Greg Simms (“Striving for a new balance for renters and landlords”, Letters, September 27) explains how the UK’s proposed renters’ rights bill now going through parliament may flood the court system with claims.

However, this could be avoided if the bill is amended to give the parties to tenancies a right to have the matter resolved by a privately appointed expert who would normally be a solicitor or surveyor or both.

When in legal practise, I had a hand in setting up a scheme to facilitate a similar right in commercial tenancies. As far as I know the scheme, called Pact, is still available. “Professional Arbitration on Court Terms” is an initiative jointly set up by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Law Society. It provides a form of alternative dispute resolution for lease renewal disputes. This facility could be applied to residential tenancies.

Even if landlords undertook to pay the fees in most cases, it would be cheaper than suffering delay, avoid draining court time and spare a mounting expense for the taxpayer.

Steven Fogel
London NW11, UK

Another well-researched article about global agriculture (“The global power of Big Agriculture”, The Big Read, August 22). Yet when it comes to the actual farming and farmers there is a woeful lack of understanding and knowledge.

Yes, the well-funded lobbies (just as in Brussels) are all-powerful. But they are the commodity suppliers and traders and international actors with shareholders to satisfy. Farmers are subject to uncertain weather, volatile prices, byzantine regulatory systems and greedy interfering national governments.

As with coverage of climate, FT journalists seem to be only half informed. Farmers themselves are mainly poorly represented. Farming is an absolute necessity for life and the net zero-related emissions quoted for agriculture are always wildly wrong and remain scientifically unproven.

Geordie Burnett Stuart
Peterhead, Aberdeenshire, UK

The FT analysis “US banks gain $1tn windfall from Fed’s era of high rates” (September 23) and, its assertion that the two and a half year era of Federal Reserve rate rises produced a “windfall” for US banks, falls short of what readers expect from the FT.

Banks’ core business is taking in deposits that are subject to changes in short-term interest rates and then lending to consumers and businesses at terms that ­are customised to serve their funding needs. How this calculation applies bank by bank depends on whether a bank is asset-sensitive or liability-sensitive, and the FT’s analysis (which was never fully shared with readers) completely misses this critical aspect of banks’ business decision-making and consumer choice.

Depositors — both consumers and businesses — have a variety of investment vehicles, and they do not exclusively choose banks for high rates. For example, investors can buy Treasuries at rates closer to the federal funds rate, but this may require them to lock their funds in without the flexibility of withdrawal upon demand. Banks provide security, convenience and accessibility of deposits, and depositors who value these elements over the rate make their decisions accordingly.

Ultimately, using the loaded language of “windfalls” obscures the choices businesses, consumers and banks make in a market environment. For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic and the two-year period of zero interest rate policy, the FT’s flawed methodology reveals that depositors received approximately $56bn in “excess” interest on savings.

We didn’t see the FT reporting on that “windfall” for consumers because it would have painted an inaccurate picture. The same is true here.

Sayee Srinivasan
Chief Economist, American Bankers Association, Washington, DC, US

Robert Shrimsley (“The state isn’t fit for Starmer’s purpose”, Opinion, September 27) is correct in his analysis.

The failings of the machinery of government have surprised prime ministers before — as Tony Blair’s chief of staff said: “When you arrive in No 10 and pull on the levers of power, you discover they are not connected to anything.”

The expertise of experienced professional management, in the delivery functions of government, is not recognised by politicians. Yet delivery is carried out by huge organisations: the Department for Work and Pensions employs 94,000 people and the National Health Service 1.3mn.

This lack of experienced management is the cause of low labour productivity in the public sector. It decreased by 8 per cent between 1997 and 2022 while it increased by 27 per cent across the whole economy, and it is the reason why the 17 major efforts to reform government since the Fulton Report in 1968, and the 25 initiatives to reform the NHS since 1990, have all failed.

The Thatcher and Blair governments both realised the importance of management expertise across government — but only late in their terms, so their reforms did not gain traction. If the current prime minister can put a focus on effective management first, he will find that much good will follow.

Patrick Barbour
Director, Effective Governance Forum, London W4, UK

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

When you are driving in your car, are you in a public or private space? As carmakers race to make electric cars into smartphones on wheels, the lines have started blurring. 

Internet-connected intelligent cars are on the roads in many countries, with remote car access an increasingly common feature. In some cities in China, driverless taxis are already available. But with convenience follows concerns over who has access to our driving data — and ultimately our cars.

The Biden administration sees Chinese cars and technology as a national security threat that could spy on drivers and as an economic threat, and has moved to ban Chinese connected-car software. Beijing has previously accused the US of using “national security” concerns as an excuse to act against Chinese companies. Indeed, the economic implications of such a ban on software are clear: it would in effect keep Chinese EVs out of the US. Current tariffs on Chinese EVs are easy enough to circumvent by shifting production bases. But given the scale of personal data that is expected to be gathered from connected cars — not just those made in China, but by automakers globally — the latest proposed ban should not be brushed off as just another trade spat. It raises important questions about privacy and safety for drivers around the world. 

As EV sales grow, cars are increasingly becoming software-defined vehicles — that is, any car that uses software to operate and add upgraded functionality. Around 97 per cent of all EVs are internet-connected.

Connected intelligent cars offer many benefits. Safety features such as anti-collision systems, real-time data analysis and advanced sensors mean faster reaction times and fewer accidents. Autonomous driving functions help provide mobility for elderly drivers. Carmakers upgrade cars using over-the-air updates. Connected cars using better routes can mean fewer traffic jams, reducing emissions.

Chinese EV makers are leading the race. Development times for new models have been about 30 per cent quicker than legacy peers. More than 60 per cent of new energy vehicles sold in China this year had advanced driving-assist features, according to industry data. 

Take Apollo Go, the robotaxi arm of Chinese internet group Baidu. Its cars can handle most driving situations independently without a driver. More importantly, Baidu has brought costs down significantly, with its latest sixth-generation robotaxi costing less than half its previous model at about $28,500.

Getting to this point, however, has been costly. Baidu started investing billions from its autonomous driving fund in 2017. Its self-driving project has required years of testing and is still lossmaking. Chinese EV maker BYD is set to invest $14bn in areas related to autonomous driving to catch up. Local peer Nio, a leader in autonomous driving software, also remains lossmaking despite growing sales.

That means some global automakers in a rush to catch up on intelligent driving software, or lack the funds to develop their own, may start to turn to software that includes Chinese technology. Without that option, carmakers risk falling behind on innovation and a lucrative market — the market for robotaxis alone is expected to exceed $25bn globally by 2030, according to Goldman Sachs. By 2027, it forecasts partially autonomous cars, which require driver supervision, are expected to be about 30 per cent of global new car sales. For buyers, affordable EVs may become further from reach as development costs rise.

As cars are such an integral part of life for many of us, the potential risks are amplified — perhaps more so than with any other product. For carmakers to provide remote assistance and upgrades after the sale, and for self-driving functions using cameras and sensors, cars must be connected in real-time. Improving software also requires extensive data collection. That means that there will be a risk — however small — that a connected car could be affected by a cyber attack or data breach. Functions could be accessed remotely, affecting driver safety. Sensors can be manipulated to detect false objects on the road. A hacked self-driving car could even be turned into a weapon. 

The race towards smarter, self-driving cars is starting to outpace discussions on privacy, cyber security risks and regulation. Closing trade borders might mean depriving some countries of the latest innovations. But until governments find the balance of risk and reward it may be worth taking the slow road.

june.yoon@ft.com