PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY AND AVIATION BILL

First Sitting

Tuesday 14 March 2017

(Morning)

CONTENTS Programme motion agreed to. Written evidence (Reporting to the House) motion agreed to. Motion to sit in private agreed to. Examination of witnesses. Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 143) 2016 - 2017 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 18 March 2017

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2017 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 1 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 2

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †JAMES GRAY,JOAN RYAN

† Baker, Mr Steve (Wycombe) (Con) † Malthouse, Kit (North West Hampshire) (Con) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) † Marris, Rob (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab) † Burden, Richard (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab) † Matheson, Christian (City of Chester) (Lab) † Doyle-Price, Jackie (Thurrock) (Con) † Prentis, Victoria (Banbury) (Con) † Foxcroft, Vicky (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) † Selous, Andrew (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) † Fuller, Richard (Bedford) (Con) † Snell, Gareth (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op) † Hayes, Mr John (Minister of State, Department for Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) Transport) † Tugendhat, Tom (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) † Hendry, Drew (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) Ben Williams, Farrah Bhatti, Committee Clerks † Knight, Sir Greg (East Yorkshire) (Con) † McDonald, Andy (Middlesbrough) (Lab) † attended the Committee

Witnesses

David Williams, Chair, Automated Driving Insurers Group

David Wong, Senior Technology and Innovation Manager, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders

Steve Gooding, Director, RAC Foundation

Denis Naberezhnykh, Head of ULEVs and Energy, Transport Research Laboratory

Marcus Stewart, Head of Energy Insights, National Grid

Robert Evans, Chair of UKEVSE (and CEO of Cenex), UK Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Association

Quentin Willson, motoring journalist 3 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 4

(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee Public Bill Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 16; Schedules 1 and 2; Clause 17; Schedules 3 and 4; Clauses 18 to 24; Schedule 5; Clauses 25 to 27; new Clauses; new Schedules; Tuesday 14 March 2017 remaining proceedings on the Bill; (4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) (Morning) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 23 March.— (Mr John Hayes.)

[JAMES GRAY in the Chair] The Chair: The deadline for amendments to be considered for the first sitting where the Bill will be scrutinised line Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill by line was rise of the House yesterday. The next deadline will be rise of the House on Thursday for 9.25 am amendments to be considered in the Committee’s sittings The Chair: Before we start the formal business, I next Tuesday. welcome you all to the first sitting of the Vehicle Technology Resolved, and Aviation Bill Committee. I want to establish a few That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence ground rules. First, I tend towards the more traditional received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for form of chairing, so anyone seen drinking coffee or publication.—(Mr John Hayes.) speaking into the telephone will be ticked off roundly. I do not really mean it; I sound more ferocious than I The Chair: Copies of written evidence that the Committee really am, but none the less I will be ferocious about it has received are available in the room. all and take such things incredibly seriously. Resolved, We have two or three formal matters to consider, and That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence then we will go into the business of allocating questions is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the before we bring the public in. Technically speaking, we witnesses are admitted.—(Mr John Hayes.) have to bring the public in and throw them out again, but that seems to me to be a bit back to front, so we will 9.27 am try to avoid that. Let us crack on with the formal The Committee deliberated in private. motions. Ordered, Examination of Witnesses That— David Williams, David Wong, Steve Gooding and Denis (1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 Naberezhnykh gave evidence. am on Tuesday 14 March) meet— (a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 March; 9.37 am (b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 16 March; Q1 The Chair: Let me welcome and thank our four (c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 March; witnesses for the first panel. I will let you know that the (d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 23 March; first panel must end at precisely 10.25 of the clock, and (2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence on Tuesday 14 if you are in the middle of a sentence you will stop March in accordance with the following Table: talking at precisely 10.25, because those are the rules of TABLE engagement. Time Witness I remind members of the Committee that they may ask questions on any subject, so long as they are within Until no later than 10.25 am Automated Driving Insurers the context of the Bill; they will not be allowed to ask Group; Society of Motor any questions outside that context. Manufacturers and Traders; RAC Foundation; TRL First, I ask our four witnesses to introduce themselves Until no later than 11.25 am National Grid; UK Electric briefly for the record, starting with Mr Wong. Vehicle Supply Equipment David Wong: I am David Wong. I run the technology Association; Quentin Willson, and innovation portfolio at the Society of Motor motoring journalist Manufacturers and Traders, the UK automotive industry Until no later than 3.00 pm The Institute of the Motor trade body.I cover areas such as connecting autonomous Industry; Downstream Fuel vehicles, ultra low emission vehicles, and digital innovation Association; Association of and mobility innovation in design engineering. Convenience Stores Denis Naberezhnykh: I am Denis Naberezhnykh. I Until no later than 3.45 pm Association of British Insurers; Centre for am head of ultra low emission vehicles and energy at Connected and Autonomous Transport Research Laboratory, and I oversee all our Vehicles work on electric vehicles, low-emission vehicles, charging Until no later than 4.30 pm Civil Aviation Authority; infrastructure and related topics. Association of British Travel Steve Gooding: I am Steve Gooding. I am the director Agents of the Royal Automobile Club Foundation for Motoring, Until no later than 5.30 pm British Airlines Pilots which is a small think-tank devoted to research into Association; Metropolitan motoring and motoring issues, as well as into roads and Police; National Police Air road use. Some Committee members will have come Services; UK Flight Safety Committee across me in my guise two years ago as a member of the board of the Department for Transport. 5 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 6

David Williams: I am David Williams. I am technical David Wong: The SMMT supports the principles director for Axa Insurance. We are involved in three of underpinning the Bill, and we welcome its provisions. In the Government-backed consortia looking into driverless particular,we think this is the right time for the Government cars: Venturer, Flourish and UK Autodrive. I am also to further encourage the take up of ultra low emissions chair of the Association of British Insurers autonomous vehicles and pave the way towards the deployment of driving insurance group. autonomous vehicles. This relates to the insurance framework that is set out in the Bill. The Chair: Many thanks to all of you. We have quite What we would like to see more of in the Bill is a lot of business to get through, so may I ask that both greater clarity—perhaps going forward in secondary questions and answers be relatively brief and coherent? legislation—particularly on smart charging of electric Perhaps “coherent” is going too far, but they should vehicles. In the area of connected and autonomous brief and to the point. vehicles, certainly something on infrastructure and connectivity would have been marvellous, particularly Q2 Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): with regards to deployment of connected vehicles. Welcome. The Bill was originally being talked about colloquially as the modern transport Bill—a Bill to look at the challenges facing particularly,but not exclusively, Q3 Richard Burden: Thank you. That is very useful. road transport in the decades to come. Parts 1 and 2— The Government’s target is that all new vehicles on those dealing with road transport—focus on two main the road should be ultra low emission vehicles—zero- issues: the insurance liability of automated vehicles and emissions, in fact—by 2050. How far do you think this the provision of electric charging infrastructure by big Bill will contribute to that target? On current trends, we retailers. Do you think those are the right things for the are a long way off that target at the moment. What do Bill cover, and are there things that should be in the Bill you think are the other barriers to the take-up of ultra that are not included? low emission vehicles, or we could also say—more broadly—connected vehicles? There is quite a crossover The Chair: Who wants to go first? Not everyone has between those two agendas. How do you think these to answer each question, so please do not feel that the other barriers can be best overcome? whole panel has to answer. David Wong: Let me first deal with ultra low emission Steve Gooding: We are pleased to see the inclusion of vehicles and electric vehicles. The Bill is a step in the the provisions relating to autonomous driving insurance, right direction. Whether or not the targets are achieved an issue that needs to be gripped. We are also pleased to depends on the extent to which we can solve what we see that the Government are taking steps to do something call the three As. The first A is range anxiety; the second about the rather confusing world of recharging electric A is infrastructure accessibility; and the third A is vehicles—no doubt, we will talk about that later. The vehicle affordability. Insofar as what the Bill is trying RAC Foundation would have liked to have seen provisions to do, it is crucial to address infrastructure issues, to relating to the creation of the roads fund—a Government support research and development and to provide commitment that the Chancellor mentioned and that continuing support for consumer incentives to create an was included in the Budget papers but that is not enabling environment that will see a greater take-up of currently coming into statute. We also support the electric vehicles. If you look at range anxiety, a lot of it direction of travel on speed awareness courses and is due to the fact that technology has not evolved today bringing more scrutiny to an area where some of us to a point at which the electric vehicle can travel as far suspect a bit of an industry has grown up around a on a single charge as can a petrol or diesel vehicle. With bright idea in a way that might have gone slightly too greater research and development and Government far. support—not least in terms of, for example, battery David Williams: From an insurance perspective, we technology—that may be an area that should be addressed are very pleased to see the Bill. It is essential to have for the future. clarity, at this early stage, about the compensation process As for consumer incentives, this is particularly crucial and about who is going to be responsible in the first in helping to address some of the issues regarding instance, so that insurers and motor manufacturers can affordability, which is the second A. The technology design their systems, business models and processes itself is still very much in its infancy relative to other ready for it; so we are very pleased. Without that clarity, technologies, so we need to see continued support from there is a danger that the public will lack confidence the Government, as well as Government and industry with regards to compensation being available when an working together closely on this. autonomous vehicle is involved in an accident. Also, The third A relates to infrastructure accessibility. with road transport being a truly global element of our From what we can see, this is a pivotal part of this Bill, lives, it is good that the UK Government have come up and this—again—is a step in the right direction. with something at an early stage that hopefully will Accessibility to infrastructure has been a key issue. It is influence certainly Europe and maybe the US as well. the perception of most motorists that it is already not as Denis Naberezhnykh: From TRL’s perspective, we are convenient for people to charge an electric vehicle, very supportive of the Bill as it stands, in particular the which would take at least 30 minutes using a 43 to focus on electric vehicle consumers and users—that is 50 kW rapid charger unit, compared to filling up a very welcome. Taking steps towards introducing smart petrol or diesel vehicle at a petrol forecourt. We need to charging and managed charging is also very appropriate make it far easier for motorists to charge the vehicles. and timely. Given the forward-looking nature of the One of the things we need to do is to address the issue Bill, we would like to have seen more consideration of interoperability of charge points. We are pleased to for future technologies with regards to charging and see that there is a provision for this in the Bill. When we vehicles themselves. consider the infrastructure from the perspective of the 7 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 8 standardisation of multiple connectors and sockets that new technology coming on to the roadways while the are available out there, it makes it confusing for motorists. old technology is still using them. Has anybody done We must not assume that every electric vehicle owner is any thinking about the regulatory implications of that? a tech geek. Wewant to make electric vehicles as appealing David Williams: We think it is less complicated than as possible to the mass public. Standardisation is therefore it first appears. The Bill means that somebody involved important in making it easy for the average motorist to in a road accident does not need to establish which understand the plethora of technologies available. insurance regime is in place; we are going to have the Road Traffic Act, and insurers are going to be dealing The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wong. Could I appeal to with claims in the first instance. Regardless of the fact all witnesses to do two things? The first thing is to be as that it will take a long time for manual vehicles to be brief as possible, as we have a lot of business to get replaced with safer vehicles, we also think, from looking through in an hour. Secondly, Mr Williams led the way at the modelling we are doing, that statistically the in demonstrating how one can speak loudly and clearly. roads will become safer. Some people have expressed It may be my age and decrepitude, but please could you concerns that manual vehicle insurance might become speak as loudly and clearly as you can? incredibly expensive as the prices for autonomous vehicles plummet, but the reality is that if, say, 50% of the Q4 Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con): vehicles on the road are autonomous and much better I want to recognise the progress that we have made in at avoiding accidents, that makes driving in a manual this country, but could I press you on the 2050 date, vehicle safer. We are confident that the way the Bill sets which is 33 years away? A quarter of all of Norway’s things out means that establishing the claims process vehicles are either electric or hybrid. China has, I think, will be relatively straightforward, and that roads will 517,000 new energy vehicles, as they call them, on the become safer. road, and last year there were 800,000 charging points, notwithstanding the fact that it is a larger country. Q6 The Minister of State, Department for Transport Thirty-three years is quite a long way off. I would like to (Mr John Hayes): A couple of things have arisen from press both Mr Wong and Mr Naberezhnykh on how we what witnesses have said. If I can call you David 1 and might turbo-charge this, perhaps adding a bit more to David 2, on insurance, David 1 helpfully used the word the three As that Mr Wong has told us about. “compensation”. Presumably the key is to make sure Denis Naberezhnykh: It is important to consider vehicles that any injured party enjoys the same circumstances as more broadly in the separate categories of vehicle types they do now, and then anything else that happens does and vehicle users. When we think about the 2050 target so invisibly to them. The injured party in any circumstance for almost decarbonising the transport sector, we have essentially gets what they get now; is that right? to not treat private car owners in the same way as fleet and commercial vehicles. That is missing a little from David Williams: Absolutely. We are very pleased with the Bill at the moment. It focuses on overcoming short-term the way that discussions developed and the Bill came barriers—the problems and challenges that private car out, because initially the conversations were that liability owners experience when attempting to use electric vehicles, would move from RTA motor to products liability. You such as clarity of data available on charging points, can imagine a situation where an individual was involved accessibility and the availability across the motorway in a little accident—a small dent or something like network. However, what needs to happen to achieve the that—and then, because people are talking about products 2050 target is consideration of a broader picture, and liability, you get a motor manufacturer’s high-powered recognition that there are other vehicle types—not just lawyers arguing for two years about a little dent, just cars, but vans, trucks and buses—so what do we need to because they are concerned about creating a precedent. do to encourage those? They could create a growing What will now happen is that an insurer will deal with proportion of the vehicle population as vehicle trends the claim in the first instance, as is the current state of change over time anyway. affairs. Yes, there will be circumstances where the motor manufacturers are held responsible, but that can take There is also a danger in comparing the UK situation three or four years; it does not matter. to that of Norway and China, because the two have taken very different approaches in reaching their success. The other advantage we have is that it will be based In Norway they have employed subsidy schemes and on existing legislation, case law and precedent. The taxation schemes that I do not think we would find rules of negligence and defences available to motor appropriate in the UK. In China they have taken the manufacturers are still there unless the Government approach of simply saying, “You must buy these vehicles choose to amend them at a later stage. I really welcome under any conditions,” and “You must install these the Bill, because it focuses on continuing to protect charging points.” Unless we are willing to take steps like road users. that, we have to be much more aware of what the market needs, or what the users need, and then tailor Q7 Mr Hayes: Quite.So,the delayed dispute disadvantage the products to suit those needs. That is where the that you described, which might affect the ordinary transport sector needs to pay more attention: to focusing motorist, pedestrian or whoever is involved in the incident, this Bill and future activities not only on targeting the will effectively be invisible. My next question is to the near-term shortcomings, but on what we think might be other David. We have been talking about charging the challenges in 10, 15 or 20 years from now, and infrastructure. Should we have included powers for preparing for those. refuelling points for other low-carbon infrastructure? That came up in earlier consideration of the Bill. The Q5 Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con): I technology is still developing and emerging. There are will move on to the mixed use of roadways in the several competing low-emission technologies. What do intervening period. Clearly one of the challenges is the you think about that? 9 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 10

David Wong: Certainly, there should be a positive members, the British Compressed Gases Association mix of technologies taken into consideration, particularly and its gas company members are working hand in if we are looking at co-location within certain infrastructure hand with the Office for Low Emission Vehicles through environments. For example, last month there was the the UK H2Mobility consortium to chart a road launch of the first co-location of a petrol forecourt and map. We need to accelerate that collaboration, and the hydrogen refuelling station in Cobham, on the Shell Government need to provide continued support for site. That was very much welcomed by industry. Looking the building of more hydrogen refuelling stations. at the provisions in the Bill, we could do the same for electric vehicles, with charging points being installed—or Q10 Kit Malthouse: I get that chicken and egg point. co-located, to use the industry parlance—at large petrol For the Committee’s information, I used to be the forecourts or motorway service stations. One must not chairman of the London Hydrogen Partnership, preparing forget, in terms of the wider energy mix, that hydrogen the capital for this economy in the future. The same may also come into the picture. assumption does not seem to apply to battery electric vehicles. The Government are willing to put in the Q8 Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con): I recharging network for battery electric vehicles, but not, want to ask about that specific point. There are obviously seemingly, for hydrogen. at the moment two competing power vectors for electric Denis Naberezhnykh: We should not think of them as vehicles—hydrogen and batteries—and the Government competing technologies, because they are not. They are are rightly saying that they are agnostic. Much of the both technologies that electrify decarbonised transport. Bill is agnostic, with much of the emphasis on battery- I do not think it helps to think about the solution from charging points. Is there a danger that industry could be a technology point of view. We should think about what compelled to spend a lot of money plastering the country we are trying to achieve, which is reducing CO2 emissions, with battery-charging points only to realise that battery and then look at the facts. The fact is that, right now, vehicles are the equivalent of the fax machine—a temporary battery electric vehicle technology is far more market-ready technology—and that fuel cells will overtake them within than fuel cell technology, in terms of cost, availability a fairly short period and the infrastructure will become and production capacity. If we are trying to identify redundant? measures for accelerating our progress to the 2050 David Wong: I think it is fair for the Bill to take into target, we need to pick technologies that we are already account the reality,which is basically what is proportionate confident can achieve the result. to the number of fuel-cell electric vehicles on the road. The other point is about infrastructure and fuel. The number of fuel-cell electric vehicles on the road is From a fuel and energy perspective, a fuel cell vehicle is very small but growing. We certainly need consideration far less energy efficient than an electric vehicle because of how the two can be factored in, because hydrogen you have to take it through more conversion steps from not only is a fuel for transport but could be a medium of generatinghydrogentoconvertingthehydrogentoelectricity. energy storage, particularly for the sort of energy that is Very few pathways exist in the world right now for being generated during off-peak hours and not used. producing a low-emission fuel cell electric vehicle that is Rather than wasting energy that is being generated and anywhere near comparable, in energy efficiency terms, not used, it could be stored in the form of hydrogen and to an electric vehicle. used for various purposes, including transport. Q11 Kit Malthouse: I understand that viewpoint. Q9 Kit Malthouse: As the owner and driver of a There are obviously large original equipment manufacturers semi-autonomous plug-in hybrid, I get incredibly frustrated that have made a decision about batteries and are at the lack of a battery-charging network. It strikes me therefore lobbying heavily on that, but some large ones— that the hydrogen fuel cell requires the minimum of Toyota and Hyundai—have made a decision to go behavioural change from the consumer. I would fill up down the route of fuel cells. Given that the Government my fuel-cell car the same as I would fill up my current should be agnostic on these issues, should they also be car. A hydrogen nozzle would just be another nozzle on agnostic about the regulations in the Bill for taking the the fuel dispenser. Is the development of that technology power to compel providers of charging points, for instance accelerating? Some countries are way ahead of us, right? at motorway service stations? In other words, when they On that basis, is your view that the slow uptake of fuel compel someone to provide a fast charging point for a cell vehicles in this country is because of the lack of battery, should they at the same time compel them to technology or because of the lack of fuel? If there was a provide hydrogen refuelling? If they just compel a battery fuelling infrastructure across the UK, would it be the recharging network, it will be a VHS or Betamax situation. natural uptake for the consumer, given the lack of Denis Naberezhnykh: That goes back to my earlier behavioural change required? point. We need to take the end use into consideration, David Wong: As with most technologies, it is a chicken and we need to think about which types of vehicles and and egg issue. In economic parlance, you would call it a users are likely to be using electric vehicles and where network effect. Should you have hydrogen refuelling the infrastructure is required to support them. stations or vehicles first? Obviously, the gas companies that are building hydrogen refuelling stations will need to be confident that there are cars on the road, but Q12 Kit Malthouse: So you think the Government vehicle manufacturers will want to be confident that should predict and provide, rather than be agnostic there are hydrogen refuelling stations so customers can about technology. refuel. We are seeing a collaboration between industry Denis Naberezhnykh: Yes. I do not think being agnostic, and the Government in that regard. The Society of Motor in the sense of saying, “We don’t care which technology Manufacturers and Traders, our vehicle manufacturer it is. We just need to invest in putting all of it up” is 11 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 12 particularly helpful to the industry and the users. We Steve Gooding: First, the Government are right to need to recognise that some technology can achieve focus on the insurance angle, because that strikes me things that other bits of technology cannot. Some have and the foundation as the first thing that needs sorting strengths and weaknesses, and we need to pick out for all the reasons that the Committee is thinking about. those strengths and weaknesses and emphasise them for Following that, what will affect the public’s willingness implementation in infrastructure appropriately. to accept the technology is their sense that it is genuinely safe. It is understandable that the Bill is silent on such things as construction and use standards, because they Q13 Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab): will need to be negotiated in an international forum. I cannot see anything in the Bill that would change who That is definitely something—the Minister knows we is licenced to drive a vehicle. In terms of future-proofing, have flagged this up—to get on with thinking about. one can envisage that people under the age of 17 or How you move away from a construction and use safety people with significant visual impairment could be, to regulation system that is very much based on traditional use the current verb, “driving”automated vehicles. Should mechanical engineering to one that is based far more that future-proofing be provided for in the Bill, Mr closely on one that we apply to human drivers, because Williams, and if so, what insurance issues would there we are dealing with artificial intelligence, needs a bit of be, say, for a seven-year-old alone in an automated a boost. vehicle? David Williams: I think that we need to be vocal David Williams: A major benefit of autonomous about the capability of the technology. We often quote vehicles will be bringing mobility to people who currently statistics: for instance, automated emergency braking do not have that benefit. We are very much looking systems reduce accidents by 15% and injuries by 18%, forward to that. In Flourish—one of the Government- so even if they do not avoid the accident completely, backed consortiums—we have Age UK as one of the they slow the vehicle faster than a human would and critical partners to make sure that we understand the reduce injuries. That is one small component of what implications. I am not sure whether it needs to be in will be the driverless cars of the future. the Bill, because that establishes the insurance regime among other things. It will be complex for some vehicles. We need to show people the testing regime that these With the pods that UK Autodrive is going to put in vehicles will undergo before they are let loose on the Milton Keynes, there will be no way that you can road, but it is natural to expect some nervousness and intervene, so I see no reason why somebody in one of resistance. I do not know if any of you have seen the those vehicles would need to comply with any test or trailer for the new “Fast and Furious” movie, “The Fate have any form of licence. of the Furious”, where robot cars get taken over. That The majority of vehicles in the early stages of market will not help and, therefore, we need to be particularly development will probably be ones—for example, a vocal about the positive benefits. I fundamentally believe level 4 vehicle—that you can switch from manual to that we will see fewer deaths on the roads and much automatic. You then get to the situation where people safer roads and, therefore, we need to do whatever we think, “An autonomous vehicle can bring me home can to encourage adoption. when I’m drunk from a party, so I won’t need a taxi.” There is also a massively positive business case in the My thought is that you will not be able to do that if you haulage industry for the adoption of connected and have a vehicle that you can switch between the two autonomous vehicles. I think we may see more rapid modes, because you would still be in charge of a vehicle adoption in the commercial vehicle space. People will that could be driven manually. then get used to being around autonomous vehicles, At some point work needs to be done on licensing even if they are commercial vehicles and that will make and testing, but for fully autonomous level 5 vehicles, the adoption at a personal level easier. the insurance aspects are covered in the Bill and we have Denis Naberezhnykh: I would add that some excellent no concerns there. We want to see the adoption of these work is happening in the UK now. A project called vehicles because we think that they will make the roads MOVE-UK compares and contrasts the different styles generally safer and we therefore want them to be available of vehicle automation and how an autonomous vehicle appropriately, as widely as possible. would perform in the same situation that a human driver performs in. That kind of comparison and learning will enable those automated vehicles and semi-autonomous Q14 Rob Marris: The insurance provisions in the Bill functionalities to be as palatable to users as possible, so would be sufficient to cover what I think you call a that there is the least amount of discomfort or worrying level 5 vehicle, which could be carrying a seven-year-old about the functionality when they try those vehicles out on their own. for the first time. It will be the first early adopters—early David Williams: Absolutely. users—who will form an opinion and then spread the word about whether it works or whether they feel Q15 Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and comfortable or not. Getting that right is important and Strathspey) (SNP): I want to explore some issues of some great work is already happening in the UK to try public confidence in the potential uptake of autonomous to do that. vehicles and get your views on whether the Bill goes far David Wong: I have four brief points on increasing enough to set the scene. Given that the technology is acceptance. One is on messaging. In addition to what available, what measures are required to make the public Steve has just mentioned about showing the public accept it and want to take it up? We have heard about that the technology is genuinely safe, we have to be the confusion and resistance, perhaps, because of the very careful, particularly with regard to the Bill, with different approach to electric vehicles, but what do you public messaging in relation to insurance, to assure the think is required for the future in the Bill? public that this will not result in a hike in insurance. The 13 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 14 public will rightly expect that the lowering of risks and Q19 Mr Baker: Okay, I see the point you are making. fewer accidents will mean that insurance premiums What if one were to convert a car to run exclusively on should come down. hydrogen? Would that achieve zero emissions? The second point is about convincing the public David Wong: Yes, if it is a fuel cell electric vehicle, through public demonstration projects. We are pleased basically you just get water vapour. that the Government are backing a number of these collaborative R and D and demonstration in live trial Q20 Mr Baker: I did not mean fuel cell, but an projects. We would like to see some of the learning internalcombustionenginerunningexclusivelyonhydrogen. coming out of these projects on how the public might Why could you not do that? interact with autonomous vehicles. David Wong: You can probably use the fuel cell as a Thirdly,on public demonstration projects,going forward, range extender for electric vehicles, but to have an perhaps the consumer can pay, not unlike the very internal combustion engine that basically burns fossil successful Go Ultra Low campaign for ultra low emission fuels and then you have hydrogen— vehicles. It may be useful for connected autonomous vehicles at the right point in time, and particularly at the Q21 Mr Baker: I don’t want to labour this too much point when vehicle manufacturers are ready to deploy because I have other questions. The point I am making— these vehicles on UK roads. Lastly, we think as an industry that the gradual The Chair: Please don’t labour the point too much, escalation of the levels of automation can perhaps help Mr Baker. We have five minutes left. Joe Public to be more comfortable with the technology, as opposed to asking Joe Public to jump straight into a Q22 Mr Baker: The point I am making is that a car vehicle with no steering wheel from day one. with an internal combustion engine could be converted to run on hydrogen as an internal combustion engine, could it not? The Chair: We had better get a move on. Briefly, if David Wong: In principle, yes, but I hesitate to give a you can. straightforward answer because we do not describe a hydrogen vehicle as an internal combustion engine. Q16 Drew Hendry: Very briefly, in terms of public That is the parlance we use for combustion, which, at confidence and liability issues, you mentioned safety. the moment, is petrol or diesel. We like to frame hydrogen Do you feel the Bill should address public confidence in in the context of clean energy. the maintenance of vehicles? How will that be conducted across the different standards? Q23 Mr Baker: Okay. I’ll move on from hydrogen in the interests of time. My other point is security. I am a Steve Gooding: We need the construction of new former software engineer. I have got two points about standards for whether a vehicle is judged road-worthy software. First, have you considered cybersecurity and in the first place, to the subsequent—as we call it—MOT the risks of cars being hacked and people finding themselves system, which continues to verify over time that that driving to destinations they did not intend to go to? road-worthiness is being maintained. We need both systems to cope with the new technology. David Williams: Absolutely. In the FLOURISH consortium there is a specific focus on cyber. Also, in the VENTURER consortium, BAE Systems is involved Q17 Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): I am conscious and does military-grade cybersecurity. We should be that cars can be converted to use LPG if they are petrol. worried about cyber risks, but we should be worried It seems to me that potentially they could be converted about those generally, not just with regard to vehicles. to use hydrogen, as well. Mr Wong, is that something There are ways to make things safer. It will be a key that the industry has considered? element of the communication programme and the David Wong: It is certainly in the mix. Cars today are technological development of these vehicles in making being retrofitted as dual fuel vehicles, so, hydrogen in an sure that they are as safe as they can be. internal combustion engine. For example, a company in the north-west called ULEMCo is doing that with a Q24 Mr Baker: So is there a provision missing from good degree of success. It is important to look at the the Bill in relation to cybersecurity? outcome from such a conversion. Will it help to achieve David Williams: The only area that we think needs the targets? Will it be below 75 grams of carbon dioxide further debate is whether insurers will pay for claims in per kilometre? The jury is still out on that, to be honest. the first instance where there is an incident, but what if We need to see whether technologies can help over a there was a massive terrorist incident that caused a period of time to decarbonise road transport, not simply problem with a huge number of vehicles globally? That the conversion of any sort of technologies or even the may need separate consideration. The problem is, even hybridisation of any of these fuels. in saying that, it is almost scaremongering about that risk. Clearly, we would rather focus on protecting vehicles. You are used to virus protection and those sorts of Q18 Mr Baker: To be clear, can you explain why we things. We are talking about new technology. We need cannot get carbon below 75 grams when we are burning to get to the same state where people have confidence. hydrogen? If we burn hydrogen, we get water. Where Steve Gooding: The Bill recognises the risk of tampering, does the carbon come in? which is a version of cyber-hackingThe construction David Wong: For a fuel cell electric vehicle, you get and use regime, which says a vehicle is roadworthy, must zero tail pipe emission, but for a dual fuel vehicle, it take into account that it is roadworthy and protected depends on the dual fuel. from the risk of cybercrime. 15 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 16

Q25 Mr Baker: Finally, on tampering, the point I David Wong: On software updates, we believe that the made on Second Reading was that that section of the “state of the art” defence principle applies here, which Bill that can exclude or limit an insurance liability after means at the point when the vehicle, together with the alterations to the vehicle’s operating system, or a failure systems, including software and firmware, are being to install software updates to the vehicle’s operating developed, the manufacturer has done its utmost to system, is a drafting point. The provision should simply ensure that it is completely secure and, based on the state “software”rather than “operating system”, because scientific knowledge and the technology at that point in there is firmware and there will be application software. time, has done its very best. Of course, software updates You are nodding, Mr Naberezhnykh. Can I ask you to are always, basically, a moving target; it changes every put on the record whether that is correct and the Bill hour—but the “state of the art” defence applies in this should be drafted in terms of software and not only the case. operating system? Steve Gooding: I think the motor industry will have Denis Naberezhnykh: My concern is that, were it to to answer for this, because if you think of your home be tested in court, the Bill would not achieve its intended computer, every now and then you get a message saying aim if, for example,application software had been tampered “Your software is going out of support”. I think we with or firmware had not been updated. I appreciate it need a bit of reassurance from the auto sector that we is a technical point. are not going to find that a vehicle we buy next year, Steve Gooding: I think you need to ensure that the and then in seven or eight years’time is in the second-hand breadth that you are describing is covered. I suspect market, gets the message that “this vehicle is going out that is a question you need to put to the drafting of support” and is therefore judged in some sense to be counsel rather than us. no longer roadworthy. David Wong: It is reasonable to expect that vehicle Q26 Mr Baker: You were nodding, Mr Naberezhnykh. manufacturers will continue updating, upgrading and patching the software, as do computer manufacturers The Chair: Steve, we had better move on, as we have and software manufacturers. However, even as Microsoft only three or four minutes left. 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 Q27 Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab): I’ll be software 20 years’ down the road, even if the vehicle is very brief. The Bill introduces the new concept we are still roadworthy. 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 Q28 Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con): Within its scope, talked about accessibility cost. The cost of insurance does this Bill do enough to position the UK as a global will be key. Is the insurance industry ready for this? leader in vehicle technology? If not, what is missing? If Clearly, premiums should be cheaper if we are getting you do not have the time to answer, maybe you can errorless driving, but is the insurance industry sophisticated email me. enough and ready enough to make that offer to consumers in the first instance? Lastly, on the issue of updates, The Chair: Two minutes to cover that favourable does that present fresh exposures to manufacturers for topic. the duration of the life of that vehicle on every software update iteration? Have you given any thought to how David Williams: From an insurance perspective, yes. that plays in the context of current consumer protection Denis Naberezhnykh: From a research angle on this, legislation and issues of limitation? Does that now no, not entirely, but that is because as I said at the cause us to revolutionise the way we look at people beginning we think it could be further-looking, as with purchasing vehicles? Are they going to be out there what some countries are doing; but it is adequate at forever with software with little or no control? Any addressing the near-term goals. thoughts or comments? David Wong: From the vehicle manufacturers’perspective David Williams: I think the Bill does have the balance I think more can be done—particularly with regard to right. It focuses on the road user. That is why we have connected autonomous vehicles. The particular area of got the Road Traffic Act 1988. Therefore the Bill has to connectivity and infrastructure is clearly missing in this focus on the safety of road users rather than insurers Bill. 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 The Chair: Finally and—we have two minutes—very can develop over time, and they have definitely got briefly, Drew Hendry. some skin in the game. If they are negligent they will be called to account and will need to indemnify the insurer; Q29 Drew Hendry: I wanted to cover the issues of so I think the balance is right. liability a little bit further, but I suspect we are going to With regard to whether the insurance industry is run out of time before I can get an answer to those—in ready, in the past I do not think we have been, for things particular situations where there might be, for example, like this, but the fact that we already have the Autonomous someone who is incapacitated in the vehicle. If they are Driving Insurance Group, which meets regularly and is incapacitated because of ill health, or for other reasons very well attended, that the Thatcham motor vehicle such as alcohol consumption, where would the liability research institute is all over it, and that AXA alone is sit, with such issues? Does the legislation need to go involved with three of the Government-backed consortia into more detail about some of those other causes? You means we are ready—we will be ready. mentioned the maintenance regime earlier. 17 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 18

The Chair: Order. Drew, those remarks will form part Quentin Willson: I believe hydrogen is too far away of the record and part of your contribution to the yet to get consumers interested in or excited about it. discussion of the Bill, but we are now at 10.25 am and The costs are always going to be higher as a fuel—it the rules stipulate that we must stop at precisely 10.25 am. would probably have parity with petrol. I believe for I thank our four witnesses very much for their useful consumers to be interested and to take up wider EV contributions. We got through most of what we wanted adoption, there has to be a fiscal advantage for them. to ask you and you have certainly given us some very At the moment, you are asking them for too much good thinking points for our further discussions on the concentration. If you put hydrogen as a parallel technology Bill. Thank you very much indeed. now, I think we might disrupt the really good emphasis we have got on EVs at the moment. Robert Evans: Our view is that the UK has not been Examination of Witnesses very successful in introducing alternative fuels into the Marcus Stewart, Robert Evans and Quentin Willson transport sector; we need to be extremely successful gave evidence. with electricity and that will pave the way for the introduction of hydrogen. Weneed to make this transition phase work successfully.My own organisation is involved 10.26 am in hydrogen fuel cell trial activities. It is a pre-commercial Q30 The Chair: We are now going to hear witness phase. It is a strategic insurance option for the motor evidence from the National Grid, the UK Electric Vehicle industry and the energy sector, where we are looking at Supply Equipment Association and Quentin Willson, the decarbonisation pathway. We need to have hydrogen, who is a motoring journalist. We have until precisely but it is going to proceed through strategic niche markets, 11.25 am—one hour from now—for this session. Perhaps and that is going to take a short while yet. The Bill does the witnesses would kindly introduce themselves for the at least outline the same basis for the treatment of record. hydrogen as it does for electricity in terms of reserving Quentin Willson: I am Quentin Willson, a motoring the right to take powers, should that be necessary. journalist and broadcaster and an electric vehicle advocate. Marcus Stewart: Where technology is today, electric I have been ploughing a lonely furrow, driving EVs and vehicles are progressing rapidly, and the focus should be supporting them for the last five years. on electric vehicles at this time, including the impact Robert Evans: I am Robert Evans. I am chief executive they have on the system and how people get access. We officer of Cenex, which is a specialist research and can take advantage of that. The technology in some technology organisation that has been active for ten respects is leading the legislation, so we should tackle it years in developing supply chain and markets for low- from that point of view. As an organisation, we are carbon vehicle technologies, including hybrid, electric, fuel-agnostic, so hydrogen, compressed natural gas and hydrogen and gas. Today, I am also representing the other sources of renewable fuels should be part of the UK Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Association, long-term mix, but electric vehicles are happening now which is the association of suppliers of charge points and there is more choice for consumers in that area, so and charge point network operators for the UK. we should be dealing with that at this point. Marcus Stewart: I am Marcus Stewart. I am head of energy insights at National Grid, the system operator. Q32 Kit Malthouse: So all three of you believe that My role is looking out into the future to determine what the Government should pick a winner at this stage and the energy future will look like in terms of electricity put their muscle behind that. Does that not run the risk and gas, how people will use their energy and what that in time—as you say, this is a pathway to a fuel capacity on the system is needed to support that energy. cell—we will end up with tonnes of useless copper in Electric vehicles are a big part of the future from where the ground within a relatively short space of time as we can see it. people switch to hydrogen refuelling? Quentin Willson: I think you can have parallel The Chair: As we discovered in the last session, time technologies. The developments that the OEMs—the disappears very quickly. I ask my colleagues on the car manufacturers—are doing on hydrogen and fuel Committee, and yourselves, the witnesses, to be brief, to cells, particularly Mercedes, are good, but everyone in the point, sharp and all those things, to try to get the industry concurs that it is possibly 10 years before through the quite large number of questions we want to we get anything like mass production. The speed of ask you in the hour. I apologise: whoever is speaking at electricity is so fast now. The Government should be 11.25 am will be told to shut up mid-sentence, if necessary, aware of developments and track them, and they need because we have to stop at 11.25 am sharp. [Interruption.] to understand that there is a parallel technology, but if I It is unlikely to be me because I can’t tell myself to was asked to bet on the two horses, I would say that shut up. electric is likely to be the mainstream propulsion force over the next 20 years.

Q31 Kit Malthouse: Good morning. Do you think Q33 Kit Malthouse: Hydrogen cars are of course there is too much emphasis in the Bill on the battery as electric—it is about the storage of the electricity. a vector for powering electric cars as opposed to the hydrogen fuel cell? Should there be equivalence in the Quentin Willson: Yes. Bill from the Government, so that every time they Robert Evans: That is a very good point. Hydrogen compel, for instance, a motorway service station provider fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles—they just have to provide a plug-in charge point, they should also a different, alternative powertrain as part of the compel them to provide hydrogen? configuration—so progress with electric vehicles is an 19 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 20 aid to progress with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. I do not enough price point to make it viable.In terms of commercial believe that the Government are picking winners per se. vehicles and buses, I think it has a greater resonance, I think that the industry is taking a view that electric but in terms of consumers, if I were sitting at the board vehicles are the future. You see that in all of their table of BMW, Mercedes, Audi or VW, I would be announcements. They are bringing these vehicles to looking at electrification rather than putting all my eggs market, so the job of the Government is to help facilitate on hydrogen. the introduction of that technology for the benefit of motorists. Q38 Mr Baker: I think that you just hit on the nub of Q34 Kit Malthouse: It is not the entire industry. the matter. A board director has major capital investments Toyota are not doing that. to protect, which means that they are inclined to stay within trammels once a technology is established. That Robert Evans: Toyota are involved in electric vehicles is very much the point that my hon. Friend the Member such as hybrid electric vehicles.They are just not necessarily for North West Hampshire has been making: there is a bringing pure battery electric to the market at the danger that we could end up choosing the wrong technology moment. because a whole system of incentives sets up people to stick with electric. Q35 Kit Malthouse: The Mirai is a fuel cell car. Quentin Willson: The brutal fact of the matter is that Marcus Stewart: Hydrogen has its place. From our getting hydrogen from point A to point B requires point of view, when we look at hydrogen, we see that as pipework. You can have static hydrogen stations that a very long-term play. We are talking about it being 20 manufacture it, but they will be the size of shipping years, 30 years and beyond when hydrogen can have any containers. If you look down the road, creating impact on the whole energy mix. Also, you have got to infrastructure and points, keeping it cheap and making get your hydrogen from somewhere. it not a by-product of refining chlorine are all barriers to entry that are much greater than for electrification, Q36 Kit Malthouse: This is my final question. There which is simple and understandable; it is a currency that are some countries who disagree with that. The Dutch we are familiar with now, and we have the electric are spending a lot of money on a hydrogen fuel network network. These are the major barriers to hydrogen across their whole country, as are the Germans. uptake. Robert Evans: The Dutch are not spending as much Robert Evans: To follow up on that point, Innovate on hydrogen as they are on electric vehicle infrastructure. UK and the Advanced Propulsion Centre are funding research and development projects involving hydrogen The Chair: Can I ask you to speak up just a shade? I fuel cells, and they have done so throughout the period am having trouble hearing you. of the low-carbon vehicle innovation platform. The Robert Evans: The Dutch are spending considerably Office for Low Emission Vehicles recently put forward more on battery electric vehicles than they are on hydrogen funding for both hydrogen stations and vehicles in fuel cell vehicles. Governments are spending money on deployment. hydrogen fuel cells, but they view it really as a strategic I think the challenge at the moment is that you could option play. In order to have it available for you in the put a very large amount of money on the table and say, system, you cannot just start from a standing start. You “Here’s the money; will you bring the vehicles?”, but the have to have a level of activity, a level of supply chain supply of vehicles is very limited. Quantities are still development and a level of familiarisation, but that is small, as has been explained, and they are very expensive, not to be confused with it being something that will so the car industry is not looking to flood the market make a significant impact within the next five years, for with these vehicles. What we are doing in the UK is example. We should track international trends and watch being ready for the time when the vehicles will come in what is going on in projects. We should be supportive, larger volumes. We will have a receptive market, and we but right now there are some bigger issues to be addressed have infrastructure here in London. What London has with electric vehicles. I think we are in good health with done is really positive progress that is viewed as a hydrogen. beacon for how the rest of the UK could be ready to deploy hydrogen fuel cell vehicles when they are The Chair: On this sort of question, Gareth Snell. ready and cost-effective, and when the supply comes to the UK. Q37 Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op): Thank you, Chair. If the Government were to pick a winner at this stage, do we not run the risk of skewing Q39 Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): future research and development investment by saying I have a few questions from a pre-selected list. It is to developers, “The traditional battery is the route we probably best to ask about electric charging, to follow are going down”? If hydrogen is 10 years away, we run on from the discussion. The Government say that electric the risk of it becoming further away because we are not charging infrastructure makes more sense just now, and putting the investment into it now to ensure that technology that hydrogen is still a wee way off. Can the panel advise is comparable in the future. what has been learnt today about the required structure Quentin Willson: That is a hard question to answer. If of the charging network needed? Will the Bill and the you look at the price of the Toyota Mirai, which is a current regime ensure that there will be adequate numbers hydrogen car, it is £60,000. Volume and economies of of charging points in each part of the country? scale make it an enormously difficult task to get that to On Second Reading we heard about the gathering of a consumer level of £15,000. I think the OEMs will find statistics on the current variance in the number of it very tough to find this fuel technology at a cheap charging points. Orkney, for example, has many more 21 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 22 charging points than some big towns in England. Also, Quentin Willson: We need some intelligence on where is there a need for a uniform way to access charging these peak points are likely to be. It needs to be spread points? Is the legislation as proposed sufficient for that? as widely as possible. Ultimately, the superordinate goal I rolled quite a few questions into one. is wireless charging in the roads and as you park. The Bill needs to be aware of that as well. That is a technology The Chair: I am sure that our panel will handle it. that would revolutionise the whole EV market, but it is You do not all have to answer everything. still some time away. There needs to be a charger in as Robert Evans: I am happy to make a start. The first many places as possible where there is public access— thing to say is that the UK Electric Vehicle Supply supermarkets, schools, businesses—especially in rural Equipment Association and the industry support the areas. progress of the Bill and believe that it is an appropriate Marcus Stewart: The evidence we submitted focused set of powers for the Government to seek. As the on the impact on the electricity system, in terms of industry views it, the Bill effectively says that the deployment capacity and the role of smart charging, and rapid of electric vehicle infrastructure into the market is chargers help in that because they help people charge progressing. The market is working, and it is likely to away from peak times. If you have rapid chargers at deliver the solutions for motorists to access those charge motorway service stations or supermarkets, where people points easily, and for those charge points to become a can charge during the day, rather than charging in the sustainable asset on which businesses can be built. What evening at home, that smooths out the impact of the the Bill recognises is that there is a stage by which the demand for energy. It makes for much more efficient Government will step away from some of the seeding usage of the energy system that we already have and activities that they have done, in terms of creating allows us to accommodate more electrical vehicles. different schemes such as Plugged-in Places, national Robert Evans: Charging at train stations is a very infrastructure programmes and funding that it has put good idea, because the vehicle is parked there and they in, and let the market progress. can start to be used for managed charging applications— The Bill gives the Government an insurance policy, vehicle to grid and the like. That is a very positive trend. which is that they can act if the market does not deliver There has been national infrastructure funding for railway in any particular important aspect that starts to stall the stations, and that is an appropriate use. With airports, it uptake of electric vehicles. The view is that the market is depends. For long duration, if you are parked for two progressing well, and these are reserve powers that the weeks while away on holiday, it is less of an issue. The Government might wish to take later. Therein will lie rapid charger becomes a more useful item when you the detail about what the particular nub of a problem pick up your car, quickly fill with electricity and then might be on which the Government will need to intervene. move on. So more charge points in motorway service At the moment we have 11,000 charge points in the UK; areas is definitely a good thing, and more dwell points we have a lot of private sector finance investment interested that aid inter-modal transport, so you take your electric in investing in the commercial operation of charge vehicle and get on the train, for example, rather than point networks and the further deployment of charge adding to congestion in a city centre. points. That is to be commended. At this stage the Government just need to have this insurance policy in Q41 Mr Hayes: I want to ask about the effect of the Bill so that they can act should they need to, but demand on the grid. You dealt with it after I signalled they should expect that the market will deliver. my intention to ask the question, but further to that, Quentin Willson: The critical thing is the availability does the industry need to think a bit about how it could of rapid chargers. Rapid chargers are the game changer. incentivise people charging at different points? There is You can charge your car within 30 minutes to 80% of its a history of this, with Economy 7 and all kinds of other battery life. Therefore, you can do multiple charges in a things. Are there ways in which the industry could day,bringing the feasible range from this notional 130 miles respond by encouraging people to charge in the way you for a Nissan LEAF to as much as 300 miles. I did a describe? On the point about the distribution of journey from Birmingham to Milton Keynes and back, infrastructure, what about rural areas? The Bill provides charged twice at a rapid charger and arrived at Milton powers for the Government to do more. Have we done Keynes with 90 miles still on my battery range. So the enough or could we do more to ensure the spread of Bill must make sure that these rapid chargers are rolled infrastructure? It is fine to have these things in supermarkets out much more and we see many more at motorway and at motorway service stations, but that does not service stations and at key points within cities, because really help my constituents in Surfleet Seas End or they will enable people to believe that their range is Gedney Drove End, who are a very long way from much wider than they are led to believe. either. What do you think? Quentin Willson: Rural charging is an issue that we Q40 Drew Hendry: I have a follow-up question on the should look at very hard, because otherwise we will have infrastructure for charging points.Does more consideration a disconnected electric community and there will be the need to be given in the Bill to connecting with different connected and the unconnected. Scotland has been modes of transport—an intermodal approach? Or is it extremely good at this—Scottish Enterprise has financed sufficient just to say, “There shall be charging points”? quite a bit of it. We need to look at these rural areas, Quentin Willson: What do you mean by “different decide what the best place is and give a concerted route modes of transport”? through rural areas where you have rapid chargers so that those communities can run electric cars with the Drew Hendry: For example, electric vehicles being same benefits as people in conurbations. able to connect with hubs at airports, railways, ports Marcus Stewart: Going back to the point about how and so forth. Is enough thought being given to how the the energy industry can respond, the industry has experience. network will develop? I am a system operator, but the supply side can offer 23 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 24 different tariffs for charging at different times. That is negated. Also, a lot of electricity is produced by quite a popular approach. You mentioned Economy 7. renewables—wind and solar. In the UK, 41% of the I know people who have electric vehicles who use the electricity dragged from the grid on Christmas day was Economy 7 meter to get a cheaper charge by charging from renewables. their vehicle at a time when the system is under less stress. There are options like that. Q43 Rob Marris: If, over the next five years, 10% of Looking further into the future, when you have many new vehicles were electric and each of them, on average, more people using electric vehicles, there will be an did 10,000 km a year, 10,000,000 km per year would be opportunity for electric vehicles themselves, through driven in electric vehicles. This is a question for Mr some sort of consolidation, to provide services back to Stewart. What is that as a percentage of UK electricity the system to enable balancing—“vehicle to grid” is a generation at the moment? You may not be able to reply term that is used. There could be opportunities for today, but perhaps you will tell us. I am a bit worried suppliers to offer different tariffs to allow people to that you will encourage all these electric vehicles and participate. There are lots of options there. We would then the grid falls over, so I need to get some idea of say that the technology in the chargers needs to be proportionality. smart enough to be able to do that. That allows you to Marcus Stewart: I will give you an example. If you optimise the value of the charging system and the car to have 1 million electric vehicles—you don’t need to worry the consumer, and also the overall cost to the total too much about how many miles they are doing; when energy system. If you can optimise that, the total cost they are charging is what is really important, because will be lower than it would be if you had effectively that is what impacts on the supply and demand balance— unabated charging. and you charge them on a 7 kW charger, in theory that Robert Evans: You raised two points. The first was could give you 7 GW of demand, and 7 GW is two and about rural areas. At this stage, infrastructure follows a bit very large nuclear power stations. the deployment of vehicles. The more vehicles there are, the more there is a case to deploy electric vehicle Q44 Rob Marris: What percentage is that of total infrastructure to support them. In rural areas, we have a UK demand? situation where you often have to travel a long distance to get to a petrol station, because there are fewer and Marcus Stewart: Total UK demand today is about fewer in those areas. That is an example of how charging 50 or 55 GW. your electric vehicle at home and occasionally using public charging makes an electric vehicle quite a virtuous Q45 Rob Marris: That is 12% or 13% of total electricity vehicle to drive. generation. On your point about incentivisation on the grid Marcus Stewart: If everyone charged at exactly the management side—smart charging—we have a progression: same time. Studies have shown that behaviours are such the benefit of smart and managed charging is that it that around about 20% charge at the same time. You mitigates investments that the distribution network operator immediately,without incentivising people, just with normal has to make in copper in the ground, for example. We behaviour, reduce that down to 1.5 GW. If you then need to work out how the incentives travel from the apply smart charging incentives, you can reduce that by beneficiary—the reduced investment on the part of the a further 84%, and that— DNO—through tariffs to the EV driver so that the EV driver is effectively part of the smart charging proposition Q46 Rob Marris: Hang on—but we still have to and we do not have a situation where the smart charging generate the electricity. For shorthand, this is just a kind proposition occurs without them being involved in the of Economy 7 approach to the issue. loop. Marcus Stewart: Let’s just look at peak for the moment, and then I will talk about annuals. So you move from Q42 Mr Hayes: The essence of your point is that the 7 GW down to 1.5 GW and to around 400. You can see Bill and the debate that it stimulates will encourage that, very rapidly, the total system has to deliver a lot innovation and catalyse the demand management tools less when it is under stress, if you move to a smart that you describe. world. The system is designed to meet those peaks, so Robert Evans: The Bill gives the Office for Low you end up with generation outside those peaks being Emission Vehicles and other parts of the Government available. That generation is there to meet the demand the ability to keep pushing forward discussion and you have moved from 6 o’clock in the evening to 8 o’clock dialogue between the motor industry and the energy in the evening, 10 o’clock or whenever. The electricity sector to ensure that smart charging is part of our system from a pipes point of view and a capacity point future, because it explicitly expresses a desire to regulate of view is designed to meet those very high peaks. should smart charging not proceed. There is a desire to By applying smart charging, you can accommodate a explore this, but the Bill gives the Government powers lot of electrical vehicles without necessarily having to to help set an agenda that brings the groups together increase that overall total capacity at a total system and moves forward the smart charging agenda. level. If you have clusters of demand at a local level, Quentin Willson: Work is being done in America, you would expect there to be local reinforcement to notably by Tesla, where consumers charge their cars at accommodate that—fast charging, for example, can smart times and then, when the grid is out of balance, provide heavy loads at certain points on a system, but that electricity is sold back to the power companies. you would connect that to a slightly higher voltage tier These millions of electric cars become energy storage to ensure sufficient capacity.The system has the capability devices. This is another very important cycle of change to deal with it if the type of charging is smart. The that we need to look at. Any imbalance would be provisions put forward in the Bill make total sense to us. 25 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 26

Q47 Rob Marris: Do you think that the market will Quentin Willson: However, technology does exist that handle it, in terms of a tariff regime that incentivises would allow you to charge at a street lamp post, although midnight charging, or do you think that there needs to admittedly that could be for slow charging at night. For be regulatory intervention by the legislator—to spread people who do not have parking within their house and that load, literally? have to rely on the street, this facility could be available Marcus Stewart: We have seen in the past that people on every single lamp post in the UK. respond to the incentives of charging tariffs—these natural behaviours where people would plug in—but in Andy McDonald: The whole discussion has been the first instance the capability needs to be there. The predicated on the basis of saving the planet. What market then has the opportunity to provide the incentives about reducing emissions? In the context of automated to do that. I do not think it needs to be fully legislated vehicles and vehicles generally, it is all about their that you must plug in— obsolescence, not about sustainability. Given that we have talked about the updating of automated vehicles and the relationship of manufacturers with the end user Q48 Rob Marris: No, it is not that. I am saying that throughout the duration, are we missing a trick here? one way of doing it is regulation over the power supply Though there is nothing in the Bill that requires software and to say that you have got to make these incentives updates, necessarily there will be that relationship. available for midnight charging. Should that be regulatory, to bring it about, or do you think the market will do Should we not be thinking about a new way of using that? automated and electric vehicles across the piece? Should we be having people owning vehicles, or should we be Marcus Stewart: I think the market will do that. making the offer for that relationship to be maintained Suppliers would look at the cost to them of securing so that it is a sustainable product that can be revisited? more energy and they would look at the opportunities At the moment there is going to be an obligation to to trade that off against their portfolios. The market keep in touch with these automated vehicles for their should provide that. lifetime. We heard in earlier evidence that there will come a point where that is cut off. Are we talking about Q49 Richard Burden: Mr Evans in an earlier answer an opportunity for a whole new way of using the described the purpose of the Bill being to take reserve services provided by an independent, personal mode of powers to allow stepping in to stimulate the right kind transport? of infrastructure where the market does not provide it Quentin Willson: This is the big cycle of change now, already. May I press you a little more on what that is, like televisions, aeroplanes and the internet. We will see and on whether the Bill is hitting the right target? The car ownership decline and will be buying or leasing stress within the Bill is on the provision of charging vehicles as a service, not a product. The long-term infrastructure by what it describes as “large fuel retailers.” vision is that this is going to be based largely on A lot of the discussion we have had so far has been electricity and some on fuel-cell, and that we will be about the importance of having rapid availability of calling driverless vehicles on our phones to come and charging points, and sometimes smart charging points, collect us. They will then drive to our destinations in in a much more dispersed area than what might be what is known as a green wav; they will be hooked up described as large fuel retailers—typically, the motorway and connected to junctions, to the road system and to service areas. Is the emphasis on that right? If it is not traffic lights. These zero-emission, automated, self-driving the right emphasis, do those powers need to be applied cars will drive in platoons and, it is hoped, eliminate more broadly? If those reserved powers are applied congestion and pollution. That is the superordinate more broadly, what safeguards need to be in the Bill to goal, which perhaps is as near as 2040. But it will always ensure that unreasonable regulatory requirements are be powered by electricity. The whole structure of who not put on a whole dispersed range of potential electricity owns what is changing. As we are seeing with consumer suppliers? habits now, they are buying cars on personal contract Robert Evans: That is a good point. The powers that plans; they do not own things anymore. That is what the we are looking at are primarily around the provision of long-term future looks like. information to the user, the ability to have smart charging should you need it, and the interoperability. Those sorts Andrew Selous: Beginning with Quentin Willson, we of questions are dealt with in the Bill and are key topic are aware of the 2050 date that the Government have areas for the industry. On the question of where for all cars and vans to be zero-emission. My understanding infrastructure is located, supermarkets are an interesting for why that date was picked is that it is linked to the one. We have a situation in which not everybody has need to decarbonise the UK. To what extent do you off-street parking. When one comes to a place such as think the legal issues that the United Kingdom is having London, it is not practical to put charging all down with air quality at the moment mean that there might be London streets. Supermarkets become an extremely a case for revisiting the speed with which we try to practical, pragmatic place for charging to be accessible, electrify the market? At the same time, I would be along with retail shopping centres, in a crowded city interested in your comments on what is happening such as London. The consideration of that, along with internationally. I mentioned Norway and China earlier. motorway service areas, which is about allowing people There are different models and approaches that may to travel distances across the UK, are two strategic not be suitable for the United Kingdom, but I would be priorities. That is not to say that there are not other interested if you could speak to air quality and the areas. The Government have provided incentives for the international perspective on these issues. deployment of infrastructure in other locations and Quentin Willson: I had a meeting with the Secretary have obviously taken a view that maybe the market can of State for Transport in January to tell him exactly this. deliver in those locations. The brutal fact of the matter is that possibly only 10% 27 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 28 of consumers in the UK have driven an electric car; the Marcus Stewart: But every manufacturer has an electric vast majority are still hanging on to what I call the vehicle on their plan. Hybrids are bridging the gap. Clarkson effect—all that baggage about electric cars Company car drivers are being incentivised to drive being slow, hopeless and driven by people who read The hybrid vehicles because of the tax benefits. A market is Guardian and hug trees.That has set the whole electrification developing for these vehicles. They are there or thereabouts of UK roads back enormously. We do not have a way of from a proposition. connecting with consumers when it comes to electric Robert Evans: There are two points I would like to cars. We are informed, and the respondents to the make. The first one is from an industry perspective. We consultation are informed, but I have been talking to have been pressing the Government to have near-term groups of consumers for the past five years at test-drive targets for the increased deployment of electric vehicles. events, and you would be surprised how few of them In business, we all work to having three-year plans and have actually even sat in an electric car. having an idea about what happens in the short term— I believe that there is potential here for the Government, about what is a good aspiration for electric vehicle and that is what I told Chris Grayling. I believe that roll-out. Our infrastructure follows the vehicles at this there is potential for us to have national test-drive stage, so we are particularly keen that the Government events whereby people can go to supermarkets, drive should set near-term targets for electric vehicle roll-out. 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 Q53 Andrew Selous: What is your near-term target bad it is and how unfeasible for their lifestyle, and then for, say, 2020? they come out as a completely converted person, who goes on to convert other people. It must be an extremely Robert Evans: We want to cross the 5% mark in terms important part of the Government’s strategy to talk to of total vehicle sales and head towards 10%, but I the consumers out there who have little or no faith in cannot translate that immediately into numbers. 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 Q54 Andrew Selous: It is quite confusing to talk move forward and to engage people with the process of about percentages of new car sales. What is that in electric cars. numbers of vehicles on the roads? Robert Evans: There are two points here. First, it is Q50 Andrew Selous: I think your thesis is a sound easier to set targets for new vehicle sales. Secondly, to one, but may I press you first on the date and secondly return to the air quality point, we want to have electric on the international question? vehicles in our city centres—be they hydrogen fuel cell Quentin Willson: We will probably make 2050 if we or battery electric—because they are zero emissions at really pull our finger out. Norway has put incentives point of source. We also need to do something about behind this and really pushed, but there is a different the vehicles that are already out there with petrol and culture there—there is a culture that embraces change diesel engines. and environmental issues more than we have. Selling There is a subtlety in the Bill, which I would be keen electric cars on the basis of environmental issues has to explore, that relates to vehicle testing. At the moment not worked in the UK—people are interested only in in the UK we have a regime where vehicles are tested fiscal benefits. Ours is a different model, and we really thoroughly and certified to initial standards, but thereafter need to bring the public with us. If we do that and we our inspection and maintenance regime is quite lax, in make special provision to do this, we will make 2050. If that it is of a static vehicle with an engine probe up the we don’t, we won’t. exhaust. Quentin Willson: And there is no particulates test Q51 Andrew Selous: Mr Stewart, did you want to whatsoever. come in? Robert Evans: No particulates. In other countries, Marcus Stewart: You talked about carbon emissions, such as Australia and the US, they have a much tighter but the other benefit of electric vehicles is in relation to regime on inspection and maintenance.They have particular NOx emissions, which have moved much higher up the tests where the vehicle is put under dynamic load and its public agenda. These vehicles offer a solution for cities. emissions are measured—one test is called the I/M 240. That is something that in my mind would accelerate the I want to be sure that in the testing section there is deployment of electric vehicles, particularly with city carry-over, so that you retain the power, perhaps under Mayors taking a view about what transport should or proposed section 65B(3) in part 4 of the Bill, to revisit should not be in their city. We could see 1 million the nature of emissions testing in service, inspection vehicles by the early 2020s, according to our latest set of and maintenance in the UK. You should also look at scenarios, and about 10 million by 2040, if there is the the MOT for electric vehicles, because what happens as support and the infrastructure and if, as Quentin said, the vehicles get a bit older has yet to be fully formalised. the value proposition for the consumer continues in the That is a request to the Committee to consider those direction it is going. I think it is continuing— two points. Quentin Willson: In the MOT test, the MOT inspector Q52 Andrew Selous: May I just press you on the will tell you that, for a car to fail on particulate emissions, numbers? I am very interested that you refer to 1 million it must be impossible to see out of the back window vehicles by the early 2020s. Last September, we had because of the smoke—I am not kidding. This is something 87,000 ultra low electric vehicles on our roads, so it is that we could really do to help to clean the roads of quite a leap to 1 million in four or five years’ time. these very, very smoky old cars. 29 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 30

Q55 Richard Burden: To try to get a more rapid pace Robert Evans: The other alternative is low emission of development towards meeting the 2050 target, we zones, and we could do that. London’s low emission have talked about infrastructure as part of that mix and zone, followed by an ultra low emission zone, is the about tackling anxiety—Quentin referred to that—and direction of travel that a lot of cities would like to take. trying to ensure that consumers are not scared about They want to do it in a staged format, working to electric vehicles, which can be good to drive. The third national guidance as to what constitutes the standards element is, in a sense, disincentives to drive other than you would set for access, so that a motorist travelling in ultra low or zero emissions vehicles through beefing up the UK can know whether they can gain access to the the MOT test and whatever. low emission zone and the ultra low emission zone as The other thing is the carrot that goes with that stick. they move from city to city. That is a particularly What are the right consumer incentives that could be important activity. It is not covered in the scope of this put in place to encourage the take-up of electric vehicles? Bill as such, but low and ultra low emission zones are Let us face it: at the moment, they are pricey, so many one of the key ways of incentivising the right kind of buyers—certainly private buyers—will not be able to behaviour.The second-hand market is incredibly important, afford an electric or other ultra low emissions vehicle. and it makes those vehicles more accessible. What do you think about the changes there have been in Company car taxation is a particular favourite that Government policy on that, where measures such as the helps to drive electric vehicles into a market where plug-in car grant have come down rather than gone up? others would not. The lightbulb has gone on with fleets. Quentin Willson: On pricing, the general consensus is Previously, they would operate a diesel-only policy. that an electric car is probably double the price of a “You never got sacked for buying IBM,”was the traditional conventional car. That is not broadly the case. What we term, then, “You never got sacked for buying diesel,” are not doing enough is incentivising and telling people and that has now switched. They can see that the motor about used electric cars. Your seven-month-old Nissan industry is not going to support that in the long term LEAF, which started with a list price of £25,000 after and that they need to make a change. They are now the grant, is now available for £13,000. All these electric embracing what they can see is the future that they need cars are coming off company fleets and going into the to have in their fleet. market, and consumers do not realise that that is a Quentin Willson: Any benefits in kind that the Treasury really effective way of getting an EV at a low price. If can keep going must be kept going if possible. The you buy a Nissan LEAF or a Renault ZOE for £6,000, plug-in grant has been really significant. which is possible, that investment is paid back within three years in terms of fuel, maintenance and road tax. It is a really compelling proposition. Q58 Tom Tugendhat: Forgive me; in relation to the cycles that we are talking about in introducing new Q56 Richard Burden: Is that not a double-edged one? technology, as you correctly identified Quentin, the way For the market in new electric vehicles to take off, the we are going is towards transport as a service rather fleet market will be important to that, and one thing than as an item. If that is so, then presumably automatic that will be important to it is some certainty over vehicles will, rather like those vacuum cleaners you get residual values. Therefore, the low residual values at the in homes, be able to drive themselves to a car park moment, which might be an incentive to the private car somewhere, charge themselves up during the downtime buyer, are a disincentive to the big take-up of new EVs and come back out again, at which point we are talking by fleets. Is that fair? about investing an enormous amount of public money into an infrastructure system that will, within 20 years—you Quentin Willson: But if we have volume, the were referring to 2040—be redundant. That is quite a manufacturers’ prices will come down, and they are short timescale for large-scale infrastructure investment coming down. If you look at a Mitsubishi Outlander to be redundant. plug-in hybrid electric vehicle compared with a diesel hybrid one, they are the same price. Residuals on things Quentin Willson: But that infrastructure investment like Teslas and Renault ZOEs are quite good. The will also be used for this new breed of autonomous cars, market is levelling off, and we will find that prices and because they will all be plug-in. They will be all be residual values start to firm up. Price guides and the electric. motor industry still do not value electric cars properly. We will see a strengthening of residuals as demand Q59 Tom Tugendhat: But presumably they will be increases and a lowering of prices as manufacturers get plugging themselves in, rather than the current vehicles their volume and their supply up. that require somebody to get up, pick up a wire and stick it into a vehicle. Q57 Richard Burden: Perhaps you could answer a Quentin Willson: I do not think that is a given at all. question about the idea of Government action on consumer You will still have to have manual interference in that incentives. Is there more that could be done? What process, unless we can get to the stage where we have should be the targets? automatic wireless charging in the roads. To wait for Quentin Willson: There are simple things like free that to come— on-street parking everywhere in the UK for electric vehicles, use of bus lanes and some form of priority. The Americans have had huge success with priority Q60 Tom Tugendhat: I am not sure that is necessarily lanes for electric vehicles. We need to think about the to come. It is not beyond the wit of man to imagine that stuff that you cannot buy, the things that give people an a car pulls up into a dock, and a little arm goes out. advantage in city centres if they drive an ultra low That is not the structure that we are intending to build emission or electric vehicle. right now. 31 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 32

Quentin Willson: That is further away than you think. artificial intelligence to be able to progress. It is one We would have to have a commonality of autonomous thing to go down the motorway at high speed with clear cars, and somebody will own these autonomous cars lines; it is completely different to go down Fulham and there will be charging stations. They will broadly Road at 7 o’clock in the evening on a very busy day. resemble the ones that we are lobbying for now. This There is a lot of work still to be done. vision of the arm that comes out and charges your pod, The good thing about the Bill is that it is the first time if you like, is still some way away. that automated vehicles have figured in UK legislation. Robert Evans: Inductive charging has been referenced This is the beginning of a process that makes the UK a today: charging along the motorway as a form of dynamic potential lead market for the deployment of this technology. inductive charging. Static inductive charging is when It will be hugely beneficial for our motor industry if we you drive over a pad and that pad is then able to charge are able to be receptive and responsive to what we can your vehicle. The groundworks for all the current charge all see will deliver huge value societally, in terms of points can potentially be adapted to deploy inductive reduced accidents or the ability of people to move when charging, as that starts to come through into the market. they are older or infirm, or younger people who cannot I do not think that is so much of an issue. We do not drive vehicles. There could be huge benefits to society, assume that what we deploy as charge points now will and this at least starts the process of making the UK be as is in a 20 or 30-year timeframe; they are going ecosystem autonomous vehicle-friendly. to be updated over time as suits the vehicles coming to Quentin Willson: And to create literally tens of thousands market. of jobs, bring billions—that is not an exaggeration—of Quentin Willson: As we are doing now, in effect. investment to the UK, and a new product cycle and a Robert Evans: As we are doing now, yes. new consumption and production. We should be the world leader in this stuff. Q61 Tom Tugendhat: What would you change in the Bill to make sure that that level of infrastructure change Q63 Alan Brown: On roll-out and testing, is further is more active? testing suggested? One of the suggestions made on Robert Evans: I do not think it is necessary to change Second Reading was that the vehicles have not been the Bill, in the sense that as the vehicles start to come tested in snow conditions yet, and there was a suggestion forward, the charge point infrastructure suppliers will that different weather variables may need to be looked start to bring forward commercially available inductor at. Robert gave the example of a busy Fulham Road at charging. At the moment, we talk about people having 7 o’clock at night. One example I gave on Second that in their garage for particular vehicles, but at the Reading was the single-track roads in Scotland, on moment those are not inductive vehicles, other than, which, if two vehicles drive head-on, somebody has to say, for some bus operations and the like. It is early make the decision to back up to the nearest layby. Are pre-commercial. there things like that that still need to be robustly looked at? Q62 Alan Brown: Is the technology used to operate Quentin Willson: I am afraid I am not expert in this autonomous vehicles safe and reliable at present? autonomous technology,but there will have to be algorithms that can solve that and there will certainly have to be a Quentin Willson: That is a difficult question. Where testing regime. do we begin? There have been some very successful trials of autonomous vehicles in America and Europe, Robert Evans: For connected and autonomous vehicles, and they have collectively driven many millions of miles there is now funding set aside for a series of demonstrations with an infinitesimal amount of accidents. Significantly, of different types. Those will reflect the real world as they have driven in traffic. In Los Angeles, Nissan, well as the virtual world in which the technology will be Toyota, Lexus and Volvo have had great success in speedily developed before being put out into controlled driving autonomous cars in traffic, which have mixed demonstration environments and, ultimately, on to the in successfully. open road. The UK is well placed, with activities and the announcements in the Budget, to do the preparatory However, it would not be fair of us to say that there is work and the learning to make the UK a receptive not a great challenge. Ironically, the challenge comes environment for these vehicles to be deployed in and to probably not from autonomous cars themselves but deal with exactly the type of use cases you referenced. other road users, some of whom may just think, “I’m going to have a go here.” All of the insurance legislation Quentin Willson: However, it is possible to say that needs to be sorted out, but we need to absolutely with autonomous vehicles you might even reduce the understand that there will be a period of some pain. amount of accidents in the UK, because it is 90% More than that I cannot give you. human error. The 2,000 fatalities we have in the UK on our roads a year have plateaued and are due entirely to Robert Evans: It is a tremendous opportunity for the people making mistakes. If we put this technology in, UK motor industry. The industry has sought to progress that death toll could conceivably come down significantly. and be competitive around new technologies, with low- carbon vehicles being one and connecting and autonomous vehicles being another. We have a series of projects in Q64 Mr Hayes: It is good to hear you make the case the UK—with both technology development and now for us being pre-eminent in this field. The Government with funding set aside in the Budget for demonstration are certainly determined to make this country a world locations—to be able to work through, understand the leader. Returning to the issue of infrastructure, what issues, and test and understand the state of development are your views on on-street charging infrastructure? of the technology. There is something like 1 million We spoke a bit about petrol stations, service stations, lines of software involved in making a vehicle have the supermarkets and so on. Other places—Paris is a good 33 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 34 example—have done quite a lot of work on spreading of infrastructure. We now are learning that the major on-street charging infrastructure quite evenly across the US supplier,ChargePoint, is looking to bring its technology city. What more could Government do on that? into the UK market. We have had BluePoint, which is the Bolloré scheme, and others. They will bring what In that spirit, what about the design of these charging they view as the norm in their markets into our markets. points? Governments have not been entirely hopeless in Quentin Willson: We could have a competition, could past decades on that—one thinks of the Gilbert Scott we not? telephone box, the Belisha beacon or the post box. In recent years it has perhaps been not so good, but we can Robert Evans: We could, but I think there would be a do good things. Should we think more about the design resistance among the industry to effectively move to one of the charging points and what they look like, to make standard shape of pole. You have a post and you plug them instantly recognisable, iconic and widely respected into it, but the innovation is occurring in the way you and admired as such? access it. That is more about people using smartphones to input information and say, for example, “I want to Quentin Willson: There is a powerful argument for charge for this period. I’m prepared to pay this. I might making them iconic as part of this new and very important be prepared, if you incentivise me, to allow my vehicle cycle of change that will make our lives better. In to have managed charging, as long as it has so many Bordeaux, they have a proliferation of on-street charges kilowatt-hours in it by the time I come back.” That because they have a fleet of little electric cars that you type of interface is where there will be a lot of can just go up and hire for the day, the hour or the innovation. The poles themselves work to pretty standard quarter of an hour and then return to a little charging methodologies, and motorists are used to using them. pod. It is a huge investment, but it works extremely well, The clever bit in the design will be about the user and of course it limits the amount of traffic coming interface on the smartphone app that enables smart and into cities because those cars are available. It would managed charging. benefit us hugely if we started to think about urban car club schemes that are just electric cars and the proliferation, The Chair: Mr Baker, I fear we are now running out as with the Boris bikes, of a recognisable charging pole of time and so cannot get you in. May I thank our three on the street. It would also help all those people who do witnesses for their extremely useful and interesting evidence? not have parking to charge their cars. I am sure it will help to inform Committee members Robert Evans: Members of the association take the better in their consideration of the Bill later this week. view that they can produce an iconic charge point that 11.25 am is recognisable as their own brand. They have been in that business and have tried to make the best use of The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question their equipment and make it as attractive as it can be. In put (Standing Order No. 88). the UK, we have quite a dynamic market for the supply Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY AND AVIATION BILL

Second Sitting Tuesday 14 March 2017

(Afternoon)

CONTENTS Examination of witnesses. Adjourned till Thursday 16 March at half-past Eleven o’clock. Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 143) 2016 - 2017 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 18 March 2017

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2017 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 35 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 36

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: JAMES GRAY,†JOAN RYAN

† Baker, Mr Steve (Wycombe) (Con) † Malthouse, Kit (North West Hampshire) (Con) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) † Marris, Rob (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab) † Burden, Richard (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab) † Matheson, Christian (City of Chester) (Lab) † Doyle-Price, Jackie (Thurrock) (Con) † Prentis, Victoria (Banbury) (Con) † Foxcroft, Vicky (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) † Selous, Andrew (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) † Fuller, Richard (Bedford) (Con) Snell, Gareth (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op) † Hayes, Mr John (Minister of State, Department for Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) Transport) † Tugendhat, Tom (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) † Hendry, Drew (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) Ben Williams, Farrah Bhatti, Committee Clerks † Knight, Sir Greg (East Yorkshire) (Con) † McDonald, Andy (Middlesbrough) (Lab) † attended the Committee

Witnesses

Steve Nash, Chief Executive Officer, Institute of the Motor Industry

Teresa Sayers, Chief Executive, Downstream Fuel Association

Edward Woodall, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, Association of Convenience Stores

Ben Howarth, Senior Policy Adviser for Motor and Liability, Association of British Insurers

Iain Forbes, Head, Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles

Richard Moriarty, Group Director of Consumers and Markets and Deputy Chief Executive, Civil Aviation Authority

John de Vial, Director of Financial Protection, Association of British Travel Agents

Captain Martin Drake, Chairman of the BALPA Security Group, British Airline Pilots Association

Steve Landells, Flight Safety Specialist, British Airline Pilots Association

Commander Simon Bray, National Policing Lead for Airport Policing, Metropolitan Police

Chief Inspector Richard Goodwin, Metropolitan Police

Captain Paul Watts, Chief Pilot, National Police Air Services 37 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 38

Edward Woodall: Also, there is the question of how Public Bill Committee we define “large fuel retailer” in the Bill to determine whether a retailer has the capacity for electric vehicle Tuesday 14 March 2017 charging points on their sites. That is quite a difficult task to deliver in regulation, because this is quite a diverse and different sector. That could take into account (Afternoon) fuel volumes and number of sites, and it would also have to take into account size of sites, as Teresa was [JOAN RYAN in the Chair] saying, in terms of having the space for people to charge their vehicles on the site. Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill I suppose there is also a concern about the desire of consumers to charge in those locations. The Government’s 2 pm own evidence suggests that 95% of vehicle users currently The Committee deliberated in private. charge at home; 26% then charge their vehicles in workplaces; and only 12% look to charge their vehicles in public spaces. Would they choose to do that on fuel Examination of Witnesses sites? It is a question; I am not sure. Do the fuel sites Steve Nash, Teresa Sayers and Edward Woodall gave have the capacity to deliver in this way? Only 11% of evidence. our members have seating areas in their forecourt sites, so what does someone do for the 30 minutes if there are 2.1 pm rapid charging facilities on those sites? Q65 The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from There are other logistical issues around whether sites the Institute of the Motor Industry, the Downstream have the capacity to deliver that energy. Electric vehicle Fuel Association and the Association of Convenience charging points will need a direct connection with the Stores. We have until 3 pm for this session. Could the grid; obviously, that does not cover all sites across the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record, board. So there is a real challenge in how you define in starting with Mr Woodall? regulations a large fuel retail site, and whether it has Edward Woodall: Good afternoon. I am Ed Woodall. capacity to deliver those services. I am head of policy and public affairs at the Association of Convenience Stores, which represents 33,500 local Q67 Richard Burden: The Bill refers to “large fuel shops and 8,000 forecourt retailers across the UK. retailers”. Evidence that we heard this morning rather suggested that what will make or break the expansion of Teresa Sayers: I am Teresa Sayers. I am the chief electric charging infrastructure is much broader than executive of the Downstream Fuel Association. We motorway service areas. There was a lot of discussion represent the non-refining companies and major about supermarkets, what to do around on-street parking supermarkets. and smart charging at home. I will press you a bit Steve Nash: I am Steve Nash. I am the chief executive further on whether your reservations about the parts of of the Institute of the Motor Industry, which is the the Bill relating to electric charging are concerns about professional body for individuals working in the motor Ministers being given regulation-making powers to mandate industry. others to provide charging points to certain specifications. Or do you basically accept that principle, but think that Q66 Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): the provisions are targeted wrongly in focusing on large Welcome. I have two sets of questions. The first is fuel retailers? probably principally to Mr Woodall and Ms Sayers, and Edward Woodall: The latter. I understand the principle the second is principally to Mr Nash. On the Bill’s and the objectives, but is it right to focus this purely on provisions on electric charging points, I think it is fair to fuel sites, when the evidence suggests that consumers say that your two organisations have been rather more are perhaps not looking to go to those sites to charge critical of what the Government are suggesting than a their vehicles? There is also a concern about whether it number of others. Can you outline why you think they matches up with what drivers will do while they are are going in the wrong the direction with the provisions charging their vehicles. It makes sense to have charging on charging infrastructure? points in an area where they might be going to the Teresa Sayers: First, we welcome the opportunity to cinema or the shops, as opposed to having them on a comment on the Bill and work with the Government on forecourt site, which may not have the space or the retail looking at ways to build up the infrastructure for electric capacity to deal with that issue. vehicles. I represent four major retailers, and my members We also put, in our submission, evidence about ways already have some provision for electric charging points to incentivise other partners to use this system—for within their infrastructure. example,changes to the national planning policy framework We believe that the emphasis on petrol forecourts is might give more specific direction on where charging wrong for a number of reasons, not least because the points should go, so that local plans could be informed configuration of forecourts does not lend itself to allowing by that, and capacity could be increased across the board. cars to be placed there for in excess of 20 to 30 minutes. We provide electric charging points, as I say, but they Q68 Richard Burden: Can I can come to Mr Nash on are exclusively in the car parks of our stores and at head a different area? In the written evidence you provided, offices. We are looking closely at how we can further you put quite a lot of emphasis on the importance of develop provision along those lines, but we are very training and accreditation for people working on these concerned about the emphasis on placing them in the charging points and autonomous vehicles in the future. forecourt. Could you say a little bit more about your concerns? 39 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 40

Steve Nash: Absolutely.I think it is worth understanding Q69 Richard Burden: Could you outline how it would a little bit about our sector. Everybody knows we have a work? In other words, how would the Government, or franchise sector,and we tend to talk about the independent whoever, define the vehicles that would require licensed sector, but that is a catch-all phrase. There are about people to work on them, and what things they would 40,000 businesses in there, ranging from Halfords and need to work on? For example, some might say you Kwik Fit down to a man working on someone’s drive. should not have to be licensed in order to check the Right now, of all the technicians out there working tyres; that is different from working on the electrics. on cars—there are just under 200,000 people we know There is potential for this to be a difficult area for of, but there are probably quite a few that we do not definition. know of, because they do not necessarily belong to a Steve Nash: We have worked very closely with trade body or anything else—only about 1% are qualified manufacturers to define three levels of accreditation. to work on high-voltage electrics. Let us make no mistake Level 2 says you can work safely on the passive systems of about this: you have to be licensed to work on domestic the car, so you are still going to have steering and electrics, and I would venture to suggest that the electrics suspension. I was going to say brakes, but actually a lot in an electric car are potentially more lethal than the of these cars have regenerative brakes, so even that is mains. We are talking about direct current—more than potentially risky. The second level of accreditation is enough to fry you—so you do have to be properly knowing how to switch off the high-level electronics trained and know what you are doing. In this sense, a and knowing what you should not touch, because there car is not a car, just because it looks like a car. These are are certain systems on the car that have very high the biggest technical changes we have seen for 100 years. residual currents in them, even when the car is turned This is not an evolution of old technology—this is new off. technology. Level 4 accreditation is for people who are properly We know that the manufacturers will do what they trained to work on the high-voltage systems, which need to do to ensure that their franchise dealers can include the control systems and the battery packs. Working cope. Most of them are already using our accreditation with manufacturers, we have refined that to understand scheme to qualify people at different levels, including that it covers the entirety of their own group of technicians knowing what you should not do and how to disable the working in their franchise. electrics to work on other non-high-voltage systems safely. The higher level is for working on the high-voltage The Chair: If Members wish to remove their jackets, systems. that would be fine. Let us try to keep questions and If you really want these cars to proliferate, there are a answers crisp. couple of problems. One is that right now it can cost you up to 50% more to insure one of these cars, because Q70 Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con): the insurance industry is quite aware that there is a I have a question for Ms Sayers and Mr Woodall. I limited repair market out there. If your car has been in understand your concerns, because it is quite a change an accident, you need somebody who knows what they to your business model, but are you not missing out on are doing to put the thing back together, and the future potential? Given that we all expect this to be a industry is assuming a higher cost because there is a growing and significant market, do you not want to be limited repair market. That will continue unless you part of it, to capture that revenue? Are you not looking find a way of engaging the wider market, and the wider at other ways to make money around this, reimagining market will not readily make that step because there is your business model a bit? cost involved, so it becomes a chicken and egg situation. Teresa Sayers: Absolutely. My members are very As I said, there is a very real health and safety issue. keen to engage in the development of alternative fuels You do not see it now, because there are 32 million cars infrastructure. As I said earlier, they already have some on the road that do not have this technology, and there provision, they are actively exploring how best to develop is plenty to go round in the service and repair market. that and they will happily work with the Government There are cars that have been around for a while, such on that, but their considerations as to where it would be as the Toyota Prius models and so on, but we know appropriate to place these additional electric vehicle from our own experience that a lot of the independent sites are around convenience, the identification of strategic guys do not touch those—they pass them back to the corridors, the proximity of the car parks to other retail dealers—because they do not need that work to make a parks, the duration of time that shoppers typically living. However, as these cars proliferate—and that is spend within stores and the size of the car park. All of everyone’s intention; if you look at the product plans these considerations are around existing car parks, so that all of the manufacturers have at all the motor there is a willingness for and understanding of the shows, it is all about plug-in hybrids and electric cars, so potential growth of this. We are playing our part, but these cars will proliferate—if you want a competitive we maintain that the forecourt is not the appropriate market for servicing these cars, you need the independent place to put this emphasis. sector to engage. Edward Woodall: I agree. This is about whether the To make that happen, first you need regulations to development of the market needs to be regulation-led protect people’s safety, and secondly you have to consider through the Bill, or whether it needs to be led through using some of the large fund—I believe it is something making the business case for the fact that this infrastructure like £600 million—that has been put aside to help move is going to grow. The question that comes back to the us in that direction. Some of that money should be Office for Low Emission Vehicles is about more research directed towards a training fund to help the independents to make a business case for businesses to have these on engage in the training that they need to work on the cars their forecourts, and about looking at using funding to safely. incentivise the introduction of this new infrastructure, 41 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 42 instead of enforcing it. That incentivising might be Q75 The Minister of State, Department for Transport done through business rates relief for people with very (Mr John Hayes): This is a question for Edward, and large business rates bills who put these on their then perhaps Steve. Given the need to ensure that we forecourt sites, or through direct Government funding have breadth in the charging infrastructure—not just to think about how to put these on the sites. There is number, but location—is it not important that we also this question of whether it should be regulation or base charging points in rural places, village shops and incentive-led. small post offices, rather than concentrating them in places that already have charging points? Similarly, is it Q71 Andrew Selous: Thank you. I have a final question not also important that we work with small garages, for Mr Nash. Hearing about the training needs of the rather than simply the major garages, to avoid creating industry, what preparation is going on in schools and an uneven distribution of charging points that would be further education colleges to set up courses so that we a major barrier to entry to the market for many potential have enough skilled technicians to service these vehicles consumers? Would you like to deal with that one before in future? I come on to my second question? Steve Nash: There are plenty of places around the Edward Woodall: Obviously, we do not want to be left country that can train people in the technology.Obviously, behind. The fuel retailers in our membership are looking over time, the new apprenticeship standards will evolve, at this at the minute. They have electronic vehicle charging but it has to be remembered that an apprenticeship is a points, but significant costs are associated with delivering start, not a finish—we are talking about lifelong learning that. Keeping pace with those costs, if we introduce here.Apprentices will not come out of their apprenticeships charging points by regulation, would be a challenge. It ready and available to work on the high-voltage electrics. would be even more of a challenge for village post That will take time, and that is additional training that offices and shops to have charging points on their sites. will come as they develop their career.Weas an organisation, Obviously, we do not want to be left behind, but I think a professional body, work with a network of 600 FE the industry will naturally fill that space where it is colleges, training companies and manufacturers’academies appropriate. around the country, many of which are capable of delivering this kind of training. As I said earlier on, it is Q76 Mr Hayes: We would not want to exaggerate or a sort of chicken and egg situation—a question of exacerbate the trend towards fewer places at which to supply and demand. They are ready to offer it once buy fuel and food. Steve, on your point about skills, this people have moved in that direction, but it will not morning, at a roundtable with the industry, the point happen on its own. was made that this might act as a spur to people who were keen to get into the industry. The excitement of the Q72 Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab): new technology, and of being part of an important, I want Ms Sayers to clarify a bit. The supermarket I go cathartic change, might attract more recruits. Have you to every week is, I suspect, like quite a lot of them. It come to any judgment on that and, if not, how can we has a large car park—it is one of the major multiples—and make that happen, as it is surely a good thing? alongside but distinct from that car park is a petrol Steve Nash: We are like every other industry: we are station, which is branded by the supermarket but is a competing hard for talent, and we are definitely using Shell station. As my hon. Friend the Member for the massive, incredibly exciting change we are going Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, the through to engage young people and show them that Bill gives “large fuel retailers” certain responsibilities. this is a cutting-edge, futuristic industry—so, absolutely. Would your members prefer the wording, “large retailers”, As the professional body for the industry, part of our to make that clearer? In the supermarket car park, raison d’être is to raise professionalism and bring new people may typically leave their car for 30 minutes. I am talent into the industry, and this a great catalyst for thinking of those old westerns where people hitch up that, yes. their horse outside the saloon—people hook up their car, grab a trolley, go in to do their 30-minute shop and, Q77 Mr Hayes: We heard from a witness this morning when they come out and unplug it, they have had a fast who suggested that we should have roadshows— charge. The charging points would therefore be better demonstrations of electric vehicles in different localities— placed in each parking bay for the supermarket proper, and that once people had tasted the fruit, they would which is not a large fuel retailer at the moment. Is that want more of it. That might also apply to people who more consonant with the way in which your members want work in the industry. Is this not about marketing are thinking? in a sense? Teresa Sayers: Very much so. Our apprehension about Steve Nash: Yes. We are very much involved in UK the wording is all about the location of the EV charging skills and world skills. We are at the Skills Show. Last point on a forecourt, for the reasons we have discussed. year, in co-operation with some of the manufacturers, we featured electric cars there, and it absolutely does Q73 Rob Marris: The word “fuel” in “large fuel pique interest. I very much go along with what you are retailers” is causing you to scratch your head a bit? saying. Teresa Sayers: Yes, absolutely. Mr Hayes: Good. Thank you. Q74 Rob Marris: “Large retailers” would be more palatable for your members. Am I right? Richard Burden: I should declare an interest. I am Teresa Sayers: Yes. honorary fellow of the Institute of the Motor Industry. It is non-pecuniary, but I thought I had better put that Rob Marris: Thank you. That is very helpful. on the record. 43 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 44

Q78 Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Q82 Mr Baker: That is what I imagined. To make a Strathspey) (SNP): I want to ask a question similar to profit, you need to get people through as swiftly as that asked by the Minister. Earlier, we were talking possible, get them in the shop spending as much money about the need to look not just at fuel stations as the as possible, and then on they go. Hopefully, they are only charging point locations. There is an issue of happy and have had the service they want. unintended consequences, arising perhaps from a lack Edward Woodall: It is not quite that simple, but yes. of strategy and thinking over the deployment of charging points. Similar to the situation with village shops, in Q83 Mr Baker: Suppose you had an energy source your view, is there a risk if we concentrate, for example, that could be changed quickly, instead of over half an on large retailers, that we could see a further impact on hour, would your current business model work? If, for high streets because there would be a disincentive to go example, we used hydrogen, as we were discussing this there? A follow-up question would be, do you believe morning, your business model would continue to work that enough work has been done and consideration in the same way, would it not? given to other technologies such as in-road inductive charging as a possible solution to those conundrums? Edward Woodall: Yes, but obviously the investment Edward Woodall: Obviously we do not want further for putting hydrogen on fuel sites is significant. We disincentives for people going to high streets. That asked fuel retailers about the cost of putting on electric comes back to the point I made earlier about how we vehicle charging points, and the estimate was between can encourage this more widely. Perhaps we should £50,000 and £60,000 per site, depending on the site. look at the planning system and the national planning That increases significantly for hydrogen sites, because policy framework to ensure that people and planners the infrastructure behind that is much bigger and more are thinking about where to put charging points in expensive, and it is a harder case to make because fewer future. I agree that we do not want to focus too much on consumers use that type of fuel source. one particular area. We should follow where the consumers—the people who have electric vehicles at the Mr Baker: Does anybody else wish to add anything moment—are going. They are saying that they want to on that point? No? Thank you very much. charge in locations that are convenient for them. It is not necessarily in fuel retailer sites, but in car parks and Q84 Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): leisure facilities, on high streets and in other car park Earlier, in the discussion with Rob, there was discussion areas. That might include village shops and convenience about phraseology—about large fuel retailers or just stores. retailers—and an issue with forecourts. I want to clarify Teresa Sayers: I support everything that Ed said. It is something. I am not sure if forecourts are mentioned in very much about destination and convenience. When the Bill, so is that a red herring? Is it not going to be up you look at such criteria, a variety of alternatives offer to the retailers to site the charging points where they are themselves up as being appropriate for the positioning most convenient? of EV charging points. Following on from the previous question, if you are not blocking the forecourt, a rapid charger may take Q79 Drew Hendry: Can I press you for some thoughts 30 minutes, but is that not an opportunity for sales if it on other charging technologies? That was the last part is the shops that make all the money? I would have of my question. thought that for somebody who is travelling, if it is an Edward Woodall: I do not have a great deal to add on intermediate store, it would be an ideal opportunity to that. park and charge their car, go into the shop, buy a newspaper or a magazine and a few snacks, sit in their Q80 Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): Mr Woodall, car, then move on. Is there not a business opportunity if I understood correctly—I listened very carefully to there? the answer about business models, because the same Edward Woodall: Yes, there is. As we said in our question occurred to me—you said you do not wish to submission, only 11% of sites have seating areas for be forced, but you would be happy to be paid one way customers, so there might not be the capacity to manage or another to take charging stations. I am not surprised, all that. Equally, how big is a forecourt site? Think but you did not mention profit as an incentive to about your local forecourt site—how many cars can it provide this service to consumers. Can you elaborate? fit? For some of these electric vehicle charging areas, Why did you not mention the potential to make a profit they will not consider it unless it is an acre or an out of charging? acre-and-a-half-sized site. Edward Woodall: Obviously there is a benefit to having Teresa Sayers: Certainly, the charging sites would charging on a site. I suppose I am focusing, in the have to be on the periphery of a forecourt. The current context of the Bill, on how it will work in retailers’ configuration of estates has very limited space to thinking about investing in something that is developing accommodate any parked vehicles. As was previously in the long term. mentioned, the business model is a very high throughput of vehicles. The maximum duration on the forecourt is Q81 Mr Baker: Is it just not profitable to provide usually below five minutes—they fill up, pay and leave. charging to people? It is just not built and configured to have additional Edward Woodall: Petrol forecourt sites make their cars there for a very long period of time. money out of the shop. They do not make their money out of the fuel or the electric charging. That is a very Q85 Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con): I low-margin part of their business. That is why you are want to ask about brevity. Mr Woodall, I have to seeing so much investment in the sector. confess that I cannot ever remember spending more 45 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 46 than five or 10 minutes in a convenience store—presumably, how the hydrogen is required, whether as a gas or a that is why they are called convenience stores, because it liquid. Either way, there is a long way to go. I think is convenient and quick—so I cannot quite see the there are only two places in the south-east of England model of me pulling up in my electric car, plugging in that could deliver hydrogen if you wanted it at the for the half an hour or even 15 minutes, and spending moment. that time in the convenience store, particularly when the number of spaces will necessarily be limited. There will Q89 Kit Malthouse: There are six actually. not be 15 or 20 spaces; you might perhaps have two, Steve Nash: Maybe I am out of date but, even so, that which might therefore be full the whole time. Do your is not a lot. It will come, but there are technical members really see this as a big business opportunity or complications. The battery electric cars are the ones is there a Government subsidy available so you might as that are going to proliferate first. well take it? Edward Woodall: I agree with all those points. I think The Chair: Do Members have any further questions it is difficult in our format of retail to deliver electric for this panel? No? I thank the panel for their time and charging, given that both on forecourts and in convenience co-operation. stores, there is large throughput and we are usually in areas of small parades where there are limited parking Examination of Witnesses spaces, or they are on forecourts that are likewise limited Ben Howarth and Iain Forbes gave evidence. for parking space. 2.35 pm Q86 Kit Malthouse: So on your earlier point on the Q90 The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from greater investment required for hydrogen, given that the Association of British Insurers and the Centre for hydrogen requires no behavioural charge—you refuel in Connected and Autonomous Vehicles. Could the witnesses about the same amount of time as you do a current please introduce themselves for the record, starting with internal combustion engine—the throughput of people Mr Forbes? might be greater, so the return on investment could be Iain Forbes: My name is Iain Forbes. I am head of a higher. Rather than having two people sitting there for team called the Centre for Connected and Autonomous half an hour, you might have 30 people going through Vehicles, which is a policy team based in the Department who would therefore spend commensurately more, even for Transport and the Department for Business, Energy though the initial investment might be more. and Industrial Strategy. Edward Woodall: In terms of the hydrogen market, Ben Howarth: I am Ben Howarth. I am policy adviser we are a long way off hydrogen being— for motor insurance at the ABI. As part of that I have led all our work on the Automated Driving Insurance Q87 Kit Malthouse: That is what everybody keeps Group and drafted our response to the CCAVconsultation saying. There is a body of us who do not necessarily buy that pre-empted the Bill. that, but okay, I understand that. Edward Woodall: It is hard for me to answer and Q91 Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab): Good model that— 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 Q88 Kit Malthouse: I understand that. I have one of State says are automated vehicles. Clearly, some other question, which is about the very high voltage thought has gone into the criteria for so-designated required for fast charging. On an existing petrol or vehicles. What are your own thoughts and observations diesel forecourt, you are not even supposed to use your on how we can be sure we are getting that set of criteria mobile phone because of the possibility of some kind of correct? arc or charging gas. Is there a safety issue with the incredibly high voltage that is required to charge a car Ben Howarth: From an insurance perspective, that is in half an hour and the possibility of arcing in an one of the clauses we particularly welcomed when we atmosphere of gasoline fumes? saw the Bill. One of our concerns in advance was that it would not be clear to the customer what cars needed Teresa Sayers: I am not qualified to answer that this new insurance system, so the clarification that the question. However, that is something that needs careful Government are going to take responsibility for doing consideration. There are technically qualified people that is really welcome. It means basically that we know who can give you a comprehensive answer. what cars we need to have this new insurance for, and Steve Nash: With current electric cars—no pun the customers will know that as well. intended—and the connections you make, there is very In terms of criteria, it is relatively simple. It is more little chance of arcing, but I understand that you are about the user than the technology.I think the technology not going to put volatile things next to high electric might not move that much, but it is the point where the charges. user can feel confident that, when the car is in automated I have some experience of hydrogen because I was mode, it can deal with everything. Thinking about the formerly on the board of BMW in the UK and we were worst-case scenario of an accident, if the car senses it is running hydrogen cars around London. Todeliver hydrogen going to go into emergency mode, the car is able to do as a liquid, it has to be stored at absolute zero. That is something to deal with that, which does not require the very, very complicated. It is also a very small molecule, driver to come back in. We feel that if there is any point so it permeates just about everything, so storing it is a where the driver needs to come back in, it is not really real challenge. We are talking about hydrogen fuel cells, an automated car. It is that tipping point where the car which are still kind of in their infancy. It depends on is completely capable of dealing with every situation. It 47 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 48 might not carry on driving, but, at the very least, it what your view is on whether that ought that to be the would do an emergency stop and get you into a safe person in charge of the vehicle, rather than the owner. stop manoeuvre. That is the tipping point, or distinction, We might have the perverse situation of a stolen vehicle that we see. being involved in an accident but, according to this, the Iain Forbes: Just to underline that, the measures in owner of the vehicle would be in the frame. Do you the Bill are designed to deal with the sorts of situations understand? where a vehicle can drive itself in automated mode and Ben Howarth: I think I know what clauses you are not require the oversight of a human when the driving referring to and my understanding of them is that that test is being operated. The particular mechanism by covers publicly owned vehicles and Crown Estate vehicles. which those vehicles are going to be certified is an active They would not have insurance because they do not topic of discussion at international regulatory forums. need them. In those cases, where it is a publicly owned We have actively participated in those discussions, but vehicle, the liability would fall on the public body. It is a we felt it was important to flag at the outset of the Bill separate arrangement for genuinely uninsured driving— that that would be clear to people in the insurance private cars that are uninsured. industry and elsewhere, to make sure they were able to understand which vehicles these measures apply to and Andy McDonald: That is really helpful. which ones they do not. Iain Forbes: That is exactly right. That clause covers Ben Howarth: In practice, we would be hoping that publicly owned vehicles. We anticipate the situation from an insurer’s perspective, it is pretty easy to find being similar to the situation at the moment for conventional that out, just by looking at the licence plate or the VIN vehicles. It is often the case that they self-insure, rather number. There would be a clear definition that this is a than going through an insurance company. car with automated functionality. Q94 Andy McDonald: I do not know what your Q92 Andy McDonald: Of course, we are now entering handle is on this, and that was terrific clarification, but a major shift, because we have to have insurers who are do you not see that it is possible to interpret it in the way going to be picking up the tab for accidents involving I did? A vehicle that has been stolen is not insured, but automated vehicles. Presumably, as we progress, we will the owner of the vehicle is picking up the cost, not the be getting errorless driving in automated vehicles. That person who stole it. is the objective, and incidents will result. Therefore, we Iain Forbes: Certainly, our legal team has been through should be looking forward to cheaper insurance policies, the regulations to effect that as the policy aim, but if the but that may not automatically be the case, if you Committee has comments, we have to look at it. pardon the pun. How progressed or how ready is the insurance industry to deliver products that would make Q95 Andy McDonald: Finally from me, we are in the fully automated vehicles accessible to people in terms of world of upgrades, which will present opportunities for costings, including the cost of insurance? manufacturers to continue to engage with the vehicle, in Ben Howarth: We are very advanced as an industry, effect. I was wondering whether you had applied your particularly in the UK. Because of the clear message minds to any future product liability exposures with the that the Government have given, we are perhaps ahead advent of new software. What does that mean in terms of our contemporaries in other countries. The two of those future liabilities and in terms of limitation, really important criteria in terms of the cost of insurance because current liability, once you part with the vehicle, will be the volume of accidents. We are fairly confident— has a 10-year limitation, although we have got some Thatcham Research has done quite a bit of research issues around extensions for people with disability insurance that suggests the number of accidents is going to come and so on? But if it is a product liability issue, there down a lot once we get automated driving. That will could be a succession of products that could give rise to obviously reduce the number of insurance claims, which liability.Is that factored into your thinking? Is it relevant? will inevitably have an impact on the cost of insurance. Have you dismissed it? One factor that we probably do not know about at Ben Howarth: That is very relevant. When the this point is the actual cost of the vehicles themselves, consultation first came out, one of the questions was, and how much they cost to repair. We might have “Do we bolt product liability into the motor insurance considerably fewer claims, but very high costs associated policy?” We looked at it in quite a lot of detail, and that with repair might have an impact. That said, that is was our initial assumption for how it would work. something that is happening already. Vehicle technology When we thought about it, those issues that you referred is changing a lot already, so it is not a case of a huge to and the fact that product liability only lasts for tipping point in technology once we switch to fully 10 years made it feel like too much of a change for automated cars. The technological change will happen product liability to be put directly into a Road Traffic more steadily, so I am very confident that the insurance Act situation. That is why we came to the conclusion industry is ready to deliver competitive insurance products that it should be a primary motor insurance policy, with that will be affordable, will help people and will make the option then to recover from manufacturers. them want to take up this technology. Our conclusion is that you probably do not need to change the product liability, as it is kind of a backstop Q93 Andy McDonald: Will you help me on another and it will not affect the original claimant. There might matter? When an accident is caused by an automated be a case on some occasions, if it is an older vehicle. We vehicle, we are told in the Bill that the insurer is liable do not know quite how the market is going to develop— for the damage, but when the automated vehicle is whether cars will be on the road for 10 years or longer in involved but is not insured, it is the owner of the vehicle this situation, or maybe the product liability will renew who is responsible for the damage. I am wondering itself every time there has been an upgrade. Let us 49 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 50 assume that it does not, and you do expire at 10 years. There is a significant degree of interest from insurers in My understanding is that there will still potentially be the next generation of technology as well; but it is the option for a civil liability claim, so you might be able probably fair to say that this Bill is more around a to argue that the manufacturer is not product liable, but level 4 car. I prefer to think of it as a binary distinction they are in effect acting as the driver, so there is another between automated and not-automated. I am not claim that you might be able to bring. completely convinced about the levels and how useful they will be for consumers. It is probably fair to say that Q96 Andy McDonald: You could be caught with a we think of it as level 4. person with a disability, or a child, who is not subject to ordinary limitation; it would be from the date of their Q98 Drew Hendry: Public confidence in autonomous majority. There could be an action on the attaining of vehicles will be critical in terms of how quickly we can that majority and your product liability recompense take advantage of some of the benefits that are portrayed from the manufacturer is effectively null and void. by the industry. Given that the technology largely exists, do you feel that the Bill is going to go far enough to Ben Howarth: Yes. I think that is factored in. The Bill encourage the uptake of autonomous vehicles? I am means that that is a problem for the insurer, rather than specifically interested in whether you feel that the the victim. I suppose part of the calculations that connectivity will allow a truly UK-wide uptake and also insurers will make is how many of those claims they will in rural areas, given that, as we have heard previously be likely to face. Are they insuring vehicles that are over about electric vehicles, range and the ability to get to the 10 years old? That might have an impact. What is destination is one of the limiting factors. important in the Bill is that it makes that a problem for us as an industry. It will not affect, say, a disabled Iain Forbes: The point about confidence is really person who is using these vehicles. I think that is the important. Trust in the technology is going to be a vital insurance we need at the moment. factor in seeing some of the benefits we are talking about. It is part of the reason that the Government are investing with industry in demonstration projects, which Q97 Mr Hayes: On this insurance issue, there has will involve members of the public trying the technology, been quite a lot of speculation about what might happen understanding what it might mean for them and helping to the products that the industry offers, which will the developers to learn from that in terms of their clearly have to evolve. We were told that again this public messaging and how they take the technology morning. Is it your estimation that that will affect forward. premiums? One would expect premiums to fall, given With regard to connectivity, what is interesting is that the fact that these cars will be safer; many of your different developers are following different development claims are related to human error, after all. Is that how paths for the technology,some of which rely on connectivity you see things developing? However, we are also told and some for which do not. So, from a Government that many people who cannot currently drive will now perspective, it is difficult to say exactly what the final be able to—the infirm, the elderly, some disabled people. technological solution will look like. Some time is needed In a way, that is the most exciting thing about this to work that through, but we are actively trialling this development. How would that affect your assessment of technology with the industrial players to understand, premiums? from a Government perspective, what action we need to Ben Howarth: On the first case, I would think of it take to make sure we are prepared for it. more in terms of claims costs than actually speculating on what the premiums would be. Obviously, if the Q99 Drew Hendry: Just to press that point about the number of accidents comes down dramatically, that is end-to-end availability, is enough being done to ensure going to have a significant impact on the costs that that you get truly wide coverage to allow people from insurers face. Motor insurance is very competitive, and outlying areas to get out and back again in the new it is inevitable that, if we see a significant reduction in technology? costs, we will see a significant reduction in the premiums Iain Forbes: It is an important bit of work that will to charged. So I think we can be pretty confident of that. be done as we develop out the technology. We are As far as we know, it is still four or five years before investing in connected vehicle test-beds to understand these products will come to market. what the requirement is, and, certainly, one aim of that Looking ahead to the cars you are referring to, where, work is to try to understand how it can benefit everyone, say, there is a severely disabled person who possibly not just people in cities. cannot drive at all at the moment, we are probably thinking about a level 5 car that can go from A to B in Q100 Mr Baker: I would like to turn to clause 4, fully autonomous mode. It is fair to say that this legislation which relates to accidents resulting from unauthorised is primarily aimed at cars that will be manual for some alterations or failure to update software. Hopefully, you of the time, automated for the rest: more of a level 4 car. have had a chance to look at this section of the Bill. It is Once you get to level 5, that is probably the point at all couched in terms of the operating system—interference which the insurance system is going to have to change with and failure to update the operating system. I am more significantly. concerned that there are other aspects of software in a Where the Bill is really helpful is that it allows us to car that are relevant. Are you satisfied that the Bill is in learn from the first developments, get an insurance the right shape, referring to the operating system, or function in place and see that that system works. It is would you prefer to see some other definition, in which probable that we are going to have to evolve further case, what? once we get to a fully automated car. David Williams, Iain Forbes: I guess it is my team that has been who was one of your witnesses this morning, is one of looking at the Bill, so I will ask Mr Howarth to comment the insurers involved in trials of fully automated technology. first. 51 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 52

Ben Howarth: From our perspective, my initial reading system and say, “We are actually going to take these on. of it was that it covered what we thought it was, and I We are the first port of call, even in the case where the am thinking it is the technology. I have say, I am not a person to whom we have sold the insurance policy to is software expert, so if the wording could be clearer—the not directly liable.” clause basically says you are not liable if a stupid individual mucks around with the car’s systems and Q105 Rob Marris: The third point is on the software does things that the manufacturer would not permit. updates. From memory, when I bought my car, which has a touch screen on it for the radio and things, it Q101 Mr Baker: We have a shared understanding of would have cost me an extra £600 to have sat-nav put in. the purpose of this clause. I should say that I am a That is just the software because it already has the software engineer—or at least I was before I first came screen and the buttons and everything. I am thinking here—and I am slightly concerned that if this was about software updates, which we have talked about, tested in court and somebody had interfered or failed to and a failure to install software updates could invalidate update their firmware—a low level software—or if the the insurance policy under clause 4. I understand that, driving was done by application software sitting on top but I am a bit concerned that the Bill appears to have no of the operating system, the purpose of Bill, of which provisions to cap the charges for software updates. For we have a shared understanding, could be defeated. You the sake of argument, I have just spent £15,000 on a are saying that you have not formed a view on whether 2-year-old automated vehicle and then some software “operating system” is the right definition. update comes in that is £1,000 and a month later Ben Howarth: To be fair, I do not think we have they want another £1,000 out of me. If I do not do it, looked into the wording in that much detail. If the the thing is useless, because it is uninsurable and wording needs to be clearer, we would support that. We therefore undriveable. Do you think there should be definitely want the same thing. provision for a cap on software update costs, so that vehicles do not become uninsurable and therefore driven without insurance? Mr Baker: Fine. Thank you. Ben Howarth: I have not really got a view on a cap, per se, but I have got a view that if it is a fundamental Q102 Rob Marris: I have three quick points for safety upgrade and it will change the functionality of Mr Howarth. First, the Bill talks about the vehicle the vehicle significantly, there needs to be an arrangement being insured as opposed to what currently happens, in place to make sure that is not optional. It is probably from my understanding, which is that driver is insured. for other stakeholders to say how we make that affordable So I have policy motor insurance that enables me to to the public. From an insurance perspective, we do not drive certain vehicles, including my principal one. Is the want cars to be unsafe simply because people cannot insurance industry happy with what appears to be a afford safety upgrades. That is true today, thinking change in focus—that is it now on the vehicle rather about automated braking: it would be great if that was than the driver? a standard feature of all new cars because it is proven to Ben Howarth: I think it is not a huge change in focus. be safe. It is optional and it is often not taken up In practice, the enforcement that industry currently because it is too costly. does—via the motor insurance bureau—to check that you have insurance is done via the vehicle. It is done by Q106 Rob Marris: This stuff would not be optional, checking licence plates. The responsibility is on the would it? The software update, effectively, would not be human driver, but the practical enforcement is to check optional. whether that car, on the road, at that time, is covered by Ben Howarth: No, where it is fundamental to the car’s insurance. This Bill is primarily designed for vehicles safety, it needs to be non-optional. We are hoping for a that will be manually driven some of the time and system where it is impossible not to get the safety-critical automated some of the time. It is just the practicality upgrades. I cannot really comment on how much to that, once you are switching to an automated car, you charge for them. need to be thinking about the car rather than the driver. Q107 Andrew Selous: I just want to return to two Q103 Rob Marris: On that basis, is the industry also groups that miss out on the freedom and opportunities happy that the insurer is liable rather than the owner-driver of being able to drive. We talked about older people and which is currently the case? disabled people but also young drivers, for whom insurance Ben Howarth: Again, it is a practicality that we are is often prohibitively expensive, running into many essentially stepping to the front. We are coming into the thousands of pounds. What analysis have you done of sun. the advantages of connected and autonomous vehicles over and above taxis, private hire vehicles, getting an Q104 Rob Marris: Yes, you used to be behind the Uber? What extra benefits do you see those two groups scenes. For these vehicles, you would be up front. That being able to derive once this technology is established is all right with the industry? and there is widespread take-up? Have you done any Ben Howarth: The whole purpose of the legislation is, analysis or thinking on the social benefits for those two I suppose, to be an enabler and say to people, “You can particular groups? be confident using this technology, because you will not Iain Forbes: We have not done a research project on have to worry about getting into complex battles with this, but I am aware that new products enabled by your manufacturer.” We do not know for certain that connected systems are opening up the ability to drive to that is what will happen. Some manufacturers have a wider range of people. For example, younger people given positive statements about it, but if that does now have access to a wider range of insurance products happen, the insurers will step into the front of the enabled by telematics than was the case previously. 53 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 54

Certainly, there is innovation within the industry that I Q110 Alan Brown: Are there any special requirements am aware of, which is opening up options for accessing that insurance companies would need for different testing, insurance to younger people as well as to some other for example showing that people are capable of using groups as well. the software or, with a semi-autonomous vehicle, when the right moment is to take action? We know that some people have trouble switching from a gear stick to Q108 Andrew Selous: Has the insurance industry manual, so this is another quantum leap. Are there any thought about these two groups? special requirements that insurance companies would Ben Howarth: The potential limitation is that we do like to see, going forward? not know when this completely automated technology Ben Howarth: I do not think we would have any, is going to come to market. We are assuming about other than what interested parties in the road safety 2021, but we cannot be 100% certain. There is a quite a world would want. I think we want drivers to be well gap until then. informed about what they have to do. They have to Telematics, which Iain mentioned, are not directly know how this technology that they are taking on the linked because it is a plug-in the insurer gives you that is road works and be confident about when they can and not necessarily built directly into the car, but that is cannot use it. That is probably going to need to be part probably the first step towards an insurance policy of the driver testing regime. It is a valid question to ask tailored much more around tracking what you as an whether the driving test that you take at 17, which never individual do, rather than broader risk factors. changes again, is fit for purpose when technology will Longer term, we are talking about cars that will take potentially be upgraded on a regular basis. That is away the most common human errors and make the worth further consideration. I am not sure that is for road safer. Increasingly, insurance is going to be tailored this Bill, but it is definitely something we will need to around the vehicle rather than how the individual behaves. think about before the cars are commercially available. Where you are talking about younger drivers particularly, their behaviour is going to become less of a factor. So Q111 Alan Brown: I just wonder what input your you would not necessarily be thinking about age as a organisations have in the testing trials that are ongoing. relevant risk factor when you look forward into the I know that there have been four trials in different parts future. For older people and people who are vulnerable of England, but I am thinking of the bigger issues. If we and do not have access to cars at the moment, this is look at it from a Scottish perspective, we have rural transformational. We probably have not done any more roads, single-track roads and different weather conditions. work than any other witnesses on the evidence of that. There are connectivity issues, which my colleague touched on earlier. What plans are there to review the tests that Q109 Alan Brown: I have a couple of questions. The are ongoing? How much more robust do the tests need first one is for Ben. We have conflicting information to be and how is that going to be rolled out across the about insurance cost. Insurance cost could be much rest of the UK? higher because of the repair cost and the lack of people Iain Forbes: My team actually oversees the research qualified to do the repairs, as well as the cost of the car programme that is paying for the tests you mention, the itself, but there are also expectations that insurance four city driverless car trials. It is really important when costs will come down because there will be fewer accidents. taking forward the competitions to have as open a Is it fair to say that at the moment there is just not process as possible. We work closely with Innovate UK, enough information to do accurate modelling to understand the Government’sinnovation agency,to design competitions what insurance figures are going to look like? around challenges where we think it is likely that the Ben Howarth: I think that some people have tried to UK is going to be able to pull through developments in do modelling, but there is that uncertainty between the research base into products that are going to be those two things. We don’t actually know what the cars usable and commercially viable. The initial set of tests are going to cost on the market, and that is obviously were in London, Bristol, Milton Keynes and Coventry. going to be a factor in the insurance premiums as well. We anticipate having future rounds of competitions That said, our members are really enthusiastic about that will be open to anyone in the UK to participate in if the technology. I think they all recognise that it is the they want to form consortium bidding. future of driving. We don’t know exactly when it is going to come to the road, but it is going to happen. I Q112 Mr Hayes: You know that the Bill attempts to think they are going to be very keen to be involved in it strike a balance between, on the one hand, doing enough from day one, and to therefore be offering competitive not to constrain future development—indeed, to facilitate products that people will want. So there is a market it—and, on the other hand, trying to determine what incentive to say, “Don’t make this too expensive.” the schedule describes as an “unknowable future”. Have In terms of really detailed modelling on the exact we got that right, or should we have done more? I draw price, we do not know enough. On the technology side, particular attention to the relationship between connection a lot of that is developing now. We are going to get and automation and the issues of privacy and security many more assisted cars. They might not be fully of data. Should we do more now, or is it enough that we autonomous and self-driven, but that technology is the take powers to do things when we know more later? same kind of technology that will eventually lead to Iain Forbes: It is a really important question. The automated driving. We have already started work on advent of automated vehicle technology will in time resolving the questions around how good the repair require changes to different parts of our regulatory network is going to be, so it is not just a question of system. We have heard about some of those already waiting for automated driving and then it switching today. The trick is to try to find ways of targeting the over. areas where we think action is necessary now in order to 55 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 56 unblock barriers, or where we know technology is near targeting in the Bill being different and distinct in the to market. We need to make sure that we have the way they are approved from the ABS system that you framework in place to enable the safe use of that were talking about. technology. To some extent it is a question that different people Q115 Richard Burden: What kind of consultation have different views on, but we certainly consulted last would you expect the Minister to go through before year with a range of different stakeholders on the areas producing his or her list? At the moment, the Minister where they thought action was necessary in order to has complete discretion. There is nothing in the Bill that ensure that the UK was doing the right things to set up says he or she has to consult anywhere. a framework. The area in the Bill was the one that Iain Forbes: I would anticipate quite a lot of work at stakeholders highlighted as the one that was most important international level to set the regulatory framework and to act on first. technical standards that will underpin the safety framework In time we will have to have further steps in the for approving these vehicles. When that happens, there process of getting our regulatory framework ready. In will be a decision for Ministers to take about how they doing so, I would hope to follow the same approach of consult with stakeholders in the UK to make sure that identifying where the barriers are that need action now people are comfortable with those definitions before and which technologies are nearer to market. We need they are transferred into UK law. to make sure that we have the framework in place to enable those. Q116 Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con): May I ask a couple of questions relating to the way that Q113 Richard Burden: Can I go back to the definition? you have looked at the insurance? It seems to me that At the start of the session you said that the thing you you are treating the concept of ownership as it is today, welcomed in the Bill was that it would define what an rather than as it is likely to become; transport is likely to automated vehicle is by whether or not that vehicle was become a service, rather than a commodity. Is that fair? on the list produced by the Secretary of State. Do you Iain Forbes: The policy aim of the Bill was to set up a think that creating a definition will be simple? Where framework that protected innocent victims of incidents would autonomous emergency braking come into that? relating to these vehicles in such a way that it felt similar A large number of vehicles might have autonomous to the current framework. We can have a framework emergency braking that one would not normally define around vehicle sale that is based on current patterns of asautomatedvehicles.Nevertheless,autonomousemergency ownership. In future that might change, as you say, in braking, by its nature, will take control of the car and which case we would have to review the framework to stop it whatever the driver is doing. So would the car make sure that we were making appropriate provision fitted with autonomous emergency braking need to in law to allow people to operate the system safely. appear on that list, because it would “in at least some circumstances or situations” Q117 Tom Tugendhat: It will probably become unlikely be capable of driving itself without having to be monitored that car companies will end up selling their cars; they by an individual? If it were included, are we saying that will lease them for shorter and shorter periods, as many this new insurance product that the Bill brings into car companies already do with their corporate fleets. It effect is essentially going to be the norm, not the exception, would seem sensible to have a look at that. much more quickly than we thought? Perhaps we can go straight on to insurance. The Iain Forbes: Autonomous emergency braking is one safety systems before full autonomy—what you are of a suite of technologies sometimes referred to as calling level 4 cars— advanced driver assistance systems. The Bill does not seek to set out a regime to manage those systems. It is Ben Howarth: I prefer to call them fully automated about automated driving in vehicles where the driver cars, but level 4 is the definition. can step out of the loop and does not need to be involved in monitoring the system. The difference between Q118 Tom Tugendhat: Various cars, while not fully those systems and ADAS systems, as they are sometimes automated, already warn you if you are going to cross a called, is that the driver always has to oversee what is white line or are getting too close to the car in front. As going on in the vehicle. For those sorts of systems we automation levels come up, are insurance companies anticipate the current regime being appropriate. intending to offer better premiums? Ben Howarth: I would say that insurers have already Q114 Richard Burden: Is the boundary between those done that. Autonomous emergency braking was referred two as exact as you say? In a sense, with autonomous to. Even before we had any claims data to back this up, emergency braking, the driver has to monitor it. Whether we set any car that had that technology a lower group the driver is monitoring it or not, that technology will rating. If you have that technology in your car as take control of the vehicle. standard, you get a cheaper insurance premium. We Iain Forbes: We anticipate the measures in the Bill now have evidence to back that up; we have pretty interacting with other aspects of law, including type robust data that say that that technology works. That is approval requirements for vehicles, which will be looking definitely the intention, going forward. at how different systems should be approved for safe use One of the key things that we as an industry need to on the roads in this country. There is a lot of technical know is when that technology is in a car. That is a work to do to understand what the particular approval practical challenge that we have. I do not think it will be regimes will be for different forms of technology, but we a problem in four years’ time, when the Bill comes in. anticipate the higher levels of automation that we are We as an industry would really like to know when this 57 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 58 technology is in cars, to make sure that we are pricing vehicles. It will have to work in concert with other parts accuracy. It is a data-sharing challenge, because it is of the law, including the system by which vehicles are often impossible to find out whether we have got it. approved for sale. You might imagine that if vehicles that operated automated systems were to be approved Q119 Tom Tugendhat: As the Bill comes in and starts for sale there would be a close look at what would be to make greater provision for understanding who is necessary to ensure that the systems were updated where liable, the question of ownership kicks in: is the driver necessary to take account of any changes that were responsible for upgrading the software, or does Toyota important to ensure safety. or whoever maintain ownership throughout? As semi- autonomy moves more towards full autonomy, you get Q122 Andy McDonald: Have we got this the wrong an opportunity, but you also get this question: at what way around, then? Surely you have to establish how point do you start pricing out real drivers of real cars, if something happens before you start dealing with its you see what I mean? insurance consequences. This is putting the cart before the horse, isn’t it? Ben Howarth: You do, potentially, but bear in mind that there will be a tipping point at which there are so Iain Forbes: We are focusing on this now because this many really safe cars on the road that it will have an is an area where in consultation people told us that it overall impact on the number of accidents. The number was important to set out a framework now to allow of accidents will go down across the board. Also, the insurers and manufacturers to have those discussions whole fleet will get safer; there will be a decreasing about what might be necessary to inform the products number of people in cars with no automated function at that come to market when these vehicles do in four or all, and even they will get the benefits of generally safer five years’ time. In the meantime, we need to be working roads. 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 Q120 Tom Tugendhat: Of course, as the number of in concert with another part of the law, which will say incidents goes down, premiums will presumably fall for how these vehicles will be approved for sale. everybody. Given that car insurance is the most lucrative Ben Howarth: If I can add one other thing, I think area of the insurance market, have you done any work that the Bill is intended to do a new thing by protecting on what this will mean for house insurance and various someone who is in the driving seat as, because they are other forms of insurance, on the grounds that it seems not in control of the vehicle at the time of the incident, unlikely that your members will voluntarily lay profit they are being treated as a victim. If they have done aside? something to the car that means that they are responsible Ben Howarth: I am not sure whether it is true that it is for the accident—perhaps they have not maintained it the most lucrative part of the insurance market, but we properly—it is reasonable to put it into their insurance have not looked at the wider impact on the industry. policy that that is not something that they could claim for, as they would not be a victim. That is what these Tom Tugendhat: It makes up about 50% of insurance policies are broadly intended to do. I take your point profits in the UK. that we absolutely need to define what updates need to Ben Howarth: I am sure that individual insurers will be made and who is responsible for them, but if you look at the potential impact on other parts of the turn it the other way by insuring the person in the market, but we have not. driving seat and ensuring that they can claim if they are injured, the situation changes if they caused their own injuries. Q121 Andy McDonald: Returning to the issue of software, clause 4 devotes a lot of attention to when Q123 Andy McDonald: If we are getting into a discussion insurers will not be picking up the can—something that on clause 4 about failures to update software, where is we are familiar with. Can you say a little bit about how your starting point? You are basically telling me, “Ah, you are expecting software to be updated? What is the we’ll do that somewhere else separately. We will have to process for doing that? We all update our phones; we get those regulations on board.” All that I am suggesting plug them in and press “install”, and the phone tells us is that that is out of sync and we should be looking at when it is done. What is the current state of knowledge? the processes first, at least for what we are expecting, Where are we, scientifically, on achieving that? before we start dealing with the insurance consequences. Linked to that, what responsibilities should there be Iain Forbes: To answer the first part of your question on manufacturers to provide updates and tell the owners about how this is done, that is likely to develop over or users of vehicles that those updates have to be made? time as new systems come to market. It is already the As I read it, there is nothing in the Bill that places any case that some manufacturers upgrade software systems obligations on manufacturers to do that. A lot of time by asking customers to take their vehicles to a dealer is devoted to when the software has not been updated, and some do it over the air, in a similar way to how a but where is the principal obligation for the manufacturer phone is updated, for example. That is an area that is to do it? There are a lot of questions, but I am wondering currently the subject of international discussions, and whether that loops back to the definition and whether indeed the UK is co-chairing the international regulatory that needs attention to ensure that we have addressed group that is having a look at how over-the-air updates the obligation. So how is it done and what are the will function in future. obligations on the manufacturer? Iain Forbes: Those are good questions. To answer the Q124 Andy McDonald: Really, what the manufacturer second one first, what is important about this Bill is that would say is that if a vehicle has not been updated for it is looking just at the insurance regime for these one reason or another, or if they discover some other 59 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 60 technical reason to shut it down, they will make sure Ben Howarth: I am not aware of any problem with that vehicle does not shift. Is it within the contemplation Northern Ireland. of the industry to take it that far? Iain Forbes: What we need is systems that are transparent Rob Marris: From an insurance point of view? to people who are using them and that provide appropriate Ben Howarth: I am not aware that we have any protections so that they feel confident using them. That particular concerns about Northern Ireland, but I am is part of the discussion that we are having internationally not sure why it is not in the Bill. at the moment. Rob Marris: Okay, but from an insurance point of Q125 Kit Malthouse: I have a couple of questions. We view, you have no concerns about Northern Ireland? have a problem in this country with uninsured cars. Ben Howarth: Not that I am aware of. 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 Q131 Tom Tugendhat: I assume that you looked at that the car has to check whether it is insured before it other countries as you prepared for the Bill. Will you moves? When I go and buy my tax disc, the system say a little bit about how other countries are addressing checks that the car is insured before it allows me to do the insurance and regulatory challenges? so. Should these cars be required to do the same? Iain Forbes: The legal frameworks in different countries Iain Forbes: Weare at too early a stage in the development are often specific to those countries, so it is not possible of the technology to be able to consider that, but it is to do an exact read-across, but we are looking at what certainly something we could look at. people are doing to see whether there are broad lessons that we can learn. For example, in California, if you want to test automated vehicles, you have to put up a Q126 Kit Malthouse: Why? surety bond to ensure that there is a provision to cope Iain Forbes: It is not clear exactly how those systems with any accidents. Looking at that and other systems, will interact with a wider data network to enable the we felt that the system in the Bill was appropriate for the system to work. UK and how our insurance system operates. It builds on a system that people would recognise, so it would Q127 Kit Malthouse: It is technically possible, right? look similar to what people do now, and it targets an important policy, which is to ensure that innocent victims Iain Forbes: Many things are technically possible, but caught up in an incident involving a vehicle in automated we do not know exactly how it will come to market and mode can get quick access to claims. how the systems will operate. Q132 Tom Tugendhat: What about our European Q128 Kit Malthouse: You seem to imply, Mr Howarth, partners? that the insurance industry would be indifferent to the characteristics of the passenger, who need not be the Ben Howarth: I was going to mention European driver of a level 5 car. partners, but from an insurance industry perspective, I think that we are ahead of everyone else in having Ben Howarth: That seems reasonable to assume. As I clarity about how the legislation will work. Obviously understand it, a level 5 car will not even have a steering there are still things that need to be done before the wheel so the driver will have a pretty minimal role in technology goes to market, but I get the sense that other how the car performs. people are debating the issues, but not with a formal proposal on the table. I genuinely think that we are a Q129 Kit Malthouse: Would it be fair to say that step ahead of everybody else. level 5 cars might be the saviour of the rural pub? Can I drink and drive a level 5 car? Q133 Tom Tugendhat: The reason this matters is that Ben Howarth: I am a big fan of the rural pub, but I do a lot people will now be thinking about booking their not know the answer for certain. That is probably also ferry and Eurotunnel tickets. Will we be able to take an infrastructure question: I can see the cars working in those cars abroad? certain inner-city areas, but personally, I am not 100% Iain Forbes: Interoperability is important, as you sure whether level 5 is ready for some rural roads yet. I mentioned, and it is frequently discussed. think evangelists for level 5 technology will say that it is. Q134 Tom Tugendhat: It does not matter which hand Q130 Rob Marris: One for Mr Howarth. What will drive a car is, does it? the industry do about Northern Ireland and automated Iain Forbes: Which is part of the reason why it is vehicles? That is not covered in the Bill. important for some of the discussions about the regulatory Ben Howarth: Is there any particular aspect of Northern framework to take place at international level, under Ireland that you think is not working? the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe or other bodies that regulate how vehicles operate to Rob Marris: I do not know. I wondered whether you ensure that, where possible, we have interoperable systems. guys discussed it because the automated vehicle elements Ben Howarth: If you are thinking about cross-border of the Bill do not apply to Northern Ireland, yet one insurance, as long as the broad principles are united—there would expect people in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere are already big differences between the UK and other in the United Kingdom, to wish to have automated parts of Europe and how they insure vehicles; we have a vehicles available to use. driver-centric version whereas a lot of other European 61 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 62 countries have a vehicle-centric system and a form of Q138 Richard Burden: May I begin by exploring strict liability with various definitions—one would hope some of the Bill provisions relating to the relationship that we could evolve a system that gives at least minimum between the CAA and National Air Traffic Services? cover on a unified basis. We should not therefore have Perhaps we can come on to the issues relating to the air too much of a problem. travel organisers’ licence after that. I understand that the proposed changes have been broadly welcomed by Q135 Rob Marris: Mr Tugendhat made an interesting stakeholders.I am struggling to understand how significant point. It had not occurred to me, but if I am in my they are. They change the procedure through which the automated vehicle, which I have taken through Eurotunnel, CAA can modify regulations under which NATS operates. and I am driving down a road in France and a non- Do we have any sense of how many of them are likely to automated vehicle is coming at me in the middle of the happen and how often? The impact assessment says road, I do not want my British automated vehicle diving that the scale of the issue with which we are dealing is off to the left—which is what you would do to take highly uncertain. Can you give us any guidance on the evasive action in this country— scale of the changes? Richard Moriarty: The changes are all aimed at Tom Tugendhat: Presumably, you have got GPS— modernising our regime.Wechange the licence periodically: perhaps once or twice every three or four years we Rob Marris: This is a serious point in the context of introduce a raft of changes, which are mainly to do with Mr Forbes’s discussing interoperability. I presume there the charges that NATS can pass on to airlines and the has been a discussion about the coding—I would like service standards that it needs to meet. Of course, all of reassurance about this—so that the evasive action that that needs to be balanced, because we need to ensure automated vehicles might take when faced by unsafe that it can finance its businesses. manoeuvres by non-automated vehicles is appropriate to the side of the road on which one drives. Otherwise, I think it is worth saying, in order to give you comfort, we will have a big problem, as Mr Baker will know, with that these measures are almost precisely similar to measures software coding and so on. that were passed in the Civil Aviation Act 2012 in relation to our regulation of airports such as Heathrow Iain Forbes: These are the sorts of challenges that you and Gatwick. My answer to your question is that they have to work through when you sit down to think about are very helpful and to be welcomed. They modernise how the system will operate in practice. We are still at what is now quite an outdated regime for NATS, and the stage of the technology where the developers are they put NATS on a very similar footing to other making sure that they can get their systems to work in regulated entities. particular locations—particular cities or areas. If the developers want to sell products and services that can In terms of NATS’s protection, it is important to say be used in more than one country, that is something we that nothing in these changes takes away our primary will have to bear in mind when taking forward our duty towards the safe system—safety. We also have a development programmes. Indeed, if they are going to secondary duty to make sure that NATS cannot find it operate in accordance with the right regulatory framework, unduly difficult to finance its licence for activities. For they will have to have discussions with regulators about those reasons, I strongly welcome these measures. how that will operate in practice. Q139 Richard Burden: Looking ahead to the next few Q136 Rob Marris: Do we need legislation now, in the years, for the moment we will be part of the single United Kingdom, to assist that process? European sky framework. That, presumably, could bring a number of initiatives under it that would be relevant Iain Forbes: From my perspective, it feels a bit early to the provisions in this Bill. Am I right about that? to take forward regulation in that space, but we should What could the impact of Brexit be on this area of the definitely be involved in the discussions at international Bill? level and with developers, to make sure that those issues are dealt with in due course. Richard Moriarty: I fear I would be misleading you to be too precise about what some of those impacts The Chair: If there are no further questions, may I would be, but one thing we have made clear in conversation thank the witnesses for their evidence, time and with departmental colleagues is that we can regulate co-operation? We will move on to our next panel. NATS successfully using our domestic legislation under the Transport Act 2000. This is one of the reasons why we are keen to modernise it in this way. Examination of Witnesses Q140 Richard Burden: So there should not be any Richard Moriarty and John de Vial gave evidence. impact at all? 3.27 pm Richard Moriarty: It is too early for me to say whether there would be an impact one way or the other. On the Q137 The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from things we most care about—safety—NATS has been the Civil Aviation Authority and the Association of able to charge good prices to airlines and provide a British Travel Agents. Welcome. Would the witnesses good level of service. I am quite comfortable that the introduce themselves for the record? Shall we start with regime we would have in the UK based on the Transport Mr Moriarty? Act 2000 would give us sufficient levers, particularly Richard Moriarty: I am Richard Moriarty and I am with these modernisation changes. the group director of consumers and markets at the Civil Aviation Authority. Q141 Richard Burden: The impact assessment, again, John de Vial: I am John de Vial and I am director of talks about the likelihood of there being what it describes financial protection at ABTA. as a “light-touch” review of these new arrangements 63 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 64 after five years and “a full review” after 10. I must that the protections that it should offer would be those confess that I could not see reference to either of those that would be applicable in that member state, rather in the Bill. What was your understanding of the review than those that would be applicable in the UK. arrangements around these changes? John de Vial: Yes. Richard Moriarty: I cannot speak to that specific review, but I think it makes sense to review the powers Q147 Richard Burden: Is there any potential downside that have been introduced after the event. We have to that? For any packages sold into the UK by companies done that in other arenas, so it is something we would established outside of the UK, could the protection be welcome. We can work with the Department on the less than it is now? timing of that. John de Vial: Not less than it is now—we have that problem today. The current UK ATOL regulations and Q142 Richard Burden: But the principle of a review package travel regulations exempt companies that are after a period of time would be something— compliant elsewhere. We have seen the problem in recent Richard Moriarty: I do not have a problem with that. history. Our view is that, to the extent that this new directive is more robust and should raise the bar of implementation and enforcement in other member states, Q143 Richard Burden: Can we move on to the ATOL that can only be a good thing. questions within the Bill? Can you describe what the changes mean in practice for consumers and holidaymakers? Q148 Richard Burden: Will it raise it to the level of Richard Moriarty: First, it is worth saying that the ATOL protection? changes in the Bill at the moment are enabling provisions, John de Vial: No, I don’t believe it will. I think there but they are to enable us to implement the package are a number of aspects where the ATOL position is travel directive. There are a number of important and superior. The most obvious example is repatriation. welcome developments from that which will be good for The directive requires the costs of repatriation to be UK consumers. First, the directive makes it much clearer protected, so all member states should be doing that. what the definition of a package is. This may seem The UK is not unique, but is one of a small number of self-evident to most people but an industry of loopholes member states, where organised repatriations—where has developed over the years. Having clarity on this is a the customer is, as it were, rescued—is the norm. We do good thing. have a superior system in the UK in that sense. Secondly,the package travel directive puts a requirement on member states to have effective regimes in place for Q149 Richard Burden: A final couple of questions insolvency. This is a big step forward compared with from me, and it is back to Brexit again. A lot of the where we are today. It is also worth saying—although changes in the Bill arise out of the package travel John may have a better view on this—that this provides directive. From what you have said, some of our domestic a growth opportunity for UK businesses as firms in this ATOL protection is superior to what is in the package country will be able to sell their goods and services into travel directive anyway, but are there any implications Europe. of Brexit for what this Bill brings in? John de Vial: We certainly support that view. The Richard Moriarty: Regardless of Brexit, this is a set provisions in this Bill are necessary and we have no of provisions that we would be supporting. It is worth concerns about them as enabling legislation. I agree remembering that 77% of UK consumers choose their with Richard’s subsequent points. UK companies can holiday in Europe. As John suggested, the position currently sell in other European markets but they are around insolvency protection may not be all the way up required to license separately and individually in each to ATOL gold standard, but it will be a lot better, and market to comply with its version and its implementation enhanced by this package travel directive, than it is of the 1990 directive. If we have a regime with the today. The former directive we fall back on is from the directive to come, which the provisions lay the ground early ’90s, which predates the growth of the internet for, and our traders in the UK can use the ATOL and people buying their holidays online. system and the Department for Business, Energy and John de Vial: I support that. It is also part of our job, Industrial Strategy arrangements to comply across Europe, with the ATOL brand and our brand as the Department that is a clear advantage for them trading across European for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s approved member states. body, to promote the merits of the schemes in the UK with UK businesses, where those exceed the European Q144 Richard Burden: Are those companies covered base level. by that protection because they are established in the UK? Q150 Richard Burden: The Bill provides for an air John de Vial: By virtue of being established in the travel trust to be set up by the Secretary of State, but UK, you would be entitled to it. also leaves open the possibility that that could be split into a number of trusts if circumstances change. Could you tell us a bit about what that is all about and the kind Q145 Richard Burden: Wherever they sell? of circumstances? John de Vial: Yes. Richard Moriarty: If I may, I will declare an interest as a trustee of the current air travel trust. The consultations Q146 Richard Burden: Looking at it the other way and discussions that the Department has had with the round, if there is a company that is established in another industry and consumer groups have suggested that the part of the European Union but sells into the UK, I position around how people buy holidays could change. understand that the package travel directive would say They are very keen to have some flexibility. Rather than 65 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 66 have one trust hardwired into legislation, they want to We would obviously have a graduated approach to give themselves some more flexibility. For instance, one enforcement. That would start off through informal example that has been talked about a lot is linked travel means—conversations with the company, looking to it arrangements, where it is not quite a package, but is two to put the issue right. If that had failed, we would move transactions for hotel and travel that are very closely on to a more formal footing with them. I tend to think associated. In my view, it would be prudent and sensible of financial penalties as a bit of a last resort but, as I for Government to have the flexibility to respond to said, it is important to have them there because it that. It is my understanding that that is why they are incentivises the right behaviours. taking the enabling provision at the current time. In implementing that, I hope that they will follow the Q153 Mr Hayes: The other question I was going to practice that they have followed today: consult with us, ask reflects the point made by the hon. Member for consult the industry, do the impact assessment, and so Birmingham, Northfield about the post-Brexit deal on on. travel. We have been a leading player—one might say a trailblazer—in terms of providing protection for holiday Q151 Richard Burden: I would be grateful if I could makers, haven’t we? Post-Brexit, it is really important explore one other area with you briefly. One thing that that we retain consumer protection across Europe. What raised a number of eyebrows when this Bill was published are your views on that? was the fact that it did not say anything about the regulation or safety of drones. How do you see the Richard Moriarty: I completely share that objective. existing regulatory framework, and if we were going to To go back to the point that John made, I think there is look to improve that framework, who do you think a job to be done by the CAA, ABTA and other groups should be responsible, for example, for bringing in on raising awareness with UK consumers about the geo-fencing? level of protection that they get from different types of products. You can imagine a future where we are in a Richard Moriarty: Drones are something that we are less binary world in package travel than whether something spending an enormous amount of time on—getting the is ATOL-protected or not. There will be a graduation of balance right between effective regulation to prevent protections that consumers can get. It is important that aviation-related risks and allowing this new technology we work with consumer bodies to raise the level of and market to grow.There is an existing set of regulations awareness. for both commercial and public operators, but it is worth highlighting two important initiatives that we We start from a solid and good basis. The scores for should all take stock of. levels of awareness of ATOL, which is often seen as the gold standard, are about 75% or 80%, so we start in a First, the Government are consulting on the future good position for that work. regulation of drones at the moment; we are working with them on that. Also, at the European level, the European Aviation Safety Agency, EASA, is doing Q154 Drew Hendry: Some UK operators have stated some important work, which we hope it will publish in that they feel that passenger rights go too far. Which April and which may relate to international manufacturing passenger rights do you feel are most contentious in the standards, because things like geo-fencing, which effectively industry? prevents drones flying into controlled space, are only Richard Moriarty: A number of airlines have expressed really effective if that can be done through international concern not about the principle of compensating consumers manufacturing standards. That is one of the reasons for delays, but about the tariff—the amount that is why we are keen to see that EASA publication, which is charged. It is important to get the balance right. It was mooted for April, before we decide next steps. not so long ago that airlines did not take the issue at all seriously. We saw long delays and a lot of consumer Q152 Mr Hayes: On the issue of penalties in respect detriment as a result. I hear from a lot of chief execs of of ATOL, you will know that this Bill attempts to airlines that although they would wish for a lower tariff, amend the Transport Act 2000. In respect of section 225 because it is clearly straight off their bottom line, this is of the Transport Act 2000, you will also know that not front and centre of their urgent priorities. I do not there is a responsibility to prepare and publish a policy know whether John would take a different view. statement on the use of penalties. How do you envisage John de Vial: I think that our members would agree. these penalties taking shape, and how will you ensure If you look at the package travel directive—that particular that their use is proportionate? piece of work has been updated to allow for a new Richard Moriarty: The first thing I would say is that directive—there is broad industry support for it. I do our having powers to introduce financial penalties for not think there are any great concerns about it. The EU NATS brings us into line with the powers that we have regulation 261 regime on denied boarding and flight for airports. It also brings us into line with other economic delays is a different issue. A much smaller number of regulatory regimes in energy, water and telecoms, so it airlines have concerns about the denied boarding piece, brings the regulation of NATS up to the modern standards but the concerns are principally around the delay regime of the other sectors. whereby, through the European Court of Justice process, We already have a published policy on how we would the same sort of tariff for delays has been adopted as go about issuing a financial penalty for the airports. My existed and was intended for denied boarding. That is starting position would be that the policy should be viewed as a rather blunt and sometimes counter-productive similar for NATS. Financial penalties are rare events in regime. The loudest voices are heard around that and economic regulation: they do not come around too there is considerable merit in it being revisited. often, and there is a good reason for that. But they are a On Richard’s point, it is about the level and necessary part of the armoury, if you like, to drive the proportionality of the tariff, where compensation for a right behaviours and give a deterrent effect. few hours’ delay can be a multiple of the purchase of a 67 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 68 low-cost ticket. That is seen to be an injustice—it is not Q158 Richard Burden: Can I ask about rights in the the principle of providing the protection, but the way in Bill? The big change is that you make the modification which it operates. and NATS has the right to appeal, as opposed to the co-determination model that we have at the moment. There is also a provision for other parties to appeal, Q155 Andrew Selous: I would like to come to NATS, including the owners or operators of aircraft that you which I understand expressed concern about economic consider appropriate and the owners or managers of uncertainty and market volatility following the Brexit prescribed aerodromes that you consider appropriate. I vote. It thought that air travel demand and, therefore, am struggling to work out who has got the right to its revenues might suffer. Has there been any evidence appeal the modifications you make to NATS’s licence. of that to date? What does prescribed aerodromes mean? Richard Moriarty: Not that I can tell from the financial Richard Moriarty: The appeal mechanisms that are numbers that I look at. Indeed, in terms of the assumptions being introduced for NATS effectively replicate the that we made with it for the last regulatory settlement, same appeal mechanisms that we have for the regulated traffic has been better than we predicted. airports.For instance, an airline can appeal a determination that we make for Heathrow or Gatwick airport. There is Q156 Andrew Selous: So that we can have a better an element of consistency across aviation in these provisions. understanding of how NATS works, let me ask about Because NATS provides the London terminal airspace the ability to extend the length of its contracts to give service, it also touches directly on some of the London them greater financial certainty. What sort of length of airports—principally the large ones, but there may be contracts do they typically operate with London airports some small London airports in it as well. It is right that at the moment? What levels of extra investment would the Government has a provision to name those airports, you be looking to see NATS make with longer-term because they will be materially affected by certain decisions contracts, because presumably, it is unable to put that in that we will take over the settlement that we reach with at the moment? NATS. Richard Moriarty: The position is different at different airports and in different regulatory regimes. The issue is The Chair: If there are no further questions from the minimum notice period that is required before the members of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for Government can terminate the franchise, if you like—for their evidence, and for their time and co-operation. It want of a better expression. That minimum notice has been most helpful. Thank you very much. We are period counted down. NATS quite rightly, in our view, running a little ahead of schedule, so I propose to said, “We need to make long-term investments, and we suspend the Committee until 4.10 pm, as the witnesses need to raise debt on the open and private markets.” for the next panel have not yet arrived. People looking at a shorter, shorter franchise find it 3.54 pm quite difficult. Sitting suspended. We did quite a bit of work to look at this. We spoke to financial advisers and looked at other regulatory regimes. 4.10 pm Our advice, after looking at the asset price of the On resuming— business and other regulatory regimes, was that 15 years feels like the right number for NATS. NATS is a slightly Examination of Witnesses different business from some of the asset-intensive industries. It is operational based, rather than capital intensive. Martin Drake, Steve Landells, Simon Bray, Richard Having done the analysis, we very much support the Goodwin, Paul Watts and Richard Moriarty gave evidence. Government provision to move this out from 10 to 15 years. Q159 The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from the British Airline Pilots Association, the Metropolitan police, the National Police Air Service and the UK Q157 Andrew Selous: To clarify our understanding, Flight Safety Committee. can you elaborate a little on how the CAA will take I welcome our witnesses; thank you for joining us. action swiftly to protect passenger and staff safety Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the when there is a serious system failure or when some record? Shall we start with Mr Moriarty, who has aspect of NATS’s performance is worrying to you? already given evidence to us this afternoon? Richard Moriarty: One of the most important and Richard Moriarty: I am Richard Moriarty, director significant aspects of the Bill is the provision enabling of consumers and markets at the Civil Aviation Authority. us to take action on past licence breaches. One feature Paul Watts: I am Paul Watts, chief pilot of the of NATS is that if the systems have an outage, as they National Police Air Service. did in December 2013, you do not need a lot of time to Richard Goodwin: I am Chief Inspector Richard create a lot of disruption to passengers. For instance, a Goodwin, airport commander at London City airport. 24-hour outage led to disruption for nearly 250,000 passengers, and there were 300 cancelled flights. Of Simon Bray: I am Simon Bray, commander of security course, you can put the system back very quickly—it is at the Met, but I am also the National Police Chiefs a 24-hour event—but if we do not have the power to Council lead for airport policing. look at past breaches, there is a risk, on behalf of Steve Landells: I am Steve Landells. I am a flight consumers, that we are going to look toothless. That is safety specialist at the British Airline Pilots Association. one reason why I support the provisions that the Martin Drake: I am Captain Martin Drake. I am a Government are putting forward in this regard. I think current 747 captain and I am also chairman of the that is one of the most important aspects of the package. security committee at the British Airline Pilots Association. 69 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 70

Q160 Andy McDonald: Good afternoon, gentlemen. Simon Bray: Obviously the dazzling and distracting Could you help me with the issue of shining or directing is the effect on the driver, pilot or whoever is in the cab. a laser at a vehicle? The Bill as drafted states that it will That is where the harm and the potential danger are. As be an offence to direct well as having a victim, the legislation enables us to “a laser beam at a vehicle which is in the course of a journey, investigate more readily to prove an offence. If it were and…the laser beam dazzles or distracts a person with control of merely in the general direction of a vehicle, that would the vehicle.” be more tricky to prove unless we were at the other end I am concerned about that, because I have never flown a of that particular laser and had an opportunity to get plane and I have never, to my knowledge, had a laser into more of an investigation at that end of it. shined at me. I am just thinking the matter through. Is that the totality of the thing that concerns you all, or Q163 Andy McDonald: Although we are not specifically are there other instances short of being dazzled or restricting this discussion to aviation, because it could distracted that would cause you concern and cause you be another vessel, I think BALPA has suggested in to think that something ought to be an offence? Also, evidence to the Committee that it is equally important although such an activity may have taken place, the and significant when lasers are shone at air traffic driver or person in control of the vehicle might have no control towers. Have we got a history of that happening? knowledge whatsoever of it having happened. I do not Is it a significant risk? Would you prefer to see the understand the experience. Does someone who is in legislation embrace air traffic control towers, rather control of a vehicle experience it only when their eyes than just vehicles, as currently described? are actually dazzled, or is there another perception of Martin Drake: There certainly is history of it in the the event having taken place? USA, and I can think of a couple of times in the UK Steve Landells: From a British airline pilots’ point of where a laser has been shone at the air traffic control view, our main concern is the distraction as well as the tower. For an air traffic controller working the tower—that dazzle. As it stands, the dazzle has to be part of the offence. is the control bit that does the final approach and the Our view is that it would be better to have the offence controlling of the aircraft as they depart, so it is within being just the pointing of a laser at a vehicle, because close proximity of the airport—most of that is done from an aviation point of view, if you cannot prove the visually. If his or her eyes were to be affected, it could dazzle and distraction—if it is not reported or the reduce their capability of seeing aircraft close to the police do not know where the aircraft is going—you airport. They would then have to come off duty and be may not end up with the second part of that offence. replaced fairly rapidly. It is not as common as shining at aircraft, but it does happen. Q161 Andy McDonald: Would you even have to know Steve Landells: Can I expand on that slightly? It that it has happened for an offence to have taken place? depends on the airport’s procedures, but I know of one airport where, if a laser is shone at the visual control Steve Landells: From our point of view in BALPA, tower, they take the visual controllers out of that tower. no. It is about the act of shining a laser at the aircraft. If You effectively shut down the airfield. 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 Tom Tugendhat: I am sorry; what did you say? is a higher chance of injury occurring. Steve Landells: They take the visual controllers out of the tower to protect them, and if that happens, the airport is effectively shut down. Q162 Andy McDonald: Thank you for that. Does anybody else want to comment on that aspect of this offence? Q164 Andy McDonald: What do you think should be happening to better control the availability of the devices Paul Watts: From a helicopter perspective, again the themselves? What restrictions would you prefer to see in dazzle and the distraction are the main concern, especially place to stop the devices being acquired? as helicopters operate in a much lower-level environment than airliners, and we rely on flying visually and visually Simon Bray: There have been discussions about whether avoiding other aircraft, buildings and obstructions. We to deal with some of these items as offensive weapons. also share the concern about the power of lasers and the Clearly, if there is an intent to shine and to harm frequency range—the fact that it may be possible in the someone’s eyesight with one of these devices, you can future to have lasers that are not even visible. Again, we deal with them in that way, provided you get the evidence would like to see it being about somebody attempting to behind it that demonstrates possession of an offensive shine a laser at an aircraft, rather than having to show weapon with intent to cause harm; likewise if you that it dazzled and distracted the pilot. assault someone with a laser. The difficulty is investigating and proving those instances. Martin Drake: It is possible to sustain an injury from a highly collimated laser—one where the beam is very What the Bill does do is provide blanket legislation narrow. It is possible to sustain an injury from that laser that is suitably serious—more so than the different sorts without having the dazzle and distract element. If it of legislation that we are having to use at the moment. comes through your aircraft windscreen at a 90° angle, It is an advance on what we have currently got. I the dazzle and distract can be reduced, but if the pilot definitely take the point that were we to have additional were to have that go into his eye, he could get retinal powers restricting sale and possession, it would be damage without getting the dazzle and distract element. easier for us to deal with things before they take place. I would say that that was fairly rare at the moment, but Richard Goodwin: Colleagues I have been working as the power of the lasers goes up and the frequency of with in the Department for Transport are working with the lasers changes, that is a concern that we have. colleagues in the Department responsible for business 71 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 72 employment, looking at potential import restrictions of gravity that we think the offence deserves and it will and some of the issues around how we control the sale have an impact on the aviation community, pilots and of some of these lasers. That work has been going on captains. It will show them that we as the police will for seven or eight years, and during that time the take it seriously, because we will have a consistent availability and power of lasers has increased and the recording of all offences, particularly across aviation. cost has come down. There is a Department looking at Richard Moriarty: We at the Civil Aviation Authority that control now, and clearly we support that. would strongly support the measures. Our figures show that laser incidents are at about 1,500 a year. That is Q165 Andy McDonald: Finally, changing tack totally, probably an underestimate, for reasons that have been can the police officers help me with an unrelated matter suggested by other panel members. To put that in in the Bill about diversionary courses for road traffic perspective, that is three or four incidents a day in and offenders? Have you come prepared to speak about that around UK airports. We have talked before about injury at all? Could you give some indication of your experience to pilots and often these attacks are during their peak of those courses, how effective they are and, just as workload—either landing or take off, in and around importantly, the evidence base that you may or may not airports—so there is a real aviation and public safety have on whether they are effective and reduce repeat aspect, which it is very important to get right. We would offending? Are you able to comment on that? strongly support it for those reasons. Simon Bray: It is not my area of expertise and I have Beyond the Bill, we are interested in continuing to never had to undergo one of those courses myself. work with other authorities and Departments on other There is a good look at diversionary methods at the measures to complement this, whether through import moment. There are certainly plans to streamline the controls or working with the police on offensive weapons. various diversionary methods and out-of-court disposals The good news is that the provisions in the Bill will send around the country. Clearly, that would fit in that a very strong signal that we all take this risk very overall picture, but it is not specifically traffic. seriously.

Q166 Mr Hayes: As you know, gentlemen, the CAA Q167 Mr Hayes: Clearly, the use of these devices in says that many of the incidents involving lasers are the way you have described is malevolent, but have you unreported and it is probable that there are many more made any assessment of how much of this is what might than those of which we currently know. Is it your view be described as irresponsible, thuggish behaviour, and that it is a growing problem? How do you think the how much is more serious than that? Potentially, we proposed legislation will help with reporting? If you could be talking about devices that were used by some think it does not do enough, what more could it do? very serious criminals indeed. What is your assessment of that? How much is this people grabbing hold of these Paul Watts: I am from the National Police Air Service things and causing trouble, and how much of it is and we saw it as a growing problem, probably about planned, plotted and serious? three or four years ago. Over the last three years, we have averaged out at about 100 incidents a year, so it Simon Bray: The difficulty is that our detection rate seems to have plateaued somewhat, but it has gone from of these offences so far has been pretty low. That is a low level to a very high level. We would welcome any partly because of the legislation available to us. There is legislation that makes it easier to catch an offender, but a range of it for the different areas of transport: the we would also still like to see a reduction in the availability. Offences Against the Person Act 1861 goes back many years on the railways, and air navigation orders are used We did see a tailing off of offences after the first few in the policing environment for airports. In truth, the prosecutions for endangering an aircraft came into play. successes that we have had in prosecution have been Over London, there was a reduction in the number of where the National Police Air Service has been involved—we times a laser was used and less of the casual targeting of have our own helicopters, linking with our officers on an aircraft. That seems to have tailed off and we seem to the ground and so on. be back to a level of use that seems fairly stable and fairly high. On average, about 100 offences a year are One of the issues with the legislation that we have reported through our safety system. been able to use around distract and dazzle is that the offence under the air navigation orders has been not Simon Bray: I do not know whether Richard wishes only not recordable, but not indictable. We have therefore to comment on the Met figures. not been able to use the full range of powers—entering Richard Goodwin: We took a view that this matter premises in order to arrest someone or, once we have was so serious that, despite the fact that it is not arrested them, going into premises to get evidence—and currently a reportable and recordable offence under the proposed new offences will allow us the use of those Home Office counting rules—the legislation will change powers. That is a real advance, which we welcome. We that—on 1 April last year we started reporting all lasers think that we will benefit from a defined power of stop reported to us as crimes in London. I know that colleagues and search around that. I have written to the Minister in Scotland have done the same thing. Across the year, and had a response, but once the consultation goes live we are averaging around 100 to 120 incidents within on that aspect we will certainly contribute to that debate, London being reported to us. The CAA figures are too. slightly higher. Colleagues from BALPAdid a survey of their members, Q168 Mr Hayes: Okay. But of course you would be which indicates that the figures are drastically able to search on suspicion following arrest. underreported. We can get into the reasons for that, but Simon Bray: Yes, indeed. That would be the case. As some of it could be the perception that as pilots they regards the type of people involved, we have not got the were not being treated as victims and the matter was not full range of knowledge because there have been so being taken seriously. The legislation will give the degree many offences that we have not been able to get to the 73 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 74 bottom of and we have not been able to make those on what damage can be done at certain distances and arrests and prosecutions. In some cases it will be malicious; angles, and depending on the strength of the laser—bits in some cases it will be because people do not understand and pieces like that. Having said that, if somebody that it is a big problem. Again, one of the benefits of the shines a laser and a plane crashes, there is a lot of injury legislation will be the opportunity to educate the public to a lot of people; the consequences at that end are and law enforcement officers at the same time. obviously catastrophic.

Mr Hayes: I see. Thank you. Q172 Mr Baker: You have pre-empted what I was going to ask. Can I ask BALPA whether it is possible Q169 Drew Hendry: I am interested in how we take that an attack with a laser could cause the loss of an further action to tackle reckless behaviour. You have aeroplane? said that, because of the previous legislation, it has been Martin Drake: Oh yes, absolutely. Most laser strikes very difficult to get the numbers of offences that are happen within 3 miles of the threshold of the runway, actually being committed, but I imagine that, even if when most aircraft are busy completing the due diligence anecdotally, there is some evidence of serial offending checks that we do: “Are the wheels down? Are the flaps in these cases of shining lasers at vehicles. Given that is in the right place? Am I lined up with the runway?”—the the case, do you feel that there should be consideration things that pilots do all the time subconsciously. You within the work we are doing here on the Bill of future approach at about 150 knots at that stage, so you are repeat offending to have further punishment? doing 2.5 miles a minute and are somewhere around the Simon Bray: This legislation will allow the courts to 1,000-foot mark. You are using all the visual cues that do that in any event. It is an offence triable either way, you get from the runway. The vast majority of these which can be dealt with with summary powers and at a strikes happen at night, and you are using all lights. higher level, potentially,with short terms of imprisonment Your instruments are lit up. We have mostly cathode ray and so on. The fact that it will be a recordable offence tube or LED instrumentation on the flight deck; there means that we will be able, or required, to record all are very few aircraft still flying around with the old- instances of it, which will give us a greater level of data fashioned dial-type instruments. The potential for a about patterns and intelligence on where these happenings pilot to confuse whether he is looking at the centre line are taking place. or a side set of lights—particularly in a crosswind, when Martin Drake: The magistrates or judges can be you are canted over to deal with that—is huge. It is informed by the Ministry of Justice and by the Crown quite conceivable that if both pilots were affected by the Prosecution Service, which brings these prosecutions, of dazzle effect at a critical stage of flight, they could whether the offender has been prosecuted successfully attempt to land down the side of the runway, rather before and, if they have, whether the case can be heard than down the centre of it. in the magistrates court or whether it is so serious that it needs to be pushed up to the Crown court. That can be Q173 Mr Baker: Could you remind us of the maximum done, given the span of punishments for somebody capacity of the largest aeroplanes? How many people found guilty of that offence. Of course, there is also the are on a big aeroplane now? question of the circumstances in which it occurred. If Martin Drake: You could end up with about 520 on someone was using a laser slightly mischievously, that an A380. might be considered a lower offence, whereas if someone was doing that absolutely maliciously, it might be seen Q174 Mr Baker: So it is quite conceivable that a as a higher-level offence. The venue for the trial can be person deliberately dazzling a pilot could put that many decided at the pre-trial hearing. people’s lives at risk. Martin Drake: Potentially, yes. Drew Hendry: I should say that justice is devolved to Scotland, but I was curious about your views. Thank Q175 Mr Baker: With that factor in mind, I have you. tabled an amendment to probe the Government’sposition. It would double the term of imprisonment. The Bill sets out a term not exceeding five years; my amendment Q170 Mr Baker: I want to pick up remarks that I would take that to 10 years, because I had this point in made on Second Reading about the seriousness of the mind. I should say that it is a probing amendment to offence. As the Bill is framed, it is an offence only if the provoke this conversation. What do you think the person shines or directs a laser beam at a vehicle that is appropriate term of imprisonment should be for a in the course of a journey. As police officers, do you deliberate attempt to dazzle at that point in the flight? have adequate powers if a person is assaulted with a laser when not in a vehicle? You are nodding. Martin Drake: You are very much into a catastrophic eventuality. Might I draw your attention to the aircraft Richard Goodwin: If we are talking about retinal that crashed on the threshold of Heathrow during the damage, we are talking about grievous bodily harm. hours of daylight—the 777 that had the fuel issue? Had that occurred at night, the pilots would have really Q171 Mr Baker: Could you be clear on why those struggled to make the decisions that they made, and to powers would not be adequate in the case of an aircraft get the aeroplane where they did. Had the pilots been in flight? dazzled or distracted by a laser, I very much doubt that Richard Goodwin: It is difficult to prove, over that that would have been successful as it was. distance, the person’s intent. They are arguably shining the laser at an object. It is very difficult to be accurate at Q176 Mr Baker: In the circumstances—I ask this to that point. It may be a reckless consequence, so there is the police officers—what is the appropriate maximum potential for that, but there are various scientific opinions punishment? 75 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 76

Simon Bray: I would be reluctant to comment on at the time to understand and define. Some lasers come what an appropriate sentence would be. We would in as one thing and then turn out, when they are tested, recognise that it is being treated seriously and it is to be something completely different. For me it is more obviously a matter for the courts to determine how about what that person intends to do with any laser, sentences given by Parliament should be dealt with on a rather than about some of the more high-powered ones. case-by-case basis. We would not want to put a figure Paul Watts: It is not necessarily the power that is on it, to be honest—[Interruption.] My colleague mentioned causing the threat, but the dazzle and the distraction that you are potentially talking about something in the that we spoke about. That effect would come from a region of manslaughter for that type of offence. very large power range of lasers. Q177 Mr Baker: Why only manslaughter? Why not murder, if somebody has deliberately used a laser as a Q183 Tom Tugendhat: Given your point that the weapon to dazzle pilots? power is not entirely relevant because the dazzle is so Richard Goodwin: If someone said, “Yes, I was trying important, can you talk about the other equipment that to kill all the people on that plane and I did it,” then yes, exists with lasers today? Surveyors use lasers, and absolutely. presumably there is a risk, so they must be cautious about how they use them. Driverless vehicles are likely Q178 Richard Burden: Commander Bray,you mentioned to use lasers in different ways and various autonomous that you have written looking for a defined power for measuring equipment is likely to use lasers. Can you stop and search relating to lasers. talk about the dangers that they pose and how they might be mitigated? Simon Bray: Yes. Steve Landells: Public Health England says that lasers Q179 Richard Burden: For that to work, would it under about 20 milliwatts will not cause any eye damage— need to be predicated on a redefinition of lasers in some so, provided that they are not pointing up in the air, way as an offensive weapon? they are not going to dazzle and distract, and they will not cause eye damage if they happen to strike your eye. Simon Bray: Not necessarily, no, in support of this A normal blinking reaction will take into account a Act, if we had a power—it would be sparingly used—to 20-milliwatt laser, but the problem is that the ones we search individuals for lasers that had been used for the are seeing now are 2,500 milliwatts or 4,000 milliwatts. purposes of the offence under clause 22. They are the problem. Depending on the uses that they are put to—astronomers use them as well—and providing Q180 Richard Burden: If lasers were going to be that they are at the lower end of the power range, if they defined in some way as offensive weapons, would the are not being pointed in the air with driverless cars and kind of laser need to be defined more closely? things like that, maybe that is not an issue. Simon Bray: If some of these lasers were to be classified as an offensive weapon as a matter of course, we could use existing legislation to stop and search for Q184 Tom Tugendhat: Does the Bill affect people them in any event. such as astronomers using them as you suggest? Martin Drake: We do not think so. We have done Q181 Richard Burden: But if there were to be a quite a bit of research on the legitimate use of laser reclassification to make them offensive weapons, would technology, and boy, is it useful. Eye surgery uses lasers; that reclassification somehow need to define the strength you said surveying. There is a whole list of them. The of laser involved? equipment that uses those sorts of laser is designed to Simon Bray: Yes. use the laser in that way, and it tends to have safety functions, so that if the laser strays, it shuts down, and Q182 Richard Burden: At the moment, there is no of course it is used by trained people. The people who need to do that because the action of pointing a laser, have those lasers fully understand their dangers and however strong it is, at a vehicle is the offence. Presumably, how to use them, and the Bill does talk about legitimate without reclassifying them as offensive weapons, if you use. We are not in any way, shape or form saying that got your power of stop and search, that would be there are not really good reasons for using a laser. because of suspicion that the laser would be used for—or However, when they are used irresponsibly at the powers had been used for—that purpose. But if you were of laser that we are seeing, that gives us cause for simply going to say that the possession of a laser could concern. Most legitimate lasers do not have the powers be the possession of an offensive weapon, would that that we are seeing. I say “most” because some do, but need to define the strength of the laser? most of them do not have the powers that we are seeing, which people can quite happily buy over the internet Simon Bray: You would have to have the definition of and have delivered to their home. what is an offensive weapon clearly in the process of stopping and searching or when trying to work out Simon Bray: There is a clear defence within the Bill, whether it is of that type. You would not know unless and that is something that we have been paying close you had the laser tested afterwards to see whether it met attention to in terms of our investigations. the criteria. Richard Goodwin: I am trying to rack my brains Q185 Alan Brown: We have heard that lasers are about reasonable excuse and lawful excuse, which is in becoming more common, and you obviously support the current offensive weapons legislation—why someone the proposed legislation. It is similar with drones, which in a park at 10 o’clock at night has a laser in their are becoming more accessible and more common. Would pocket. I am slightly reluctant to go down the route of you like to see proposals to ensure better regulation and power because that is difficult for an operational officer safety with regard to the use of drones? 77 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 78

Steve Landells: From BALPA’s point of view, we Q188 Andrew Selous: Do I detect there is a slight would certainly like to see more regulations and toughening sense of urgency on this and we probably want to see up around drones. We understand that a lot of work is how this legislation goes and if there is not an improvement, going on at the moment and there is a DFT consultation, you would be looking to Government to review the but yes, it would be good to see drones in there. situation again, with a view to taking further action? Is Simon Bray: Likewise, whatever regulation comes out that a fair summary? and whatever changes there might be to navigation Martin Drake: Absolutely. We started off with a laser orders and so on, we would like a simple set of regulations that was about 1,200 milliwatts—we purchased one at for the police to get involved with enforcing. 2,500 milliwatts. We sent it up to the University of Manchester and had both the power and collimation Q186 Andrew Selous: Chief Inspector Goodwin, I checked and it did what it said on the tin. We are seeing think you were expressing some concern about the lasers today at 3.5 watts, 5 watts, and there is somebody increase in sales of lasers recently, and the possible need claiming to sell you a 10-watt one. I am not quite sure to regulate their sale. Do we have any figures on recent how legitimate that particular advert is. Every so often, sales of lasers? Has there been a significant increase we are seeing the technology double—I am sure there is recently, and do we have any sense of the split in sales a rule for that. What gives us cause for concern is that as between legitimate use—such as for eye surgery, which the power of these lasers goes up, the dazzle and distract we just heard about—and illegitimate use? effect on my colleagues could be such that you might Richard Goodwin: I think what we are talking about not only incapacitate one pilot, you might incapacitate is laser pens in particular. I suspect my colleagues from both of them. Then you have a problem on your hands. BALPA are probably better placed to go into the detail, At the moment, the laser normally comes through a because they have done some of their own market side window and the pilot who happens to be sitting on testing. that side is the one who takes the brunt of it and it is Martin Drake: Yes, indeed. When we realised that possible to hand over control to the other pilot and put lasers were becoming an issue, we decided to spend some compensatory measures in place. We have shone some time looking at what was available. In some parts the really bright ones at aircraft windows we have in the of the world—in fact, just down the road here—you can office—windows that have come off aeroplanes out of go into the local market and buy a laser that purports to service—and it is really impressive to see what you can be 500 milliwatts. We bought three of those and had do even with the power of lasers that we have. We do see them tested, and they varied between 280 and 650 milliwatts. some urgency in this and we see the development going They are about $20, give or take, and they are readily in the wrong direction. We would be seeking powers for available. the Government to do something. At the higher end—you tend not to be able to buy Q189 Andrew Selous: Can I come to the police and those on the street; you have to go to the internet—a the operational aspect of this? With the extra powers in quick search will show you that they are available. The this Bill, what confidence do you have as police officers price has fallen considerably. When we started 10 years in your colleagues’ ability to swiftly apprehend culprits? ago, £700 would be what you would pay for the most powerful laser. You can buy a 5-watt laser today off the Simon Bray: There are limitations, come what may. internet for around $269. I do not think anyone has There are delays between us getting the information done the numbers, but experience tells me they are from air traffic control through the pilots to being able probably out there and being used. to identify the people on the ground and the locations of the premises where people might be. It is difficult There are certain countries where you cannot post a anyway, if you are in an aircraft coming at that speed laser to over the internet; the USA springs to mind. You and height, to identify specifically where that will be. can only buy legitimate lasers from legitimate sources in That is why we have benefited from police helicopters the US. One of the companies we have investigated getting involved. This will be a better reactive set of clearly says on its website: “Wecannot post these products options than is currently the case. However, it does not to the USA”. They are out there and they are relatively allow us to be preventive and proactive in the way we easy to buy. The advertising is up there and if you are of would like. That is where we come into not just powers that mind, you can burst balloons, set fire to matches around stop and search—as I say, judiciously used—but and do all these lovely things, make your cat chase also the whole bit about possessing these things and around the room with it. They are up there. The advertising being able to access them in the first instance. is there, so there is a market. If our police officers come across a group of youths who have got these things, what are they there for? Q187 Andrew Selous: As a supplementary, if the What are they going to be doing with these items? legislation before us does not provide the redress that Playing with them, but in what way? There is potential we are all urgently seeking, given the seriousness of this harm among friends, let alone people they do not like. If problem outlined by Mr Baker and others, what would they have got them, there is the potential use for damage be the appropriate follow-on action and within what and mischief. timescale? Martin Drake: We would like to see some import Q190 Andrew Selous: Are you satisfied that the means control on the recreational lasers, if I can refer to them you have to influence Government are sufficiently robust as recreational lasers rather than legitimate lasers. That and flexible that if you were to speak to Ministers in a is possible; we restrict the importation of all sorts of few months’ time, or after this legislation has gone things, so I think that is doable. We have got the through, because it was still a problem, that the system problem of the ones that are here already, but that is would react with the degree of seriousness that you something we can address. suggest it should? 79 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 80

Simon Bray: Both the Home Office and the Department of quarters. Do the rest of you have any observations for Transport have been keen to engage with us and to on whether the Bill could be usefully extended to say listen to what we say. They have worked with us closely something about drone safety? If so, what? on this, so I am confident that they will be listening and Steve Landells: From BALPA’s point of view, we asking us questions. would like to see the Bill extended to include drones. The prime thing we would like to see is a mandatory Q191 Andrew Selous: My final question—I do not registration process for drones. At the moment, anyone know if you have a copy of the Bill in front of you—is can buy a drone and fly it anywhere, and they do not on clause 22(2), which is about the defence that could be have to take any responsibility for it. At the moment, if offered if someone did not intend to commit an offence the police find a drone inside the environs of an airport and was exercising all due diligence. I am struggling a or on the runway, they have no idea who that drone bit to imagine an astrologer near an airport or a surveyor belongs to. We would really like to see a compulsory working late at night on some building project. Who do registration process. you think clause 22(2) has in mind? It is probably right Perhaps before first flight you would have to go that it is in the Bill, but I am struggling to see who might online to get an unlock code. During that process we legitimately use that defence. could get exposure to the rules and an online test for a Paul Watts: We have seen lasers used in light displays. drone operator. That would also mean that the operators I could see a laser being used in a light display and would have an idea of what the rules were. A lot of the someone not realising that it is in proximity to an problems being caused by drones are through ignorance— aircraft flight path. 17 near-misses were reported between manned aircraft and drones last year—so we need to educate the people Q192 Andrew Selous: Does that happen often? Are flying the drones that there are rules and regulations in there light displays that are permitted to take place near place. It is a dangerous thing to do, and we think that a airports or flight paths? compulsory registration scheme would address a lot of Paul Watts: Not necessarily near airports, but certainly the problems. in cities and large urban areas. You would not expect Simon Bray: We would not disagree with that. We are them on the flight path into a major airport, but you do mindful that there need to be restrictions around particular see lasers used by nightclubs and the like. locations, as there are currently. However, in the case of aircraft, it matters not hugely where you put in those Q193 Andrew Selous: Are light displays a current restrictions; it is the whole bit about the flight paths in issue for pilots? and out that we have concerns about. Martin Drake: Generally speaking, no. The laser displays tend to be very broad beam—there is little Q195 Kit Malthouse: I have a couple of quick questions. collimation to the lasers. Displays tend to be licensed if I was slightly concerned about the definition of a vehicle. they are close to airports, and we are usually told when In the Bill it says that it means they are there, so that is not really the issue. Paris has a “any thing used for travel by land, water or air”. laser that spins around the Eiffel tower, and Greenwich Do you think it might be sensible to extend that slightly has one that goes up the Greenwich meridian at the to include vehicles that are not used for travel such as moment. Those are not a problem to us at all. They bulldozers and very tall cranes in the scope? Does a tend to be low-level and pointed down across the heads police horse used for travel count as a vehicle? If a of the crowd rather than up into the air. police horse in a public order situation were to be One thing the measure would address is search and dazzled by lasers, should it be included? The definition rescue. They have a thing called a laser flare, which has is quite specific, so do you feel it might benefit from a fan of laser that, again, is not well collimated. The being widened a little? search and rescue aircraft can see those things for miles, Simon Bray: I think it would be worth looking at. so if someone is bobbing around in a little dinghy or is Things like police horses could be dealt with in different stuck on the top of a hill it is really useful. Obviously ways—cruelty to animals, assault of the police officers someone would not be intending to dazzle and distract— riding them and so on. It would be worth looking at they would be intending to be rescued. I think there are that to ensure that the definition is suitably inclusive of legitimate uses that would be absolutely fine. some of the things you just mentioned. Steve Landells: Airliners tend to be going into a predictable place, whereas helicopter operators tend to operate in areas where you might not normally expect Q196 Kit Malthouse: I do not know if you have had air traffic. It is probably not such a big issue for the instances of people in tall cranes being dazzled, but tall airlines. construction cranes heave tons of stuff and could be quite dangerous. We have seen collapses in the past if Simon Bray: But for people who, for example, have a someone has been distracted and got the angle wrong. laser and want to shine it on the clouds, the big question It might seem obscure, but the purpose of the law is is whether they have exercised all due diligence and sometimes to deal with obscure situations. taken all reasonable precautions. That is going to be the crux of it at court. Simon Bray: Yes, indeed.

Q194 Richard Burden: May I move on to another Q197 Kit Malthouse: It might be worth having a subject? In the previous panel I asked Mr Moriarty to look. The other issue was on the definition of an comment on the fact that there is nothing in the Bill aircraft being in flight. The Bill defines an aircraft as relating to the regulation of drones. It is an omission being in flight from from the Bill that has been commented on in a number “the moment when it first moves for the purposes of take-off”. 81 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 82

Presumably that is from push-back and includes taxiing Martin Drake: Yes. These are not in the scope of the to the runways. However, it then says Bill, but we have come across goalkeepers being lasered “ending with the moment when it next comes to rest after when an important penalty is to be taken, and we have landing.” heard of referees being lasered. It is a transport Bill, so There can often be quite a lot of taxiing after it comes it is not within the scope of that, and I know the police to rest. It waits five minutes for its gate to come free and have powers to deal with it, but it is a growing problem. then it taxis for 10 minutes—or 25 minutes if it is the wrong end of Heathrow airport. Do you think that Q201 Mr Baker: Captain Drake, you mentioned that definition is a problem? Obviously taxiing is not as you have got windows in your office from which you dangerous, but it is a dangerous moment as well. have had spectacular effects when you have shone lasers Martin Drake: We did discuss that. The issue with at them. For the purposes of public education, have you taxiing is that you tend to taxi aircraft at a maximum considered letting some videos go out there to wherever speed of 10 to 15 mph and, if you do get dazzled, you to show us what happens? can put the brakes on and stop. At that point, you can bring the whole thing to a graceful halt. Martin Drake: We have, yes. There is some nervousness about publicising what happens because countries where The definition of flight is a tricky one. If you look that has been done have seen a spike in events. That may into it, I think there are about seven or eight definitions be a cost we have to bear: we may have to see a spike in of flight. The current one that I think the International events then to see a contraction. We could do that—it is Civil Aviation Organisation accepts is doors closed for a very sensible idea. the purposes of a service to doors open at the end of that service. I think that covers all aspects of what you are considering. Q202 Mr Baker: It is sensible, apart from the side effect that we know there might be spikes afterwards, so Q198 Kit Malthouse: It might be easier to say “Any we might need to think about it again. vehicle that is moving.” Martin Drake: Yes, indeed. Martin Drake: It might very well.

Q199 Kit Malthouse: As you say, with a stationary The Chair: There are no further questions from members vehicle there are dangers, but at the moment it moves of the Committee. I thank the witnesses for their evidence, and there is danger there is a problem. time and co-operation. That has been most helpful. I Martin Drake: Indeed. I take on board what you said ask you to remain seated for just a moment while I about the cranes. That is something that had not occurred invite the Whip to move the Adjournment. Line-by-line to us, I must confess. In our research we have come consideration of the Bill will begin at 11.30 am on across train drivers being lasered—apparently it is great Thursday in Committee Room 10. fun to let them go through a red light and watch the Ordered, That further consideration be now brakes come on. The Seacat, coming into Holyhead adjourned.—(Jackie Doyle-Price.) harbour, was lasered a couple of years ago. Again, I do not know why. They were trying to hit the bridge. 5.1 pm Q200 Kit Malthouse: Yes, hovercraft are covered as a Adjourned till Thursday 16 March at half-past Eleven vessel. o’clock. 83 Public Bill Committee14 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 84

Written evidence reported to the House VTAB 03 Alliance of British Drivers VTAB 01 Calor VTAB 02 British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) VTAB 04 Institute of the Motor Industry

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY AND AVIATION BILL

Third Sitting

Thursday 16 March 2017

(Morning)

CONTENTS

CLAUSE 1 agreed to. Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 143) 2016 - 2017 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 20 March 2017

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2017 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 85 Public Bill Committee16 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 86

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †JAMES GRAY,JOAN RYAN

† Baker, Mr Steve (Wycombe) (Con) † Malthouse, Kit (North West Hampshire) (Con) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) † Marris, Rob (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab) † Burden, Richard (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab) † Matheson, Christian (City of Chester) (Lab) † Doyle-Price, Jackie (Thurrock) (Con) † Prentis, Victoria (Banbury) (Con) † Foxcroft, Vicky (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) † Selous, Andrew (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) † Fuller, Richard (Bedford) (Con) † Snell, Gareth (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op) † Hayes, Mr John (Minister of State, Department for † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) Transport) † Tugendhat, Tom (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) † Hendry, Drew (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) Ben Williams, Farrah Bhatti, Committee Clerks † Knight, Sir Greg (East Yorkshire) (Con) † McDonald, Andy (Middlesbrough) (Lab) † attended the Committee 87 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 88

“(1A) The Secretary of State must consult on and publish the Public Bill Committee criteria that they will use to determine whether, in their opinion, a motor vehicle is designed or adapted to be capable, in at least Thursday 16 March 2017 some circumstances or situations, of safely driving themselves without having to be monitored by an individual.

[JAMES GRAY in the Chair] (1B) The Secretary of State may not change the criteria until further consultation has taken place with vehicle manufacturers, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill insurers and other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.” 11.30 am This amendment requires the Government to consult on and publish criteria for the definition of “automated vehicles” that will be used by The Chair: I welcome the Committee to line-by-line the Secretary of State. consideration of the Bill; I hope we have a pleasant and It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for uncontroversial time. Perhaps I can lay down a few the first time in this Committee, Mr Gray—although, rules straightaway. I tend to the conservative—with a we were together at the evidence session on Tuesday. small c, of course—side on such matters, so I will apply I am delighted to speak to the Bill generally, as well as the same rules of dress and conduct as we have in the to my amendment, because we are now entering the age Chamber. In particular, if anybody’s phone goes off, of automation, which has the incredible and immense they will be banished from the room with no further potential to liberate many people who are excluded by ado, so please ensure that they are turned off. dint of age, skill, capacity or ability. It heralds a new era We have one or two new Members with us, so if the of inclusivity for personal transport and can address Committee does not mind, I shall give a short seminar geographical, social and economic isolation. on how we will conduct our business. You have the list of amendments in front of you; it will be available in the The economic dividends of the transformation in our room in all events. You will see that amendments of a personal transport arrangements, in terms of air quality similar nature and subject are grouped together. Any and climate change, could be immense, as could the Member who has put their name to the lead amendment industrial and technological advances. I am thinking in the group may speak to move it. I hope that is particularly of the potential road safety benefits, the reasonably clear. After that, other Members can catch impact on our national health service and the health my eye and speak in favour or against an amendment. dividends, and the reduction in the number of people Any Member may speak to an amendment more than killed or seriously injured on our roads. once. For the sake of time, that might not be encouraged, This is an exciting era, and the idea of us entering but Members are perfectly entitled to speak more than into a discussion about automated vehicles is terribly once if they so wish. exciting, until we realise that part 1 of the Bill is about At the end of a debate on a particular group, I will insurance. To some degree, we seem to be coming at the call the Member who moved the amendment to speak issue from the wrong end of the telescope, but we will again. Before they sit down, they have to tell me whether have to put all the exciting stuff to one side for now and they wish to withdraw the amendment or press it to a concentrate on the framework. [Interruption.] Yes, Division. If any other Member wants to press other insurance is riveting, and it is right that the Government have amendments or new clauses in a group, they should let sought to set out a framework to enable the sector to me know informally—by passing me a note or telling develop. On that logic, it is the right thing to do. me—and I will make that possible. I shall work on the presumption that the Minister wishes to move all the I thank the Minister at the outset for his approach to Government amendments. the Bill. As you rightly say, Mr Gray, we find ourselves in largely uncontested territory—not exclusively, but For those who are new to Committee work, it is very largely—and a great deal is to be welcomed. I thank important to remember that the amendments are not the Minister for his approach, his co-operation and his voted on in the order in which they appear on the assistance in preparing for the sitting. selection list or are debated, but in the order in which they appear in the Bill. An amendment may well be There are times when we have to be detached from grouped with a later clause, so it will be voted on when our technology, as you rightly said, Mr Gray, and there we get to that clause during the ordinary process of the are times in our daily lives when we want to be removed Bill. from it, so I was a little disappointed that an email was Wewill probably not have many stand part debates—the sent to me at 9.02 pm last night with the policy scoping debate that happens on a particular clause—as the notes, which I did not look at until this morning. They preference is to debate the clause with the amendments are enormously helpful and they speak to the amendment, instead. Occasionally,if we have not had that opportunity, but I rather wish we had them a little earlier. I just make I may suggest that we have a stand part debate, but such that gentle point. debates often take up time. I hope that is all reasonably The amendment would require the Government to clear. consult on and publish the criteria for the definition of automated vehicles that is to be used by the Secretary of Clause 1 State. That goes right to the heart of what an automated LISTING OF AUTOMATED VEHICLES BY THE SECRETARY vehicle is. We are asking for that consultation and OF STATE publication of criteria because it is crucial for manufacturers, vehicle owners and insurers to know whether they are Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab): I beg to making, buying, loaning on or insuring on an automated move amendment 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end vehicle, and whether the scope of the legislation applies insert— to their vehicle. 89 Public Bill Committee16 MARCH 2017 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 90

In Tuesday’sevidence session we heard that the insurance Because we are entering new territory, we need to industry welcomed the Government taking on the agree what we mean by automated vehicles. We have it responsibility to say what an automated vehicle is, so fixed in our minds that the definition covers only end-to-end providing clarity, but we have concerns that the Bill as journeys, but there are also journeys of which parts are drafted leaves the Secretary of State with total discretion under the direct control of the vehicle and not of the as to what qualifies as an automated vehicle. We have person who occupies it. We already have autonomous therefore tabled the amendment to provide greater clarity braking systems—the Committee explored those on and to ensure that relevant persons and organisations— Tuesday—and our shared view is probably that they fall stakeholders, as we sometimes call them—would be outside the definition of an automated vehicle, because sufficiently involved, allowing that to inform the Secretary they do not cover every function; the person occupying of State’s list of automated vehicles. the vehicle is still required to intervene. There are also devices to ensure that drivers do not stray into another Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): Will the hon. lane. Those are all welcome assistance measures, but Gentleman not accept that, on reflection, his amendment they do not fall within the definition of an automated is otiose? Surely it beggars belief that the Secretary of vehicle as I understand it. I do not think that it is asking State would not consult. Any good Secretary of State too much to suggest that we go through the process of must consult in such circumstances. establishing the criteria. Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con): The hon. Gentleman Andy McDonald: It is also about the publication of draws my attention to the word “monitored” in criteria; we have to arrive there and there has to be a clause 1(1)(b). It is an interesting word to use in relation journey to get to the establishment of the criteria, and to whether a vehicle is autonomous. I can monitor we could explore how we might share some consensus myself driving but not be in control. Is not the essential around that. I do not suggest for one minute that point whether the individual controls the vehicle? I Secretaries of State will rush off and include on their wonder whether he has any observations about the word list of vehicles devices that are wholly and utterly outwith “monitored”. the contemplated legislation, but it is useful to consult on and establish the criteria against which we judge Andy McDonald: The hon. Gentleman raises a valid automated vehicles. I hope that will become clear from point. That is indeed the word used, but I find it a little the rest of my contribution, but I am grateful to the difficult to reconcile with the rest of the Bill, because it right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. might suggest some engagement and involvement. He is The significant production of automated vehicles is right to point that out, and I am sure that the Minister still some years away. We are preparing the ground for will want to pick up on his well-made observation. an environment that we know will come but does not The Opposition believe that the additional clarity yet exist. However, there has already been an increase in provided by the amendment would help to create a assistance systems and partial automation introduced more reassuring environment that encouraged the over the years to support drivers. The Bill assumes a development and uptake of automated vehicles. The clear distinction between advanced driver-assistance systems amendment would also prevent the Secretary of State and fully automated driving technology in UK policy from changing the criteria without further consultation. and legislation. As such, there is a need for collaboration It has been pointed out that such consultation would between the Government, manufacturers, insurers and happen in any event, as a matter of course, but I suggest consumers to develop a viable and practical system of that it would be helpful for that to be made abundantly classification to identify when a vehicle is deemed to be clear in the Bill. The amendment would ensure that the automated or autonomous. criteria used remain up to date and as practical as possible in a fast-moving world, and that they provide a The clause requires the Secretary of State to device to allow all interested parties to engage fully. “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 Finally, let me refer to our helpful scoping notes, for Great Britain, and…are in the Secretary of State’s opinion designed which I am grateful. We are told that in practice the or adapted to be capable, in at least some circumstances or Secretary of State would need to have regard to whether situations, of safely driving themselves without having to be the vehicles or types of vehicles have met international monitored by an individual.” or domestic standards on the safe functioning of automated By introducing a requirement for the Secretary of State vehicles. That is very useful, but I suggest that it is to consult on the criteria used to reach that opinion, the merely a part of the criteria that could be established. amendment would ensure that all automated vehicles We need to think about the whole range of functionality were covered by those criteria. The requirement for the that automated vehicles can deliver. Although that criteria to be published would provide greater clarity for information is helpful, it is not the complete picture, all concerned. which is why my amendment suggests a consultation and the establishment of criteria