.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I apologise to my hon. Friend for being late for the debate. Members will know that I have other duties on a Wednesday. Does he agree that the Bill and its related secondary legislation and guidance should enable a simple and straightforward process for metro mayors to introduce bus franchising in their area if that is what they and their combined authorities wish to do?

[Andy McDonald]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. If this is to mean anything, making this happen in reality must be a smooth and quick process rather than a long and protracted one.

The rationale behind deregulation was that turning services over to the market would give the customer the final say; companies would compete and, as a consequence, would better cater their services to passengers. In theory, it is a competitive market, but in reality most bus services are provided by five large companies that avoid competing against each other. Since deregulation, bus use in metropolitan areas has decreased by a half and in non-metropolitan areas by a fifth. Meanwhile, in London, where buses were not deregulated, bus journeys have increased by 227%, mileage has increased by 74% and London journeys now outnumber bus journeys in the rest of England, while fare increases have been lower than in the city regions.

[John Pugh]

In London, a lot more schoolchildren use buses. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that more could be done in the context of this Bill to encourage youth to use buses?

[Andy McDonald]

I would always want to see our young people encouraged to use our bus services. I was somewhat disappointed when I heard what the Secretary of State said about young people and their access to buses. He might want to reflect on that as the Bill proceeds.

[Gordon Marsden]

As my hon. Friend will know, the background behind the inability of local authorities to subsidise travel schemes for young people is the huge cuts to local authority funding over the whole period of this Government and the previous one. Is it not scandalous that this Government have brought nothing forward in any shape or form to permit major improvements, particularly for young people, students and apprentices, in this area?

[Andy McDonald]

Indeed. I could not agree more. One of the critical issues facing our young people today is getting from A to B—to get to their further education colleges or to go after job opportunities, especially when they have to work with the Department for Work and Pensions in trying to find work and are then penalised if they do not get there. It is critical to have a properly integrated transport system across the country so that young people can benefit from it.

[Andy Burnham]

If I am successful, I would be looking to give young people in Greater Manchester, particularly 16 to 18-year-olds, concessionary or free bus travel. In my view, that could be a replacement for the education maintenance allowance, which was so wrongly scrapped by the Conservatives. Does my hon. Friend believe that that policy could be worth looking at as a Labour policy for the next general election, using the powers granted by this Bill?

[Andy McDonald]

I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. If that initiative, which tries to redress the imbalance that has been visited on our young people, is to be put in place in areas such as Manchester, I am convinced that it will completely appeal to people and that it will be the right measure to address the deficit that he so accurately described.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Has the hon. Gentleman costed Labour’s new policy of giving free concessionary travel to 16 and 17-year-olds?

[Andy McDonald]

Suggesting that we will not extend assistance to 16 to 18-year-olds says more about the hon. Gentleman’s attitude towards young people than it does about Opposition Members.

Under the current system, bus companies determine their routes and provision of services on a commercial basis, which means that commercially unprofitable but socially valuable services are left for local authorities to support. Since 2010, more than 2,400 routes have been downgraded or withdrawn. A combination of Government cuts and commercial operators deciding provision on a commercial basis means that individuals or communities become isolated, cut off from employment, education, healthcare, and friends and family.

[Mr Betts]

The Secretary of State derided what was happening before deregulation when, in fact, bus services were affordable and available. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Under the current arrangements, we often see bus companies over-competing on the main routes, but providing no services at all to the wider-spread communities. With regulation, we can use the same resources and the same number of buses to provide a better service to those currently disenfranchised communities.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes an entirely proper point. That problem is repeated throughout this country. People on our outlying estates do not even have access to bus services, because those services are run on narrow channels. Operators exploit those narrow routes for the singular purpose of maximising commercial profit, and they do not give a hang about the socially important things such as ensuring that people are connected in their communities.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Let me disabuse the hon. Gentleman. On this variety of choice and the duplication and triplication of routes to which he refers, he can come to Dorset, Somerset or anywhere in the south-west and he will not find such issues. That is a metropolitan problem from which we would love to suffer.

[Andy McDonald]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the fact that there are vast swathes of towns and cities that are not served by a comprehensive bus network. They are left isolated for considerable lengths of time. Some inner-urban areas have no services whatsoever on a Sunday. That is the reality of the bus services in this country at the moment.

I am delighted that we have an opportunity to put buses front and centre of the national conversation about transport. This Bill is to be welcomed, as is the historic U-turn of the Conservative party towards re-regulation of our bus services, which is something that Labour has consistently fought for.

Although this Bill appears to be an acknowledgment by the Government of the failure of the deregulation of buses, the Bill as originally drafted did not go as far as we would have wished in remedying the underlying problems in the current model. In its current form, the Bill gives local authorities a number of options to improve bus services, allowing authorities to work in partnership with private operators, to plan and run their own network of bus services, or, if they wish, to keep things as they are. The recognition that local authorities can best judge what services they require and should be allowed to select the model that best meets their particular needs is welcome, but, if changes made in the other place are reversed, the freedom to deliver the best services will be taken away.

Powers to re-regulate local bus services should be available to all areas that want them, not just to combined authorities with an elected mayor. Not all areas want a combined authority, and the Government do not intend that every area of the country should be covered by a combined authority. That does not mean that the Government should prevent those non-combined authority areas from improving bus services solely on the basis that they are not combined authorities.

[Chi Onwurah]

The point that my hon. Friend makes is particularly appreciated in Newcastle and Tyne and Wear where we do not yet have a combined authority and where we do not seek to have a mayor, but where we have long sought to have better control of our bus services. Our bus services are critical in Newcastle, as they are how we get to work. I have received so many complaints and concerns about the bus services. Will he urge the Secretary of State to ensure that Newcastle and Tyne and Wear can finally control their own services?

[Andy McDonald]

I have no hesitation whatsoever in urging the Secretary of State to do exactly that. Newcastle has a proud history of focusing on trying to deliver the best possible services for its people. To be prevented and excluded simply because it does not fit the devolution model currently on offer is basically to deny localism to huge swathes of our country, which cannot be the intention of any sensible Government.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Has the hon. Gentleman made an assessment of which local authorities would want to take up these opportunities? In 2000, the Labour Government introduced a contract scheme, which they described as similar to franchising, yet not a single authority has used it. Where is the evidence that more authorities want these powers?

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the quality partnership schemes that Labour brought in. Interestingly, what he says makes my point. It is up to local authorities to make the decision for themselves. It is not a question of people on the Labour Benches telling local authorities what they should or should not do; local authorities should have those options made available to them. From the way this Bill might be amended, it looks very much as if that choice will be denied to them.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

Having agreed to insert free bus passes for 16 and 17-year-olds in our manifesto in the run-up to the next general election, will my hon. Friend also agree to insert some words saying that we will allow local authorities, if appropriate, to set up their own municipal bus companies? It is purely a matter of ideology, which is why we had deregulation of buses in the first place. The Government are refusing to allow, from a localism point of view, local authorities that wish to establish their own municipal bus companies to do so. Why should they not be allowed to do so?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point. It is absolutely right that local authorities should have that freedom. To restrict them in this way, as the Government purport to do, is basically to say, “You can have devolution in England, but you will have it only on the terms that we decide are available to you.” In other words, authorities can do what they want as long as the Government agree with what they are doing—[Interruption.] Yes, any colour as long as it is black.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

As one of the few MPs who made their living for several years as a bus driver, I do welcome this Bill. My hon. Friend is extolling the virtues of localism, but may I caution him that localism is all well and good as long as there is the money to go with it? At the moment, we see a huge imbalance in England between the money spent on London for public transport and the money spent elsewhere. He pointed out that the reason why public transport works better in London is partly due to the fact that there is non-deregulation, but it is also due to the fact that funding is far better. Will Labour commit itself to adequate funding for this localism of bus services?

[Andy McDonald]

I think that I am being invited to write a manifesto at the Dispatch Box. I am quite happy to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you could just give me a few minutes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the gross imbalance in spending in this country. In the north-east of England, we spend £229 per head of the population on transport, compared with £1,900 per head in London, so there is an imbalance. Undoubtedly, that must be corrected if we are to rebalance our economy in the UK.

It is interesting that this denial of opportunities to start up a new municipal company flies in the face of some of the more successful companies in the country. Why on earth would people not want to have a look at that as an option? There is no suggestion for a single second that there will be a mad rush of local authorities wanting to do this. They will want to weigh up and do what is best for their localities. Why on earth a Conservative Government would want to deprive them of making that choice is beyond me—or perhaps it is not.

[James Heappey]

I warmly welcome the shadow Minister’s announcement that he supports the view of many rural Conservative MPs that transport infrastructure spending should be redistributed to the regions, away from London. Too much has been spent there for too long, while too little has been spent in rural areas in particular. Does the Mayor of London agree with him?

[Andy McDonald]

I am sure the Mayor of London well and truly acknowledges that other parts of the country outside London need to have the benefit of investment, but this does not have to be an either/or. It is a question of priorities and making sure that we do not ignore vast swathes of the country.

We won on an amendment on Report in the other place to extend powers to re-regulate bus services to all areas. I hope that the Government’s stated commitment to devolution and improving bus services is not restricted to those areas that have struck deals for combined authorities with elected mayors. Labour was successful in removing clause 21, which would ban local authorities from forming their own bus companies and replicating the success of existing municipal companies. As the Minister is surely aware, municipal bus companies often outperform their rivals. Nottingham City Transport, for example, achieved a 97% overall satisfaction score in the most recent Transport Focus survey, while none of the big five bus operators broke 90%.

Removing the incentive to profit from operations can allow a greater focus on the social and economic purpose of bus services, meaning that buses can better cater for the social or business needs of a particular geography. Labour did not introduce a clause mandating municipal operators, but simply removed a clause prohibiting them, because we believe that there is not a one-size-fits-all model for running bus services. Indeed, there are a number of solutions for different areas, and it follows that, given the success of existing municipal bus companies, localities may judge that the municipal model is best suited for their area and may wish to attempt to replicate that success. If the Secretary of State is committed to devolution and believes that devolved authorities should be allowed to choose the best model to meet their needs, I hope that the Government will accept that the option of municipal operation should be preserved and that clause 21 should not be reintroduced.

We have an opportunity with this Bill to make significant improvements to bus services and, as a consequence, the social and economic life of much of our country, but Labour wishes these opportunities to be available across England, not just in some areas, and to be available to the fullest extent possible. We are happy to support this Bill, but ask that the Secretary of State listens to the forthcoming arguments—on both sides of the House, no doubt—and commits to transforming bus services in England for the better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We are well aware of the importance of the A64 to my hon. Friend’s constituency and, indeed, to the economy of Yorkshire. I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend, as will my hon. Friend the roads Minister. We will ensure that progress in the road’s development continues as we move towards the start of the next investment period.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

A report by the Office of Rail and Road on Highways England revealed that the road investment strategy is in chaos. The agency is £1 billion over budget, the cost of 31 projects has more than doubled, and there is little evidence that 60 major schemes can be delivered on time. The strategy is beginning to look more like a fantasy wish list than a deliverable plan to improve England’s road network. Will the Minister take this opportunity to try to reassure the House that it is not the comedy of errors that it appears to be, and will he guarantee to deliver it on time and on budget?

[Chris Grayling]

Let us be clear about the road investment programme. It is a £13 billion programme that is currently delivering improvements around the country, and is on track. It is absolutely not the disaster that the hon. Gentleman says it is. Let me also remind him—Conservative Members will remember—how ineffective 13 years of Labour government were in dealing with infrastructure challenges. We will not be taking any lessons from Labour Members.

[Andy McDonald]

It is about time the Government took responsibility. Labour has been warning consistently that this Government have been over promising and under delivering on investment in England’s road network. We were promised the biggest upgrade in a generation, but the ORR is now warning of the deterioration of England’s roads. The number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads is already rising, so can the Minister explain how he will guarantee road user safety and mitigate the increased safety risk caused by his Government’s failure to manage investment in England’s roads?

[Chris Grayling]

The Labour party neglected our roads for 13 years. The hon. Gentleman needs to travel around the country today and see the schemes that they did not do, that we are doing: dualling the A1; building the link road between the M56 and the M6; smart motorways; starting the progress, finally, on the A303 and developing the tunnel there; as well as smaller schemes around the country. Last week I was in Staffordshire, seeing an important improvement to the A50. None of that happened when the Labour party was in power. It is, frankly, bare-faced cheek to hear them saying what they are saying now. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that in the autumn statement we provided an additional £75 million to improve Britain’s most dangerous roads.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

The Bill certainly does give the Secretary of State the power, if required, to make TROs himself and to prohibit or revoke TROs that unnecessarily hinder the delivery of the railway. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is therefore yes, but we cannot allow a significant national project to be held up over the small matter of a TRO. As I have said, the best thing to do is to work with the highways authorities; these are some backstop powers, just in case that does not deliver the consensus required.

The powers were subject to significant debate and amendment in the House of Lords, and I am glad to say that the powers we are considering this evening represent the correct balance between giving the Secretary of State the powers necessary to construct HS2 and providing reassurance to local highways authorities about how they will used. Clearly, we hope there will be little or no need to rely on them, as the regular meetings established with local highways authorities will be used to consult, agree, monitor and generally supervise the local traffic management plans. However, the powers are needed to ensure that, if those arrangements fail, HS2 can be delivered in an efficient manner.

The remainder of the amendments make technical clarifications in relation to the changes to the Housing and Planning Act 2016, update references and make corrections. I urge the House to agree to the Lords amendments.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am pleased to contribute to the progress of the Bill once again. I was fortunate enough to have been able to contribute to it in Committee, and I know the Minister will share my enthusiasm for the fact that this Bill will soon receive Royal Assent. High Speed 2 is, of course, the brainchild of a Labour Government, but I give credit to the coalition Government and the present Government for providing continuing support.

[Mr Spellar]

For purposes of clarification, HS2 was the brainchild of the last year of the last Labour Government. All previous Transport Ministers had treated it with considerable scepticism.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s clarification, but if a party is in power, it is in power. Whether or not this happened in 2009 or 2010, Labour were still the Government of the day.

There are some points of disagreement between the Opposition and the Government on HS2—I shall return to them later—but the consensus that exists across the House and among businesses and industry experts on HS2 is to be welcomed. Projects of this scale often require the support of successive Governments and support from the Government and Opposition Benches, so it is reassuring to see a consistent approach to this critical investment in our nation’s rail infrastructure.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Is not the hon. Gentleman rather ignoring the fact that most Members are not affected by this project, so they show very little interest in it at all? If MPs’ constituencies are affected by the project, Members are of course passionately engaged. In fact, that consensus has really gone by default.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Let me say that our time should be devoted to the amendments, and I am bothered that we might stray into other areas that should not be debated. I have allowed a little latitude, but I do not want us to open up into a general debate. Let us keep to the amendments.

[Andy McDonald]

Let me just say that this project benefits the entire country in its construction and its reach. I shall leave it there, Mr Deputy Speaker.

HS2 helps to address the severe capacity constraints on our rail network and improve connections between cities in the midlands and the north of England and beyond into Scotland. HS2 is vital for unblocking the capacity constraints that are undermining punctuality and constraining economic growth.

I would like to place on record my thanks to all Secretaries of State and Ministers, shadow Secretaries of State and shadow Ministers and Members of both Houses who have contributed to and carried the Bill forward. I want to pay tribute to all the Clerks who managed the petitioning process and provided invaluable advice and guidance throughout. I would like to pay a particular tribute to the great professionalism and dedication to his task of the late Neil Caulfield, who as Clerk to the Committee was immensely patient and attentive, giving me his time to ensure the smooth progress of the Bill. He is very sadly missed, but not forgotten.

This is a large and complicated Bill and has been subject to the highest levels of scrutiny throughout the process, and we now have a much improved Bill. We will support the Lords amendments to it. The majority of the amendments are without controversy and simply seek to tidy up the measure and make small changes where necessary. It is not necessary to debate them in any detail.

The most significant change to the Bill is the new schedule on traffic regulation, which, given the identified effects of the redevelopment of Euston station, is particularly pertinent for the London Borough of Camden. I acknowledge the consultation that took place following Committee with local highway authorities, which informed the changes to the new schedule. Entirely legitimate concerns were expressed that the new schedule as originally drafted would have given powers that were too wide ranging and could have caused a lack of proper regard for the residents of London—concerns expressed by Camden Borough Council and Transport for London. To a large extent, these concerns were addressed in the changes made to the new schedule, but some issues are still outstanding. I understand that the discussions between the promoter and both TfL and Camden Council are ongoing, and that an undertaking has been negotiated, but not yet received. I understand that the undertaking will say that the use of these powers will not affect bus lanes, cycle ways, the safer lorry scheme and the congestion charge zone.

Is the Minister able to give assurances that the promoter of HS2 will meet the costs incurred by local authorities in putting in place and removing traffic regulation orders required by the Secretary of State? Can he also give assurances that the Secretary of State will be required to provide justification when seeking to use these powers? The powers are needed for construction, but Labour’s position from the start has been that the impacts of construction on affected areas must be mitigated as much as possible, and such assurances would be appreciated. Pursuant to the new traffic regulation, will the Minister tell us what plans the Department has to minimise the number of HGV journeys on London roads, in the interests of the environment and public safety, during the redevelopment of Euston station? No fixed target has been endorsed, and the issue is crucial to London residents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has strayed off the point, but I am sure that he is approaching the end of his speech.

[Andy McDonald]

There are two more sentences, Mr Deputy Speaker.

HS2 does not have to be a Deutsche Bahn HS2 or an SNCF HS2 or Nederlandse Spoorwegen or Trenitalia state-run HS2, but it can be—if I may paraphrase the Prime Minister—a British red, white and blue HS2, and the Government should guarantee it.

[Mrs Gillan]

HS2 may well embrace young people’s entire careers, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) suggested, and they will have good careers out of it if it is built. However, I do not underestimate the fortunes being made—by the top echelons of HS2, certainly, but also by people who are benefiting from very lucrative contracts at the taxpayer’s expense.

I presume—and I am hardly surprised—that the Government have accepted the Lords amendments. A number of them correct inaccuracies, many of which have been and continue to be attached to this project, and which have been a source of great anxiety on the part of people directly affected. I join those on both Front Benches in saying thank you to their lordships, who were restricted in what they could do. They were unable to amend the Bill significantly—they could not make any additional provisions—and we are therefore dealing with a group of amendments that the Government are, of course, able to accept in their entirety because they do not do that much to the Bill.

I must say that I would welcome the acceptance of Lords amendment 4, which I call the “land grab” amendment, because it would limit the power of the state to acquire land compulsorily in association with the project for the purposes of regeneration or development. I think it fair to say that the current Secretary of State for Transport, when lobbied by me and by many others—particularly the CLA—responded very positively. Such a sweeping power would have added insult to injury, namely the plundering of property that has resulted from a project that is as ravenous for land as it is for taxpayers’ money. Without the amendment, the Government would have been able to buy up land for lucrative developments virtually without control.

However, some of my constituents have serious concerns about schedule 16. They believe that HS2 has only to give 28 days’ notice to enter, do what it likes to the land and pay no compensation until the job is finished, which they believe could take many years. During those years, my constituents would have to shoulder the loss of value to property and income. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) believes that there are constituents fighting to prove that they are affected by HS2, whose applications for compensation have been successful, but who are still struggling to agree on a value for their property. When the Minister responds to these amendments, I wonder whether he will care to say something in relation to that and this land grab amendment, which I am grateful the Government are accepting.

Airport Capacity and Airspace Policy

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for Transport for advance sight of his statement.

Aviation is key to ensuring that the UK remains an outward-looking trading nation post-Brexit, and Labour has consistently been pushing for a decision on runway expansion in south-east England, so after years of dither and delay, it is welcome that progress is finally being made. We have been calling for action on airspace modernisation for some time, and although we cannot see it, our airspace network is in dire need of modernisation. It is over half a century old but is still among our country’s most vital pieces of infrastructure. Modernising airspace will involve tough decisions, but the benefits are huge. It is in the national interest for the Government to ensure that they deliver a balanced and sustainable airspace solution.

However, there are outstanding issues, including how Heathrow expansion can be squared with meeting the UK’s climate change objectives and demonstrating that local noise and environmental impacts can be minimised. This can be achieved, but only in the context of a coherent aviation strategy that works for the country, not just for London. It starts with confirming our membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency, as well as taking action on cleaner fuels and improving road and rail access to our international gateway airports.

As the Secretary of State knows, business loathes uncertainty, and aviation is no exception. What assurances can he give that the UK’s continued membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency is and will remain an absolute priority? What does his commitment to leaving the single market mean for leaving the single aviation market? The Committee on Climate Change cautioned against relying on carbon trading for Heathrow to achieve its emission targets, as that option might not always be cheap and available. Will he provide an update on whether he plans to reject that advice?

There is increasing concern about air quality, which is linked to 40,000 early deaths a year. David Cameron’s former aide—now Baroness Camilla Cavendish—claimed that the existing policy on air quality “overclaims and underwhelms”. Given that inadequacy, what further and stringent measures will be proposed to mitigate the expected expansion at Heathrow?

Key to improving air quality, alongside a move to reducing vehicle emissions, is encouraging more people to use public transport to arrive at our airports. Enhancements are needed to Heathrow’s rail services if the objective of having public transport usage of 55% is to be achieved. I invite the Secretary of State to outline what progress he is making and how he can ensure that the business beneficiaries of such enhancements will make a fair contribution. If we are to secure the modal shift to accessing airports by public transport and in the context of the aviation strategy, I invite him to confirm that the National Infrastructure Commission will be asked to inquire into the issue of surface access at all our international gateway airports and seaports.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to fulfilling our legal requirements on air quality and obligations on carbon, and I note the reference to Heathrow striving to meet its public pledge that airport-related public traffic will be no greater than it is today. But it is not simply about the volume of traffic; it is about vastly reducing the emissions that come from such traffic. Much of that relates to ultra-low emission vehicles, which will be key to securing our shared objectives. The modern transport Bill will hopefully progress the agenda considerably, so, finally, will the Secretary of State tell the House when we are likely to see that Bill?

[Chris Grayling]

May I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his support for my statement this morning? He asked a number of questions, which I shall answer, but I very much welcome the principle of support. This is a long-term project for the country, and a shared vision across this House of the need for expanded capacity is important. I know that there are individual Members who have disagreements, issues and local challenges, but his supportive comments are welcome for the project and I am grateful to him.

Let me seek to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions. First, we have not reached a definitive position on the European issue. Obviously the negotiations have not started and we have not yet triggered article 50. I am acutely aware that aviation is one of the sectors that we need to handle with great care, working out the best way of protecting our sector and delivering the right connectivity for the future. I will come back to the House at an appropriate moment and provide more information, but, as he is aware, we are not really in a position to provide detail of the negotiations in advance. However, I appreciate that he will want to understand in due course where we have got to, and we will endeavour to make sure that we keep the House as fully informed as we properly can, given the negotiation process.

As the hon. Gentleman said, aviation is not included in the current climate change target. It is clearly an issue, however, and has been since the recent agreement in Montreal, subject to an international strategy going forward. We are consulting today on things such as the smarter use of airspace. Through airspace reform and the technology that is now available to us, we will be able to avoid, to anything like the degree experienced at the moment, planes stacking over the south-east of England, emitting additional emissions into the atmosphere and using up more fuel. That is one of the benefits that comes from the smarter use of airspace, which will help to make a contribution, as will cleaner, newer generation, more fuel-efficient aircraft, which I think we will see extensively in this country over the coming years.

On the issue of NOx, diesel and emissions on the surrounding roads, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is much more a car issue than a plane issue. It is about the propensity of congested areas to cause a genuine public health problem, so it is a broader issue for the Government to address than simply the airport. We have already made a start, with the incentives that are in place for low-emission vehicles and the expansion of charging points that we set out in the autumn statement. We will also shortly be seeing the Bill that he mentioned—it would have been here by now, had we not had a bit of other business to deal with in the House. The issues in that Bill will be important, but I am well aware, and the Government are well aware, that we will have to do much more on the emissions front. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will come forward in due course with further proposals to tackle what is a broader issue than just airport expansion. It is one that we cannot possibly wait until airport expansion happens to address, and we will not.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of rail services, and we already have significant plans for their development. The arrival of Crossrail and of HS2 at Old Oak Common will make a significant difference to public transport access to Heathrow, as will the proposed modernisation of the Piccadilly line, which will significantly expand capacity on that route. We are now also starting the development work on rail access to the south and the west of Heathrow airport, and he is absolutely right to raise this issue. It is something that we are now working on and the private sector will make a substantial contribution to the costs.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman raised the importance of land and surface access to ports and airports around the country. I can confirm to him that we are looking at this in a variety of forums. As we move into this post-Brexit world and in a world where we need to facilitate trade, I am particularly concerned to ensure that where there are blockages, congestion points or limitations around ports and airports, we take the necessary steps to address those, and we will.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his supportive comments, and will obviously try to keep him and the House as informed as possible.