Monthly Archives: August 2017

Government, Society, Technology, Transport

Autonomous-driving lorries ‘at risk of crashing in cyber-attack’

TRANSPORT

Self Driving Lorries

Self-driving and autonomous running vehicle platoons pose many risks. They include a ‘malicious takeover’ by cyber-attack putting the safety of road users at risk.

SELF-DRIVING lorries which are to be trialled on England’s motorways could be vulnerable to cyber-attack, an official report has warned.

A feasibility study of the Government’s plans said there was a risk of a ‘malicious takeover’ of the convoys, putting road users at risk.

Under the scheme, up to three wirelessly connected HGVs will move in a platoon, with acceleration and braking controlled by the lead vehicle. The lorries would still be steered by drivers.

The report, commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT), concludes that the system has the potential to reduce accidents and emissions, while improving traffic flow. But it also outlines 20 risks, including cyber-attack and the potential for drivers in the middle and back vehicles to lose concentration.

Extreme weather conditions could lead to the sensing system keeping the vehicles a set distance apart malfunctioning. Other cars could enter the convoy by mistake, and the lead lorry could suffer a tyre blow-out.

The scheme is expected to be tried on major roads next year.

Driving in a convoy could see the front lorry push air out of the way, making the vehicles more efficient and lowering emissions. But Edmund King, AA president, said the safety of drivers must come first.

He said: ‘There have been causes of connected and autonomous vehicles and even road signs being hacked. The safety of the drivers is paramount.

‘If the platoon is hacked it could put on the brakes or try to make it accelerate.’

The study into “heavy vehicle platoons on UK roads” was carried out by the independent Transport Research Laboratory consultancy and others in 2014 but has only just been published.

One lorry drivers’ organisation, which was not named, told the authors it was worried about ‘the safety impact of running so close together,’ adding: ‘There is no fuel-saving amount that is worth risking road safety for.’

The report said the probability of a ‘malicious takeover of platoon (cyber-attack)’ was ‘very low’, but its impact would be ‘very high’ and would involve a ‘threat to road user safety, road infrastructure and reputation’ of the convoy system.

It said, ‘adverse environmental conditions’ such as fog and snow could ‘affect sensing capability’. The report also said other motorists could be unaware of the convoy and drive between the lorries. And the authors said ‘driver underload’ was a problem as they may lose concentration when they are not performing the full range of driving tasks. They suggest training drivers for ‘behavioural adaptation awareness’.

The document said: ‘It must be ensured that they will always be able to re-engage in the driving task within a few seconds.’

The report said it believed convoys would be safer overall, adding: ‘Around 90 per cent of accidents involve driver error. Automatic control (or driver assistance) reduces the magnitude of the risk of driver error.’ The DfT has not responded to a request for comment.

Standard
Britain, Business, Economic, Government

Leading firms must say how chief executive salaries compare with staff

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

LEADING companies will be forced to disclose how much their chief executive is paid compared to their average worker . . . and justify the sum.

Business Secretary Greg Clark is due to announce this week that nearly 1,000 listed firms will have to publish the ratio in a crackdown on excessive boardroom salaries.

It is also believed that a new public register will name and shame those whose investors revolt over the pay of bosses.

The plans will be announced as ministers seek to rebut criticism that they have watered down the tough approach promised by Theresa May.

Last year the Prime Minister unveiled radical proposals, such as workers being granted representation on boards, but she has since backed away from these ideas. The plans follow criticism over the high pay of executives following scandals such as the collapse of BHS.

Mr Clark will announce that the Investment Association, the fund managers’ trade body, will oversee the creation of the new register to include any company which faces opposition from at least 20 per cent of shareholders.

Ministers say the publication of ratios between bosses and UK-based workers will shine a spotlight on boardroom pay. It is unclear if the figure for chief executives would be their total package, which averaged £4.5million last year in the FTSE-100, or only their much lower base salary.

Mr Clark is also expected to say that the Government will guarantee workers at listed companies a louder voice in the boardroom by amending the Corporate Governance Code. This will be achieved, according to sources, by designating a non-executive director to represent workers, nominating a director from the workforce or a new advisory council which would have access to board members.

That would meet a commitment made in the 2017 Conservative manifesto although the Government is abandoning a general election pledge to ‘legislate to make executive pay packages subject to strict annual votes by shareholders’.

Companies will also have to produce an annual statement explaining how they acknowledge the interests of workers and wider stakeholders. In addition to the rules to be imposed on big public companies, privately owned businesses, including Sir Philip Green’s Arcadia Group, will become subject to a new voluntary code of corporate governance principles supervised by the Financial Reporting Council.

The proposals will be hailed by ministers as a robust package of reforms designed to make big firms more accountable. They come after corporate governance failings at Sports Direct International and a bitter revolt over a £14million deal for BP chief executive Bob Dudley. This has spurred the Government to pledge a crackdown on boardroom excesses.

The collapse of high street chain BHS after being sold for £1 by Sir Philip was also a factor in hardening public and political opinion against the bosses of big businesses.

This year, there were fewer major protests over the pay of executives at FTSE-100 companies but there was a significantly higher number of revolts over bosses in the FTSE-250 index.

Under Sir Vince Cable, the former Business Secretary and now Liberal Democrat leader, shareholders in public companies were handed a binding say every three years on remuneration policy.

But the annual vote on what directors receive is on a non-binding basis and looks likely to continue that way.

Standard
Britain, European Court, European Parliament, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

EU law may have precedence over UK courts for years after Brexit

BREXIT

The position paper was released by David Davis’s Department for Exiting the EU.

The UK Government has denied watering down its Brexit plans as officials have admitted EU judges could have jurisdiction over Britain for years after it leaves the bloc.

The Prime Minister, Theresa May, insisted the UK would ‘take back control’ of its laws, saying: ‘When we leave the EU we will be leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.’

But a position paper published by the Government suggested the ECJ could continue to have control over Scots and English law for up to three years after Britain leaves at the end of March 2019.

That could mean EU judges will continue to pass down rulings on key issues until an independent new body is established to adjudicate on post-Brexit rows over trade or immigration.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory MP for North East Somerset, said: ‘If the ECJ has jurisdiction, you are part of a European superstate. Once you leave, it cannot have jurisdiction – that is the simple test.’

Officials have not been able to rule out the possibility that European judges could still have some influence even after the end of the three-year transition period. They highlighted the fact that trade deals that the EU has reached with other countries including Moldova force them to take account of European law.

Justice minister Dominic Raab admitted the Government would continue to keep ‘half an eye’ on EU laws after Brexit.

The prime minister said that after leaving the EU, ‘Parliament will make our laws – it is British judges who will interpret those laws and it will be the British Supreme Court that will be the arbiter of those laws’.

Mr Rees-Mogg welcomed the fact that the position paper made it clear the UK will eventually leave the influence of the ECJ.

But he added: ‘I would oppose the continuation of ECJ jurisdiction from the moment we leave the EU. If it continues beyond that, it is a problem. Once the European Communities Act is repealed, there will be no legal basis for ECJ jurisdiction.’

The position paper released by David Davis’s Department for Exiting the EU ruled out any ‘direct’ ECJ jurisdiction over Scots and English law after Brexit. It said legal disputes involving individuals and businesses should in future be decided in the UK judicial system, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter.

It added a new dispute resolution mechanism – which could involve a joint committee or arbitration panel – will have to be created to deal with disagreements over the interpretation and application of the Brexit deal.

But it did not rule out the ECJ maintaining its authority during the transitional period, expected to last a number of years after the March 2019 deadline for Brexit, saying only that Britain will ‘work with the EU’ on the design of interim judicial arrangements.

It set out a range of existing arrangements involving the ECJ that could act as possible models for the new mechanism. These include the EU’s agreement with European Free Trade Association states such as Norway and Iceland and a treaty with Moldova.

Norway has its own EFTA Court to rule on disputes with the EU but it has to ‘pay due account’ to all relevant ECJ decisions.

The EU-Moldova agreement requires that, where a trade dispute concerns an interpretation of EU law, an arbitration panel must refer the question to the ECJ and be ‘bound by its interpretation’.

The Government document makes it clear that Britain is not committed to following any of the existing models, but it does not explicitly rule out any scenario other than direct ECJ jurisdiction.

The main job of a resolution body would be to adjudicate on disputes between the EU and the UK on how a trade deal will operate. It could also have to pass judgment on immigration matters.

Remain-backing groups accused the Government of a climbdown for saying there would be no ‘direct’ jurisdiction of the ECJ compared with its previous position of no jurisdiction whatsoever.

UK officials said that Britain would seek ‘legal autonomy’ but that the remaining power of the ECJ to rule on UK matters depended on the ‘scope’ of the transition period, which could last until 2022.

. More on Brexit UK Government threatens to get tough if Brussels bars trade deal

Standard