10/02/2017

:00:28. > :00:33.Welcome to the transport Select Committee. Could we have your name

:00:34. > :00:40.and organisations, please. Good afternoon. I am director for global

:00:41. > :00:45.safety Anfield investigation and certification for General Motors,

:00:46. > :00:49.Europe. Good afternoon, I am the vice-president for GM quality in

:00:50. > :00:51.Europe. Good afternoon. Helen Ford head of Government relations and

:00:52. > :01:01.public policy for general moaters in the UK. Thank you very much.

:01:02. > :01:05.How many fires in the Zafira model B are you aware of, who can tell me,

:01:06. > :01:30.how many? Let me check. Maybe I can take this. There are

:01:31. > :01:36.about 287 fires associated to heating and ventilation systems. How

:01:37. > :01:48.many fires in total are you aware of? For ZafiraB? We just wanted to

:01:49. > :01:52.confirm which model you were referring to? I think it's a pretty

:01:53. > :01:57.obvious question to start with, isn't it? This is the reason that

:01:58. > :02:07.you are here today. The first simple question is how many fires are you

:02:08. > :02:14.aware of in ZafiraB? Well, we are aware of the 287 fires that have

:02:15. > :02:21.brought to our attention. 276 fires. Right. -- -- 287. How many of these

:02:22. > :02:27.have been fully investigated by our engineers? Well, we have

:02:28. > :02:31.investigated a large number by the engineers. How many? I have to come

:02:32. > :02:36.back on this one, please. You know, it's a little odd, you have come

:02:37. > :02:38.here to talk about this subject and this is pretty straightforward

:02:39. > :02:42.information, isn't it? How many fires, how many have been

:02:43. > :02:48.investigated by your engineers, you don't know? Well, actually there is

:02:49. > :02:58.59 cases I know that have been investigated. So 59 out of, what did

:02:59. > :03:04.you say, 28... 287. Doesn't sound a lot, does it, what's happened to the

:03:05. > :03:09.others? Maybe what we can say on that one, before the media attention

:03:10. > :03:16.we were only informed about very few of these cases and after the media

:03:17. > :03:20.we got within, I don't know, four to six weeks, we got aware of more than

:03:21. > :03:25.100 additional cases which we have not had a chance to inspect on. That

:03:26. > :03:32.was sometime ago, wasn't it? The media attention was sometime ago. So

:03:33. > :03:36.how many have you investigated? Can no one tell me how many have been

:03:37. > :03:40.investigated by your engineers? The recalls were older vehicles and they

:03:41. > :03:45.had been scratched before we could investigate them. The figure that

:03:46. > :03:49.was referred to, the 49, the 59 vehicles of the 59 vehicles that we

:03:50. > :03:54.have investigated. We have been able to see ourselves. What's happened to

:03:55. > :03:58.the others? 59 you have investigated and what is that over 200 you

:03:59. > :04:03.haven't investigated. So what's happened to those? Several of those

:04:04. > :04:07.vehicles, number one we couldn't get access to. A lot of the vehicles are

:04:08. > :04:13.even scrapped before we can get there. So, for instance, I know

:04:14. > :04:16.about one case where we sent out our fire investigation team but actually

:04:17. > :04:20.the vehicle was scrapped before we could get access and really do the

:04:21. > :04:24.detailed analysis. When you said you couldn't get access to them, what

:04:25. > :04:30.does that mean exactly? In what way couldn't you get access to them?

:04:31. > :04:35.First of all, if there is a fire case and the customer needs to ask

:04:36. > :04:39.their insurance company and permission for them, for us to do

:04:40. > :04:43.the inspections, without that permission we can not do the

:04:44. > :04:50.inspection. Did you seek permission? Yes. Was it refused? In some cases

:04:51. > :04:55.it is refused, that's right, yes. Who was it refused by? Sometimes by

:04:56. > :04:58.the customers, sometimes if we approach the insurance companies,

:04:59. > :05:04.the vehicles are already scrapped and especially in the Zafira cases a

:05:05. > :05:09.lot of cases were old cases which were brought to the attention later

:05:10. > :05:12.on there could be no physical inspection realised any longer. So

:05:13. > :05:20.how big a problem is this that you weren't able to get access, how many

:05:21. > :05:24.cars did you try to get access to? Well, I think... We should really

:05:25. > :05:29.think about the cars we want to get access to. How many did you try to?

:05:30. > :05:40.The recall and to really get the repair. It's very important for us

:05:41. > :05:44.to truly reach out to our customers. I am asking how many cars did you

:05:45. > :05:47.try to get access to? I didn't give you that figure. It's strange that

:05:48. > :05:51.you have come here to answer questions on this topic and you

:05:52. > :05:59.can't tell me how many cars you tried to get access to. I think it's

:06:00. > :06:03.very important that now that we have identified a final fix for our

:06:04. > :06:07.vehicles that we reach out to the customers. It's all right talking

:06:08. > :06:12.about reaching out, I am asking you a direct question, not reaching out.

:06:13. > :06:16.I am asking what you have done and you can't tell me how many cars you

:06:17. > :06:22.tried to get access to after these fires have occurred? As soon as we

:06:23. > :06:27.get aware of fire cases we actually reach out to the customers and ask

:06:28. > :06:34.them for permission in order to inspect those vehicles. A lot of

:06:35. > :06:40.those cases actually were historical ones which happened over, not just

:06:41. > :06:43.in 2016, and we have sent out our team to inspect wherever we could

:06:44. > :06:48.get access to those vehicles. But it's a bit odd you can't tell me how

:06:49. > :06:56.many you tried to get access to and failed to, it's very, very odd.

:06:57. > :07:01.You talked about 59 out of 287. You have said that you didn't have

:07:02. > :07:05.access to all of those, how do you know those 287 have indeed had fires

:07:06. > :07:12.that were related to the heating and you described some other fault, if

:07:13. > :07:16.you haven't got them how do you know it's 287 that you referenced a

:07:17. > :07:22.specific reason why they went up in fire if you have not had access to

:07:23. > :07:27.vehicles? There is descriptions which we get from our customer,

:07:28. > :07:38.contact centres which have been talking to our customers on how the

:07:39. > :07:41.fire evolved. I think we have a clear indication that this is a very

:07:42. > :07:46.strong part. To confirm you have never seen those cars with the

:07:47. > :07:52.exception of 59. So you are going on someone else's say so? What we are

:07:53. > :07:58.saying is that after the media response we got a lot of calls in

:07:59. > :08:04.our call centres and they informed us later on they also had to... They

:08:05. > :08:08.were no longer available, this is where the number is coming from.

:08:09. > :08:12.Again, perhaps you can help, you said it was 287 where there were

:08:13. > :08:15.fires caused in the heating or something else. Heating or

:08:16. > :08:20.ventilation system. Right. That's quite specific. You yourself haven't

:08:21. > :08:26.been able to acertain that's really where the fire started. How can you

:08:27. > :08:30.rely on that data? It's specific to expect the customers... This is the

:08:31. > :08:35.problem with the data reliability and this is what we are shooting

:08:36. > :08:40.for, we need better data for us and for the whole industry to rely on.

:08:41. > :08:45.Often we just get not aware of it, if a vehicle fire occurs and the

:08:46. > :08:50.customer is approaching insurance and the insurance is paying him out

:08:51. > :08:55.and in most of the cases we never get any information about that one.

:08:56. > :08:59.Therefore, we need a better data source where all this information is

:09:00. > :09:04.collected so there are data collection in the fire services, in

:09:05. > :09:09.the insurance companies. When you came before us last time we went

:09:10. > :09:14.through this. Have you had any fires since this committee met with the

:09:15. > :09:18.team that you sent? After the second part of the recall we did not have

:09:19. > :09:26.any additional fire in these vehicles. Any since we last met up,

:09:27. > :09:31.which I think was last July? I would have thought after that you would

:09:32. > :09:34.have moved heaven and earth to get hold of those vehicles and strip

:09:35. > :09:37.them apart, have you done that because the impression you are

:09:38. > :09:44.giving is you doesn't know, doesn't feel like anything's changed?

:09:45. > :09:49.Actually what we have been doing is, from the first recall we had parts

:09:50. > :09:58.sent back to us in the technical centre and we had about 1,000 parts

:09:59. > :10:04.from the first recall which we then actually did investigate and I think

:10:05. > :10:09.we have seen first indication for recourse but we have also seen that

:10:10. > :10:17.there is a second part of a root cause which is the effective use and

:10:18. > :10:27.that's why we have initialiated the second recall on the 8th August,

:10:28. > :10:30.2016. A quick question before I come back,

:10:31. > :10:36.chair. Could I ask each of the panel

:10:37. > :10:42.members just to very quickly tell me of the 287 customers who have been

:10:43. > :10:47.affected with the fires how many have you personally met with? Each

:10:48. > :10:50.of you, if you could tell me. I haven't met with any of those

:10:51. > :10:54.customers affected, it's not the line of job I am employed. Actually

:10:55. > :10:57.there are colleagues who have personally met them, I have not a

:10:58. > :11:02.chance to meet them. Same as with me. So none of the panel have met

:11:03. > :11:06.any of the families whose cars went on fire. We have not had the

:11:07. > :11:09.opportunity. Not had the opportunity? It's been quite a

:11:10. > :11:19.while. Some of our colleagues have done. And the customer care team and

:11:20. > :11:24.their responsibility... I am looking at the biographies. We have the

:11:25. > :11:28.vice-President of GM Quality Europe, the director of global safety

:11:29. > :11:30.Anfield investigations and the head of Government relations and public

:11:31. > :11:35.policy, that makes up the panel before us. None of you have thought

:11:36. > :11:43.to take half a day to meet any of the people who have been affected by

:11:44. > :11:50.it? Just a couple of hours? OK. Thank you, chair. I will probably

:11:51. > :11:56.want to come on to suggestions about how we better have a data management

:11:57. > :12:00.later in this session, but I am confused at the minute, of the 200

:12:01. > :12:06.and so fires you are aware of, I understand that some of them you

:12:07. > :12:09.wanted to investigate but couldn't because they had already been

:12:10. > :12:14.scrapped, the insurer had written them off. I would - if I was an

:12:15. > :12:19.insurance company and I started seeing a pattern that there was a

:12:20. > :12:23.fire in a particular model of car, I would want to be starting to ask

:12:24. > :12:27.some questions. So, in all the cases that you are aware of has the

:12:28. > :12:33.insurer just said it's been on fire, we are going to write it off, issue

:12:34. > :12:37.a cheque to the owner, or what steps did they take that you are aware of

:12:38. > :12:44.to acertain the cause of the fire in the first place? I think you are

:12:45. > :12:50.bringing up a very good point. First of all, there are multiple numbers

:12:51. > :12:56.of fire cases in the UK. Last time I think we came to see you we had a

:12:57. > :13:02.figure of about 18,000. Now there is data which goes up to 100,000.

:13:03. > :13:10.Whatever data source we believe I think it would be really beneficial

:13:11. > :13:14.if insurance companies would share their data with us if Fire Brigades

:13:15. > :13:19.would share their data with us and I totally agree that it will be much

:13:20. > :13:26.more beneficial for us to have that data so we could send our people to

:13:27. > :13:31.really investigate those cars at the point where that fire is going to

:13:32. > :13:35.take place and not maybe two or three years later where it comes to

:13:36. > :13:38.our at this answerings and that is I think one of the key proposals that

:13:39. > :13:43.we would like to make, not just for the benefit of us, but for the

:13:44. > :13:49.benefit of the industry and I think ultimately also for the customer.

:13:50. > :13:55.I appreciate that is what we might want to look at going forward but

:13:56. > :14:00.I'm still not clear in my mind, I've had a car, it's gone on fire, I

:14:01. > :14:05.reported to my insurance company. What steps do they take to ascertain

:14:06. > :14:10.the cause of that? That may put it another way. How many other fires

:14:11. > :14:16.are you aware of in your vehicles that are not related to the

:14:17. > :14:24.particular heating control the fact we are aware of? Do you mean in

:14:25. > :14:30.other cars? Yes, I'm trying to get the picture in my mind, if I was an

:14:31. > :14:37.insurance company, how many fires in Vauxhall cars would I expect a year?

:14:38. > :14:43.I think fires are involved in all of the car lines from us and our

:14:44. > :14:49.competitors. As we mentioned, in this one source, they are saying

:14:50. > :14:55.100,000 vehicle fires in the UK only and 65% of these cards are because

:14:56. > :15:04.of criminal intent and a lot of other fires are because of poor

:15:05. > :15:07.maintenance. And also our portion, what the side-effects are, we don't

:15:08. > :15:14.want to play that output for us is difficult to identify if a fire is

:15:15. > :15:21.related to a design defect or it is other purposes. This is also white

:15:22. > :15:29.forensic investigation is difficult because the fire itself often

:15:30. > :15:33.destroys the trace the origin of the fire and therefore it is very

:15:34. > :15:39.difficult for us, just from the number to identify if there is a

:15:40. > :15:45.root cause behind or not full so what would help us, if there was a

:15:46. > :15:49.consolidated data source that we can at least see a trend on that. This

:15:50. > :15:55.is what we don't have. Forgive me for pressing. Do the insurance

:15:56. > :16:00.companies make that effort to find out the cause of the fire or is it

:16:01. > :16:05.that they just recorded as a fire? Is it a day to release issue or do

:16:06. > :16:11.these insurance companies need to take steps themselves to find out

:16:12. > :16:15.the source? The Biglia fire happens, the customer notifies the insurance

:16:16. > :16:21.company -- typically. They might choose to send a settlement agent

:16:22. > :16:27.that will look at the car but those are typically no forensic fire

:16:28. > :16:32.investigators. They look at the car and take the first assessment and

:16:33. > :16:39.they decide on the settlement of the case. Unfortunately, there is no

:16:40. > :16:42.direct link back to us which then would be able to probably go deeper

:16:43. > :16:46.in order to truly understand the nature of the fire.

:16:47. > :16:57.Thank you, chair. I should declare that I am an owner of the Zafira but

:16:58. > :17:03.not one of the models effected. What happens in the rest of Europe? Is it

:17:04. > :17:10.only in the UK where they have had car fires? The Opel badge? What do

:17:11. > :17:14.they have with the rest of Europe and reporting mechanisms? Does

:17:15. > :17:22.another country have a system of reporting fires? This specific case

:17:23. > :17:28.is related to the UK vehicles, or let me say to the right hand driven

:17:29. > :17:33.vehicles. And of course there are other countries affected, like

:17:34. > :17:38.Malta, which is on the same road, but we do not seek fire cases on

:17:39. > :17:43.that relation. But we cover this in our recall activities as well. So it

:17:44. > :17:50.is a different component in the left-hand drive vehicles? The

:17:51. > :17:58.location is different and if you drive on the other side of the road,

:17:59. > :18:01.it is different, what is the middle of the and in one country is the

:18:02. > :18:07.left side and the other the right side. So you are not seeing Zafira

:18:08. > :18:15.fires in other European countries? No. And I think you also touched on

:18:16. > :18:22.one aspect, if we have another country is a better system of data

:18:23. > :18:27.feedback. I think probably UK could set a standard in introducing such a

:18:28. > :18:33.system and other European countries could absolutely learn from that.

:18:34. > :18:39.Maybe I can add in addition we are in close contact with the DVSA here

:18:40. > :18:45.and also thinking to get the field action as soon as possible done to

:18:46. > :18:50.get very high fulfilment rate. For example in other countries we have a

:18:51. > :18:55.system where we write three comes to the customers and after that the

:18:56. > :19:02.customers will Dignitas from the authorities if they do not react on

:19:03. > :19:06.that recall request, vehicles will be ground. And this helps to speed

:19:07. > :19:12.up these regal measurements for us and the industry and in addition,

:19:13. > :19:20.what we think about is also the MOT, you have a yearly MOT system here in

:19:21. > :19:23.the UK, and if there would be a requirement to check if there is an

:19:24. > :19:29.outstanding recall on these vehicles, this would help us and a

:19:30. > :19:33.whole industry a lot as well here. How have you dug with customers who

:19:34. > :19:40.have not responded? What efforts have you made to contact them? After

:19:41. > :19:44.now the written up to 1.2 million letters to customers. There are

:19:45. > :19:50.customers out there who have received up to seven letters

:19:51. > :19:57.inviting them to actually seek assistance and repair for their

:19:58. > :20:01.vehicle and also dealers. In addition, where we have data from

:20:02. > :20:07.the customers, we have given them a call we have them an e-mail and

:20:08. > :20:13.really reached out to try for them to get in contact. I think up to

:20:14. > :20:23.date and then say that we managed repair now 165,000 of the Zafira Bs

:20:24. > :20:26.in order to get the final fix implemented. Our dealers have put up

:20:27. > :20:30.additional hours during the week but also have devoted a lot of time

:20:31. > :20:35.during the weekend in order to execute the recall. People from our

:20:36. > :20:41.plants who have been trained and support our dealers in order to do

:20:42. > :20:46.so and in order to make the waiting time for each customer very short we

:20:47. > :20:52.also have now directed that two technicians are working on one car

:20:53. > :20:55.so we can do that rather rapidly so the customer doesn't have to wait

:20:56. > :21:00.very long. We have also added resources when it comes to the

:21:01. > :21:03.customer contact centres that are the centres who make the

:21:04. > :21:08.appointments. We try to make sure that we can maximise the

:21:09. > :21:15.opportunities for customers to come and seek the support of the dealers.

:21:16. > :21:21.As you have truly stated, we really have to get access to our customers

:21:22. > :21:27.and convince them to come and get their car being fixed. There was a

:21:28. > :21:30.delay at the start of the second recall, wasn't there, because you

:21:31. > :21:38.didn't have parts? Why did that happen? Actually there wasn't really

:21:39. > :21:43.a delay of the recall. We have very rapidly worked with our suppliers in

:21:44. > :21:50.order to make sure we have parts. I think I can really state that today

:21:51. > :21:53.we have the capacity as well as the parts and we could theoretically

:21:54. > :21:59.finish the whole recall in the next month, if customers come and see us

:22:00. > :22:04.and would actually make an appointment together with us. Maybe

:22:05. > :22:11.one additional comment. What also is missing is the data accuracy. We

:22:12. > :22:15.have a lot of data from vehicles which may no longer on the road, and

:22:16. > :22:20.we're not talking about a few hundred, we're talking about 16,000

:22:21. > :22:24.or something like that, where we are not sure, together with the dealers

:22:25. > :22:30.and the DVLA, if they are still on the roads. This is also some point,

:22:31. > :22:33.if we would get a better help to understand which vehicle really are

:22:34. > :22:39.out and not scrapped or whatever, that would help us as well. You said

:22:40. > :22:44.the problem was really unauthorised repairs. Why did you say that when

:22:45. > :22:50.you never identified who had been doing the alleged unauthorised

:22:51. > :22:59.repairs? When we got aware of the fire cases, we did a field survey

:23:00. > :23:05.and asked our dealers, please return back, I think more than a thousand

:23:06. > :23:16.resistors to us and we did a check on them and found 2.7% of these were

:23:17. > :23:20.manipulative. 2.7% of what? Of the resisters we got returned out of the

:23:21. > :23:26.field. Did you name the people you're done these unauthorised

:23:27. > :23:29.repairs? No. So if you blame the problem on unauthorised repairs, why

:23:30. > :23:35.didn't you take more trouble to identify those people? It is very

:23:36. > :23:42.difficult to identify those because, at a certain point of time,

:23:43. > :23:49.customers do not come to authorised repairers. Instead of blaming who

:23:50. > :23:56.has done these authorised repairs we have taken at the first indication

:23:57. > :24:02.that this was one of the two root causes, we're taking action and

:24:03. > :24:10.initiated the first recall. However, although we haven't really done

:24:11. > :24:14.those false repairs, we have taken responsibility for that and have

:24:15. > :24:22.taken action. We also continued the root cause analysis and we did

:24:23. > :24:27.identify a second part of root cause which wasn't actually a false repair

:24:28. > :24:33.but which was, according to the design of this fuse. Therefore we

:24:34. > :24:39.have initiated the second recall which actually has been exchanging

:24:40. > :24:43.and bringing the car back to the original stage which was the first

:24:44. > :24:51.recall, but taking a different technical path and using a fuse

:24:52. > :25:00.which is much more reliable and resistant in that configurations

:25:01. > :25:09.versus the potential of causing any problem. How many cars caught fire

:25:10. > :25:15.after the first recall? I think what I can say, directly after the first

:25:16. > :25:20.fire after the first recall, that was a vehicle which was prepared and

:25:21. > :25:30.caught fire and that was for us again the trigger... How many? I

:25:31. > :25:36.don't have the figure. Why don't you know? You knew you were coming here

:25:37. > :25:43.today to answer these questions and that is another fairly basic

:25:44. > :25:48.question. We did not get the questions before. You just don't

:25:49. > :25:55.know. If you're asking for specific figures, of course we can deliver. I

:25:56. > :25:58.am asking for those figures but I'm also is pressing surprise that you

:25:59. > :26:00.have come here to answer questions about this very unsatisfactory

:26:01. > :26:04.situation and you haven't got the basic information on it. There is a

:26:05. > :26:19.pricing and not very good. In terms of those who drive these

:26:20. > :26:28.cars, it is traditionally a family car used for school trips, holidays,

:26:29. > :26:33.trips to hospital and all the rest of it and think it's probably fair

:26:34. > :26:38.to say that your customers, in the UK at least, are very loyal to your

:26:39. > :26:46.brand. They have been for many years. I hosted some of your

:26:47. > :26:50.customers who had been effected by this in Parliament just before

:26:51. > :26:54.Christmas, in this corridor actually, the group came in, and

:26:55. > :27:01.they have sent some notes to me about the recall process and also

:27:02. > :27:07.how they feel your company has handled the whole process since it

:27:08. > :27:13.began and I just want to read some of this out to you. The notes say,

:27:14. > :27:18.some customers were made to feel like a nuisance. When they go

:27:19. > :27:24.through the recall process, the attitude from dealerships have been

:27:25. > :27:27.met with disgust. They say that vehicles are often returned to them

:27:28. > :27:33.with further problems, with the heating and ventilation system. It

:27:34. > :27:44.can sometimes take up to two or three new motors to find one that

:27:45. > :27:47.works. And the impact here says that customers are made to feel like

:27:48. > :27:56.second-class citizens. Do you recognise any of this? We apologise

:27:57. > :28:01.if customers from the recall was to fix the problem and our dealers were

:28:02. > :28:06.trying to make the process as smooth and easy for our customers and we

:28:07. > :28:10.understand that might be the case the whole time. We for the

:28:11. > :28:17.additional inconvenience. There are specific cases, we can follow that

:28:18. > :28:21.up afterwards. You must be aware of some of these cases. We are aware

:28:22. > :28:27.and we have instructed our retailers and also given out additional

:28:28. > :28:30.guidance to them to ensure and to remind the middle is to make sure

:28:31. > :28:35.that the heating and ventilation system is in good working condition

:28:36. > :28:38.before the vehicle is passed back. That's not happening. We recognise

:28:39. > :28:43.it's fitted that I have been mistakes. If you have any specific

:28:44. > :28:46.examples of any of that, please let us know and we can follow it up

:28:47. > :28:49.directly with the customers and retailers.

:28:50. > :29:01.Would either of you like to add anything to that? No. Nothing to say

:29:02. > :29:03.to - you know, I think your customers have been treated pretty

:29:04. > :29:07.shoddily and they are being bandied around from pillar to post. I cannot

:29:08. > :29:11.think of another probably duct in the United Kingdom at the moment,

:29:12. > :29:16.where people have set up a campaign group to come to Parliament to try

:29:17. > :29:21.to get MPs to resolve it. -- another product. Some are sat behind in the

:29:22. > :29:24.audience listening to you. I would have thought you would have

:29:25. > :29:31.something more to add for the experience. Some of these people's

:29:32. > :29:37.children don't want to go in a car again and some people have had their

:29:38. > :29:45.homes damage as a result of this. Well, what I would personally like

:29:46. > :29:49.to say is that I'm very sorry for the evening frightening subpoenas

:29:50. > :29:53.our customers have gone through and there was probably nothing we can do

:29:54. > :29:59.to make it unhappen and what we can do and I think it has been pointed

:30:00. > :30:05.out, we would really like to make any experience coming to see us and

:30:06. > :30:09.getting their vehicle fixed, as positive and as straightforward as

:30:10. > :30:14.possible and that is where we have put a lot of effort in. In addition,

:30:15. > :30:20.those customers who have gone through a fire, they probably have

:30:21. > :30:24.also had personal losses, like, you know, personal belongings, things

:30:25. > :30:29.they really felt important about which are not insured, so we have

:30:30. > :30:35.now been reaching out to those customers, in order to make sure

:30:36. > :30:39.that we understand those cases and situations and that we can find a

:30:40. > :30:44.settlement, together with them, to compensate them, not just for the

:30:45. > :30:51.insured losses but also for the ininsured losses. Of the 287 that

:30:52. > :30:56.you say where people have losses, insured or otherwise, of the 287, in

:30:57. > :31:02.terms of reaching that et islement, how many are outstanding -- reaching

:31:03. > :31:08.that settlement? We have been reaching out to 160 so far where we

:31:09. > :31:14.are currently in the discussion and trying to seek a settlement and we

:31:15. > :31:21.will, of course, step-by-step approach all outstanding cases.

:31:22. > :31:26.I want to come back to the point on insurance, in your interaction. Have

:31:27. > :31:29.you contacted all of the main insurers in the market to make the

:31:30. > :31:36.pointed that - we would actually like to see all of the cars that

:31:37. > :31:42.you've had claims registered against, particularly in the class

:31:43. > :31:46.of Safira, Corsa, so you can get better access to the car wrnchts we

:31:47. > :31:53.work with the insurance company, and where we are aware of the fire and

:31:54. > :31:55.had permission. We have worked with the insurance company to inspect

:31:56. > :32:01.vehicles that were available. When we talk about having better access

:32:02. > :32:06.to data, this is an industry issue and so with our trade body, working

:32:07. > :32:08.with the asAssociation of British Insurers and looking at an

:32:09. > :32:13.industry-to-industry solution to this problem. Do you think insurers

:32:14. > :32:20.are taking it seriously enough? On the one hand it is your reputation,

:32:21. > :32:25.your brand, but you if you can't get control, you can't get hold of the

:32:26. > :32:29.asset. And also with the insurance, if they don't have t they cannot pay

:32:30. > :32:33.out. Have you seen an uptick in the number of cars being delivered back

:32:34. > :32:40.to you, that have been involved in fires? With Zafira a unique

:32:41. > :32:45.situation, it was an older vehicle, and some of the fires happened years

:32:46. > :32:51.ago, so they weren't scrapped. But we have a working industry with the

:32:52. > :32:56.insurance industry and with the trade body, this is an area where

:32:57. > :33:01.they are keen to work on, ongoing. Do you think something is required

:33:02. > :33:04.compulsory, along the lines of, if a vehicle is damaged by fire, from its

:33:05. > :33:09.engine or any component there, should be a requirement, before an

:33:10. > :33:15.insurer pays out, for that car to be expected so that the market knows

:33:16. > :33:19.what the issue is? Absolutely but obviously a customer unfore-Tube

:33:20. > :33:22.ately with a fire is having compensation -- unfortunately. What

:33:23. > :33:25.we would like to see is the availability for us to investigate

:33:26. > :33:34.as soon as possible, we don't want to hold up the process of customers

:33:35. > :33:39.being reimbursed from an insurance company, for example, but we would

:33:40. > :33:44.like to have better access, and data and better checks. Can I just check,

:33:45. > :33:49.other motor manufacturers, so this fault could be common to other motor

:33:50. > :33:52.manufacturers, did you contact other motor manufacturers to let them know

:33:53. > :33:55.you are aware of something and perhaps share information in case

:33:56. > :34:08.they had the same issue with their vehicles as well? What I can say on

:34:09. > :34:13.this one, of course we inform the authorities on this one and there is

:34:14. > :34:16.a European system where all the customers and other authorities are

:34:17. > :34:20.informed about. We cannot get, for example, if we have a

:34:21. > :34:25.supplier-caused issue or part of a supplier part is in question, we

:34:26. > :34:29.will not get the data from our competitors because of the antitrust

:34:30. > :34:32.law but what he doing, when in contct with the authorities, we name

:34:33. > :34:37.them, the supplier we are working with and they approach the supplier

:34:38. > :34:42.and they are asking the question which other manufacturers are using

:34:43. > :34:45.the same component. I remember six months ago, when your team game

:34:46. > :34:50.before us, Chair, and I asked the que, and the answer was no, which I

:34:51. > :34:53.think we all thought was a bit of a poor show. So I received an

:34:54. > :34:57.assurance that afternoon that other manufacturers would be contacted. I

:34:58. > :35:02.didn't expect it to be that afternoon, but I would have thought

:35:03. > :35:05.that GM would have putted a call into other motor manufacturers,

:35:06. > :35:09.rather than leaving it to regulators and what have you. Not least because

:35:10. > :35:16.you assured me that you would. But, also, it is common sense, isn't it?

:35:17. > :35:22.Well, we have been working with our supplier and that supplier exactly

:35:23. > :35:31.knows in which - who are their other customers. What we, however, need to

:35:32. > :35:35.say is that most, you know, this very specific same part, most

:35:36. > :35:41.probably, is not being used in the very same configuration in any other

:35:42. > :35:47.system. However, we have advised our suppliers about any findings that we

:35:48. > :35:52.had and also the risks that we see, with regard to our very specific

:35:53. > :35:57.component and you know, they know exactly who their customers are. I

:35:58. > :36:02.find that a bit of an unsatisfactory answer. Six months ago we were

:36:03. > :36:07.assured something would happen. Actually your team suggested. It

:36:08. > :36:14.struck me as common sense to do that and it hasn't been done. I find that

:36:15. > :36:17.pretty extraordinary. Sorry, as has been explained we are prohibited to

:36:18. > :36:21.a certain extent with competition law and so there are processes in

:36:22. > :36:24.place that we explained in a follow-up letter afterwards to the

:36:25. > :36:29.committee, after our evidence in July. I will be amazed if

:36:30. > :36:32.competition law stopped you from health and safety perspective to

:36:33. > :36:36.contact on the most general of terms, other motor manufacturers to

:36:37. > :36:42.say - we have an issue specific to these parts, you may well want to

:36:43. > :36:46.check you have these parts as well, we are putting you on notice. I

:36:47. > :36:49.understand the question. The supplier reached out to its

:36:50. > :36:53.customers, we would not know the competition or supplier's customers.

:36:54. > :36:57.It is always a question back from the authorities, where you do the

:36:58. > :37:00.notification to, which partsome affected and which supplier and then

:37:01. > :37:04.we give the name of the supplier to the authority and they approach the

:37:05. > :37:08.supplier to get this information from them.

:37:09. > :37:13.It is really really very convincing, it is not clear if you have not done

:37:14. > :37:20.anything, if you don't want it tell us about it.

:37:21. > :37:32.Are Zafira owners and drivers still at risk?

:37:33. > :37:37.W we have advised our Zafira drivers to operate their vehicle under a

:37:38. > :37:44.blower motor condition of oat 0 or 4. At that point of time there is no

:37:45. > :37:49.risk for the Zafira drivers but I would strongly recommend that the

:37:50. > :37:54.Zafira drivers are coming to seek us so we can finalise the recall and

:37:55. > :38:02.their vehicles can be operated under any conditions. Are you absolutely

:38:03. > :38:08.satisfied that you, as a company, have done everything possible to

:38:09. > :38:15.eliminate the risk as best you can? Well, we have been reaching out

:38:16. > :38:22.several tierges even before any recall was issued, so that we advise

:38:23. > :38:26.our customers how they can actually avoid the risk... So are you

:38:27. > :38:32.satisfied that they are safe, that's what Mr Vicars is asking you. We

:38:33. > :38:37.keep being told you reach out but Mr Vickers is asking, are the drivers

:38:38. > :38:43.safe and the occupants of the cars? Well, let me put it this way, with

:38:44. > :38:47.every safety recall it is a serious situation and I personally cannot be

:38:48. > :38:52.satisfied to have safety recall but I am very confident that we have

:38:53. > :38:58.done what is right in order to mitigate the situation and now offer

:38:59. > :39:04.the customer a quick fix for their vehicle so that we eliminate any...

:39:05. > :39:10.But are they safe, Mr Vickers is something you, are they safe?

:39:11. > :39:14.If the question s if the fix has been done, then yes, we say the

:39:15. > :39:20.vehicle is safe to drive, if this is the question. For the remaining

:39:21. > :39:26.ones, which are not in our garages for the fix, we suggest they come in

:39:27. > :39:34.as soon as possible to get this done and to operate their vehicle safely.

:39:35. > :39:37.So there are still vehicles out on the road where there is there is

:39:38. > :39:40.still risk. Following on from that, are you

:39:41. > :39:44.satisfied that your dealers have done everything, through their

:39:45. > :39:48.network to contact drivers? You have written to something like 1.2

:39:49. > :39:54.million people. Letters go astray. Letters get put behind the clock on

:39:55. > :40:00.the mantelpiece and forgotten. What repeated actions have you taken as a

:40:01. > :40:05.company and dealer network to make contact with people? Where we have

:40:06. > :40:09.data and can validate it, we are using other data point like phones

:40:10. > :40:14.and e-mail to directly contact customers who have not come in yet.

:40:15. > :40:19.Where we don't have the that detail we have gone to the RAC and AA it

:40:20. > :40:22.validate information with them and using their contact details to again

:40:23. > :40:27.address those customers. Now there are still customers out there, that

:40:28. > :40:30.we know have received the letter and haven't had the recall work done,

:40:31. > :40:37.they are the registered owners N those circumstances, what we are

:40:38. > :40:41.proposing to do, we ask the DVSA if we can do a joint letter with that

:40:42. > :40:46.customer's insurance company to remind them to have a completed

:40:47. > :40:50.safety recall, and without that it could invalidate the customer's

:40:51. > :40:57.insurance. We are asking the DVSA for permission to undertake that

:40:58. > :41:02.step as well. With some of the outstanding figures, as Thomaz

:41:03. > :41:06.highlighted, there are around 13,000 of the outstanding Zafira's that no

:41:07. > :41:11.v no registered keeper. They are what is known as sold to trade. They

:41:12. > :41:16.have been sold to trade between six months and up to three years. We are

:41:17. > :41:21.working with the DVSA to validate that because there is no registered

:41:22. > :41:24.keeper, what wrird to do is to notify the previous registered

:41:25. > :41:27.keeper where we have an address but we are aware they are not the owner

:41:28. > :41:32.of that vehicle because they've passed them on to trade. So that's

:41:33. > :41:37.an area where we can keen to work with the DVSA on, going forward in

:41:38. > :41:41.how we can eliminate that. I want to return to the point about

:41:42. > :41:46.the insurance companies. What is the situation, if a vehicle is found to

:41:47. > :41:49.have a faulty part and it burns to the ground, does the insurance

:41:50. > :41:55.company bear the ultimate cost of paying out on that, or does that

:41:56. > :42:01.come back to the manufacture? I think in the cases we have seen,

:42:02. > :42:04.where - I couldn't say with any confidence exactly what happened,

:42:05. > :42:10.our understanding, my understanding is that insurance companies have

:42:11. > :42:15.compensated companies have compensated the owner and then we

:42:16. > :42:19.have compensated the insurer. So if you are compensating the insurer,

:42:20. > :42:23.but any manufacturer who had a similar problem is compensating the

:42:24. > :42:30.insurer, does that not give you an ownership right to the vehicle. So,

:42:31. > :42:35.f heaven forbid my Zafira goes up into flames and I go to my insurance

:42:36. > :42:38.company and they pay out, the insurance company is going to GM and

:42:39. > :42:42.say - it has gone up in flames because of this fault, therefore you

:42:43. > :42:47.need to put the insurance company back in fupds so the insurance

:42:48. > :42:52.company is not at a loss, so effectively then you own my Zafira.

:42:53. > :42:57.The insurance company would not necessarily do the forensic

:42:58. > :43:01.investigations to pinpoint the root cause and fires are destructive by

:43:02. > :43:05.nature so establishing the cause is very difficult. So the insurance

:43:06. > :43:09.company will do an initial assessment, as joy understand it and

:43:10. > :43:13.part of that is pretty much to rule out criminal be intent of activity

:43:14. > :43:18.and then there is a settlement. We are then, where we are aware of t we

:43:19. > :43:23.are then able to inspect that vehicle afterwards. I know you are

:43:24. > :43:25.asking about whether or not weather then we own T I don't have that

:43:26. > :43:35.information. We can come back. On what basis do Manufacturer 's

:43:36. > :43:41.like GM paid insurance companies? Do you say, for example, for every

:43:42. > :43:47.thousand cars that are insured, if there is a claim on those you pay

:43:48. > :43:55.out 10%? How does it work? We do the compensation in the case that we

:43:56. > :43:57.understand and we see that we have a design or Manufacturing related

:43:58. > :44:02.issue and have issued a safety recall. That is not the common

:44:03. > :44:11.practice, the common practice is the insurer sends an inspector to see

:44:12. > :44:15.the car and does the first judgment and understand the settlement and

:44:16. > :44:23.that is how the insurer pays out the customer. In this case we have said,

:44:24. > :44:27.because of the safety recall, we will actually compensate for the

:44:28. > :44:33.insurer for the same amount of settlement that he has done those of

:44:34. > :44:39.their customer. I understand that, but in terms of generally,

:44:40. > :44:48.run-of-the-mill, somebody has a problem with their Insignia and it

:44:49. > :44:53.is shown to be Manufacturing problem, do you not routinely

:44:54. > :44:58.compensate the insurance company? Well, I would say it is very hard

:44:59. > :45:05.for the Inspector of the insurance company to find out whether there is

:45:06. > :45:09.a manufacturing related issue. That is why we would seek to have that

:45:10. > :45:15.short cut of information coming towards us in order to get the

:45:16. > :45:20.opportunity to do a detailed investigation. However, as we have

:45:21. > :45:29.been pointing out before, data shows that about 65% of all of the fire

:45:30. > :45:36.cases are due to arson and often this is very obvious. The next piece

:45:37. > :45:41.of occurrence is weak maintenance and some of that can also be very

:45:42. > :45:48.obvious. Then there is the remainder which is very difficult to find out

:45:49. > :45:53.and there are really detailed investigation is necessary in order

:45:54. > :45:59.to find out. And sometimes evidence will never be able to be found

:46:00. > :46:08.because the fire destroyed that key criteria of evidence. And if we get

:46:09. > :46:11.the chance of a very early Nick Hurd -- notification of the fire and we

:46:12. > :46:15.get in contact with the insurance company to investigate, we do it

:46:16. > :46:21.together. That is the best situation for us. Do you not think it is

:46:22. > :46:25.strange that the insurance company has a vested interest in finding out

:46:26. > :46:29.who is really responsible, that they don't bother, presumably because we

:46:30. > :46:34.will pay the premiums at an increased level? There is quite an

:46:35. > :46:38.onus on the insurance company that they have an opportunity here to

:46:39. > :46:42.hold accountable those who should be held accountable and they are not

:46:43. > :46:47.bothering. I think they have started to react to our requests in a

:46:48. > :46:53.cacique if we can find a joint database where not just insurers but

:46:54. > :46:59.also by brigades, who often will be called in case of a fire, in all of

:47:00. > :47:08.those data would come together in one place so that not just us but

:47:09. > :47:13.all manner factors could have access to it, that would be very helpful.

:47:14. > :47:19.It also increases the data points we can use to see if there is a trend

:47:20. > :47:27.and can take action much faster. There are now fires in Corsa B

:47:28. > :47:30.models now. What is the problem in that -- coarser D.

:47:31. > :47:39.This is about a safety recall we issued in April 2015. It is on the

:47:40. > :47:45.pump relate box that is supporting the braking system. We have about

:47:46. > :47:52.4000 vehicles affected in the UK, it is a 1.4 turbo engine, out of a

:47:53. > :47:57.fleet of 700,000 vehicles and we already reworked 3000 of them. We

:47:58. > :48:04.had one fire case when we started the investigation and data on a

:48:05. > :48:11.second one. These are the two known cases we have. After the media

:48:12. > :48:14.response, there is one potential additional one but these are the

:48:15. > :48:21.three cases we are aware of. What is the reason for those fires? It is

:48:22. > :48:30.water ingress into the Relay box and that can be a short circuit. Can I

:48:31. > :48:38.ask if Vauxhall have ever refused to investigate a fire when it's been

:48:39. > :48:42.reported to them by a customer? Going back before the media

:48:43. > :48:48.attention and all the rest of it, have you ever refused to investigate

:48:49. > :48:52.customer claims fire? I don't have that information but I can certainly

:48:53. > :49:00.go back to the team and look back and get back to you. We do expect to

:49:01. > :49:05.have refused? -- would you have. To my knowledge, we have fire is that

:49:06. > :49:09.work with us so we have the resources and I couldn't see a

:49:10. > :49:14.reason why we wouldn't do that but I can't say with any certainty. If I

:49:15. > :49:17.can take that back to the wider team in the office and get back to you.

:49:18. > :49:20.You would be interested to know of any cases that have been brought to

:49:21. > :49:26.our attention where customers have said they had reported fires and

:49:27. > :49:29.they were essentially palmed off. If you have that information, please

:49:30. > :49:34.let us know and we can go through and trace that and come back to you

:49:35. > :49:36.specifically. It just so happens that there are people with those

:49:37. > :49:43.exact cases here in Parliament this afternoon. Could I ask each one view

:49:44. > :49:47.to take the time to have a chat with them at the end of the session?

:49:48. > :49:52.Certainly, I would do that. That would be very helpful also briefly,

:49:53. > :49:58.chair, going back to the communication with customers. You

:49:59. > :50:05.have been writing a lot of letters and sending a lot of e-mails and you

:50:06. > :50:10.set up a Facebook ad to raise awareness of the issue. How

:50:11. > :50:13.successful do you judge that to I don't have those figures

:50:14. > :50:19.specifically... You don't seem to have an awful lot with you. There

:50:20. > :50:25.were a wide variety of areas on those themes as to what we would be

:50:26. > :50:29.discussing today. We felt we were the right people to answer those

:50:30. > :50:34.questions. That this the vast amount of work that goes on across the

:50:35. > :50:37.whole business so I might not have all that information but I don't, I

:50:38. > :50:43.can get back to you. There is a Facebook group which has about

:50:44. > :50:50.16,500 people on it who are owners of the models affected. We are aware

:50:51. > :50:54.of the existence of the group, it is a closed group. Have you tried to

:50:55. > :50:57.reach out to them specifically? Yes, I believe our customer care director

:50:58. > :51:03.is in contact with the team and they are in discussions with them as we

:51:04. > :51:10.speak. Good. And the more general question, and perhaps it would be

:51:11. > :51:18.one for you guys to answer. You have this problem with the Zafira models

:51:19. > :51:24.and with Corsas but thinking of the industry more widely, there is the

:51:25. > :51:29.Volkswagen emissions scandal, there is problems with just about every

:51:30. > :51:33.manufacturer, Renault, Peugeot. I would go so far as to say that the

:51:34. > :51:39.reputation of the industry is probably at the lowest point it has

:51:40. > :51:46.ever been. How do you see the industry gaining back public trust,

:51:47. > :51:50.given all these scandals that exist in different manufacturers including

:51:51. > :51:58.yourselves? And how are you going to get public trust back?

:51:59. > :52:12.Every recall and every safety recall is a very severe issue so giving it

:52:13. > :52:17.a lot of attention in order to get it fixed is a very important point.

:52:18. > :52:22.Unfortunately we cannot turn the clock backwards. However, the

:52:23. > :52:28.question is how we learn quickly and make sure that any new project we

:52:29. > :52:36.bring out, any new car we bring out, we'll get all of the learnings from

:52:37. > :52:43.the history. But making sure, in case there was any risk associated,

:52:44. > :52:51.and we get the first incident of any risk, we quickly take very diligent

:52:52. > :52:55.actions, we quickly investigate the situation and we take actions in

:52:56. > :53:01.order to correct in case there is an issue out there. And of course you

:53:02. > :53:09.might debate how much is quickly and how much emphasis we put on the bike

:53:10. > :53:17.can assure you that safety is absolutely our first priority in our

:53:18. > :53:21.company -- I can assure you. We had picked at the top, beat the safety

:53:22. > :53:28.of our customers, our employees, but our business partners -- be it the

:53:29. > :53:32.safety. Each board meeting we had been putting safety on top of our

:53:33. > :53:37.agenda and we are starting each one of those. That gives us the

:53:38. > :53:42.opportunity to raise issues, take decisions quickly and really

:53:43. > :53:46.execute. Do you have anything to add to that on what you should do

:53:47. > :53:54.differently now? That is absolutely right what Elvira is saying and in

:53:55. > :54:00.addition now culture, we introduced in the safety by month, every

:54:01. > :54:04.employee can raise up a safety issue to a specific board so this is

:54:05. > :54:08.documented and will be followed up in the safety arena. What about the

:54:09. > :54:14.problem you are facing? You have two models with fires where drivers and

:54:15. > :54:18.passengers are fighting. Should you be doing anything different now to

:54:19. > :54:23.restore confidence? -- are frightened. What we're doing when

:54:24. > :54:29.Woody at taking position on recalls, we do not necessarily wait until we

:54:30. > :54:35.have the root cause -- when we are taking. If we can minimise the risk

:54:36. > :54:39.to the customer we go out already to start the recall and go back in a

:54:40. > :54:44.second wave to fix the problem finally. Of course this causes

:54:45. > :54:49.inconvenience to the customers but this is what we're doing to protect

:54:50. > :54:53.them as much as possible. We must close this session now, we will be

:54:54. > :54:54.writing to you with further information that we require so thank

:54:55. > :55:10.you for coming in. Could I have your name and positions

:55:11. > :55:18.please? Pete Ahern, operations director. Gareth Llewellyn, chief

:55:19. > :55:24.Executive of DVSA. Andy King, head of enforcement. We were told last

:55:25. > :55:29.and that you were surprised at the length of time timetabled for

:55:30. > :55:34.Vauxhall for the Zafira recall. Have you done anything about making that

:55:35. > :55:43.action quicker and more effective? What have you been doing about the

:55:44. > :55:45.problem? Mr Llewellyn. We went through about 75,000 vehicle

:55:46. > :55:51.identification numbers and matched up against the MOT register for

:55:52. > :55:56.Vauxhall and we concluded there were about 12,500 Zafira cars which were

:55:57. > :56:00.outside the MOT, they don't have a valid MOT. Some only just but some

:56:01. > :56:06.by a very long wait also we have identified another 5500 where they

:56:07. > :56:09.have no MOT history, maybe because they have been taken abroad when

:56:10. > :56:13.they were first registered. We tried to slim down the number when we

:56:14. > :56:18.believe there are active models on the road at the moment to enable

:56:19. > :56:21.Vauxhall to be able to focus their marketing campaign. We are a little

:56:22. > :56:25.concerned in that space because a number of the letters originally

:56:26. > :56:31.sent out have been referred back to DVLA, and DVLA were not part of the

:56:32. > :56:35.original process and what has come from that is we believe the mail

:56:36. > :56:40.merge undertaken by Vauxhall was not done successfully on some occasions

:56:41. > :56:43.and the letters did not end up with the right people so we are talking

:56:44. > :56:46.to them about how to rectify that position to make sure the right

:56:47. > :56:48.owners get the letters suggesting that models should be recalled.

:56:49. > :56:57.Kristen Stewart? -- Mr Stewart. In the previous

:56:58. > :57:04.session I try to get some detail as to what an insurance company would

:57:05. > :57:10.examine when it gets a claim for a car that has caught fire. I still

:57:11. > :57:17.haven't got a proper answer as to what checks they would do to

:57:18. > :57:22.identify what is causing the fire and, if so, how that might be

:57:23. > :57:27.relayed to yourselves or to the manufacturers, that there is a

:57:28. > :57:33.pattern developing that needs to be investigated and rectified. What is

:57:34. > :57:37.your position on that? We have applied to the Association of

:57:38. > :57:42.British insurers for access to the mode industry and theft register

:57:43. > :57:45.because we don't understand quite what is involved in that the moment

:57:46. > :57:49.and it might give us a better insight into the sort of information

:57:50. > :57:52.the industry holds and the sorts of things they are looking for and we

:57:53. > :57:55.can then map that onto where we think certain safety recalls are to

:57:56. > :57:59.answer this question if there should be some sort of Central register of

:58:00. > :58:02.issues effecting vehicles. Until we have sight of that register, it is

:58:03. > :58:08.rather difficult to comment on that at the moment. My question is, is

:58:09. > :58:14.that investigatory work done at all and enjoys are not racing -- not

:58:15. > :58:18.releasing it, or do they need to put in place a better system for

:58:19. > :58:22.following up? I find it quite strange that they would just write

:58:23. > :58:29.off checks to their policyholders without properly investigating the

:58:30. > :58:34.cause. And if there is a pattern developing, that should be

:58:35. > :58:37.translated to yourselves and a fatuous are you aware that that work

:58:38. > :58:40.is done and it is just they are withholding it or do they need to be

:58:41. > :58:43.taking additional steps to investigate?

:58:44. > :58:49.I can't comment on the level of investigation insurers go to but I

:58:50. > :58:52.would hope that information is on the register, which is why we have

:58:53. > :58:56.asked for a companiy. Once evaluaited I can probably answer in

:58:57. > :59:01.more detail Are the insurers giving you any reasons why they are not

:59:02. > :59:06.sharing that with you currently? No, our sister organisation in the DVLA

:59:07. > :59:11.have access already, so it is a matter of process. Have you had an

:59:12. > :59:16.indication of when you might get access? I haven't. If you are asking

:59:17. > :59:20.whether there are any roadblocks to it, I don't think there are.

:59:21. > :59:25.Thank you, Chair. A number of different points, if I may,

:59:26. > :59:33.obviously that pick data base will be useful, but, also, the Fire And

:59:34. > :59:38.Rescue Services, I understand that a number of them use a fairly basic

:59:39. > :59:43.system, incident recording system which doesn't have the capacity to

:59:44. > :59:50.ask any additional information. A number use their own in-house

:59:51. > :59:53.systems but a number also use 3 TC software I understand which can get

:59:54. > :59:57.more information on the reason for fires, whether they are arson

:59:58. > :00:02.attacks, whether there is a criminality element or whether it

:00:03. > :00:06.seems to be some problem with the vehicle itself. Have you had any

:00:07. > :00:09.conversations with the Home Office, about Fire And Rescue Services,

:00:10. > :00:12.being able to have a data base they use properly to record this

:00:13. > :00:15.information that gets fed through to yourselves? To my knowledge, swrent

:00:16. > :00:19.had those conversations with the Home Office. I think what this is

:00:20. > :00:22.highlight something that there are a number of databases around and

:00:23. > :00:28.general coordination would be a good thing, in terms of of trying to

:00:29. > :00:31.identify what the true root cause is and also to provide greater

:00:32. > :00:36.information to the public. I should stress my slight worry is we are not

:00:37. > :00:40.getting to the true root cause here. The failure of a resister is the

:00:41. > :00:44.initial cause. If you twrak back, why it failed so why did somebody

:00:45. > :00:49.have to manipulate in the first place? Because the resister was

:00:50. > :00:53.failing, it was failing because the blower motor wasn't blowing enough

:00:54. > :00:58.air and that was you failing because it was corroded and the true cause

:00:59. > :01:03.is water ingross. So you have to work out what to solve in the first

:01:04. > :01:06.place. If you don't actually see the, well, depends which way you

:01:07. > :01:11.look at t the start or end of the process in terms of the fire and

:01:12. > :01:15.work backwards, if you have no way into that problem, then you have no

:01:16. > :01:20.way into that problem? There isin is the problem. Yet there are processes

:01:21. > :01:23.at least in they are I why, already in place that could be brought

:01:24. > :01:26.together and data that could be gathered to ensure that no further

:01:27. > :01:32.families ever have to have the appalling intags with their car and

:01:33. > :01:35.claims around them. The data is either out and not being captured or

:01:36. > :01:39.they are out there and is being captured and nobody is doing

:01:40. > :01:45.anything with it. There is probably something with we

:01:46. > :01:49.can do to coral resources to find out the initial problems with this.

:01:50. > :01:56.Can I may tackle another question. In terms of an owner of whether it

:01:57. > :01:59.is a Zafira, Corsa or I indeed any other model of car subject to

:02:00. > :02:04.recall. If the owner says, it is oar safety recall but I'm not going to

:02:05. > :02:08.bother, there is actually nothing in place s that correct, to require

:02:09. > :02:14.them to do that work, so even if if it is a safety-critical issue, that

:02:15. > :02:18.could either cause loss of life at one end of the scale or snarl up a

:02:19. > :02:24.motorway with a fire that causes the carriageway to be blocked for hours

:02:25. > :02:27.on end. Unpleasant through to life ending, there is nothing actually to

:02:28. > :02:31.stop somebody doing that, is there? There is no process within the MoT

:02:32. > :02:35.system to say fl has been a safety recall on this model of car, have

:02:36. > :02:39.you had it done, no you haven't, you can't are have your MoT? I think you

:02:40. > :02:43.have put your finger on a flaw in the test accept at the moment. It is

:02:44. > :02:48.something we are going to solve in the very near future. By the end of

:02:49. > :02:51.the financial year we'll launch our MoT reminder service. All people who

:02:52. > :02:56.will have cars, will be reminded when this is due. An attach will be

:02:57. > :02:58.a reminder - please talk to your carriage about whether there are

:02:59. > :03:03.outstanding safety recalls on your vehicle, that will hopefully get to

:03:04. > :03:06.those people where maybe we've lost the correct in the system as it

:03:07. > :03:09.where they are located, transfer of ownership, etc, then the second

:03:10. > :03:15.phase in the revamp of the MoT system is a view if you haven't had

:03:16. > :03:16.a safety recall completed on something that's very

:03:17. > :03:21.safety-critical, then you will not be given an MoT. Presumably to

:03:22. > :03:23.actually do, that apart from possible legislative changes that

:03:24. > :03:28.might be required it is simple because you book in through the

:03:29. > :03:31.computerised system, that would be fairly straightforward, to come with

:03:32. > :03:37.and say - these are the recalls that have been associated with this type

:03:38. > :03:41.of car. It would be on different databases but an automatic process

:03:42. > :03:49.that wouldn't allow interinvestigation by an individual.

:03:50. > :03:55.Final oi be that point, if I may, Chair, I guess there is also the

:03:56. > :04:02.issue of where a resister in this case... Can by pass, whatever it may

:04:03. > :04:05.be, pass the DVLA thought about a process, whereby the owner of a

:04:06. > :04:11.vehicle is required to tell the MoT inspector that there has been a

:04:12. > :04:16.repair done on a part of the car, so they may have got it do done, I put

:04:17. > :04:19.my hands up, I don't tend to use dealer networks because they are

:04:20. > :04:24.damn expensive but I like to think the mechanic I go to is a very

:04:25. > :04:30.competent mechanic. So if you have either done the work yourself or

:04:31. > :04:37.gone to a mechanic, should there be requirement on the MoT system to

:04:38. > :04:42.Sehwag there is work done, whatever, part of the MoT system, actually it

:04:43. > :04:47.there should be a requirement to have that piece inspected, even if

:04:48. > :04:51.it isn't parting of the MoT certification prose.s The system we

:04:52. > :04:56.have at the moment is based around the existing MoT process. There is

:04:57. > :05:00.so much potential for it to be used for passing information back out to

:05:01. > :05:04.customers, to keep the vehicle safe and also collect information from

:05:05. > :05:07.the garage network about things they are finding on the cars, which will

:05:08. > :05:11.note unusual situations or emerging recall situations. So the next phase

:05:12. > :05:15.of the MoT development that's what we are trying to do, to provide more

:05:16. > :05:19.information to customers and also be able to gather information on the

:05:20. > :05:26.overall safety of the network. When is the time frame on that work sth

:05:27. > :05:30.when can we expect to have an all-singing all--dancing system?

:05:31. > :05:36.With we have come out of phase B, a couple of years, and we are about to

:05:37. > :05:40.approach phase C but it is a three-year period. So 2020, we might

:05:41. > :05:44.hopefully see If it is pryer advertised last, but hopefully if it

:05:45. > :05:50.is pryer advertised earlier, it'll be there earlier. Thank you.

:05:51. > :05:56.One briefp point following on, before I ask the question I want to

:05:57. > :05:59.ask. At the moment you are the vehicle tax internet system works,

:06:00. > :06:07.such if you don't have an MoT you can't get tax. Does that mean in

:06:08. > :06:12.this context, if you haven't got your vehicle detail sorted out you

:06:13. > :06:15.won't get your tax? There is a data base that wouldling in and it would

:06:16. > :06:18.automatically process that without any intervention from the test T

:06:19. > :06:21.wouldn't be up to the tester to make a decircumstances it could all be

:06:22. > :06:24.automated. It links into the question I want to ask. From

:06:25. > :06:32.listening to the previous panel where they seem to be suggesting

:06:33. > :06:34.answers could perhaps lie with the insurers doing more, and they

:06:35. > :06:37.couldn't see any circumstances where it wouldn't give the manufacturers

:06:38. > :06:42.access to the vehicle, if they asked, it seems to me that there has

:06:43. > :06:47.been a bit of ballparking in here. Do you work on the basis that if

:06:48. > :06:52.there was more regulation involved in this, then there could be some

:06:53. > :06:54.way of, if you like, forcing the insurers to make sure the vehicle is

:06:55. > :06:59.made available for the manufacturers? They are forcing, if

:07:00. > :07:04.you like, the vehicle owner to take action, if they are not in the

:07:05. > :07:08.recall, as we have just discussed. And then, ultimately, putting the

:07:09. > :07:14.matter back to the manufacturers? It just seems at the moment it is a bit

:07:15. > :07:17.lax? It is true to say that our code of practice at the moment lacks a

:07:18. > :07:20.little bit of teeth. The vast majority of manufacturers we deal

:07:21. > :07:25.with in safety recalls and we deal with about 330 a year, the vast

:07:26. > :07:29.majority 69 safety recalls go under the radar and are an imagined well

:07:30. > :07:32.by the manufacturers and work gets done and cars go back on the road

:07:33. > :07:36.safety. There are a few outliars, some of which we are dealing with at

:07:37. > :07:39.the moment but there are plenty of opportunities in there for a level

:07:40. > :07:43.of regulation which encourages manufacturers to do a better job. If

:07:44. > :07:46.you compare us with some of our peers in Europe n Germany, for

:07:47. > :07:50.example, I think it was mentioned earlier, after three letters, the

:07:51. > :07:57.regulator goes in, takes the registration number off the car and

:07:58. > :08:02.you cannot drive T if you look at Netherlands, for administrative

:08:03. > :08:05.failures the fine is 800,000 euros, a potential one-year cessation of

:08:06. > :08:12.trading, or two-years in prison, we don't have any of that. Do you think

:08:13. > :08:21.there is also a role for giving the DVSA more teeth in this area as

:08:22. > :08:27.well? I know Nissan cars have been on the front pages of the paper,

:08:28. > :08:32.splitting in two and Toyota Prius and we've heard about Vauxhall. We

:08:33. > :08:37.seem to be hearing more and it is down to manufacturers which action

:08:38. > :08:41.they want table. I understand it the DVSA there is a requirement for

:08:42. > :08:46.manufacturers to contact you. Should you be in a position to invoke the

:08:47. > :08:51.recall on a reasonable suspension? I think we also welcome a voluntary

:08:52. > :08:53.approach with manufacturers but I think there's some teeth there

:08:54. > :08:58.lacking, some compulsion we may want to look at in the future in temples

:08:59. > :09:02.when we don't get the response or we are not satisfied about being able

:09:03. > :09:06.to take further action and expedite some road safety risk. Has your view

:09:07. > :09:11.changed in light of the incidents I just mentioned? I mean, it feels as

:09:12. > :09:20.if there is a bit of a space right now for somebody to be able to take

:09:21. > :09:25.action, so that the ball can't continuously be passed. If you know

:09:26. > :09:29.the general product safety regulation is around failures in

:09:30. > :09:34.design and construction of a vehicle, we control it is corrosion

:09:35. > :09:39.over peered of time and the chassis status would be picked up in the MoT

:09:40. > :09:43.process. -- over a period of time. There is a question of whether the

:09:44. > :09:47.models have had MoTs but that's the space for that type of an issue.

:09:48. > :09:50.Unless we get evidence that it is a design failure, in which case it

:09:51. > :09:53.comes back into the code of practice, I think in terms of what

:09:54. > :09:58.we can do nerks there are probably three levels. We have learnt a lot

:09:59. > :10:04.from this -- we can do next, there are three levels. We have learned a

:10:05. > :10:07.lot, so the MoT involvement is a good process, we'll proposed to kick

:10:08. > :10:11.that off shortly. Second sand what regulatory powers do we have in the

:10:12. > :10:15.context of the code of practice. At the moment we don't have any. That

:10:16. > :10:18.needs to be improved to be able it chivy along some manufacturers that

:10:19. > :10:21.are not getting to where we need to. Ultimately our goal is making sure

:10:22. > :10:25.there are no unsafe vehicles on the road. The final bit of us corks is

:10:26. > :10:31.whilst we are an enforcement authority in many areas, we are not

:10:32. > :10:34.an enforcement agency as far as general product safety regulations

:10:35. > :10:36.themselves are concerned so that final ability it take an

:10:37. > :10:40.organisation to court is not there at the moment. Thank you, I will

:10:41. > :10:44.stop there. -- to take. So what are the most important

:10:45. > :10:47.powers you would like to have, that you don't have now? If you look at

:10:48. > :10:52.the code of practice at the moment, it is a little bit siement on time

:10:53. > :10:55.scales. If our focus son making sure that the safety remedy is compo

:10:56. > :10:59.indicted as fast as possible so, people are not put at risk, being

:11:00. > :11:02.able to ensure that manufacturers speed up the safety recall process

:11:03. > :11:05.is a clear one, making sure the administration around that is as

:11:06. > :11:09.robust as possible, so it doesn't create problems as we have seen on

:11:10. > :11:13.this particular issue and clearly, if there is a lack of willingness to

:11:14. > :11:18.solve the problem, we need it take it one step further, and as I said

:11:19. > :11:22.-- to take T and our colleagues Netherlands have greater powers than

:11:23. > :11:26.we do. What greater powers do they have that you would like? They can

:11:27. > :11:31.compel a manufacturer to seize trading. There is a two-year prison

:11:32. > :11:34.sentence for some components and for administrative fines, it is up to

:11:35. > :11:37.800,000 euros. They are quite stringent. And in Germany, if

:11:38. > :11:42.removal of the registration plate. If you go down an avenue of trying

:11:43. > :11:47.to correct this and people don't take notice, you remove that road

:11:48. > :11:51.safety risk by stopping the vehicle being licensed and registered. So

:11:52. > :11:57.all those powers, are you seeking? It would make the system more robust

:11:58. > :12:00.but bear nibbed the vast majority of -- but bear in mind the vast

:12:01. > :12:05.majority of safety recall are dealt with. One of the issue, as well s I

:12:06. > :12:08.suspect, almost everybody in this room will have come across really

:12:09. > :12:13.good mechanics and some, perhaps, questionable ones. Would you like

:12:14. > :12:17.any powers at all to be able to, if you are able to identify mechanics

:12:18. > :12:23.who are really, perhaps, should not be touching cars to be anywhere near

:12:24. > :12:26.them, perhaps having power that is would cease somebody from trading in

:12:27. > :12:33.that way? We already have those powers. OK We already remove testers

:12:34. > :12:37.and examiners from garages under the MoT system and we publish that

:12:38. > :12:41.information. That's somebody doing the test but if you have somebody in

:12:42. > :12:46.a lock of-up garage, tucked away in London, fixing cars for a few quid

:12:47. > :12:50.and what they are doing is dangerous, the member of the public

:12:51. > :12:55.who goes to them and hands over the money in good faith thinks they are

:12:56. > :13:00.cheap and maybe won't ask why. ... Often they have things in place,

:13:01. > :13:10.the gas industry is a good example. You have to be registered and have a

:13:11. > :13:11.certain level of education and understanding and pass

:13:12. > :13:15.qualifications to get to that level. There is clearly a road safety risk

:13:16. > :13:22.in a mechanic not doing what he is doing and not repairing the vehicle

:13:23. > :13:28.to a safe standard. At the moment you don't have that power.

:13:29. > :13:35.Would that be useful in the future? That would give the public more

:13:36. > :13:42.confidence that they know the mechanic has achieved a certain

:13:43. > :13:50.level of status. How many vehicle recall saya handling at the moment?

:13:51. > :13:56.333 in the last year involving 1.7 million vehicles. We get on average

:13:57. > :14:01.one or two a day. It is quite a considerable workload. How many

:14:02. > :14:05.involve fires? Over the last ten years I think we have had about 1.1

:14:06. > :14:10.million vehicles recalled because of fire issues more generally, engine

:14:11. > :14:21.fires, electrical fires and other causes. How many of the recalls now

:14:22. > :14:26.are to do with fires? I do not know the exact number. With Vauxhall

:14:27. > :14:42.you're dealing with fires and five models at the moment. Five? Yes.

:14:43. > :14:47.Different cars. -- models. It is unusual for one manufacturer.

:14:48. > :14:58.Multiple recall is on the same model. Last year we had seven

:14:59. > :15:01.recallrecalls. Some unusual characteristics about this

:15:02. > :15:08.particular incident. Would you like to add to that? No. On both of those

:15:09. > :15:23.recalls they have been recalled twice. With different corrective

:15:24. > :15:28.action taken. For four, Chrysler and the third one has disappeared out of

:15:29. > :15:40.my mind, forgive me. When it pops back in... Yes. I am alarmed about

:15:41. > :15:45.the volume of recalls. Each individual recall will be down to a

:15:46. > :15:50.specific component design but is there a wider issue about the

:15:51. > :15:58.quality and design of cars that is leading to this large increase in

:15:59. > :16:02.the volume of recalls? Our manufacturers cutting corners to

:16:03. > :16:08.keep costs down? Is there a wider issue we should be looking at? I

:16:09. > :16:12.cannot give you a definitive answer. The code of practice, there is a big

:16:13. > :16:16.component around early notification and we get a large number of

:16:17. > :16:20.manufacturers who tell us very early about things that are emerging and

:16:21. > :16:25.that they want to get on top of quickly and salt and that is one

:16:26. > :16:36.reason why the vast majority of recall iss -- recalls go under the

:16:37. > :16:41.radar. I would not see it is now so thoroughly always down to worsening

:16:42. > :16:49.standards. Sometimes we are getting more information early on. Land

:16:50. > :16:59.Rover was the other manufacturer. I am quite shocked by some of what you

:17:00. > :17:03.have just said. Thinking of the Zafira models, I understand it was

:17:04. > :17:08.not the manufacturer who informed you, it was customers themselves who

:17:09. > :17:12.informed you. Do you have any power... That does not seem right...

:17:13. > :17:17.Do you have any power to stop manufacturers doing that? Surely

:17:18. > :17:22.they should have to tell you and you should not have to find out from

:17:23. > :17:26.customers? Yes. We are discussing with Vauxhall a number of reports

:17:27. > :17:32.that have come to us on the 13th of January with the ECC Zafira model, a

:17:33. > :17:38.couple of reports from them and a report from the public and we are

:17:39. > :17:42.pressing Vauxhall for more details into the cause of those fires. We

:17:43. > :17:46.press the manufacturers for that information. I rate in saying you

:17:47. > :17:53.found out about this from a member of the public first? Yes. How much

:17:54. > :17:57.time had passed between that report coming from a member of the public

:17:58. > :18:05.to Vauxhall getting in touch with you? Have they told you why they did

:18:06. > :18:08.not contacted? I think it was about four or five days after we sent them

:18:09. > :18:17.the information we had a notification of four fires on

:18:18. > :18:20.Zafiras in 2016. We have had conversations throughout about when

:18:21. > :18:26.they knew certain aspects. We are trying to resolve those. It is about

:18:27. > :18:33.what is early notification in the minds of some manufacturers compared

:18:34. > :18:37.to others. 20% of the information comes from third parties and market

:18:38. > :18:42.intelligence. Ideally the sooner we know them or we can solve. Do you

:18:43. > :18:48.judge they did not come to your early enough? Is your interpretation

:18:49. > :18:56.it was not early enough? Yes. If we find out through a third party it is

:18:57. > :18:59.never early enough. I agree. We continue to press Vauxhall on this

:19:00. > :19:03.and one of the issues emerging is that some of the decision-making in

:19:04. > :19:07.terms of Vauxhall classifying issues as a safety defect comes from

:19:08. > :19:13.Germany and Vauxhall in the UK have said that the decision that sets

:19:14. > :19:18.elsewhere. Is that unusual? Think of other manufacturers around the

:19:19. > :19:23.world. The structure between the UK and Europe is not necessarily in

:19:24. > :19:26.itself unusual. What is of concern potentially is how quickly that

:19:27. > :19:30.information comes from the manufacturer or producer and

:19:31. > :19:34.distributor. It is clear in the code of practice that if you have the

:19:35. > :19:47.parent company you are to tell them of the early notification system in

:19:48. > :19:51.the UK. Very clear. Of course. You may have heard earlier, when I

:19:52. > :19:56.mentioned to the previous witnesses examples of people telling Vauxhall

:19:57. > :20:02.about this, and they were effectively told it was not an issue

:20:03. > :20:06.and to go away, what would you say any case like that? Do you have any

:20:07. > :20:11.power to take that up with Vauxhall and impose anything on them? Every

:20:12. > :20:14.occasion where that is reported we would take that up with the

:20:15. > :20:19.manufacturer. Where that is proven to be the case can you do anything

:20:20. > :20:27.or is there another agency that can do anything? In terms of our ability

:20:28. > :20:31.to take enforcement action we have very limited powers. We can provide

:20:32. > :20:37.information to Trading Standards bodies for them to take action. We

:20:38. > :20:39.pass all this information on with very strict guidance to the

:20:40. > :20:44.manufacturer about what they should do about it. We had a report that a

:20:45. > :20:50.car had been sold at a particular garage after the recall had been

:20:51. > :20:55.launched, with an invoice that said there were no outstanding recalls

:20:56. > :20:58.and that was not true, so our staff visited the garage and pass the

:20:59. > :21:05.information back to Vauxhall to make sure the change was made quickly.

:21:06. > :21:09.What would you say in terms of the way Vauxhall have handled this month

:21:10. > :21:13.from your point of view, what would be the top things you would want

:21:14. > :21:20.them to take away and never do again? Probably the most important

:21:21. > :21:24.is the early notification because we are not going to take regulatory

:21:25. > :21:28.action if an organisation comes to us and says we think we have a

:21:29. > :21:34.safety risk, we are trying to get on top of it as quickly as possible,

:21:35. > :21:39.work with us. Of course. That has not happened here. It does with most

:21:40. > :21:44.manufacturers. The second thing is to be open. As understanding about

:21:45. > :21:50.why something has failed, changes, tell us. Every time we have a fix it

:21:51. > :21:53.appears to be the final fix. If they have said we cannot fix it

:21:54. > :21:57.permanently but we are going to remove some of the risk why we build

:21:58. > :22:04.up a stock of parts to do the whole fix that would have been a different

:22:05. > :22:10.story. There were some other examples mentioned about issues with

:22:11. > :22:16.different manufacturers having different safety problems.

:22:17. > :22:24.Generally, how can the DVS saying help the industry salvage itself

:22:25. > :22:31.from what seems to be crisis after crisis? How can you help save the

:22:32. > :22:37.industry from itself? What is your role in that more widely? Early

:22:38. > :22:42.dialogue is critical, to get that confidence back. You need more

:22:43. > :22:47.teeth. I am not blaming you guys. There are areas where we could put

:22:48. > :22:53.some teeth into this. Important is it you get those extra powers? Why

:22:54. > :22:57.might we are on the code of practice is the code of practice has not

:22:58. > :23:02.changed and we have to review that but we are being more rigorous and

:23:03. > :23:06.how we tackle some of the issues. Some of that has been interpreted by

:23:07. > :23:10.certain parts of industry as changing the code of practice but we

:23:11. > :23:17.are just being more rigorous in how we implement it. Most safety recalls

:23:18. > :23:22.gets dealt with easily. Those powers will be essential to make sure it

:23:23. > :23:32.does not happen again. A minute automatic or you said most

:23:33. > :23:35.manufacturers are cooperative which implied that Vauxhall not just in

:23:36. > :23:41.this case but generally are not. Would that be fair? There is no

:23:42. > :23:46.doubt we have had to chase a lot of information we believe exists to

:23:47. > :23:51.understand how big the risk is. On the Zafiras with the electronic line

:23:52. > :23:57.control, we know there are a number of fires out there and have asked

:23:58. > :24:00.for information about what Vauxhall's understanding as and they

:24:01. > :24:05.are waiting to complete a formal investigation but there is still

:24:06. > :24:09.risk out there so the earlier we have that information the better. We

:24:10. > :24:13.are chasing to understand what the total risk is to work with them to

:24:14. > :24:17.remove that risk. The fact to said there is still risk out their

:24:18. > :24:26.answers the question I put to the previous panel that there are people

:24:27. > :24:29.driving in Zafiras that are at risk. Are you wholly satisfied that the

:24:30. > :24:36.company are cooperating and doing their best to ensure that those

:24:37. > :24:41.vehicles are identified? The fact we are still asking questions says I am

:24:42. > :24:46.not confident. What we have heard over the last year has put us in

:24:47. > :24:49.that space. We are constantly pushing for cancers to our questions

:24:50. > :25:01.to understand how big the remaining risk is. You said that most recalls

:25:02. > :25:04.went below the radar. Nobody noticed they were happening. Is that because

:25:05. > :25:14.there were a small number of vehicles affected or because, as

:25:15. > :25:17.seems to be the case, I have not seen evidence, some manufacturers,

:25:18. > :25:24.perhaps premium manufacturers, offering a free service and they are

:25:25. > :25:27.doing the recall so that nobody, particularly the customer, finds out

:25:28. > :25:30.it has been part of a safety call? Is that what you had in mind or

:25:31. > :25:38.something different? What is going on? I will give you the short

:25:39. > :25:42.answer. The vast majority of safety recalls take place within the

:25:43. > :25:46.warranty period before a car gets to MOT. You take your car to a

:25:47. > :25:49.franchised dealer and the dealer will know from its owner that it has

:25:50. > :25:53.a problem and you will be going with that as part of the normal course

:25:54. > :25:57.and you will not see it because it will be dealt with very quickly. In

:25:58. > :26:01.the case of the Zafira the vast majority of models were outside

:26:02. > :26:08.warranty and outside the period for which you do not need an MOT. The

:26:09. > :26:12.situation is different. So, yes, there are sorts of different ways

:26:13. > :26:28.that manufacturers are getting safety recalls done by the customer

:26:29. > :26:32.may never know. Yes. The previous panel, in answer to a question I

:26:33. > :26:37.posed about whether they contacted other manufacturers, they seemed to

:26:38. > :26:41.tell me that they had. Is there some common issue that manufacturers tend

:26:42. > :26:46.to liaise with you but do not allow other manufacturers that it might be

:26:47. > :26:55.an issue? Is that something you think is acceptable? We would use a

:26:56. > :26:58.system to make sure this gets out to a wider audience across Europe and

:26:59. > :27:05.the bull understand what it is about. And people can take a

:27:06. > :27:14.judgment about its effect. Is it enough? Making sure there is

:27:15. > :27:18.confidence in the system, you would think they would find some way that

:27:19. > :27:24.their senior engineers, there would be somebody to discuss these matters

:27:25. > :27:28.or have an outlook for dialogue. If they're not that culture within the

:27:29. > :27:37.manufacturing industry and therefore they reference you and they have

:27:38. > :27:41.done their job? There seems to be a lot of concern about competitiveness

:27:42. > :27:47.and sharing secrets in that wild and sometimes that gets in the way. That

:27:48. > :27:51.is very difficult for us without understanding the components to

:27:52. > :27:56.contact somebody when you do not know that person exists. You have to

:27:57. > :27:59.go through the manufacturer and speak through whatever channel is

:28:00. > :28:03.possible with whoever is making the components of that is the issue.

:28:04. > :28:12.On the one hand I can see the issue about sharing intellectual property

:28:13. > :28:16.but another way you can looking at it is bearing bad news. When it

:28:17. > :28:21.comes to something as fundamental as safety, I am he a taken aback that

:28:22. > :28:25.the industry is not nor collaborative, and it doesn't give

:28:26. > :28:31.me confidence that they can sort their own issues out if they cannot

:28:32. > :28:37.discuss it, by saying - we found this issue, you might want it check

:28:38. > :28:42.it out. I find it worrying, and I also find it worrying that they

:28:43. > :28:51.didn't do what they said six months ago. Again, they seem it make it up

:28:52. > :28:55.as they go along. We expect to remove the road safety issue risk as

:28:56. > :29:01.soon as possible. We don't want it to continue any longer than

:29:02. > :29:11.necessary. Thank you. Do you share your concern wts D kr. - VCA is that

:29:12. > :29:15.faulty or dangerous dep sign can belinged to vehicle certification?

:29:16. > :29:25.Yes we have a close working relationship with DCA. We're in the

:29:26. > :29:28.process of setting up an area to target the Volkswagen swachlingts we

:29:29. > :29:30.know they value our information and feedback for type testing for

:29:31. > :29:33.vehicles before they come on to the market. Are there any further

:29:34. > :29:40.questions? No. Well, Mr MacDonald, and Mr

:29:41. > :29:44.Sellerings. One brief, point, Chair, thank you.

:29:45. > :29:51.We talk about the powers you guys don't have, rather than the ones you

:29:52. > :29:54.do V I wonder if you can talk to us, just briefly, about resources. There

:29:55. > :29:57.seemed to be some concern, previously when you were at

:29:58. > :30:00.committee about the resources you have, the cash resources and what

:30:01. > :30:06.you can do with that. I wonder if you could give us perhaps an update?

:30:07. > :30:10.So, as you know, DVSA is a trading fund. The vast majority of our

:30:11. > :30:14.income does not come from the Government. This area is funded by

:30:15. > :30:18.what we all the single enforcement budge eted. Probably one of the only

:30:19. > :30:20.areas that the Department for Transport actually funds in this

:30:21. > :30:24.space. We are about to publish our five-year strategy. Part of that

:30:25. > :30:26.strategy is to become self-financing, so we are talking to

:30:27. > :30:31.the department at the moment about how we do that and, therefore, what

:30:32. > :30:35.changes may need to be made to penalties, fees and charges, etc to

:30:36. > :30:40.enable us to do that. Because, I come from a world where the polluter

:30:41. > :30:43.pays in the environmental space. I think it is just as relevant here.

:30:44. > :30:47.We are trying to work through that with the department at the moment. I

:30:48. > :30:50.haven't got any over worries about financial resources at the moment.

:30:51. > :30:56.The people resources are always a challenge. I'm immensely proud of

:30:57. > :30:59.the people that work for DVSA. They do difficult jobs in difficult

:31:00. > :31:04.circumstances. How many people would be working on the recalls? It is

:31:05. > :31:07.administered by a team of seven but they sit within our enforcement arm

:31:08. > :31:13.which has 1,000 people. We have taken the enforcement arm out of the

:31:14. > :31:18.corps operations. Ho -- it reports to me. The organisation has changed

:31:19. > :31:22.and it can get more resources if required and more opportunity to

:31:23. > :31:27.expand that if necessary Seven seems a tiny amount of the recalls you

:31:28. > :31:31.mentioned earlier. We're evaluating that in terms of what more resource

:31:32. > :31:36.we may need to ensure we can drive compliance in the way we want to and

:31:37. > :31:40.to ensure, as we look to deal with some of the issues emerging from

:31:41. > :31:44.this particular issue with vauks Whitehall, that we have adequate

:31:45. > :31:52.resource. -- with Vauxhall. Some MPs have more than seven MPs of staff.

:31:53. > :32:01.Well I don't know who they are. Not me. Well, can I talk about the last

:32:02. > :32:06.answer, I welcome the polluter pays-type approach and particularly

:32:07. > :32:10.when it comes to heavy goods vehicles, for example, where the

:32:11. > :32:13.wholly inadequate fining system for somebody that has poor brakes that

:32:14. > :32:18.don't work on a trailer and only gets ?100 fine is appalling. So good

:32:19. > :32:22.luck with that one and it'll be nice to see the draft, perhaps of your

:32:23. > :32:26.document at some stage but my question actually is the types of

:32:27. > :32:32.vehicles are now changing. We are looking more and more of electric

:32:33. > :32:38.vehicles and I'm already hearing of recovery operators going to repair a

:32:39. > :32:42.vehicle, going to load a voke and being faced with a potential 50,000

:32:43. > :32:46.volt shock from an electric vehicle. What work is being done looking at

:32:47. > :32:51.that both for now and for the future in terms of the unique aspects of

:32:52. > :32:55.risk around electric vehicles and how that is likely to shape up in

:32:56. > :32:57.the future? Well we have a variety of people across the Department for

:32:58. > :33:01.Transport and with colleagues, people like in the VCA to try to

:33:02. > :33:05.understand this. Every vehicle that comes on to the road, three years

:33:06. > :33:09.later has to be MoT tested, so we have to be ahead of that. We are

:33:10. > :33:12.zoontly looking ahead. We have only been looking last week at autonomous

:33:13. > :33:17.vehicles. Things are going to change at some point remove the driver, so

:33:18. > :33:20.how does that work and how will that interact in our whole world? We are

:33:21. > :33:24.constantly reviewing that and looking at that. We have to plan

:33:25. > :33:29.ahead because we have a network of testing station that is will have to

:33:30. > :33:35.test the vehicles at some point so they'll need to integrate that into

:33:36. > :33:39.the test. So early work and progress?

:33:40. > :33:52.Perhaps a topic for another inquiry. Thank you very much. Order, order.

:33:53. > :33:59.I six Prime Ministers, six very different styles of leadership but

:34:00. > :34:08.what did those leadership styles say about how they ran their party or

:34:09. > :34:11.their Governments? Join me, for Six Unscripted, straight to camera talks

:34:12. > :34:15.on how these very different leaders interpreted their role as Prime

:34:16. > :34:18.Minister. That's Leadership Reflections, this Sunday to Friday,

:34:19. > :34:24.8.00pm on BBC Parliament.