06/03/2017

:00:00. > :00:09.members will update the House as soon as. I hope that is helpful to

:00:10. > :00:17.the House. Order, urgent question, Rebecca Long Bailey. I would like to

:00:18. > :00:20.ask the Secretary of State for business energy and industrial

:00:21. > :00:28.strategy if he will make a statement on the sale of Opel Vauxhall to the

:00:29. > :00:34.PSA group. The Secretary of State for business energy and industrial

:00:35. > :00:38.strategy. I am grateful. Mr Speaker, this morning the boards of General

:00:39. > :00:45.Motors and the PSA group announced plans for PSA to acquire GM Vauxhall

:00:46. > :00:49.Opel operations. The proposed deal is expected to be completed by the

:00:50. > :00:52.end of the year. The Prime Minister and I have been engaged in

:00:53. > :00:56.discussions with both parties and the French and German governments to

:00:57. > :00:59.ensure that the terms of the agreement can give confidence to the

:01:00. > :01:05.Vauxhall UK workforce now and for the future. Vauxhall is an iconic,

:01:06. > :01:08.important and successful British car manufacturer. Vauxhall cars have

:01:09. > :01:12.been made in Britain for 113 years and we are determined they should

:01:13. > :01:18.continue to be for many years to come. The car plants have a proud

:01:19. > :01:23.record is amongst the most efficient in Europe with workforces are

:01:24. > :01:28.skilled, committed and flexible. Both PSA and GM have confirmed that

:01:29. > :01:33.the Prime Minister Anthony a number important components. The company

:01:34. > :01:37.will honour the agreements they have with the Vauxhall workforce. The

:01:38. > :01:44.Vauxhall pensions be at least as good as they are today. The

:01:45. > :01:49.treatment of the UK division will be equal to those of other countries

:01:50. > :01:53.within the Vauxhall Opel group. The identity of Vauxhall will continue

:01:54. > :01:57.to be distinct and prominent. The strategy of the new company will be

:01:58. > :02:01.one of the building on additional strengths and commitments, and plant

:02:02. > :02:04.closures, taking opportunities to increase sales around the world. The

:02:05. > :02:10.company would work with me and the rest of the automotive sector to

:02:11. > :02:13.ensure that it can participate in the substantial programme of

:02:14. > :02:16.research and investment and innovation in areas that electric

:02:17. > :02:20.vehicles and battery technology which we have as part of our

:02:21. > :02:25.industrial strategy. This morning I had a further conversation with my

:02:26. > :02:27.French correspondent the energy minister and we spoke to the German

:02:28. > :02:33.counterpart to agree a consistent approach. I speak frequently with

:02:34. > :02:35.Len McCluskey, the general secretary of the largest trade union at

:02:36. > :02:39.Vauxhall and will keep colleagues with particular constituency

:02:40. > :02:42.interests up today of times. Mr Speaker, it is in the interests of

:02:43. > :02:47.others that Vauxhall should look forward to a successful future. A

:02:48. > :02:51.generation ago, the British car industry was one that epitomised our

:02:52. > :02:58.economic woes. Today, the industry is a big success. Companies invest

:02:59. > :03:00.in Britain because our automotive sector as a high-quality workforce,

:03:01. > :03:06.has world-class efficiency and is part of one of the most exciting

:03:07. > :03:10.places on earth for innovation and research in new technology. The

:03:11. > :03:20.future of the motor industry is bred in Britain and we will be active at

:03:21. > :03:24.all times everything we can still. I thank the Minister for that positive

:03:25. > :03:26.response but there are a number of issues I would like further

:03:27. > :03:32.clarification on. Firstly, although I welcome the promise to honour

:03:33. > :03:35.existing contracts I am concerned about the 40,000 workers currently

:03:36. > :03:40.employed in Luton and Ellesmere Port and in the wider supply chain who

:03:41. > :03:43.will be worried about the future of their jobs today sucked and the

:03:44. > :03:47.Secretary of State confirm what assurances he has personally

:03:48. > :03:51.received from future of the Vauxhall plants and the wider UK workforce

:03:52. > :03:55.beyond existing contracts. In addition, during his discussions

:03:56. > :04:00.with PSA, did the confirm the production of the new Astra model

:04:01. > :04:03.would take place in the UK? Secondly, there has been some

:04:04. > :04:07.commentary about the ?1 billion deficit in the General Motors UK

:04:08. > :04:11.pension scheme with commentators stating it could have jeopardised

:04:12. > :04:16.the deal. The scheme as 15,000 members and is one of the largest in

:04:17. > :04:19.the UK. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the pensions

:04:20. > :04:25.of the UK workforce are guaranteed in full? Thirdly, it is increasingly

:04:26. > :04:29.clear that the government has little power to ensure certain corporate

:04:30. > :04:35.takeovers are in the public interest and accord with the industrial

:04:36. > :04:39.strategy of Britain. The present legislation is an invention on

:04:40. > :04:41.matters relating to national security or media concentration, so

:04:42. > :04:46.can the Secretary of State confirm whether he has plans to broaden the

:04:47. > :04:48.definition of public interest, for example to serve stakeholders, not

:04:49. > :04:54.just shareholders in mind when will he play -- published draft

:04:55. > :04:58.legislation to that effect? Finally, can the Minister confirm what

:04:59. > :05:02.support is being offered to PSA following the exit from the European

:05:03. > :05:08.Union? We welcome the Nissan decision to remain in the UK as a

:05:09. > :05:12.result of assurances provided by this government. Has PSA been

:05:13. > :05:17.offered the same deal? If so, would it make sense for the government to

:05:18. > :05:24.set out its strategy for this sector as a whole, rather than enlightening

:05:25. > :05:29.businesses one crisis a time? I am grateful to the honourable lady for

:05:30. > :05:34.her questions. These have been worrying times for the workforce

:05:35. > :05:37.over the last two weeks and I think the statements that have been made

:05:38. > :05:42.by both parties today have been welcomed, but just by me but by the

:05:43. > :05:45.trade unions as being very much steps in the right direction. It is

:05:46. > :05:51.important we should hold the company to account for this. In terms of the

:05:52. > :05:56.points that she mentioned, the company has said it will honour the

:05:57. > :06:04.agreements they have with the company and with the unions.

:06:05. > :06:11.As she will know, new models come in at various points in the cycle. We

:06:12. > :06:15.are fortunate that both of the principal models of the UK are quite

:06:16. > :06:22.early in the cycle, and I want, as I'm sure she will want, for both

:06:23. > :06:26.plants to be competitive in expanding their production in the

:06:27. > :06:31.years to come. In terms of pensions, it was something I discussed in

:06:32. > :06:36.detail and regularly both with GM and PSA. They had given an absolute

:06:37. > :06:40.certainty that no pension are current or prospective will be worse

:06:41. > :06:45.off in any way, and of course the pensions regulator, independent of

:06:46. > :06:51.government, is required to confirm any changes in pension arrangements.

:06:52. > :06:57.In terms of the takeover regime generally. She will now this is one

:06:58. > :07:02.overseas owned company being taken over by another, so it is not a

:07:03. > :07:08.listed UK company that would fall within the UK merger regime but

:07:09. > :07:13.buying discussions with my underparts in France and Germany

:07:14. > :07:17.have agreed that we should take a consistent approach in the

:07:18. > :07:20.assurances that are needed, and which the trade unions are equally

:07:21. > :07:25.in contact with their opposite numbers in other countries. In terms

:07:26. > :07:30.of the support that is available for the automotive sector, as I

:07:31. > :07:34.mentioned to colleagues if you moment ago, the automotive sector

:07:35. > :07:37.has been a great success in this country, one of the foundations of

:07:38. > :07:42.that success is the cooperation we have had, government the sector, but

:07:43. > :07:50.within the sector through the automotive counsel to invest in

:07:51. > :07:52.research and development particularly in electric vehicles

:07:53. > :07:57.are buttressed to make sure we have institutions to train the future

:07:58. > :08:04.workforce. That has been a great success and the future owners of

:08:05. > :08:09.Vauxhall I hope will participate. Can I thank my honourable friend

:08:10. > :08:13.before his statement and for his engagement with those of us who have

:08:14. > :08:18.employees who work in the areas concerned, mine in relation to

:08:19. > :08:23.Luton. I would be very grateful if he could indicate what reassurance

:08:24. > :08:29.has been given the PSA to recognise that part of the strength of the

:08:30. > :08:32.Luton plant arises from the quality of the supply chain and the

:08:33. > :08:37.investment that has been made in it ever recent years? And that he can

:08:38. > :08:40.give some reasserts that understanding that will help to

:08:41. > :08:50.secure those jobs not just at Luton but also in the supply chain. It is

:08:51. > :08:56.both the workforce directly employed by Vauxhall but also the substantial

:08:57. > :09:01.implement in the supply chain, both are very important, so this has been

:09:02. > :09:07.part of our discussions. I think there is every opportunity, and I

:09:08. > :09:12.will be vigorous in reviewing it, that to expand the supply chain, not

:09:13. > :09:15.only Vauxhall but other plants, and in the context of our industrial

:09:16. > :09:21.strategy this is one of the active use -- avenues we intend to expand

:09:22. > :09:26.on in the months to come. I congratulate the honourable member

:09:27. > :09:29.for securing this urgent question. I welcome initial comments with

:09:30. > :09:34.regards to pensions and short-term jobs, which is clearly welcome. Even

:09:35. > :09:38.then we have to appreciate that workers are undergoing some

:09:39. > :09:45.uncertainty at the moment. I also know from marketing hair places in

:09:46. > :09:59.the past, it is not protect you from wider politics but also from some

:10:00. > :10:02.media box pops. The repeat the other question, what guarantee is has the

:10:03. > :10:08.Secretary of State got for a wider supply chain, in terms of

:10:09. > :10:10.components, given that it is a much bigger multinational company? Any

:10:11. > :10:14.discussions with regards the possibility of the UK being out of

:10:15. > :10:19.the customs union and what effect that would have in cost and

:10:20. > :10:24.components supply, and what discussions has he had with the

:10:25. > :10:33.Chancellor about provision of our and the money, which is clearly

:10:34. > :10:42.needed to do what he says to support these plants? On the first point, it

:10:43. > :10:47.is evident that these discussions are about the restructuring of GM's

:10:48. > :10:52.operations, and are not tied to Brexit. In terms of the supply

:10:53. > :10:57.chain, think there are opportunities. It has been very

:10:58. > :10:59.clear PSA have been talking about expanding their production, which

:11:00. > :11:03.should create further opportunities for the supply chain that I intend

:11:04. > :11:06.to pursue in this country, and in terms of research and development,

:11:07. > :11:12.it has been an area of success, it is recognised by companies in the

:11:13. > :11:16.sector, and in the industrial strategy challenge fund announced in

:11:17. > :11:22.the Autumn Statement we made a specific commitment to expand our

:11:23. > :11:25.research into battery research in particular, which will be very

:11:26. > :11:32.attractive to suppliers in this sector. What has the Secretary of

:11:33. > :11:37.State learned of PSA's plan to build ultralow emission vehicles in this

:11:38. > :11:41.country, where they are electric, high-pitched -- hybrid or LPG, for

:11:42. > :11:46.which there will be increasing demand in the future? He is

:11:47. > :11:50.absolutely right and we have had many discussions about the

:11:51. > :11:55.opportunities for expanding the provision and the manufacture of

:11:56. > :12:00.ultralow emission vehicles. We have a very good reputation in this

:12:01. > :12:06.country as a hotbed of research. PSA are exposing their -- expanding

:12:07. > :12:13.their exposure to that that gives us the opportunity to go strength to

:12:14. > :12:15.strength in our sector. The plants at Luton and Elsner put a

:12:16. > :12:22.productive, efficient with a very highly skilled workforce. This is

:12:23. > :12:26.not a basket case industry. However in the face of strong foreign

:12:27. > :12:31.government support, we need an active and interventionist

:12:32. > :12:34.government, determined to safeguard these competitive skills and

:12:35. > :12:41.manufacturing assets for Britain. If the new enterprise scheme plans to

:12:42. > :12:44.become profitable by moving car production on the PSA assembly

:12:45. > :12:50.lines, what specific things were the government pledged to do to win the

:12:51. > :12:56.new model Astra for Britain and to develop the automotive supply chain

:12:57. > :12:59.in Britain? Don't think anyone in PSA, GM, in the French and German

:13:00. > :13:05.governments would think we have been anything except completely active in

:13:06. > :13:10.promoting the strengths of the UK. The presence of these factories in

:13:11. > :13:13.this country is not a matter of altruism, they are efficient and

:13:14. > :13:17.mimic a great contribution to the performance of the company. We will

:13:18. > :13:23.build on that through the industrial strategy. I mentioned research and

:13:24. > :13:27.develop and into electric vehicles are the training and of element of

:13:28. > :13:30.the workforce is a very important asset. We had a good workforce

:13:31. > :13:36.there, we need to keep them equipped for the future. He will see in the

:13:37. > :13:45.industrial strategy as it develops a renewed commitment to research and

:13:46. > :13:49.training in the auto sector. My right honourable friend has outlined

:13:50. > :13:54.how the UK automotive industry has been a huge success in recent years,

:13:55. > :13:57.and has mentioned the industrial strategy a number of times but I

:13:58. > :14:00.just wonder if he can provide a little bit more detail as to how the

:14:01. > :14:06.industrial strategy will help to ensure that the automotive industry

:14:07. > :14:11.continues to develop and grow? I will indeed. I have mentioned two

:14:12. > :14:18.areas in particular, research and development, bringing together our

:14:19. > :14:25.institutions, our research and university institutions with the

:14:26. > :14:28.companies in the sector. The training of people who will work in

:14:29. > :14:34.the sector. I had the pleasure of being at the campus of Warwick

:14:35. > :14:36.University, where the automotive innovation centre is being built

:14:37. > :14:43.with a school for apprentices that will train 1000 apprentices a year

:14:44. > :14:49.to work in this sector. These are very important developments. I

:14:50. > :14:54.mentioned a supply chain through the industrial strategy we will make

:14:55. > :14:57.Britain even more attractive for the small and medium-sized enterprises

:14:58. > :15:03.in particular the service the major companies. Can I also thank the

:15:04. > :15:09.Secretary of State to keeping colleagues informed. Clearly it is

:15:10. > :15:17.good news we have a guarantee that production will continue until the

:15:18. > :15:21.end of the current Astra building but there is concerned about what

:15:22. > :15:24.will happen after that. The noise as we have had from PSA is all about

:15:25. > :15:30.plants showing their efficient sheep and being based on that, and I am

:15:31. > :15:33.very confident that we can put a very case forward. However there are

:15:34. > :15:37.things beyond their control, which is where government will step in,

:15:38. > :15:41.beer business rates, procurement, the supply chain. I would like

:15:42. > :15:44.assurances from the Secretary of State that he will do everything in

:15:45. > :15:54.his power to make sure we have as competitive and environment for Elf

:15:55. > :16:02.Bearpark -- Elsner Ellesmere Port and Luton. He is absolutely right

:16:03. > :16:06.that the fact that the plants will be judged as they tend to be in the

:16:07. > :16:10.automotive sector for new models on the basis of their competitive

:16:11. > :16:12.efficiency is a strength for us in this country because our automotive

:16:13. > :16:17.plants are the strongest in the world. So I would rather that we

:16:18. > :16:21.competed on efficiency rather than some other means. I will work

:16:22. > :16:25.through the automotive council and through our international --

:16:26. > :16:28.industrial strategy to make sure that all the elements of

:16:29. > :16:33.competitiveness that have been so successful to date will continue

:16:34. > :16:38.indeed increase. Like my right honourable friend and other members

:16:39. > :16:43.of the house from Cheshire, I want to ensure that the renaissance will

:16:44. > :16:46.be seen in the automotive sector continues the decades to come. Can

:16:47. > :16:50.my right honourable friend tell the house what steps he will take to

:16:51. > :16:56.improve technical skills and apprenticeships to make sure that

:16:57. > :17:00.automotive chains in Cheshire and the Northwest get the support that

:17:01. > :17:07.they need in the years ahead. I mention and pay tribute to the

:17:08. > :17:12.workforce in both plants that folks will have. They are efficient and

:17:13. > :17:15.highly committed and have been very flexible. As technology changes, we

:17:16. > :17:24.need to keep their skills up-to-date. The automotive sector is

:17:25. > :17:32.aware of that. It will train other people in the industry and it will

:17:33. > :17:35.have my full hearted commitment. The Secretary of State will be aware

:17:36. > :17:41.that the looted workforce is brilliant and produce a superb

:17:42. > :17:43.vehicle. But Britain is still a net importer of products, particularly

:17:44. > :17:51.of the higher value added components. Will the Secretary of

:17:52. > :17:54.State be discussing with Peugeot and PSA the possibility of developing

:17:55. > :17:59.more higher value production in the supply chain here, particularly in

:18:00. > :18:00.view of the recent appreciation of sterling, which looks likely to be

:18:01. > :18:13.Parliament. I am honourable there is a big opportunity across

:18:14. > :18:16.the automotive sector to increase the supply chain. It is one of the

:18:17. > :18:21.areas which I think we can make further progress in what is already

:18:22. > :18:28.a successful sector. We will do that through the industrial strategy and

:18:29. > :18:36.it will have my personal engagement. Might that opportunity to increase

:18:37. > :18:39.the UK component of the UK component supply chain be increased if there

:18:40. > :18:53.is a change in our relationship with the internal market? In any case,

:18:54. > :18:58.whether we were leaving the European Union or staying in the European

:18:59. > :19:07.Union, that opportunity is there and I am determined we should take it.

:19:08. > :19:11.Many others who are reliant for they implement on the local supply chains

:19:12. > :19:18.have said this is causing huge worry in the area. What can he said to

:19:19. > :19:25.reassure my constituents about the future, particularly given that our

:19:26. > :19:28.employment laws make it easier to sack workers of the UK, compared to

:19:29. > :19:32.those who work in France and Germany, which puts them at an

:19:33. > :19:36.immediate disadvantage, and what can he say to reassure them about the

:19:37. > :19:42.fact that we are leaving the European Union and the single

:19:43. > :19:47.market, and that again puts them potentially at a disadvantage in the

:19:48. > :19:52.competition that is to come? What I would say is first of all of the

:19:53. > :19:57.reason that we have a successful record in this country is that our

:19:58. > :20:01.car plants and their workforces are highly efficient. And we shouldn't

:20:02. > :20:04.forget that. The second is that the commitments that have been given,

:20:05. > :20:08.and they have been shared with the trade unions, are to honour

:20:09. > :20:13.agreements that include the trade unions, and that I think is

:20:14. > :20:17.something that she will welcome. But in the long term, we want to expand

:20:18. > :20:21.the industry, we want to take every opportunity of working together as

:20:22. > :20:25.we have done with the automotive sector to increase the number of

:20:26. > :20:26.good jobs that are available to her constituents and those right around

:20:27. > :20:38.the country? I welcome the commitment by Pearce

:20:39. > :20:45.to continue with their existing payments to Vauxhall workers. While

:20:46. > :20:48.the machine work with PSA to ensure that the assurances are not just

:20:49. > :20:54.kept that they will continue to build on the success of both plants

:20:55. > :20:58.for the long term? I will indeed. As soon as we heard about these

:20:59. > :21:04.proposals I and my colleagues were immediately engaged with management

:21:05. > :21:09.and the unions in this country and with our counterparts. Our

:21:10. > :21:13.engagement and activity will not abandon. It is welcome that we have

:21:14. > :21:20.these assurances but we need to make sure they are implemented in

:21:21. > :21:23.practice. Can I echo the thanks to the Secretary of State for his

:21:24. > :21:27.efforts to keep us informed and involved, those of us with the

:21:28. > :21:31.constituency interest. Does he accept that our car industry is at a

:21:32. > :21:34.competitive disadvantage with those in other European countries because

:21:35. > :21:38.of the way business is operating and when new plant is installed, that

:21:39. > :21:42.increases business rate costs? Will he speak to his colleagues in the

:21:43. > :21:46.government to see if we can find a way around this this and said that

:21:47. > :21:51.to invest? I would remind the honourable gentleman that we are a

:21:52. > :21:56.competitive place to do business, including in the car manufacturing

:21:57. > :21:59.sector. Different countries will have different policies, it is my

:22:00. > :22:03.determination to make sure we are competitive, we remain competitive

:22:04. > :22:10.so we can expand production in future. Could my right honourable

:22:11. > :22:15.friend opted the House on any discussions he has had around this

:22:16. > :22:22.over with reference to steal supply chains? I talked about the supply

:22:23. > :22:26.chain in general and there are opportunities around the supply

:22:27. > :22:31.chain from individual components to materials. I wanted to make full use

:22:32. > :22:36.of that. With the steel industry, we are discussing a special sector deal

:22:37. > :22:39.to make sure that there are bigger opportunities for the products to be

:22:40. > :22:48.made use of their customers in the UK. Is the Secretary of State aware

:22:49. > :22:54.that the reassurances he has obtained from the usual are limited

:22:55. > :22:58.in extent and duration and it would take much longer than that they

:22:59. > :23:06.decided to close one of the British factories, and that is exactly what

:23:07. > :23:10.happened in Coventry? He cannot rest on the assurances such as they are

:23:11. > :23:13.at this stage but we must push continued to push with the

:23:14. > :23:17.reassurance we have which is the replacement models for the plants

:23:18. > :23:21.when they close. The honourable gentleman is right that we need to

:23:22. > :23:27.stay engaged and to make sure that these commitments are delivered. I

:23:28. > :23:32.will nature that we do that as our colleagues in the trade unions and

:23:33. > :23:37.others well. People agree it is important that these commitments

:23:38. > :23:42.have been given very clearly in writing today. Far better than the

:23:43. > :23:47.opposite. In terms of the experience of Peugeot in Brighton, he will know

:23:48. > :23:53.that I have raised that with the management of PSA in the past. They

:23:54. > :23:56.describe their very different strategy from that time. It is a

:23:57. > :24:05.different management. The strategy now is based on expanding action,

:24:06. > :24:08.not closing plants. I welcome that. The Secretary of State is right to

:24:09. > :24:13.draw attention to the transformation that has happened in the motor

:24:14. > :24:18.industry since the days of PSA running and operating elsewhere in

:24:19. > :24:21.the UK. We have an industry with experts in autonomous vehicles which

:24:22. > :24:25.the Secretary of State sought from Jaguar Land Rover on his recent

:24:26. > :24:30.visit to work University. Does he agree that this merger provides PSA

:24:31. > :24:33.group with an opportunity to access the innovation and creative thinking

:24:34. > :24:39.of our designers and the flexibility and quality of our workforce? I

:24:40. > :24:44.completely agree. One of the big advantages of locating in this

:24:45. > :24:50.country is that manufacturers can join a vibrant consortium of people

:24:51. > :24:55.collaborating in that work at Warwick. It is recognised as a world

:24:56. > :24:58.leading players to do automotive research. We want to build on that

:24:59. > :25:09.and attract businesses to support it. I support the Secretary of

:25:10. > :25:14.State's approach of being demanding of PSA, so he will understand we are

:25:15. > :25:19.delivered demanding of him about what he is going to do the sums can

:25:20. > :25:23.I ask them as my friend from Chester did, about the business rates regime

:25:24. > :25:31.is it related to investment in plant and machinery? Has he asked the

:25:32. > :25:36.Chancellor to change it, yes or no? The competitiveness of our

:25:37. > :25:41.automotive sector is high. I will nature of that across the board we

:25:42. > :25:47.retain a word competitive, not just European competitive, sector and an

:25:48. > :25:54.aspect of that I will look at if it is brought to my attention. The

:25:55. > :25:56.whole house would like to thank the Secretary of State for his efforts

:25:57. > :26:00.on behalf of Vauxhall and it has been reported that the chief

:26:01. > :26:03.Executive of PSA has said there will be no plant closures and jobs will

:26:04. > :26:08.be protected and he points and he has never closed a time in his life.

:26:09. > :26:16.He is actually looking for expansion. Might this merger mean

:26:17. > :26:21.you'd use for Vauxhall future? I hope it is. We should do everything

:26:22. > :26:25.we can image that it is. It is an opportunity for a company that is

:26:26. > :26:31.committed to expansion to make sure that expansion includes the

:26:32. > :26:36.expansion of UK plants. It is an area in which we are strong, it is

:26:37. > :26:39.an area in which we have a high reputation. This should be an

:26:40. > :26:46.opportunity for us to make what is good even better. I cannot help but

:26:47. > :26:51.feel the minister is being complacent. 76% of the Ellesmere

:26:52. > :26:57.Port production is exported, much of it is left-hand drive for Europe.

:26:58. > :27:00.Would it make sense for future to continue left-hand drive production

:27:01. > :27:06.outside the EU and not in Poland or Germany? I persuade companies to

:27:07. > :27:11.invest in Britain. He is thinking of reasons why they should be put off.

:27:12. > :27:15.I think the efficiency and innovation that we have in this

:27:16. > :27:18.country is what causes people to invest here. I will do everything I

:27:19. > :27:26.can to make this a positive and expanding industry in the future.

:27:27. > :27:36.The Secretary of State is right to say the announcement underlines the

:27:37. > :27:41.importance of reinforcing... Could he tell the House what more can be

:27:42. > :27:47.done to move on from that to ensure that PSA and other manufacturers can

:27:48. > :27:53.take a leaf out of the Nissan but and make those vehicles in the UK as

:27:54. > :27:59.well? I have enjoyed working with the honourable gentleman to promote

:28:00. > :28:02.the automotive sector. This is an opportunity for the company, PSA,

:28:03. > :28:08.but has not had the same footprint in Britain in recent years to help

:28:09. > :28:11.join in and benefit from the benefits that accrue to those who

:28:12. > :28:16.participate authors through the automotive Council in our industrial

:28:17. > :28:21.strategy. Prominent amongst which is the opportunity to participate in

:28:22. > :28:27.our research programmes, in just an electric vehicles, but autonomous

:28:28. > :28:32.vehicles as well. The Secretary of State must support the long-term

:28:33. > :28:36.future of these efficient plants and their highly qualified workforces,

:28:37. > :28:42.despite backing the models. Does he accept the long-term prospects of

:28:43. > :28:45.the plants are weaker as a result of Brexit and French ownership and he

:28:46. > :28:49.might have to offer an even better deal than the one he offered the

:28:50. > :28:53.Nissan to secure their futures? Will he make that the public so other

:28:54. > :28:56.industries also badly affected by Brexit can know what level of

:28:57. > :29:03.financial support they can expect from the government? I am

:29:04. > :29:06.disappointed he would start off by talking about negatives when there

:29:07. > :29:12.are big opportunities for the sector here. In fact, PSA said today that

:29:13. > :29:18.there are opportunities from Brexit. I have been clear that what is

:29:19. > :29:23.available to any automotive manufacturer and member of the

:29:24. > :29:28.supply chain in this country is to work with us through the sector to

:29:29. > :29:31.invest in research and development, the development of skills, the

:29:32. > :29:36.expansion of the supply chain. That is an invitation to manufacturers

:29:37. > :29:42.across the world to come and invest in Britain. If they do they will

:29:43. > :29:52.find a ready partner in This House and in this country. It was recently

:29:53. > :29:55.reported that the government has offered the new owners of Vauxhall

:29:56. > :29:59.assurances similar to those given to Nissan. Will the government

:30:00. > :30:05.committed to full transparency regarding this with full disclosure

:30:06. > :30:09.of promises made to PSA and copies of any correspondence placed in the

:30:10. > :30:16.library of the House? It couldn't be more clear, by being part of the UK

:30:17. > :30:21.automotive sector, all of the benefits of that, in terms of

:30:22. > :30:24.research and development, trading, the expansion we see through the

:30:25. > :30:33.industrial strategy will be available to all such companies.

:30:34. > :30:37.Hundreds of the excellent workforce at Ellesmere Port and many in the

:30:38. > :30:44.supply chain reside over the border in north-east Wales, will he liaise

:30:45. > :30:49.with the Welsh Government on the objective of having a car for free

:30:50. > :30:56.access to European markets in the European Union? I will work with our

:30:57. > :30:59.colleagues in Wales through the Secretary of State here and through

:31:00. > :31:04.the Welsh Assembly government. I end my ministers will begin shortly with

:31:05. > :31:10.ministers in Wales to discuss the industrial strategy and I would

:31:11. > :31:17.imagine they will want to have those conversations with us. I would like

:31:18. > :31:21.to commend the Minister for his dialogue with the trade unions and

:31:22. > :31:25.hope you will give us a commitment he will continue to do that. I was

:31:26. > :31:29.interested to hear that the minister doesn't seem to be answering the

:31:30. > :31:32.questions on Brexit head-on. Many of my constituents are concerned

:31:33. > :31:38.because they work at Ellesmere Port. Given the thousands of high skilled

:31:39. > :31:42.jobs and the importance of them and the risk of them going, what is the

:31:43. > :31:48.government doing to ensure future EU market access for this and other

:31:49. > :31:54.important exporting industries? What I would say is we have been clear

:31:55. > :31:58.that our objectives as we start negotiations, which haven't

:31:59. > :32:01.convinced yet, because we haven't triggered Article 50, are about

:32:02. > :32:06.making sure we can have access to the single market without impediment

:32:07. > :32:11.and without tariffs. In any case, we are determined that our industry,

:32:12. > :32:16.whether it is in the automotive sector, advanced Manufacturing

:32:17. > :32:22.generally, or the whole economy will be competitive. The head of PSA said

:32:23. > :32:25.himself that Brexit offers some opportunities, but she can have my

:32:26. > :32:33.assurance that I will do everything within my power to make sure that

:32:34. > :32:43.the terms of trade that we have through negotiations are as as

:32:44. > :32:45.possible. I would like to thank the Secretary of State for his kind

:32:46. > :32:51.offer after last week to meet with me later today with colleagues from

:32:52. > :32:56.along the M4 corridor to talk about what happened last week in Bridgend.

:32:57. > :33:00.Today we have got another announcement. It looks like we will

:33:01. > :33:04.have trip trip announcement is causing great anxiety to those in

:33:05. > :33:08.the automotive industry. I asked the prime ministers if we could have a

:33:09. > :33:14.summit involving MPs, when factories and the trade unions. Is it not now

:33:15. > :33:19.time to call such a summit so that rather than one by one company is

:33:20. > :33:25.being taken apart, we can actually discuss it as a good house? I am

:33:26. > :33:27.looking forward to meeting the honourable lady later today but I

:33:28. > :33:33.don't think that is the right way to think about what has been proposed

:33:34. > :33:40.between the two companies today. It is a transfer of the assets of GM in

:33:41. > :33:50.Europe to those of PSA. I think what is needed is activism and alacrity

:33:51. > :33:54.on the part of every one of these investments. I will make that

:33:55. > :33:58.commitment to her with respect to forward and when we meet later today

:33:59. > :34:06.we can talk about what is required in terms of those discussions. The

:34:07. > :34:09.Secretary of State knows that the efficiency of the plans is down to

:34:10. > :34:16.the industry and the policy is down to him. Does is activism grew so far

:34:17. > :34:20.as to have instructed his officials yet to have done an impact

:34:21. > :34:28.assessment of leaving the customs union on the automotive sector? As

:34:29. > :34:35.the honourable lady knows, what she asks applies to the debate in

:34:36. > :34:43.general about our negotiating position and, of course, is a member

:34:44. > :34:46.of the Cabinet I am part of the discussions about negotiation, but

:34:47. > :34:51.she will note that in terms of the automotive sector and other sectors

:34:52. > :34:55.of the economy, I will do what I can, only to ensure we get the best

:34:56. > :35:02.deal in our negotiations, but to make sure we are a competitive force

:35:03. > :35:08.in the world, whatever the result. Whilst I welcome the Secretary of

:35:09. > :35:13.State's announcement, I would also urge him to be cautious. We had this

:35:14. > :35:18.in Coventry in 2005 and the government intervened to do its

:35:19. > :35:22.best. The workers there were promised new models, they never

:35:23. > :35:28.materialised, they were brutally cut, the factories were totally cut.

:35:29. > :35:34.I would say do not pour cold water on it, but be careful about what you

:35:35. > :35:35.are dealing with. I accept the advice of the honourable gentleman

:35:36. > :35:44.based on his experience. I said earlier today that I am

:35:45. > :35:46.cautiously optimistic. The commitments going the right

:35:47. > :35:50.direction. Actually the language I have used is the same as Len

:35:51. > :35:56.McCluskey has used and I dare say he is a veteran of some these

:35:57. > :36:01.negotiations. I think all of us need to welcome a positive future for

:36:02. > :36:08.Vauxhall to everything we can to make sure that it is delivered. Is

:36:09. > :36:17.the Minister aware that twice, twice, he has praised Len McCluskey

:36:18. > :36:24.in this house? Five times he has mentioned the trade unions as if

:36:25. > :36:28.they were part of the CBI. Is this the same man, this minister, that

:36:29. > :36:34.walked through the lobbies to attack the trade unions's authority and

:36:35. > :36:38.introduced that lousy act of Parliament? I am not sure that Len

:36:39. > :36:41.McCluskey would want me to praise him, I think we have acknowledged I

:36:42. > :36:45.have been working with him on this, as I hope you would expect. And I

:36:46. > :36:50.hope that the honourable gentleman, in fact every member in this house,

:36:51. > :36:56.would want all of us to put party political differences aside to do

:36:57. > :37:03.what we can to secure jobs in this country in every single constituency

:37:04. > :37:06.represented by colleagues here. Order, statement, the Secretary of

:37:07. > :37:16.State for culture, media and sport. Secretary Karen Bradley. Mr Speaker,

:37:17. > :37:20.before Christmas I promised to give the house and update about progress

:37:21. > :37:28.on the process for the bed by 20th Century Fox to acquire the 61% of

:37:29. > :37:32.Sky that it does not already own. I can confirm that formal notification

:37:33. > :37:36.for the proposed merger of Sky and 21st-century fox was lodged with the

:37:37. > :37:42.European Commission on Friday third march, and that I on Friday wrote to

:37:43. > :37:45.the parties to inform them that I am minded to issue a European

:37:46. > :37:49.intervention notice, on the basis that I believe there are public

:37:50. > :37:55.interest considerations, as set out in enterprise act 20 -- 2002 that

:37:56. > :38:00.may be relevant to this proposed merger that warrant further

:38:01. > :38:05.investigation. To be clear, I have not taken a final decision on

:38:06. > :38:08.intervention at this stage, but have indicated what I am presently minded

:38:09. > :38:13.to do, in line with the guidance that applies to my cause I judicial

:38:14. > :38:17.role, I will aim to come to a final decision on whether to intervene

:38:18. > :38:24.with the merger within ten working days of Friday's notification.

:38:25. > :38:27.Before I make my decision, I have invited further representations in

:38:28. > :38:32.writing from the parties, and have given them until Wednesday 8th of

:38:33. > :38:43.March to provide these. In December I made clear I would make this cause

:38:44. > :38:48.I judicial decision -- this quasi judicial decision. To enable this, I

:38:49. > :38:52.instructed my officials to commence work to analyse the relevance of the

:38:53. > :38:57.public interest considerations to the merger, and to consider the

:38:58. > :39:00.available evidence. Since the 9th of December announcement, I have

:39:01. > :39:04.received representations from the parties to the merger, as well as

:39:05. > :39:08.representations made to the department from a range of people

:39:09. > :39:12.and organisations, this includes over 8700 responses made in

:39:13. > :39:15.connection with the department's consultation on the Levinson enquiry

:39:16. > :39:20.and its implementation, which referred to the merger. Given my

:39:21. > :39:25.quasi judicial role I can only consider evidence relevant to my

:39:26. > :39:28.decision. On the basis of this paratroop work, I have issued a

:39:29. > :39:32.minded to letter to the parties on two of the public interest grounds

:39:33. > :39:37.specified in section 58 of the enterprise act 2002. The first

:39:38. > :39:44.public interest ground on which I am minded to intervene is media

:39:45. > :40:02.clarity, that is specifically -- media Plume --

:40:03. > :40:19.The second public interest ground is commitment to broadcasting

:40:20. > :40:26.standards. This relates to the need for persons and for those with

:40:27. > :40:28.control of such media enterprises to have a genuine commitment to

:40:29. > :40:32.obtaining broadcasting standards objectives. As I have indicated to

:40:33. > :40:37.the parties to the merger, I am concerned about the nature of a knob

:40:38. > :40:41.of breaches of broadcasting standards by 21st Century Fox, as

:40:42. > :40:43.well as the behaviour and corporate governance failings of News

:40:44. > :40:48.Corporation in the past. In light of those matters, I am minded to

:40:49. > :40:53.intervene on this ground and to ask Ofcom to investigate them further. I

:40:54. > :40:58.also want to be clear on what this means in terms of the overall

:40:59. > :41:02.process. My decision on whether to intervene or not is not the end of

:41:03. > :41:05.the matter. Instead, it would recognise this public interest

:41:06. > :41:10.considerations may be relevant to the merger, and will trigger action

:41:11. > :41:14.by Ofcom to assess and report to me on them, and for the Competition and

:41:15. > :41:18.Markets Authority to report on jurisdiction. There would then be a

:41:19. > :41:21.further decision-making stage for me to undertake in light of these

:41:22. > :41:27.reports, but we are not at that stage yet. As I said at the outset,

:41:28. > :41:30.I will aim to take the final decision on whether to issue a

:41:31. > :41:36.European intervention notice within the ten working days set out in the

:41:37. > :41:40.guidance, and will return to this house to notify Parliament of this

:41:41. > :41:43.decision. I am today, as I said I would, keeping this house

:41:44. > :41:46.appropriately informed of development on this important matter

:41:47. > :41:52.and it is right that I continue to do so. However, given this remains a

:41:53. > :41:55.quasi judicial process in which I retain a decision-making role for

:41:56. > :42:00.the next ten days and potentially beyond, it would be inappropriate

:42:01. > :42:03.for me or any other number of this government to comment on the

:42:04. > :42:07.substantive merits of the case. I hope this update is helpful to

:42:08. > :42:10.honourable and right on all members that this statement gives an

:42:11. > :42:13.opportunity to debate this important issue, but at the same time I hope

:42:14. > :42:19.that honourable and right honourable members will respect the limits of

:42:20. > :42:24.what I can say, given my ongoing decision-making role. I commend this

:42:25. > :42:26.statement to the house. I thank the Secretary of State for advance

:42:27. > :42:29.notice of the statement and for writing to be on Friday, setting out

:42:30. > :42:33.her intentions, and I am also extremely grateful that she has come

:42:34. > :42:36.to the house at the earliest possible opportunity following

:42:37. > :42:41.notification of the bed. I also understand that she is in quasi

:42:42. > :42:45.judicial mode and what that means. I hope, however, that she will listen

:42:46. > :42:49.carefully to concerns about this merger, which are being expressed

:42:50. > :42:56.both inside and outside this chamber. The company names may have

:42:57. > :43:01.changed since the previous bid for Sky was withdrawn in 2011, but we

:43:02. > :43:05.are still dealing with media plurality, misconduct and the

:43:06. > :43:09.Murdochss. The Secretary of State has said she is minded to intervene

:43:10. > :43:15.first on media polarity grounds. The bid would put -- media ten threw.

:43:16. > :43:20.The bid would put even more media power in the hands of the Murdoch

:43:21. > :43:25.family, making the Murdoch empire even bigger, we might call at Empire

:43:26. > :43:30.2.0. Ofcom should look at the whole group of Murdoch owned and

:43:31. > :43:40.controlled companies in assessing whether the Sky takeover would

:43:41. > :43:44.threaten media plurality. The second is broadcasting standards. We need

:43:45. > :43:47.to be satisfied that the merging company would comply with the

:43:48. > :43:54.broadcasting code, just as we need to be confident that it would not be

:43:55. > :43:59.used by Rupert Murdoch and his families to promote his political

:44:00. > :44:04.views and interests. But the most troubling is not about the content

:44:05. > :44:13.of James Murdoch's programming, but about his character. It is not clear

:44:14. > :44:16.that these failings for strictly speaking under the heading

:44:17. > :44:22.broadcasting standards. Even though they are central to whether this

:44:23. > :44:25.merger should be approved. A commitment to broadcasting standards

:44:26. > :44:33.test is not a fit and proper person test. We'll Ofcom's assessment of

:44:34. > :44:38.21st entry box's and to broadcasting standards include in its scope the

:44:39. > :44:40.following fact that six employees of News International have been

:44:41. > :44:44.convicted of phone hacking and another of perverting the course of

:44:45. > :44:50.justice, that over 30 police and public officials have been accused

:44:51. > :44:55.of -- convicted of accepting corrupt payments from News International

:44:56. > :44:58.that were approved at a high level? That one journalist has been accused

:44:59. > :45:05.of making unlawful payments and another handling stolen property,

:45:06. > :45:09.namely a mobile phone from my honourable friend the member for

:45:10. > :45:15.Mitch and Morecambe, when private information was taken from it at the

:45:16. > :45:19.request of some Sun executives. That former editors at the News of the

:45:20. > :45:23.World were held in contempt of Parliament for lying to a select

:45:24. > :45:28.committee. That the standards and privilege committee cast further

:45:29. > :45:31.light on the paying of hush money to employees guilty of criminal

:45:32. > :45:34.offences and to deter them from cooperating with the police and

:45:35. > :45:36.prosecution authorities? That it seems likely therefore that a number

:45:37. > :45:54.of News Corporation employees gave. That News International has admitted

:45:55. > :46:00.phone hacking in several hundred claims so far, and has made payments

:46:01. > :46:05.to victims and lawyers, amounting to $600 million? And that is without

:46:06. > :46:08.mentioning the many outstanding civil claims against newspapers

:46:09. > :46:13.owned by News International, or the fact that allegations have been made

:46:14. > :46:16.in open court that James Murdoch was involved in the e-mail deletion

:46:17. > :46:20.programme at News International, which has made it more difficult to

:46:21. > :46:23.get to the truth? If those facts can't be included in Ofcom's

:46:24. > :46:32.assessment, then the opposition is ready to work with her to make a

:46:33. > :46:35.sure a solution can be found that deals with the gravity of wrongdoing

:46:36. > :46:39.in Company is controlled by the Murdoch family. Can the Secretary of

:46:40. > :46:45.State ask Ofcom to clarify that they will conduct a full fit and proper

:46:46. > :46:48.person test before approval of this merger is completed? Ofcom has

:46:49. > :46:53.already made an assessment of James Murdoch in 2012. It found in

:46:54. > :46:56.relation to his time at newsgroup newspapers during the period phone

:46:57. > :47:01.hacking was taking place that his conduct repeatedly fell short of

:47:02. > :47:04.conduct to be expected of him as a Chief Executive Officer and

:47:05. > :47:07.chairman. But it also said that evidence available today does not

:47:08. > :47:11.provide a reasonable basis to conclude that James Murdoch

:47:12. > :47:14.deliberately engaged in any wrongdoing, and why did Ofcom not

:47:15. > :47:17.have enough evidence to draw conclusions? Because the liver is an

:47:18. > :47:22.enquiry had not been in a position to gather evidence. -- the lettuce

:47:23. > :47:27.and enquiry first with the Secretary of State is concerned about the

:47:28. > :47:31.behaviour of corporate -- then any case of not going ahead with part

:47:32. > :47:36.two of the livers and enquiry has just collapsed, because the

:47:37. > :47:39.behaviour she is so concerned about, and which she once investigated is

:47:40. > :47:48.precisely the behaviour part two of livers and is supposed to look into.

:47:49. > :47:50.We are still -- of Levinson. I hope the Secretary of State's words

:47:51. > :47:55.indicate that she will show some courage, stand-up to vested

:47:56. > :48:01.interests, do the right thing, and allow the enquiry to proceed. She

:48:02. > :48:08.must not ask Ofcom to do its job with one hand tied behind its back.

:48:09. > :48:11.Mr Speaker, can I thank the honourable gentleman for his

:48:12. > :48:14.response and can I assure him that Ofcom will not be doing any work

:48:15. > :48:19.with one hand tied behind their backs, as the honourable gentleman

:48:20. > :48:23.has suggested. If I can deal with the issue of the Levinson enquiry,

:48:24. > :48:28.the consultation first. It is important to put on the record that

:48:29. > :48:30.the consultation has closed, but is subject to judicial review, which

:48:31. > :48:33.makes it very difficult for me to make any further comment at this

:48:34. > :48:40.stage. That if I can just turn to the evidence that Ofcom will look

:48:41. > :48:45.at, to be clear I am not ruling any evidence in or out. If I do decide

:48:46. > :48:49.to intervene, then Ofcom will then into being -- reportedly on any

:48:50. > :48:51.matters they consider relevant. On commitment and broadcasting

:48:52. > :48:56.standards there is no exhaustive list of evidence. Ofcom can look at

:48:57. > :48:59.whatever they think is right. As I have said, Ofcom has sufficient

:49:00. > :49:03.powers and they can investigate anything they think is appropriate.

:49:04. > :49:11.I thank the honourable gentleman to the commentary has made, I am sure

:49:12. > :49:14.they will be part of what Ofcom considers. Ofcom does have a fit and

:49:15. > :49:16.proper test for broadcasting licences. That is different a test

:49:17. > :49:20.of the one that will be considered on this merger, but the same

:49:21. > :49:25.evidence may be relevant to both. Finally, my letter sets out a number

:49:26. > :49:28.of matters I consider relevant and warrant further investigation,

:49:29. > :49:31.including facts that led to the Levinson enquiry, for example

:49:32. > :49:35.corporate governance at News of the World. It will be open to Ofcom to

:49:36. > :49:43.look at all relevant areas and I am not ruling out any areas if I decide

:49:44. > :49:45.to intervene. Again can I thank the Secretary of State for her letter to

:49:46. > :49:49.the select committee on Friday, setting up the case she has made in

:49:50. > :49:54.the house today but also just ask about the fit and proper person

:49:55. > :49:58.test. Can she confirmed that this is rightly a matter for Ofcom? Ofcom

:49:59. > :50:04.can initiate a fit and proper person test any time and consider any

:50:05. > :50:07.evidence they think is relevant in making that determination? My

:50:08. > :50:10.honourable friend is right, the fit and proper person test Ofcom have is

:50:11. > :50:15.different from the grounds on which I can intervene under the terms of

:50:16. > :50:18.the enterprise act. But as I said in response to the honourable gentleman

:50:19. > :50:27.for West Bromwich, the evidence may well be the same. I would like to

:50:28. > :50:31.thank the Secretary of State for advanced sight of her statement and

:50:32. > :50:41.I am encouraged to hear if she is minded to intervene in the proposed

:50:42. > :50:46.merger of Sky and Que frocks. It would

:50:47. > :50:54.the measure is likely to increase the influence of Rupert Murdoch and

:50:55. > :50:59.his family in the media in the UK, and Fox already have a controlling

:51:00. > :51:07.stake as we all know in the Inter, while another Murdoch company, new

:51:08. > :51:11.score, runs newspapers and media Gunn radio stations through the

:51:12. > :51:14.wireless group. The time when established newspapers are having to

:51:15. > :51:18.rethink their business models to survive, giving yet more power to

:51:19. > :51:22.the already dominant media giant seems counterintuitive, to say the

:51:23. > :51:26.least. Yet it should also be acknowledged that TV is adapting to

:51:27. > :51:31.changes and viewing habits and from accommodation around the world, many

:51:32. > :51:34.might argue that the investment in Sky might allow the UK to thrive in

:51:35. > :51:35.the international arena and to continue to compete with competitors

:51:36. > :51:45.such as Netflix. It is important the Secretary of

:51:46. > :51:50.State clarifies whether she will prioritise domestic or international

:51:51. > :51:53.competition when she makes a final decision on this merger.

:51:54. > :51:57.Furthermore, should rightly highlights a number of breaches of

:51:58. > :52:01.broadcasting standards by Fox and the behaviour and corporate

:52:02. > :52:06.governance of News Corporation in the past. The NUJ and victims of the

:52:07. > :52:09.phone hacking scandal have expressed concerns of how this deal can take

:52:10. > :52:15.place when part two of the loveless and enquiry has yet to be commenced.

:52:16. > :52:19.Does she agree that we should remain acutely aware of the reasons why

:52:20. > :52:24.past attempts to buy sky was so fiercely resisted Russian market

:52:25. > :52:28.finally, it was proposed that Sky News could be spun off to preserve

:52:29. > :52:34.its independence. Would she welcome such a move, after all she, like the

:52:35. > :52:39.rest of us, is far from convinced that Fox is committed to the

:52:40. > :52:45.required editorial standards such as accuracy and impartial news coverage

:52:46. > :52:48.that we expect in this country? The honourable gentleman has asked a

:52:49. > :52:53.number of detailed questions concerning the merits of the bid. I

:52:54. > :53:00.am not able to comment on those at this stage. What I can comment on is

:53:01. > :53:07.that I have an intention, based on the evidence I have seen so far, to

:53:08. > :53:12.refer the matter to us,. The referral would be on the basis of

:53:13. > :53:18.the rules set out in the enterprise Act 2002 and I look forward to

:53:19. > :53:21.representations from all parties to determine whether or not to make a

:53:22. > :53:25.final decision to intervene. I ensure the honourable gentleman, I

:53:26. > :53:33.will return to the cells as and when I make that house and tell the House

:53:34. > :53:37.first. May I begin by declaring my interest in this subject, but also

:53:38. > :53:40.jog the mind of the honourable member for West Bromwich East and

:53:41. > :53:44.the half million pounds he received from Mr Mosley which may have some

:53:45. > :53:47.bearing on these matters. What I want to ask Mike right honourable

:53:48. > :53:53.friend is whether she will be certain not to involve herself in

:53:54. > :54:00.this socialist witchhunt against Mr Murdoch and News Corporation, which

:54:01. > :54:03.has done so much both through newspapers, publishing and

:54:04. > :54:07.efficiency after waffling and through the launch of Sky News to

:54:08. > :54:11.increase the relative in the media in this country, a wonderfully

:54:12. > :54:16.successful company that should not be prosecuted because the left

:54:17. > :54:19.doesn't like it. Just before the Secretary of State response, can I

:54:20. > :54:24.say to the honourable gentleman that I am sure he is not suggesting and I

:54:25. > :54:29.hope you will take the opportunity to make clear that he is not

:54:30. > :54:34.suggesting that pecuniary gain has influenced a member in his thinking

:54:35. > :54:37.or statements in the chamber. Most certainly not. I was merely

:54:38. > :54:42.declaring an interest and it occurred to me it was only there to

:54:43. > :54:45.remind the honourable gentleman that he had referred to his interest in

:54:46. > :54:49.the half million pounds he received which I am absolutely certain it was

:54:50. > :54:54.an inadvertent oversight. I am grateful for what he said, but I

:54:55. > :55:00.would just say, and they do so and advice, the honourable gentleman

:55:01. > :55:03.uncharacteristically has over interpreted his responsibility. It

:55:04. > :55:09.is his responsibility to declare his own interest, but he does not have

:55:10. > :55:13.to declare and should not clear whether, out of a spirit of altruism

:55:14. > :55:19.or otherwise, another member has interests. It is a member of that

:55:20. > :55:23.member to declare as he or she thinks fit. We will leave it there.

:55:24. > :55:34.I am better informed, thank you Mr Speaker. I am grateful for his good

:55:35. > :55:40.grace. If I could perhaps reassure my honourable friend, I am in a

:55:41. > :55:45.quasi-judicial capacity looking at the rules as set out in the

:55:46. > :55:51.enterprise Act 2002 and I am very much minded, very much aware of

:55:52. > :55:56.those rules and sticking to the letter of those rules. I want to

:55:57. > :55:59.make sure this process is fair, scrupulously fair, and that all

:56:00. > :56:06.parties have the opportunity to make representations before I make a

:56:07. > :56:10.decision. Can I say to the Secretary of State, I welcome her coming to

:56:11. > :56:12.the House of their work and her apparently robust intentions, but

:56:13. > :56:16.like my honourable friend from the front bench, I am worried about this

:56:17. > :56:22.issue of the fit and proper test. The key thing about this test is it

:56:23. > :56:25.is a wider test than the test of broadcasting standards and many of

:56:26. > :56:30.us believe the Murdoch family are in no way fit and proper to have full

:56:31. > :56:36.control of sky, given their corporate record. Can the Secretary

:56:37. > :56:38.of State clarify this, because I have not been able to establish it

:56:39. > :56:42.on the basis of my correspondence with off,. Will the fit and proper

:56:43. > :56:50.test take place before the bid can be completed and, secondly, if that

:56:51. > :56:53.isn't clarity on that, why doesn't the Secretary of State of the work

:56:54. > :56:58.she can do under the enterprise Act, which is to specify that and proper

:56:59. > :57:04.as a third run for referral to off, to make sure that assessment takes

:57:05. > :57:08.place? Mr Speaker, the enterprise Act is clear in relation to the

:57:09. > :57:13.grounds on which this was a judicial decision can be taken. I have the

:57:14. > :57:18.position from Maginn intervene on the grounds of media plurality,

:57:19. > :57:20.range and quality and genuine commitment to broadcasting

:57:21. > :57:24.standards. He will know that fit and proper is an ongoing test for off,

:57:25. > :57:28.to apply to the holders of broadcasting licences. While many of

:57:29. > :57:32.the issues often would consider in reaching the judgment are also

:57:33. > :57:35.relevant to me in considering genuine commitment to broadcasting

:57:36. > :57:42.standards, the tests are different and apply different points. I would

:57:43. > :57:45.like to thank the Minister for coming to the House with this

:57:46. > :57:49.statement. On the basis that this would put ownership of a large part

:57:50. > :57:52.of the UK media into an organisation, I think my

:57:53. > :57:56.constituents would want to know is what she is able to do the nature of

:57:57. > :58:04.that such an organisation is run by people who are appropriate and

:58:05. > :58:11.suitable to do so. I note my honourable friend's and will open in

:58:12. > :58:16.mind. We already know that under James and Rupert Murdoch 's micro

:58:17. > :58:20.leadership, the companies they controlled bribed and bullied their

:58:21. > :58:25.way around British politics. The poison the well of British political

:58:26. > :58:31.engagement, they used anti-competitive practices at every

:58:32. > :58:35.possible time to try to destroy competitors and they made it

:58:36. > :58:38.impossible for me diversity to flourish in this country. Why on

:58:39. > :58:44.earth would anybody think they were fit and proper people to take over

:58:45. > :58:47.now. The only excuse when they led the evidence Parliament was that the

:58:48. > :58:51.company was far too big for them to possibly know what was going on in

:58:52. > :58:54.some small outpost in the United Kingdom. That doesn't suggest they

:58:55. > :58:59.would be any good at running this now, does it? The honourable

:59:00. > :59:04.gentleman has been on the record on his views on these matters and I am

:59:05. > :59:12.sure his points would have been heard. No one could accuse of the

:59:13. > :59:19.Secretary of State of overstatement. Even if the notorious phone hacking

:59:20. > :59:25.had never taken place, if we were totally unaware of such events, is

:59:26. > :59:28.the Minister aware that such a concentration of media ownership

:59:29. > :59:35.that is being proposed would be simply unacceptable and is it not

:59:36. > :59:38.interesting that one reference has been made to a witchhunt on the

:59:39. > :59:46.riverside, the drugs into doing many Tories willing to defend Murdoch? I

:59:47. > :59:52.have come to the cells to be as open and transparent as it possibly can

:59:53. > :59:57.in terms of my position in this decision. I have set out the terms

:59:58. > :00:05.and look forward to representations in order that I can make a final on

:00:06. > :00:09.this matter. Would the Secretary of State not agree that the fit and

:00:10. > :00:13.proper person test referred to by my right honourable friend in with the

:00:14. > :00:18.goal is, as she put it, an ongoing process which continues that must

:00:19. > :00:23.mean that past behaviour is also taken into account without

:00:24. > :00:27.compromising her quasi-judicial position, surely that must mean that

:00:28. > :00:32.previous behaviour of the Mavericks in running the companies is also

:00:33. > :00:36.taken into account? The honourable gentleman is right. The fit and

:00:37. > :00:42.proper person test is an ongoing test of compact but I am here today

:00:43. > :00:47.looking at the position of the enterprise Act on the grounds on

:00:48. > :00:55.which I can intervene major image a have set up my current thinking to

:00:56. > :00:58.the House. I representations. Does the Secretary of State agree with me

:00:59. > :01:03.the principles of competition and media plurality are vital in a

:01:04. > :01:06.modern democracy and will she confirm that when Britain believes

:01:07. > :01:10.the European Union we will continue to apply these principles and

:01:11. > :01:15.regulations in order to avoid the unfair concentration of media

:01:16. > :01:20.ownership in the UK? The enterprise Act is a piece of UK legislation and

:01:21. > :01:23.I am not aware that there is any intention to change it as a result

:01:24. > :01:27.of leaving the European Union force of UK legislation will remain in

:01:28. > :01:37.place and the enterprise Act will still be there. I welcome the

:01:38. > :01:41.Secretary of State's mine did this to report on her oral statement, but

:01:42. > :01:46.would she not agree that part of the process should be the bus into the

:01:47. > :01:51.complete to look at issues of corporate governance she referred to

:01:52. > :01:53.herself in this and which are whirling around this issue and

:01:54. > :01:59.concerning to the public at large? I have to look at the evidence as

:02:00. > :02:06.presented to me given the basis of information today using the rules

:02:07. > :02:09.set out in the enterprise Act 2002 double repeat, amid the honourable

:02:10. > :02:13.gentleman on the front bench that the consultation on Bill Esterson

:02:14. > :02:20.enquiry is subject to judicial review and I can make no further

:02:21. > :02:23.comment. I thank the Minister for her statement. This merger would

:02:24. > :02:29.appear to operate against the public interest. The Minister has laid out

:02:30. > :02:33.the steps of her Department and I have had correspondence from

:02:34. > :02:36.constituents on this issue. Since that has been the dramatic changes

:02:37. > :02:40.to the issue of whether this is to reject the bid five years ago, there

:02:41. > :02:46.are no grounds whatsoever that indicate that the merger should be

:02:47. > :02:50.acceptable? Mr Speaker, I am not in a position to make that judgment. I

:02:51. > :02:54.have come to the House to let us know that I am minded to intervene

:02:55. > :03:00.but I do with the representations before you make a final decision.

:03:01. > :03:06.She is handling this matter in a careful and considered minor. On the

:03:07. > :03:11.bus and two, is she saying that she is now legally constrained there as

:03:12. > :03:18.well and she cannot simply decide to go ahead, which is what many people

:03:19. > :03:21.think she ought to be doing? If I can repeat, the consultation, the

:03:22. > :03:24.public consultation that was held and closed in January is now subject

:03:25. > :03:31.to judicial review and cannot therefore comment further on the

:03:32. > :03:36.matter. Mr Speaker, as I mentioned during the urgent question on the

:03:37. > :03:40.20th of January, a substantial number of my constituents have

:03:41. > :03:45.contacted me to voice their concerns over this proposed measure.

:03:46. > :03:50.Particularly regarding media plurality. Would the Secretary of

:03:51. > :03:53.State agree with them and with the previous premise that we should not

:03:54. > :04:00.let anyone media group get too powerful? Based on the evidence I

:04:01. > :04:04.have seen so far I am minded to refer this matter to come on the

:04:05. > :04:11.basis of media plurality but I would further representations before

:04:12. > :04:16.making a final decision. Over 8000 people work at the sky head office

:04:17. > :04:22.and broadcast facilities in my constituency. When the original bid

:04:23. > :04:26.was abandoned in 2011, David Cameron said it was the right decision for

:04:27. > :04:36.the country. Will the Minister make sure that this deal receives the

:04:37. > :04:40.fullest possible scrutiny? I have come to the House today to say aye

:04:41. > :04:44.am minded to a friend matter to us, for the idea would further

:04:45. > :04:46.recommendations, which will live together and I will return to the

:04:47. > :04:55.cells when I have made a final decision on whether or not to

:04:56. > :04:59.intervene. -- to the House. I understand that the Secretary of

:05:00. > :05:02.State cannot talk about the substantive issues here, but I

:05:03. > :05:07.wonder if she was able to give an estimate of the time frame for when

:05:08. > :05:10.a final decision will be made and, also, whether it is then open if it

:05:11. > :05:14.is a refusal to allow the merger to go ahead, is it open for the

:05:15. > :05:22.Murdochs to keep coming back again and again and again on this issue?

:05:23. > :05:25.Without wishing to detain the House, perhaps it would be helpful that I

:05:26. > :05:27.wrote to the honourable lady city on the precise details of the lot as

:05:28. > :05:43.set out in the Enterprise Act in In terms of media plurality, she may

:05:44. > :05:50.be aware that 18 academics have written to the Guardian today to

:05:51. > :05:58.express their concerns about what is possible merger may mean. We

:05:59. > :06:02.certainly don't want to go down the road of fake news first I welcome

:06:03. > :06:05.the comments she made about James Murdoch's pass baby so I look

:06:06. > :06:12.forward to you coming back in ten days' time to say she will intervene

:06:13. > :06:16.and refer it to Ofcom, and hopefully it will remain robust in terms of

:06:17. > :06:21.any representation she may receive. Mr Speaker, I note the honourable

:06:22. > :06:30.gentleman's Commons, I too look forward to coming back to this house

:06:31. > :06:37.with a decision. A profusion of points of order. Thank you Mr

:06:38. > :06:40.Speaker. A constituent contacted me last week to tell me that a friend

:06:41. > :06:47.of his had been prevented from entering the house because he was

:06:48. > :06:51.wearing a Free Palestine badge. After discussion with the security

:06:52. > :06:55.staff, he removed the badge and was allowed access to Parliament, only

:06:56. > :07:02.to come across a large exhibition, one of the posters which was about

:07:03. > :07:06.Zionist diplomacy. Mr Speaker, we all respect the important job

:07:07. > :07:09.security staff do in keeping us safe and we are grateful to them but I

:07:10. > :07:13.wonder if you could give some guidance of the wearing of small

:07:14. > :07:20.badgers, because my constituent is a bit confused by the situation he

:07:21. > :07:24.came across. I thank him for his courtesy of giving me advance notice

:07:25. > :07:28.of this, I think it is fair to say and I say it on pass on that the

:07:29. > :07:32.present of a poster is irrelevant for the purpose of his point of

:07:33. > :07:36.order, because that poster formed part of an historical exhibition,

:07:37. > :07:40.and I'm sure an historical exhibition would be a great interest

:07:41. > :07:43.possible to the honourable gentleman's constituent but almost

:07:44. > :07:50.certainly to the honourable gentleman. As far as is point of

:07:51. > :07:53.order is concerned, under what are now long-standing instructions,

:07:54. > :07:57.members of the public wishing to visit the house are not supposed to

:07:58. > :08:03.display clothing with slogans or badges which may cause controversy.

:08:04. > :08:08.Of necessity, this has to be interpreted case-by-case by

:08:09. > :08:12.individual staff, and they may get the balance wrong. For my own part I

:08:13. > :08:18.have not been encouraged to say this but I am entitled to say this and I

:08:19. > :08:25.intend to say this, it seems to me that we should err on the side of

:08:26. > :08:31.caution, and, where possible, of non-intervention in these matters,

:08:32. > :08:35.rather than erring on the side of being too prescriptive or officials.

:08:36. > :08:39.I sense that that would probably be the wish of the house. I will of

:08:40. > :08:43.course convey the concern of the honourable gentleman, which has been

:08:44. > :08:47.expressed with his usual restraint and courtesy, to the Sergeant at

:08:48. > :08:52.Arms. I hope in turn the honourable gentleman will forgive me if I

:08:53. > :08:54.gently suggest to him as I have been encouraged to do that he could have

:08:55. > :08:58.sought such a meeting himself rather than bringing the matter to the

:08:59. > :09:05.chamber, but he has done, and he has done so with fairness and I hope I

:09:06. > :09:09.have responded accordingly. Point of ordered Debbie Abrahams. Mr Speaker,

:09:10. > :09:13.I seek your advice concerning the timely response of the Home Office

:09:14. > :09:17.to MPs offices. I made representation to the Home Office on

:09:18. > :09:21.the 18th of January on behalf of my constituent, Irene O'Reilly, who had

:09:22. > :09:25.been informed by the Home Office at the end of October 20 16th she would

:09:26. > :09:29.be notified if her spouse or Visa had been successful by the end of

:09:30. > :09:32.the year. That the beginning of last week, despite numerous phone calls

:09:33. > :09:38.from eye office to the Home Office, neither she nor I had heard from

:09:39. > :09:41.them, and as a consequence of the delay she lost the job that had been

:09:42. > :09:45.held open for her from the beginning of this year. Mr Speaker as you know

:09:46. > :09:51.government departments are meant to respond in a timely manner to MPs.

:09:52. > :09:54.Please can you advise me on how we can ensure that the Home Office are

:09:55. > :10:02.held to account for this matter for this sort of issue to never happen

:10:03. > :10:06.again? It is a point of order. I don't have any direct responsibility

:10:07. > :10:09.in relation to such a matter, but I do understand the very serious

:10:10. > :10:13.concern that the honourable lady feels. I have often made the point

:10:14. > :10:17.that responses to Parliamentary questions should be both timely and

:10:18. > :10:23.substantive. However I think it is fair to say that the same principle

:10:24. > :10:29.applies to ministerial responses to colleagues who write letters to

:10:30. > :10:34.ministers. Responses should be timely and preferably a substantive.

:10:35. > :10:40.Where, for some reason, which members can probably fathom for

:10:41. > :10:43.themselves, it is not possible for a minister at that point to give ace

:10:44. > :10:51.of stunted response, my human sense, leaving aside my role as Speaker, is

:10:52. > :10:55.that a void is always undesirable. There is nothing more infuriating

:10:56. > :10:58.than hearing absolutely nothing, and finding that one's follow-up letters

:10:59. > :11:06.or e-mails or telephone calls are simply ignored. It is both deeply

:11:07. > :11:09.dissatisfying and also, frankly, somewhat discourteous, so I would

:11:10. > :11:13.hope that this situation doesn't arise again and I would only very

:11:14. > :11:17.gently say in the direction of ministers that I have come to know

:11:18. > :11:21.the honourable lady over the last few years, and she is a very

:11:22. > :11:25.persistent parliamentarian and campaigner, so if you think she will

:11:26. > :11:28.go away, that is an extraordinarily misguided view. There was in the

:11:29. > :11:32.slightest prospect of that happening. The honourable lady will

:11:33. > :11:39.keep burrowing away on behalf of her constituents until she receives a

:11:40. > :11:43.response, and rightly so. Point of order, Kat Smith. Thank you, Mr

:11:44. > :11:46.Speaker. My constituent Michael Gibson was alarmed last week when he

:11:47. > :11:50.looked in the boundary commission for England website and could not

:11:51. > :11:55.find evidence of the petition he had supported, supporting one member of

:11:56. > :11:58.Parliament for the Hisham, Morecambe and Lancaster area. It further

:11:59. > :12:05.transpires that the data had in error been added to a petition in

:12:06. > :12:08.opposition to such a seat, and I am very grateful that the boundary

:12:09. > :12:12.commission have informally today they are correcting that error.

:12:13. > :12:14.Would you be able to advise me about how I might be a bit make other

:12:15. > :12:19.members of this house where that perhaps they would like to check

:12:20. > :12:26.their local areas to see whether any data is being entered incorrectly in

:12:27. > :12:31.other parts of the country? My advice to her would be if she feel

:12:32. > :12:36.strongly that other members may have been similarly misrepresented, or

:12:37. > :12:40.their constituents misrepresented or disadvantaged, colleagues may not

:12:41. > :12:43.appreciate me suggesting this, she could e-mail her colleagues in order

:12:44. > :12:48.to advise them of the risk. That would certainly be a public service

:12:49. > :12:53.discharge of duty on her part, for which they may or may not be

:12:54. > :12:58.grateful. So far as the honourable lady is concerned, may I sympathise

:12:59. > :13:04.for stop clearly the error was an innocent error, but it was a

:13:05. > :13:08.peculiarly unfortunate error, as it had the effect of very, very, very

:13:09. > :13:12.fundamentally misleading quite significant numbers of the

:13:13. > :13:18.honourable lady's constituents who were doubtless very irritated. And

:13:19. > :13:22.she has now had to help put the record straight, but she has the

:13:23. > :13:28.benefit, both of the boundary commission's intended correction,

:13:29. > :13:32.and of my recognition to her in the form of this exchange that she is an

:13:33. > :13:39.innocent party in these matters who has been inadvertently

:13:40. > :13:43.disadvantaged, but nonetheless the supplanted. I hope the matter can be

:13:44. > :13:49.clarified for the benefit of all of her constituents on this matter,

:13:50. > :13:53.sooner rather than later. If there are no further points of order, we

:13:54. > :13:55.come down to the main business, the clerk will now proceed to read the

:13:56. > :14:07.orders of the day. I called the Secretary of State for

:14:08. > :14:12.Transport, Secretary Chris Grayling. Mr Speaker I beg to move that the

:14:13. > :14:16.bill now be read a second time. You will know that this is a government

:14:17. > :14:19.which recognises the value of investment, and you will also be

:14:20. > :14:22.aware that the Prime Minister has made clear her intention that this

:14:23. > :14:26.country should be the best place in the world to develop, test and

:14:27. > :14:29.deploy cutting edge transport technology. We have already

:14:30. > :14:32.established ourselves as one of the world's best places to research and

:14:33. > :14:37.develop the next generation of technology, we also need to interact

:14:38. > :14:39.-- to act to make sure the UK benefits from the economic

:14:40. > :14:44.opportunities those technologies provide. This bill helps ensure the

:14:45. > :14:47.United Kingdom is ahead of our European and global competitors by

:14:48. > :14:54.creating the right balance of an open regulatory framework that keeps

:14:55. > :14:57.safety and consumer needs paramount. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are

:14:58. > :15:02.enormous possibilities ahead with these technologies. In a few years,

:15:03. > :15:07.we will all increasingly have the opportunity to use semiautomated and

:15:08. > :15:10.automated vehicles. While amusing and novel for many of us it will

:15:11. > :15:13.actually revolutionise the way many people live their lives, and in

:15:14. > :15:17.particular I think it will make a huge difference to the disabled and

:15:18. > :15:20.the elderly. But to make these technologies a reality we need to

:15:21. > :15:23.act now, we need to create the regimes which will help developers

:15:24. > :15:28.bring their products to market in a safe way that protects consumers.

:15:29. > :15:32.The bill as I bring to the house today is forward-looking, urgent and

:15:33. > :15:35.ambitious. Urgent because we need to maintain and lead the modern

:15:36. > :15:40.transport revolution by attracting investment and becoming a hub for

:15:41. > :15:42.researching and developing the next generation of transport

:15:43. > :15:45.technologies. Ambitious because we are establishing the right

:15:46. > :15:49.regulatory framework in advance to spearhead innovation in a safe

:15:50. > :15:59.manner. Thank you for giving away so soon in your speech. Is he aware of

:16:00. > :16:01.a company who are producing clean engines on the Federation units? I

:16:02. > :16:06.am a bit disappointed there was nothing of this bill that relates to

:16:07. > :16:09.that, and in particular of the subject of red diesel, which is what

:16:10. > :16:13.those engines use and they are incredibly dirty, so I hope the

:16:14. > :16:17.Secretary of State if not in this bill will consider that technology

:16:18. > :16:21.as a technology of the future. And can I just remind him that I invited

:16:22. > :16:26.him to come for a cycle ride around London with me and I'm still waiting

:16:27. > :16:29.for his response. I am not aware of the technology the honourable

:16:30. > :16:33.gentleman refers to but what I would say to him is that we are very

:16:34. > :16:38.interested in seeing this country be a real success in developing new

:16:39. > :16:41.technologies. The issues of clean engine technology don't just affect

:16:42. > :16:45.this country but many around the world, and clearly any company that

:16:46. > :16:49.has a breakthrough in that area has a real opportunity worldwide, and of

:16:50. > :16:52.course the department for international trade is very focused

:16:53. > :16:54.on try to help not just our biggest businesses but smaller business as

:16:55. > :17:01.well explain to the opportunities that are out there. Advances in data

:17:02. > :17:06.science, connectivity and automation are converging to bring about the

:17:07. > :17:09.biggest changes to mobility since the internal combustion engine.

:17:10. > :17:17.Automated vehicles will have a profound effect on how we get

:17:18. > :17:24.around. Can the gentleman tell us what progress is being made in

:17:25. > :17:28.batteries for electric cars, and secondly what infrastructure of the

:17:29. > :17:33.batteries might need? I will come on and talk in a moment about electric

:17:34. > :17:38.vehicle technology. We are certainly seeing a transformation in battery

:17:39. > :17:40.technology, I expect the new generation of battery vehicles, we

:17:41. > :17:44.are expecting a new model of the Nissan Leaf to be selling in this

:17:45. > :17:48.country over the coming months to be a real step forward, they have been

:17:49. > :17:54.previously. Of course the longer the range of a battery in the vehicle,

:17:55. > :17:57.the more that vehicle becomes a very realistic alternative, not just for

:17:58. > :18:01.those driving around cities but those driving around the country

:18:02. > :18:05.more broadly. I believe that we need to ensure that the benefits of a

:18:06. > :18:09.shift towards intelligent mobility felt far and wide. Journeys that are

:18:10. > :18:14.easier and more fuel transport networks more accessible and

:18:15. > :18:17.responsive to the needs of those who use them and you are high-value jobs

:18:18. > :18:21.in the technology and automotive sector where we already have a

:18:22. > :18:25.number of businesses that are pathfinders in the field of

:18:26. > :18:29.developing autonomous vehicles. We are embracing these develop men. We

:18:30. > :18:32.are acting to position the United Kingdom as a global leader in

:18:33. > :18:38.automated vehicle technology, building on our heritage as a nation

:18:39. > :18:41.of entrepreneurs. I am delighted to hear what my right honourable friend

:18:42. > :18:46.is saying and fully supported with this bill. I am aware that in

:18:47. > :18:50.Norway, around a quarter of all vehicles are either electric or

:18:51. > :18:53.hybrid electric. In order to maintain our position of leadership

:18:54. > :18:58.by what sort of dates does he think the United Kingdom might be on a

:18:59. > :19:02.parallel with that proportion in Norway? I would not put a forecast

:19:03. > :19:05.on it, suffice to say that I know my honourable friend has been a

:19:06. > :19:09.diligent follower of this area and is keen to pursue this and has been

:19:10. > :19:13.engaged in discussions with my department about this. I can say

:19:14. > :19:16.that our ambition remains strong. We have lots of good incentives for

:19:17. > :19:21.this country, we have measures in this bill to make an electronic

:19:22. > :19:24.vehicle charging network much more transparent and visible. These are

:19:25. > :19:32.things that will accelerate the production and sale of these

:19:33. > :19:34.vehicles in the United Kingdom and with the Nissan Leaf in Sunderland

:19:35. > :19:36.we have the world's first mass production car of that kind.

:19:37. > :19:42.Projections of car sales will rise from something in the region of 74

:19:43. > :19:46.million today to 100,000,020 30, not least I think helped by the launch

:19:47. > :19:53.of the fourth-generation Range Rover, which my noble friend the

:19:54. > :19:56.Minister of State for transport jointly with last week. The

:19:57. > :20:00.honourable member for Coventry makes a very good point, in terms of the

:20:01. > :20:03.structure being in the right place for battery technology to be

:20:04. > :20:07.developed, and those plants to be developed. We need that

:20:08. > :20:14.infrastructure in place near Jay Allah, so can he please tell me what

:20:15. > :20:18.his plans are for that? Indeed we do need that infrastructure, and I am

:20:19. > :20:21.all very excited by what JL are is doing in the field of electrical

:20:22. > :20:26.vehicles were stopped by the forward to becoming a customer of the

:20:27. > :20:31.company, we already are through the government car service, but I look

:20:32. > :20:36.to being an early customer as they are manufactured and sold. The

:20:37. > :20:38.company said very specifically it needed to see infrastructure

:20:39. > :20:44.movements to help it with its ambitions. I was -- I want to give

:20:45. > :20:48.an assurance to the house it will receive that support. We have

:20:49. > :20:51.provided extra funding for electric vehicle charging point in the Autumn

:20:52. > :20:56.Statement. This bill provides for much greater transparency of data,

:20:57. > :20:59.making it much easier for those who own and drive electric vehicles to

:21:00. > :21:03.identify where the best charging points for them. This is part of a

:21:04. > :21:07.strategy that will, in my view, drive forward sales of these

:21:08. > :21:11.vehicles this country substantially. But we should not be in Tiley

:21:12. > :21:15.technologically biased. We will also be taking further steps to encourage

:21:16. > :21:18.the development of hydrogen vehicles in the United Kingdom, and we

:21:19. > :21:23.provide tax incentives for hybrid vehicles in the United Kingdom. We

:21:24. > :21:28.must drive in this country for a higher quality of vehicle when it

:21:29. > :21:32.comes to the propensity to pollute, and we must provide the right

:21:33. > :21:34.support for that market to emerge but of course we must allow the

:21:35. > :21:35.technologies themselves to win the battle is rather than the government

:21:36. > :21:50.winning the battle for them. I think there is not only electric

:21:51. > :21:55.vehicles and zero emissions, but we have an interim stage where we could

:21:56. > :21:59.convert some of the lorries and diesel vans to LPG in order to get

:22:00. > :22:03.those levels than in the hotspot quicker than if we tried to convert

:22:04. > :22:11.everything straight to electricity. Indeed. My honourable friend has

:22:12. > :22:15.been determined to push this argument, and rightly so, because

:22:16. > :22:18.what he is arguing for is one of the technologies that could make a

:22:19. > :22:22.difference on the emissions front. I support those who seek to transition

:22:23. > :22:28.vehicles to LPG, but government should not seek to be focused on one

:22:29. > :22:32.technology. What we need is to create the right environment for all

:22:33. > :22:36.technologies to compete to deliver the cleanest possible because of the

:22:37. > :22:42.future, something of this and all of our interests. What this Bill does

:22:43. > :22:45.is, on the electric vehicles front, let me talk about that and I will

:22:46. > :22:51.come back and talk about autonomous vehicles. What this does is that it

:22:52. > :22:56.creates the right environment for those markets to develop. We have a

:22:57. > :23:01.clear goal that by 2050, nearly all cars and vans should be emissions

:23:02. > :23:05.free, but we want to accelerate the transition. One part of doing that

:23:06. > :23:09.is to give financial help to motorists choosing cleaner vehicles

:23:10. > :23:12.through grants, the tax system and we are supporting local authorities

:23:13. > :23:18.who provide incentives through free or cheap parking to those who move

:23:19. > :23:22.down the road toward acquiring a cleaner vehicle. We have also helped

:23:23. > :23:26.to develop a network of more than 11,000 public charge points in the

:23:27. > :23:31.UK. Significant funding is in place to allow more of those to be

:23:32. > :23:35.developed. We are going to want to see the optic continue for electric

:23:36. > :23:39.cars come with it be hydrogen fuel cell battery power to Britain to the

:23:40. > :23:42.mass market. What this Bill does is it brings forward a number of new

:23:43. > :23:48.powers that will help make that possible. It enables common

:23:49. > :23:50.technical standards, better interoperability and ensures

:23:51. > :23:55.consumers have reliable information on the location and availability of

:23:56. > :23:58.charge points. We will be able to accelerate the ruler of electric

:23:59. > :24:02.vehicle infrastructure at key locations such as motorway service

:24:03. > :24:05.areas and large fuel retailers and make charge once ready for the needs

:24:06. > :24:14.of the marketplace. Of course, we will then see further technological

:24:15. > :24:19.development of hydrogen and more development on the LPG front. This

:24:20. > :24:23.Bill will create more of the necessary powers to drive forward

:24:24. > :24:29.that ambition of getting a much cleaner fleet of vehicles on our

:24:30. > :24:38.roads. I thank him for giving way and I welcome this Bill. Ultra low

:24:39. > :24:41.emission vehicle registration is rising rapidly. I would like to

:24:42. > :24:44.follow up on the point of a local authorities were to your local

:24:45. > :24:50.authorities can work better on air quality pollution issues are taking

:24:51. > :24:54.advantage of this Bill in order to reduce pollution, but could we also

:24:55. > :24:59.have a commitment from the Minister that were infrastructure investment

:25:00. > :25:03.is needed more widely in roads such as roads well known to the

:25:04. > :25:10.Department in my constituency, that that will come hand in hand with

:25:11. > :25:14.this Bill? Probably not a day for going into detailed schemes, but I

:25:15. > :25:18.will assure that we see part of the solution to ease congestion, because

:25:19. > :25:23.emissions are generated not just by dirty vehicles, they are also

:25:24. > :25:27.created by car is being stuck in traffic jams for long periods of

:25:28. > :25:30.time or crawling along very slowly for long periods. Therefore, the

:25:31. > :25:35.investment this government is putting into road infrastructure

:25:36. > :25:39.will help ease some of the emissions problems where congestion is the

:25:40. > :25:44.principal cause. If I might just talk briefly about the issue of

:25:45. > :25:48.automotive vehicles. What this Bill is designed to do is to set the

:25:49. > :25:58.first steps in motion to set automotive vehicles in use. This is

:25:59. > :26:01.where to improve the situation with congestion and air quality because

:26:02. > :26:05.they will drive more efficiently and effectively in a way that doesn't

:26:06. > :26:09.create the congestion that sometimes human driving habits can contribute

:26:10. > :26:14.to. We are not going to work up tomorrow with a whole fleet of

:26:15. > :26:18.automated vehicles are some which are going to see rapid change.

:26:19. > :26:21.Technology will go step-by-step by step as cars become more committed

:26:22. > :26:24.to the point where not too many years ahead we will start to see

:26:25. > :26:31.widespread use of automated vehicles on our roads. Where we can see the

:26:32. > :26:36.obvious barriers to that happening, we will have to safely remove those

:26:37. > :26:45.barriers. We want to see more fuel-efficient journeyer --

:26:46. > :26:49.journeys. Of course, one part of that is what this Bill does, which

:26:50. > :26:53.is to deliver an insurance framework for the first time that makes it

:26:54. > :26:58.possible for those vehicles to operate on our roads. You will know,

:26:59. > :27:02.your insurance policy on your car is for you as the driver, it is not for

:27:03. > :27:07.the vehicle itself. What this will do this it will create a

:27:08. > :27:10.two-dimensional insurance policy, or will allow the creation of

:27:11. > :27:15.two-dimensional policies which will cover you when you are driving, but

:27:16. > :27:19.will also cover a vehicle if it is being driven autonomously. That

:27:20. > :27:22.makes it possible for us to move forward to provide a framework in

:27:23. > :27:27.which insurance companies can provide cover for the vehicles of

:27:28. > :27:32.the future. Hopefully I locations the technology within the car, when

:27:33. > :27:37.it is being driven autonomously, might have been at fault. In those

:27:38. > :27:42.circumstances, surely the insured person would not be covered? I think

:27:43. > :27:48.the honourable gentleman is understood -- misunderstood the

:27:49. > :27:53.point. The two-dimensional policy would uncover -- cover both the

:27:54. > :27:57.driver and vehicle. If the car is driving itself, the insurance policy

:27:58. > :28:01.will be extended to cover the vehicle itself. But when it covers

:28:02. > :28:06.all eventualities and makes it possible, in our view, for those

:28:07. > :28:10.cars to operate on our road when the technology is ready. It is an

:28:11. > :28:15.important step, it has been welcomed by the ancient industry. I think it

:28:16. > :28:18.opens the door to a generation of vehicles on our roads and sends a

:28:19. > :28:21.message to the world that this is a country that is going to make sure

:28:22. > :28:27.it would have the right regulatory framework in place for those

:28:28. > :28:35.vehicles to operate in the future. Now, if I can change moods and move

:28:36. > :28:38.on to aviation. I might right honourable friend will be

:28:39. > :28:42.disappointed if it didn't mention motorcycling. I noticed that would

:28:43. > :28:46.motorcycle doesn't appear in the pathway to drivers versus cars

:28:47. > :28:51.document which initially pleased me because I Thomas motorcycle would be

:28:52. > :28:53.entirely pointless. I am slightly concerned whether we have adequately

:28:54. > :29:00.considered the ability of driverless cars to safely coexist on our roads

:29:01. > :29:04.with motorcycles and, since I am on my feet, can I said that many of his

:29:05. > :29:11.objectives could be achieved with a small shift. I know he is a great

:29:12. > :29:14.champion of the motorcycle and I cannot imagine him wanting to have

:29:15. > :29:23.anything to do with an autonomous motorcycle, given the pleasure he

:29:24. > :29:29.gets driving. I do think that one of the important parts of the insurance

:29:30. > :29:32.changes that this Bill paves the way forward is to ensure precisely that

:29:33. > :29:37.we have a framework that gives comfort to all those on the roads,

:29:38. > :29:41.but there is proper insurance in place if there is, God forbid, an

:29:42. > :29:48.unfortunate non-interaction between any vehicle and an autonomous

:29:49. > :29:53.vehicle. It is important we get that right. We are some way away from the

:29:54. > :29:57.technology being clear-cut enough to be dependable to operate freely and

:29:58. > :30:05.openly as a matter of routine on our roads. But they will come. West

:30:06. > :30:09.before you move on to aviation and why we are talking about insurance

:30:10. > :30:14.and vehicles and safety on the road and I welcome the Secretary of

:30:15. > :30:19.State's comments, can I touch on cards which are not licensed for

:30:20. > :30:24.insured and cause tremendous grief in central London in the sense that

:30:25. > :30:28.they are not seen as safe. TEFL don't have a method to regulate them

:30:29. > :30:31.work to ensure them, so might I ask the Minister to consider these when

:30:32. > :30:38.looking at other insurance possibilities? I am aware of the

:30:39. > :30:46.issue and I am happy to give my honourable friend that assurance and

:30:47. > :30:49.to discuss the issue with her. Can I programme on these autonomous

:30:50. > :30:55.vehicles and the responsibility of the passenger. Can it not be the

:30:56. > :30:59.case, when the driver is not in control of the vehicle and the

:31:00. > :31:03.vehicle is in autonomous vehicle, is he exonerated of the goal

:31:04. > :31:09.responsibility? It cannot be as simple as that? The legislation

:31:10. > :31:15.focuses on insurance. If the vehicle is on its own control the insurance

:31:16. > :31:18.policy is still applicable. If the insurance policy applies to the

:31:19. > :31:21.driver and the driver is not driving the vehicle that he cannot by

:31:22. > :31:25.definition be at fault, but if something goes wrong it would be

:31:26. > :31:29.possible to have an insurance policy that covers both eventualities with

:31:30. > :31:33.the driver driving and also when the vehicle is in autonomous mode. It is

:31:34. > :31:36.one of the key changes necessary to create an environment in which these

:31:37. > :31:42.vehicles can operate freely on the roads. He has been extremely

:31:43. > :31:48.generous. He will be aware of the prohibitive cost of insurance for

:31:49. > :31:51.young drivers and does he foresee a time when autonomous vehicles might

:31:52. > :31:58.help young people have the freedom of the car are much more affordable

:31:59. > :32:01.cost? I absolutely think that is a possibility and not just younger

:32:02. > :32:07.drivers. This will help elderly drivers, disabled drivers. Once the

:32:08. > :32:10.vehicles start to operate in an autonomous environment and the

:32:11. > :32:13.controlled environment, I think it becomes much easier for people who

:32:14. > :32:25.have struggled to get onto the road to do so. It is right that that is a

:32:26. > :32:29.potential benefit for the future. One of the possible outcomes for

:32:30. > :32:33.this in the next 2425 years is that the number of taxi cab drivers in

:32:34. > :32:37.this country will fall very dramatically because people will be

:32:38. > :32:43.able to get an automated car to pick them up. What planning has the

:32:44. > :32:49.Department done in terms of what a challenge that would pose to

:32:50. > :32:52.employment in this country? It is the case of the government thinks

:32:53. > :32:57.all the time about the impact of future technologies. We are some

:32:58. > :33:01.years away and some considerable years away from the situation he

:33:02. > :33:05.envisages. Cars bought today will be on the roads in the decade and more

:33:06. > :33:08.to come. It is something that will be on the roads in the decade and

:33:09. > :33:15.more to come. It is something that the issue for Parliament in the 20

:33:16. > :33:19.30s. He is right to defy that, but we have, throughout modern history,

:33:20. > :33:23.seen changes in technology that changes ways of working and we will

:33:24. > :33:27.see more of that in the future and it is up to us as a society, up to

:33:28. > :33:32.this tournament and our successors to make sure that we ensure this

:33:33. > :33:35.country is a dynamic, entrepreneurial one that takes

:33:36. > :33:38.advantage of new technologies and crisp new job opportunities of the

:33:39. > :33:42.back of them. That is something we are doing and one of the ways this

:33:43. > :33:49.Bill will help is if we set ourselves at the forefront of the

:33:50. > :33:51.development of this technology, that will create a new generation of job

:33:52. > :33:57.opportunities that was not there before. If I can move on briefly to

:33:58. > :34:04.other matters in the Bill, to innovations in the energy sector --

:34:05. > :34:07.aviation sector, or air traffic controllers provide services under a

:34:08. > :34:13.licence, it develops innovative solutions used around the globe. It

:34:14. > :34:18.is essential that the license is fit for purpose and put consumers at the

:34:19. > :34:22.heart of the regulatory regime. The Bill modernises the licensing regime

:34:23. > :34:27.for on road traffic controller, currently undertaken by a subsidiary

:34:28. > :34:31.of gnats overseen by the Civil Aviation Authority. We are proposing

:34:32. > :34:34.to update the licensing framework in three ways by changing the way in

:34:35. > :34:39.which the conditions were modified by the regulator. Currently that

:34:40. > :34:43.needs to be agreement before modifying changes. The changes in

:34:44. > :34:45.the Bill will give it greater flexibility to make necessary

:34:46. > :34:53.changes without a long negotiating process. They make sure that... It

:34:54. > :34:57.ensures that the license holder is also able to appeal modifications to

:34:58. > :35:02.the Competition and Markets Authority. It clarifies the power to

:35:03. > :35:07.amend the length of the license term. Frankly license termination

:35:08. > :35:10.period is ten years which sits uncomfortably alongside the average

:35:11. > :35:14.asset life of an investment. With the exercising the power to extend

:35:15. > :35:18.the license termination of this period will increase the financial

:35:19. > :35:24.ability and lead to more efficient services being provided to users.

:35:25. > :35:27.Thirdly, we are enhancing the enforcement regime which is

:35:28. > :35:34.bureaucratic and inflexible. What we will do is ensure that the CAA is

:35:35. > :35:37.accountable for the enforcement decisions through copyrights, but

:35:38. > :35:41.they will have a staggered approach to enforcement. Instead of the

:35:42. > :35:45.situation where there is no middle ground between serious action and a

:35:46. > :35:49.slap on the wrist, this will allow for a staged programme of

:35:50. > :35:53.enforcement, is staged penalty regime which should give the CAA

:35:54. > :35:59.declarer power to drive better performance

:36:00. > :36:04.The second aviation measures about consumer protection holiday-makers.

:36:05. > :36:07.By its very nature there are a number of risks in the holiday

:36:08. > :36:12.market. It is common for consumers to pay up front on the promise of a

:36:13. > :36:16.holiday which may be many months away and as we know all too often

:36:17. > :36:19.financial stability of the individual holiday providers can be

:36:20. > :36:24.shaky and sometimes the system lets down holiday-makers. In the rare

:36:25. > :36:28.event of a company failure, consumers may experience financial

:36:29. > :36:36.loss from difficult being stranded abroad. That is why the ATOL scheme

:36:37. > :36:39.was introduced in the 1970s, the primary method for which the

:36:40. > :36:43.transport sector provides insolvency protection within the package travel

:36:44. > :36:48.regimes. But you will know the way we broke our holidays are changing

:36:49. > :36:52.too. And we need to adapt the schemes and regulations that protect

:36:53. > :36:59.them. The measures of this bill will enable the ATOL scheme to respond to

:37:00. > :37:04.innovation in the travel sector. What it does is it extends ATOL

:37:05. > :37:10.protection to a broader range of holidays and makes it easier for UK

:37:11. > :37:17.businesses, ensuring the scheme remains fit for the day's world.

:37:18. > :37:23.Then a couple of final measures to explain to the house, firstly on

:37:24. > :37:27.vehicle testing. We all work in partnership with the private sector

:37:28. > :37:30.to deliver it bus and Laurie MOT tests at private sector sites

:37:31. > :37:35.whether used to be delivered and government sites with cars. The

:37:36. > :37:39.testing is done by private operators around the country. With this bill,

:37:40. > :37:43.we want to extend the partnership of the private sector to also deliver

:37:44. > :37:47.specialist vehicle test from those established or additional private

:37:48. > :37:51.sector sites, providing services that are convenient and local. It

:37:52. > :37:54.benefits the government is wealth about having to pay for the upkeep

:37:55. > :37:58.of government side, it keeps down the cost of vehicle tests, which

:37:59. > :38:01.will still be delivered by government examiners who will travel

:38:02. > :38:05.to those private sites. We're not going to come from eyes on vehicle

:38:06. > :38:07.safety nor will we remove any government sites from operation

:38:08. > :38:12.until a suitable private sector site has been established, and those are

:38:13. > :38:15.inspected and appropriately approved. It is a partnership

:38:16. > :38:19.approach that has worked well and has been popular with industry. We

:38:20. > :38:23.will introduce a statutory charge for the site owner for the use of

:38:24. > :38:27.their premises and equipment. They will be known as the pit and it will

:38:28. > :38:34.be capped to avoid any unreasonable charges. One of the highest profile

:38:35. > :38:38.issues facing the aviation and transport sector in particular over

:38:39. > :38:43.the last few months has been misuse of laser printers. The penultimate

:38:44. > :38:49.measure in this bill should bolster safety across all transport modes

:38:50. > :38:54.and over this issue properly. Each year there are a proximal Mutley

:38:55. > :38:59.1500 laser attacks on aircraft, causing air damage to pilots -- I

:39:00. > :39:05.damage to pilots and endangering the lives of passenger and crew on

:39:06. > :39:09.board. We are going to create an offence of dazzling or distracting a

:39:10. > :39:12.person in control of a vehicle. It will be triable either way and they

:39:13. > :39:17.will allow police to enter a private property for the purposes of arrest

:39:18. > :39:25.and the search for a laser pointer. It will act as a clear deterrent

:39:26. > :39:32.with unlimited fines and a potential five-year sentence in prison. It

:39:33. > :39:39.sent a clear message. I thank the Minister forgiving way. Part four,

:39:40. > :39:44.the offence of shining lasers into operator's eyes in South London has

:39:45. > :39:48.been very concerning, and throughout consultative committees the impact

:39:49. > :39:55.has been raised. At regional airports it is particularly bad.

:39:56. > :39:58.Many of my constituents working at NATS and reporting these incidents

:39:59. > :40:03.but also drones and the concern they are talking about that. Is there an

:40:04. > :40:09.opportunity to cover the issue of drones? We are currently consulting

:40:10. > :40:14.on a new regime for drones, not all of which needs to go into the field

:40:15. > :40:19.of primary legislation but I give her my assurance that we are looking

:40:20. > :40:22.very carefully at how we provide proper protection from airports and

:40:23. > :40:28.others from the use of drones in our society. I am sorry I was not here

:40:29. > :40:33.for the opening of his speech on this important bill. As far as

:40:34. > :40:39.lasers are concerned, I am delighted the government is doing this. Whilst

:40:40. > :40:42.it is the case according to my constituent and eminent eye surgeons

:40:43. > :40:46.Professor John Marshall that irreversible damage is unlikely to

:40:47. > :40:51.be done because of the distances that these lasers are operated from.

:40:52. > :40:57.Nevertheless the risk to pilots is very serious indeed. My honourable

:40:58. > :41:00.friend knows I am a pilot myself and the idea that passengers can be put

:41:01. > :41:04.at risk is imperative that this is taken seriously. I wonder what

:41:05. > :41:08.discussions my right honourable friend has had with the

:41:09. > :41:12.manufacturers of lasers, and on drones may I encourage them to take

:41:13. > :41:17.action on this quickly. To take my honourable friend's point about

:41:18. > :41:23.drones, I know he is a committed aviator and understands the issues.

:41:24. > :41:28.We have had a broad discussion about the impact of lasers and we think

:41:29. > :41:31.this level of deterrent, the risk of a five-year jail sentence is a

:41:32. > :41:34.pretty strong one and I hope they will focus the minds of those who

:41:35. > :41:38.are tempted down the road of something that should be a simple

:41:39. > :41:42.and innocuous tool of presentations in a conference room to be used in

:41:43. > :41:46.such a dangerous way. If it happens in future, if you do it, you should

:41:47. > :41:49.expect a very serious penalty indeed and I hope people will think twice

:41:50. > :41:58.before they act in such a reckless manner again. Lastly, the issue of

:41:59. > :42:01.courses. Where drivers and motorcyclist transgress but not

:42:02. > :42:06.excessively, the police do have the discretion to offer them an

:42:07. > :42:10.educational course. They are valuable and they help to remind

:42:11. > :42:14.participants of the consequences of inattentive driving. Drivers pay to

:42:15. > :42:19.attend the course but avoid paying a fixed penalty fine. This bill

:42:20. > :42:28.provides provisions to clarify the basis when police have the

:42:29. > :42:32.opportunity to charge. It is a technical measure which won't affect

:42:33. > :42:37.road users, it is simply clarifying the legislative is Ishant, it

:42:38. > :42:42.provides greater transparency and police accountability regarding the

:42:43. > :42:46.way fees are set. So this is a bill containing a number of measures

:42:47. > :42:49.designed to improve the way our transport system works, but above

:42:50. > :42:54.all else it seeks to pave the way for what is going to be a revolution

:42:55. > :42:56.on our roads, as we see the emergence of connected and

:42:57. > :43:00.autonomous vehicles, our lives will change. I think for many people in

:43:01. > :43:05.our society their lives will change for the better. This is one of the

:43:06. > :43:08.most exciting technological development mankind has developed

:43:09. > :43:11.for a very long time. It is an area that we want this country to be at

:43:12. > :43:14.the front of the development of the technology and the trialling of the

:43:15. > :43:20.technology and of the experience of the technology. This bill paves the

:43:21. > :43:22.way for that. It brings into play in above improvements across our

:43:23. > :43:27.transport system but I hope more than anything else it is starting

:43:28. > :43:31.this country down the road to an automotive revolution that will

:43:32. > :43:35.transform everyone's lives and I beg to move the second reading. The

:43:36. > :43:40.question is now that the bill be read a second time. Thank you Madam

:43:41. > :43:43.Deputy Speaker. We were here just last week on the buses Bill and I

:43:44. > :43:49.said there would be another transport Bill along in a minute,

:43:50. > :43:54.and areas. I would like to thank the Secretary of State for his account

:43:55. > :44:01.and his summary. I wholeheartedly agree that the vehicle technology

:44:02. > :44:07.and aviation Bill, I think VTAB from here on in the present an

:44:08. > :44:09.opportunity to put the UK ahead of the curve on transport. It will

:44:10. > :44:15.shape how we travel in the future and to create the high skilled jobs

:44:16. > :44:20.that are economy needs, as well as tackling our environmental and

:44:21. > :44:30.climate change challenges. I would like to take this opportunity to

:44:31. > :44:35.place on record the number for his collegiate attitude and corporation

:44:36. > :44:40.and we share his objective to make this the best possible piece of

:44:41. > :44:44.legislation as it passes through the house. We are not opposed to this

:44:45. > :44:48.bill, we are broadly very, very supportive. There are, however, some

:44:49. > :44:52.concerns around the impact of some parts of the bill, and we will be

:44:53. > :44:57.pressing the government on some issues and seeking a number of

:44:58. > :45:02.amendments at committee stage. Of course this bill is no substitute

:45:03. > :45:05.for the wider policy framework required for the UK to take

:45:06. > :45:08.advantage of the opportunities available to us but it is an

:45:09. > :45:12.important bill that we wish to support. Madam Deputy Speaker I

:45:13. > :45:17.would like to speak to part one of the bill about automated vehicles

:45:18. > :45:23.and insurance. We expect Entre low emission vehicles and connected and

:45:24. > :45:26.economist vehicles to play an important role in our country's

:45:27. > :45:31.transport in the years to come, so it is right that the government is

:45:32. > :45:34.seeking to address some of the issues surrounding autonomous

:45:35. > :45:41.vehicles in this bill. Last year, the UK automotive industry added

:45:42. > :45:48.some ?18.9 billion in value to the UK economy, and supported 169,000

:45:49. > :45:54.people directly in manufacturing and some 814,000 across the industry and

:45:55. > :46:08.throughout the supply change. -- supply chains. Creating an

:46:09. > :46:11.additional 320,000 jobs. If we are to build on this, which is

:46:12. > :46:17.increasingly important following the decision of the UK to leave the EU.

:46:18. > :46:21.It is important the UK is able to take advantage of the economic and

:46:22. > :46:24.social benefits that these vehicles present. The uptake of these

:46:25. > :46:29.vehicles will play an important future role in tackling the air

:46:30. > :46:35.quality crisis, which leads to 40,000 premature deaths each year,

:46:36. > :46:41.as well as hundreds of thousands of cases of respiratory illnesses, and

:46:42. > :46:45.choking many of our towns and cities, which the government has

:46:46. > :46:50.hitherto failed to address. Likewise these vehicles would be vital to the

:46:51. > :46:54.UK in meeting its climate change objectives, something the government

:46:55. > :46:58.at present lacks a clear plan for. In addition we have seen the failure

:46:59. > :47:02.in recent years of the government to reduce the number of casualties on

:47:03. > :47:07.our roads. This has happened against the backdrop of cuts the Road

:47:08. > :47:10.policing and the scrapping of road casualty targets introduced under

:47:11. > :47:16.Labour, which are the pressing issues that the government needs to

:47:17. > :47:21.address here and now. But the potential, 25,000 casualties a year

:47:22. > :47:27.which could be avoided by 2030, is a significant opportunity to make our

:47:28. > :47:30.roads safer. So it is vital that we put in place the legislation

:47:31. > :47:34.necessary to facilitate and encourage investment, innovation and

:47:35. > :47:40.the uptake of such vehicles, and for this to be possible it is of course

:47:41. > :47:44.necessary to develop a definition of autonomous vehicles. There is at

:47:45. > :47:46.present no clear distension between advanced driver assistance systems

:47:47. > :47:56.and fully automated driving technology. In UK policy standards

:47:57. > :48:00.and legislation. The bill requires the Secretary of State to prepare,

:48:01. > :48:05.keep up-to-date and publish a list of all motor vehicles to be used on

:48:06. > :48:11.roads in Great Britain deemed to be capable of safely driving themselves

:48:12. > :48:15.without having to be monitored by an individual for some or part of a

:48:16. > :48:18.journey, and the definition of an automated vehicle will be a vehicle

:48:19. > :48:25.that is part of the list run up by the Secretary of State. As such,

:48:26. > :48:30.there is a need for collaboration between government, manufacturers,

:48:31. > :48:34.insurers and consumers to develop a viable and practical system of

:48:35. > :48:39.classification to identify when a vehicle is deemed automated or

:48:40. > :48:44.autonomous. The dividing lines between those two are not always

:48:45. > :48:50.completely clear, and the government must give more detail on their plans

:48:51. > :48:56.to classify vehicles as automated, and consult widely on the definition

:48:57. > :49:01.and criteria for adding to the list of AVs in this bill. We will be

:49:02. > :49:05.pressing the government of this to be subject to secondary legislation

:49:06. > :49:09.at committee stage. In solving the issue of how automated vehicles can

:49:10. > :49:13.be insured is essential if they are to become a feature on British

:49:14. > :49:18.roads, so we are supportive of the government in taking action to

:49:19. > :49:24.ensure that vehicle insurance policies facilitate these vehicles

:49:25. > :49:29.in the future. We do however have concerns about the potential costs

:49:30. > :49:33.to policyholders and contention over liability between manufacturers and

:49:34. > :49:39.insurers. It is imperative that in the event of a technological failure

:49:40. > :49:43.in an autonomous vehicle that it is easy for consumers to be able to

:49:44. > :49:49.quickly establish where liability rests, and be able to make a claim

:49:50. > :49:52.as appropriate. At present, insurance law in the UK is driver

:49:53. > :49:59.centric. Drivers must have insurance in order to bright compensation for

:50:00. > :50:03.third parties -- to provide compensation. The government's

:50:04. > :50:07.intention behind this legislation is to emphasise that if there is an

:50:08. > :50:11.insurance event, the compensation route for the individual remains

:50:12. > :50:14.within the motor insurance framework, rather than through a

:50:15. > :50:21.product liability framework against the manufacturer. However, the bill

:50:22. > :50:24.does provide insurers with the capability to claim against

:50:25. > :50:29.manufacturers of vehicles if the automated vehicle was driving itself

:50:30. > :50:34.and deemed to be at fault for the incident. But this isn't clear-cut.

:50:35. > :50:40.The Association of British insurers have expressed concerns that

:50:41. > :50:44.existing insurance practices would need to be consistently altered the

:50:45. > :50:49.deal routinely with road traffic accidents involving automated

:50:50. > :50:52.vehicles. The government themselves acknowledge this in their impact

:50:53. > :50:55.assessment for the bill, and say that this may result in increased

:50:56. > :51:02.administrative and procedural costs for the insurers. Although the bill

:51:03. > :51:06.does enable insurers to claim from the manufacturers where the vehicle

:51:07. > :51:11.is in an automated mode and deemed at fault for an incident, the

:51:12. > :51:15.government acknowledged that there could be significant teething

:51:16. > :51:17.problems with the system, particularly with early

:51:18. > :51:23.disagreements between the parties about liability. As such, it is

:51:24. > :51:25.difficult to estimate how different insurance premiums will be when

:51:26. > :51:31.automated vehicles are fully functional and on the road. The

:51:32. > :51:36.roll-out and proliferation of autonomous vehicles should produce

:51:37. > :51:41.significant safety benefits, with driver error either being

:51:42. > :51:44.significantly reduced or eliminated. Whilst that should consequently lead

:51:45. > :51:48.to reduced premiums, a great deal of work will be necessary as we prepare

:51:49. > :51:50.for this new environment to better assess whether that will in fact be

:51:51. > :52:01.the case. If there are increased procedural

:52:02. > :52:05.and administrative costs there could be higher premiums, if that were the

:52:06. > :52:10.case there would be an impact on the uptake of them will stop we believe

:52:11. > :52:17.that the government must review how the insurance for a Visa is working

:52:18. > :52:22.at regular intervals, so Labour will be pressing for a review date. Let

:52:23. > :52:28.me move to the second part of the Bill relating to electric vehicles,

:52:29. > :52:32.charging and infrastructure. Electric vehicles and alternative

:52:33. > :52:38.fuel vehicles are key to reducing air pollution, as well as presenting

:52:39. > :52:42.economic opportunities. The uptake of electric, hybrid and alternative

:52:43. > :52:50.fuel vehicles is already underway and increasing, yet we know that the

:52:51. > :52:55.government still, 1.5 million vehicles short of their target the

:52:56. > :52:59.2020, so it is imperative that action is taken to include the

:53:00. > :53:03.uptake. The section of the Bill on electric vehicles charging

:53:04. > :53:06.infrastructure is largely about enabling secondary legislation and

:53:07. > :53:11.will not have significant impacts on the short term, but if the UK in

:53:12. > :53:16.tends to be a global leader, we agree that we need to take broader

:53:17. > :53:20.action sooner rather than later. Given the importance of future

:53:21. > :53:24.proofing the legislative work in area, Labour recognises the need to

:53:25. > :53:27.use secondary legislation but we will see commitments from the

:53:28. > :53:32.government to consult properly and widely throughout the process. We

:53:33. > :53:37.will also seek assurances and review from the government about how the

:53:38. > :53:39.provisions of the Bill fit within a broader strategy for producing

:53:40. > :53:48.harmful vehicle emissions and promoting switched to... For optics

:53:49. > :53:55.to be encouraged electric vehicles need to be practical, affordable and

:53:56. > :54:00.convenient review Dee users. There are currently nearly 12,000 charging

:54:01. > :54:03.points for electric vehicles in the UK, but at present there are

:54:04. > :54:09.multiple charging points operators each with their own plugs, software,

:54:10. > :54:18.customer charges, billing systems and payment methods. They are

:54:19. > :54:24.unevenly distributed as a report in The Times reported. There are more

:54:25. > :54:32.charging points in the Orkney Islands then in other towns. We have

:54:33. > :54:35.to address their harmonisation and standardisation. The Bill will allow

:54:36. > :54:46.the government to acquire copulation and sharing facilities and

:54:47. > :54:52.information from offices as well. -- require cooperation and sharing

:54:53. > :54:56.facilities. Clause 11 which gives the power of the Secretary of State

:54:57. > :55:00.to introduce regulations that require operators to provide

:55:01. > :55:06.information about public charging points, such as location, operating

:55:07. > :55:10.hours, cast and into profitability are also welcome. Of course, it is

:55:11. > :55:14.right that this legislation is put into place but of itself it will not

:55:15. > :55:24.be enough to successfully encourage the uptake of EVs. It was

:55:25. > :55:37.counter-productive to slash grants that was available to encourage EVs.

:55:38. > :55:43.It was cut from ?5,000 to ?405,000 and from hybrids to ?5,000 to ?2500

:55:44. > :55:50.and the electric vehicle home charge scheme was also caught from ?700 to

:55:51. > :55:54.?500 pear installation. There are further issues not addressed by this

:55:55. > :55:58.Bill but the government must get right including ensuring that the

:55:59. > :56:04.grid is capable of meeting the additional demands of electric

:56:05. > :56:09.vehicles. This much be planned for and closely monitored as electric

:56:10. > :56:14.vehicle use becomes more common. The government must now also develop a

:56:15. > :56:18.strategy that will tackle the skills gap that exists, because without

:56:19. > :56:23.training the necessary personnel we as a nation will not be able to

:56:24. > :56:25.support the growth of this new generation of vehicles and we will

:56:26. > :56:31.miss out on the benefits that they present. In terms of the obstruction

:56:32. > :56:38.more broadly, the government must also ensure that in view of Brexit

:56:39. > :56:43.Begley Tory diverging dust is not developed between the UK and the EU

:56:44. > :56:50.and that regular Tory standards are maintained, this is essential if the

:56:51. > :56:59.UK is to be the vicar manufactures location of choice has. Regarding

:57:00. > :57:01.the third section of the Bill which relates to aviation, Labour broadly

:57:02. > :57:09.welcomed the proposals to strengthen the role of the Civil Aviation

:57:10. > :57:12.Authority in respect of seeking licence modification changes, we

:57:13. > :57:16.recognised the need to implement the atoll reforms in order to comply

:57:17. > :57:20.with the EU package travel directive. We also know that

:57:21. > :57:25.stakeholders are supportive of the proposals set out in the Bill. The

:57:26. > :57:30.changes proposed will allow the Civil Aviation Authority to modify

:57:31. > :57:34.licenses more quickly and is in line with recommendations, report that

:57:35. > :57:42.will give greater financial certainty. However, we are keen that

:57:43. > :57:47.the government we their commitment that the licensee doesn't find it

:57:48. > :57:53.unduly difficult to finance the activities and that these proposals

:57:54. > :57:58.will not be a subtext for a sell off. Clause 18 of the Bill is

:57:59. > :58:04.related to atoll and we will be up-to-date and ensure that it is

:58:05. > :58:07.harmonised with the latest EU package directive, extending a wider

:58:08. > :58:11.range of holidays and protect more consumers as well as allowing UK

:58:12. > :58:15.travel companies to sell more seamlessly across Europe. We welcome

:58:16. > :58:22.the extensions that will ultimately help protect more holiday-makers,

:58:23. > :58:26.however Labour want clarity about how UK consumers will be protected

:58:27. > :58:34.by EU -based companies as they will no longer be subject to atoll put

:58:35. > :58:37.member state equivalents. The implications of the Atol after

:58:38. > :58:46.Brexit are cause for concern. Hidden in the Bill the Secretary of State

:58:47. > :58:51.only needs... Labour recognises the merits of some reforms but believes

:58:52. > :58:55.that an impact assessment, full consultation and full scrutiny is

:58:56. > :59:00.required before any fundamental changes are made to this well

:59:01. > :59:05.respected consumer protection. These issues bring to the forefront

:59:06. > :59:08.uncertainties of the future of UK aviation following the decision to

:59:09. > :59:11.leave the EU and Labour has been clear that whatever film-makers

:59:12. > :59:19.clearly tee chose in the government should prioritise and an changed

:59:20. > :59:26.operating environment. They should prioritise air agreements and as

:59:27. > :59:30.customary such agreement should be negotiated separately and prior to

:59:31. > :59:38.the UK's negotiations on future trade with the EU. Penning Lasley to

:59:39. > :59:41.the three Miscellaneous St cause -- tanning Lasley to the three

:59:42. > :59:46.miscellaneous causes at the end of the Bill. In principle we do not

:59:47. > :59:51.oppose the changes proposed in the Bill that would allow the devious a

:59:52. > :59:53.testing to take place on private premises, however we believe that

:59:54. > :00:00.the government should provide further details as well as

:00:01. > :00:04.reassurances that these changes will not adversely impact existing

:00:05. > :00:07.testing facilities and staff. Whilst an increase in the number of testing

:00:08. > :00:13.facilities across the country is to be welcomed and whilst the

:00:14. > :00:16.government has intimated that they will not disappear before

:00:17. > :00:21.alternative facilities available in that vicinity, we do wish to secure

:00:22. > :00:28.more detailed assurances. Secondly, in part for the Bill regarding the

:00:29. > :00:32.offence of shining a laser at a vehicle, clause 22, we are pleased

:00:33. > :00:36.to see that the government is now beginning to tackle the dangers of

:00:37. > :00:42.lasers which present hazards that could result in Pelle Brook

:00:43. > :00:46.consequences is left unaddressed. -- could result in Kell Brook

:00:47. > :00:55.consequences. So far it has proved to difficult... We are supportive of

:00:56. > :00:59.creating a new offence with the very act of shining a laser beam which

:01:00. > :01:04.could carry a maximum penalty of four or five years in prison. Whilst

:01:05. > :01:07.that is to be welcomed we would encourage the government to look at

:01:08. > :01:11.the ready availability of such devices and how they may be

:01:12. > :01:16.curtailed. Perhaps when the Minister sums up, think there was some

:01:17. > :01:23.confusion when we heard from the Secretary of State about the change

:01:24. > :01:27.from the offensive engagement to simply the act of shining the light,

:01:28. > :01:33.if the Minister is able to clarify that that would be greatly

:01:34. > :01:38.appreciated. In relation to aviation safety, the lack of action in this

:01:39. > :01:42.Bill on drones is a real concern as honourable members have already

:01:43. > :01:48.spoken to. There were 70 was sported near misses with a class in 2016 and

:01:49. > :01:52.the government is not seeking to address the problem at the pace

:01:53. > :01:56.required and Labour will be seeking amendments committee stage to

:01:57. > :02:03.regulate drones in order to address aviation concerns in that respect.

:02:04. > :02:08.To clause 32 of the Bill, relating to courses offered as an alternative

:02:09. > :02:11.to prosecution, Labour broadly agree with the methods on diverse array

:02:12. > :02:17.courses proposed by the government which qualifies the basis which

:02:18. > :02:22.diversionary courses can be used as an alternative to fixed penalty

:02:23. > :02:26.notices. Although, we do believe the government should bring forward an

:02:27. > :02:32.assessment and review the effectiveness of such courses. It is

:02:33. > :02:35.imperative that we have some basis to establish that this is a

:02:36. > :02:39.programme worth pursuing and that at the moment their peers to be little

:02:40. > :02:44.evidence upon which to come to that judgment. It is important to remind

:02:45. > :02:52.the government that legislation alone is not enough to keep our

:02:53. > :02:57.roads safe at a time when a third of police traffic officers have been

:02:58. > :03:05.cut and progress on reducing deaths and casualties on our roads has

:03:06. > :03:10.ground to a halt. Inc inclusion, we are broadly supportive of this Bill,

:03:11. > :03:14.but we are of the view that it marked the beginning of an exciting

:03:15. > :03:19.new era in transport technology and we are committed to insuring the

:03:20. > :03:28.best possible framework to make sure the sector flourishes. Thank you. I

:03:29. > :03:33.welcome this Bill and I congratulate the government introducing it. Can I

:03:34. > :03:42.start also by congratulating the transport team, Derry team? We have

:03:43. > :03:45.had a mixed tag of ministers at the Department for Transport but I now

:03:46. > :03:52.think we have one of the best teams we have ever had. Long may they stay

:03:53. > :03:56.in office. Can I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party

:03:57. > :04:02.Parliamentary historical vehicles group and the owner of a number of

:04:03. > :04:07.historic vehicles. It may seem a little odd that I with an interest

:04:08. > :04:12.in historic vehicles dedicated to preserving and seeing that we are

:04:13. > :04:16.all free to continue to use old vehicles on the public highway

:04:17. > :04:20.should welcome a Bill which seeks to take a step forward, but I see

:04:21. > :04:24.nothing unusual in this because motoring has always been about

:04:25. > :04:30.pushing forward the frontiers and I believe we can preserve the past

:04:31. > :04:34.while also embracing the future. Only a decade or so ago it would

:04:35. > :04:43.seem to many people like something out of the sci-fi comic to refer to

:04:44. > :04:45.driverless cars but I think the very invention of a moving vehicle

:04:46. > :04:51.powered by a machine was revolutionary in its day. From those

:04:52. > :05:00.very early days the motorcar has always had its detractors. In 1899

:05:01. > :05:07.and member of this House, bought his first motorcar, 12 horsepower

:05:08. > :05:12.vehicle he required it in May and in the summer of that year drove it for

:05:13. > :05:18.the time to the House of Commons, being of Mayfest parliamentarian to

:05:19. > :05:22.do so. When he got to the House of Commons comment he was prevented

:05:23. > :05:26.from entering the precincts by a policeman on duty who warned him

:05:27. > :05:31.that he thought the contraption had a very real risk of blowing up the

:05:32. > :05:38.Palace of Westminster. LAUGHTER And so, the MP did what any

:05:39. > :05:42.good MPs should and could do, he appealed to the Speaker he was one

:05:43. > :05:47.William Selby he looked at the evidence, read up about this

:05:48. > :05:52.newfangled thing a car powered by a machine and not a horse, and decided

:05:53. > :05:57.that the member could bring the car into the precincts. So, the very

:05:58. > :06:02.first spat between the police and the motorist was decided in the

:06:03. > :06:08.motorist's Faber. This Bill, as has been said by the sexually of state

:06:09. > :06:16.and the honourable gentleman office that. -- by the Secretary of State.

:06:17. > :06:22.Public transport is not an option for everyone, but driving is not an

:06:23. > :06:26.option that everyone either. I think when we see automated vehicles on

:06:27. > :06:30.our vote it will provide an opportunity to liberate those,

:06:31. > :06:35.particularly in the wall areas who do not have the ability to use

:06:36. > :06:39.public transport is and who cannot drive, but who will be up to use and

:06:40. > :06:46.will grasp the opportunity to use, automated cars. I have to say,

:06:47. > :06:49.however, I will be one of the last people to use an automated vehicle.

:06:50. > :07:01.I do enjoy driving. The most recent car I purchased has

:07:02. > :07:04.a system of Cruise control on it which is intelligent cruise control

:07:05. > :07:09.and if someone pulls out in front of me, the car on its own will apply

:07:10. > :07:13.the brakes and I find this at most a deteriorating, because time after

:07:14. > :07:16.time, the car applies the brakes when I can say that the motorist who

:07:17. > :07:21.has pulled out in front of me is accelerating and I would not have

:07:22. > :07:26.applied the brakes. At this moment in time, I am not a fan of

:07:27. > :07:36.driverless cars and cannot ever see myself owning one but I do see that

:07:37. > :07:38.they will fill a niche in the market and for some people, they will

:07:39. > :07:41.become invaluable. The member opposite raised his concerns about

:07:42. > :07:45.insurance costs and I think that the Department for Transport's own

:07:46. > :07:51.figures indicate that about 97% of all accidents on the road are caused

:07:52. > :07:55.by driver mistake and not by vehicle condition and if the software is

:07:56. > :08:01.anything that competent, it should lead to a reduction in the number of

:08:02. > :08:06.accidents and of course, one would hope, a reduction in the level of

:08:07. > :08:14.insurance premiums. Whilst I support the bill as a whole... On that very

:08:15. > :08:19.point he is making, I am of one mind with him, I cannot imagine buying a

:08:20. > :08:23.driverless car, I would wonder how I turned them of back row, but does he

:08:24. > :08:29.think that the problem is that more driverless cars are available there

:08:30. > :08:33.will be a pressure on us to get into them to drive up safety and the

:08:34. > :08:39.great hobby of poetry might come under increasing pressure as years

:08:40. > :08:44.go by? Particularly from the whips, that has never bothered my

:08:45. > :08:50.honourable friend! I cannot see that this would be a problem in this

:08:51. > :08:54.incident. I have a number of questions for the minister. I think

:08:55. > :08:59.it is self evident but I presume under clause one which gives the

:09:00. > :09:05.government power to list automated vehicles for the purpose of approved

:09:06. > :09:10.road use, that this power would also include the right to delist any

:09:11. > :09:15.particular model which was shown to be unreliable or more susceptible to

:09:16. > :09:21.accidents than others being allowed to operate. In clause two, the bill

:09:22. > :09:26.contains details of the liability of insurers were an accident is caused

:09:27. > :09:34.by not made. These provisions raise a number of questions, clearly the

:09:35. > :09:40.government is thinking that if an automated vehicle in automated mode

:09:41. > :09:46.is involved in an accident, the accident is due to a problem with

:09:47. > :09:51.their manufacture of that vehicle, that the insurance policy, taken out

:09:52. > :09:55.by the owner, will cover the costs of any damage caused an accident,

:09:56. > :10:00.but the insurance company themselves at a later stage would be able to

:10:01. > :10:05.pursue the manufacturers, that is my understanding of it. I want to know

:10:06. > :10:13.what happens when there is no accident caused but the law is

:10:14. > :10:17.nevertheless broken. Let me give the House an example. If a driverless

:10:18. > :10:21.car is travelling on the M1 motorway, I am assuming that the

:10:22. > :10:28.software would know that the vehicle is on a road where the speed limit

:10:29. > :10:31.is 70 mph, but some stretches of the motorway are what the government

:10:32. > :10:36.calls smart motorways were an official of the Highways Agency has

:10:37. > :10:42.the authority to turn on flashing lights which lower the speed limit

:10:43. > :10:46.to a speed which the official thinks is appropriate for the road

:10:47. > :10:53.conditions. Let us say that a driver infill automated mode is in a car on

:10:54. > :10:57.the M1, he then comes to a stretch of smart motorway and the Highways

:10:58. > :11:02.Agency suddenly switch the speed limit down to 50. If travelling

:11:03. > :11:09.behind the automated car is a police car and if the automated car is slow

:11:10. > :11:14.in responding to this reduced limit, and the police car therefore stops

:11:15. > :11:20.the automated car and issues a speeding ticket, who is responsible

:11:21. > :11:24.for the speeding ticket and who if anyone takes the points which

:11:25. > :11:31.normally go with the speeding offence, three points? Because if

:11:32. > :11:34.the owner who would otherwise be the driver in manual mode was relying

:11:35. > :11:38.entirely on the car, I would argue he should not be guilty of the

:11:39. > :11:42.offence of speeding and should certainly not have his licence

:11:43. > :11:47.endorsed. The bill says nothing about this and I would hope that in

:11:48. > :11:53.his reply, the minister can give us some clue as to what the police in

:11:54. > :11:58.that scenario would be expected to do. Thank you for giving way. He is

:11:59. > :12:04.raising important points. I would hope that if the speed limit was

:12:05. > :12:06.changed on a particular area of the motorway, there would be signals

:12:07. > :12:10.sent out and received by the automated vehicle which would

:12:11. > :12:14.automatically cause it to change speed as well. I accept that

:12:15. > :12:20.completely but the scenario that I am painting is that if the software

:12:21. > :12:23.is slow to respond in a particular instance, the police will only

:12:24. > :12:30.follow a driver who is speeding for three tenths of a mile, that is not

:12:31. > :12:36.very far if you are doing 70 mph. If the software is slow to respond,

:12:37. > :12:40.albeit it does respond eventually, that was the picture I was painting

:12:41. > :12:51.and the question I was asking, who then would be responsible for that

:12:52. > :12:55.offence of speeding. The Secretary of State when he opened this debate

:12:56. > :13:00.did not mention the motor insurers bureau, which I think plays an

:13:01. > :13:05.invaluable role in guaranteeing funds which protect victims of an

:13:06. > :13:10.insured drivers. What will be the status of the motor insurers bureau

:13:11. > :13:15.when this bill becomes law? Will it be able to recover costs for example

:13:16. > :13:20.from manufacturers where it is deemed that the software was

:13:21. > :13:24.defective? That is when the bill becomes law. Can I also ask the

:13:25. > :13:31.Minister when he responds to this debate to say something about a case

:13:32. > :13:35.which took place in the East of Europe which is where a farm worker

:13:36. > :13:40.was up a ladder and he was knocked off the ladder by a farmer driving

:13:41. > :13:49.the tractor and the farm workers sued the insurance company for

:13:50. > :13:53.damages and the court held in the first instance I think, as the

:13:54. > :13:56.tractor was on a farm, it did not need to have insurance but the

:13:57. > :14:04.European Court overturned this and found in favour of the man. There is

:14:05. > :14:09.an occasion now that vehicles that are not on the road are being used

:14:10. > :14:14.on the road may have to carry insurance and I know there is some

:14:15. > :14:18.concern in the motor racing fraternity, would motor vehicles

:14:19. > :14:23.taking part in a race have to have insurance? It is not mentioned in

:14:24. > :14:27.the Bill and it may well be that ministers are planning their

:14:28. > :14:31.response to this court judgment to announce at a later stage, but

:14:32. > :14:39.anything the Minister can say about this particular case, I would

:14:40. > :14:45.welcome hearing from him. The bill in visit is data-sharing, sharing of

:14:46. > :14:53.the driving log and data of automated vehicles. Can I ask, will

:14:54. > :14:58.data-sharing only apply when an automated vehicle is involved in an

:14:59. > :15:03.accident or can data-sharing be obtained even when there is no

:15:04. > :15:10.accident, for example, would an employer be able to analyse the data

:15:11. > :15:14.from a self driving car, used by a company, to see where the employee

:15:15. > :15:20.went when he was sent out on a particular mission? Would a divorce

:15:21. > :15:25.lawyer in a case be able to demand to see the data log off a driverless

:15:26. > :15:31.car off a husband who they thought was perhaps having an affair in

:15:32. > :15:36.another part of town? Who can access the data, which I can understand why

:15:37. > :15:39.the data will be recorded in a driverless car, to establish it was

:15:40. > :15:44.at fault in any accident, but what I would like to know is who would have

:15:45. > :15:53.the right to actually seek to access that information? Part two of the

:15:54. > :15:57.bill deals with electric vehicles and charging, and the Secretary of

:15:58. > :16:03.State said in his opening remarks, that the government takes the view

:16:04. > :16:08.that by 2050, nearly all cars and vans should be zero emission

:16:09. > :16:14.vehicles. Can I ask him what he means by that? Does he mean that by

:16:15. > :16:19.2050, nearly all cars and vans that are being then manufactured are zero

:16:20. > :16:24.emission vehicles, in other words, will he confirm that there is to be

:16:25. > :16:28.no attempt made by the government to force vehicles that do have some

:16:29. > :16:36.exhaust emissions off our roads at a future point in time? So far as the

:16:37. > :16:39.charging points are concerned, I accept that it makes sense to

:16:40. > :16:44.significantly increase the provision of infrastructure that will be

:16:45. > :16:49.required to support the charging of electric vehicles and I see that the

:16:50. > :16:52.bill seeks to make large fuel retailers and imposes upon them a

:16:53. > :16:57.duty to provide public charging points. I think that is good and

:16:58. > :17:03.that is to be welcomed, but can I ask, why we are also not requiring

:17:04. > :17:09.large fuel retailers to do other things as well for the benefit of

:17:10. > :17:13.all motorists, why are we not requiring fuel retailers as well for

:17:14. > :17:20.example to continue to provide fuel with an ethanol content of less than

:17:21. > :17:25.5% for those who have not or cannot update their vehicles. Under the

:17:26. > :17:30.renewable transport fuel obligation is order, I understand that at some

:17:31. > :17:38.point in time, this country will have on sale on the forecourts, fuel

:17:39. > :17:43.with 10% ethanol. What has been shown with experiences in France and

:17:44. > :17:46.Germany that this fuel is incompatible with vehicles

:17:47. > :17:54.manufactured before the year 2000. It has the ability to dissolve

:17:55. > :17:58.petrol tanks in some cases and certainly dissolve gaskets, cause

:17:59. > :18:04.vapour lock in warm weather and cause difficulty in starting and I

:18:05. > :18:09.think it is important, whilst we encourage people to move to this new

:18:10. > :18:14.technology, that we do not leave behind a class of people who cannot

:18:15. > :18:18.afford at the moment in time to update their vehicles and who need

:18:19. > :18:23.to go about their daily lives, need to go to work, that they should have

:18:24. > :18:31.a guarantee that they can still buy this fuel with a lower percentage of

:18:32. > :18:36.ethanol in it. I have no comments to make about part three of the bill

:18:37. > :18:42.which deals with civil aviation, part four deals with vehicle testing

:18:43. > :18:49.and shining a laser at a vehicle and speed awareness courses. I note that

:18:50. > :18:54.the offences are only committed if the laser beam dazzles or detracts a

:18:55. > :18:59.person, quote, with control of the vehicle. Food that ever therefore

:19:00. > :19:05.applied to someone who is being driven in an automated vehicle?

:19:06. > :19:11.Clause 22, subsection seven, anticipates that it would apply to a

:19:12. > :19:17.pilot in a plane, even if that plane is on autopilot, because it refers

:19:18. > :19:21.to someone monitoring the flying of the aircraft, why is there are no

:19:22. > :19:25.similar provision for the driver of an automated car who, in many cases

:19:26. > :19:32.clearly, will be monitoring the progress of his vehicle? I just

:19:33. > :19:37.wonder why, is there any specific reason why we only covering laser

:19:38. > :19:45.beams and not other forms of high intensity beams. Speed awareness

:19:46. > :19:49.courses have been running for a number of years and although the

:19:50. > :19:54.honourable member for Middlesbrough and asked what evidence we have that

:19:55. > :19:58.they were effective, I, by speaking to constituents and friends, have

:19:59. > :20:03.considerable anecdotal evidence that they have been affected and that it

:20:04. > :20:07.was a good day they were introduced, because there is an incentive there

:20:08. > :20:11.for allowing motorists to take part in them because by taking part in a

:20:12. > :20:15.speed awareness course, you avoid having points on your licence, but

:20:16. > :20:20.my question to the minister today, as these courses have been running

:20:21. > :20:25.for several years, why is it only now that we are seeking to regulate

:20:26. > :20:31.them? Has there been some legal challenge or some bad practice that

:20:32. > :20:43.ministers are aware that we now wish to eliminate? There seems to be an

:20:44. > :20:47.air of mystery, if it has been working fine for so long, we are now

:20:48. > :20:49.about to say that we need the law to intervene in this area. I also hope

:20:50. > :20:52.the government will look at a number of other common-sense measures in

:20:53. > :20:57.addition to the new technologies such as following what happens in

:20:58. > :21:01.some American states were at non-rush-hour periods, traffic

:21:02. > :21:04.lights are switched off or switch to shine amber in all directions,

:21:05. > :21:08.thereby preventing vehicles from having to stop when there is no

:21:09. > :21:17.traffic coming in the opposite direction or across the junction.

:21:18. > :21:22.References have been made to air quality comedy ministers know when

:21:23. > :21:27.they will publish the air quality plan, and is there not a case for

:21:28. > :21:34.making local authorities in future take into account the congestion

:21:35. > :21:38.affects of their crusade to remove red speech in favour of wider

:21:39. > :21:41.pavement and more cycle lanes. Somebody said to me the other day

:21:42. > :21:46.that there were fewer cars entering central London but pollution is

:21:47. > :21:51.going up. Obviously it is going up because pavements have gotten wider

:21:52. > :21:57.and road space is being attentive to cycleways. The Mayor of London

:21:58. > :22:02.cannot have it both ways. If he wishes to reduce air pollution that

:22:03. > :22:11.I think he and others need to take care when they are seeking to remove

:22:12. > :22:15.highway lanes. In conclusion, I started by saying I welcome the

:22:16. > :22:19.Bill, ideal and I applaud the government bringing it forward. It

:22:20. > :22:25.is clearly intended to address, perhaps a number of market failures

:22:26. > :22:30.thus far and I hope it will enable the UK to safely take advantage of,

:22:31. > :22:34.and benefit from, new technologies and use. I hope the Bill will indeed

:22:35. > :22:39.help consumers in the UK to be among the first in the world to reap the

:22:40. > :22:47.rewards that improve transport technology will and surely bring. --

:22:48. > :22:53.will surely bring. The Bill we debate today is important, we should

:22:54. > :22:57.however be clear that discourse is not an future but on existing

:22:58. > :23:04.technology. We in the SMB welcome the fact that we can support the

:23:05. > :23:16.technology and aviation Bill. -- weenie SNP. We suggest some helpful

:23:17. > :23:21.suggestions, and we will be ready to give the Minister push. To change

:23:22. > :23:25.public perception and to benefit from technology means not just

:23:26. > :23:29.talking about how we move people physically but emotionally as well.

:23:30. > :23:33.The reality is that planning the transport should be about planning

:23:34. > :23:38.for the future of people. Excepting only what we are presented with here

:23:39. > :23:43.and now misses the mark. If we are to make a success of this Bill, it

:23:44. > :23:46.will be vital not to address the known practicalities of the

:23:47. > :23:52.technologies as they are presented to us today, but also to seek to

:23:53. > :23:56.have a vision for the way that the future of transport can make life

:23:57. > :24:02.better for people and not just in the urban areas, not just the well

:24:03. > :24:07.off, but also those who constantly find themselves as an afterthought

:24:08. > :24:12.be it through geography or through different levels of deprivation,

:24:13. > :24:17.disability or a lack of opportunity. In this respect the Bill must

:24:18. > :24:21.develop a more rounded and inclusive vision as it progresses. We welcome

:24:22. > :24:33.the sensible measures in the Bill, the those we will offer our views

:24:34. > :24:36.and work constructively to progress legislation and hope that our points

:24:37. > :24:41.in return will receive positive consideration. There are current

:24:42. > :24:46.issues where common ground can immediately be established. These

:24:47. > :24:50.are on measures such as, encouraging the development of economic

:24:51. > :24:55.opportunity for growth in technology, autonomous and

:24:56. > :24:58.electronic vehicle sectors, the simplification of insurance as

:24:59. > :25:02.processors, but moves to match the Scottish Government's proposals to

:25:03. > :25:07.phase out all petroleum and diesel fuel vehicles by 2050. Those

:25:08. > :25:15.measures intended to curb the malignant use of laser pens on all

:25:16. > :25:18.vehicles including aircraft. As intimated, there are also many

:25:19. > :25:23.question to be answered and much to add to the Bill to make progress

:25:24. > :25:27.successful. Let me start with autonomous vehicles. This is a

:25:28. > :25:37.global market presenting significant opportunities, KPMG estimates the

:25:38. > :25:40.value to be about ?900 billion by 2000 25. So, maximising advantage in

:25:41. > :25:46.this means acting with pace but decision should include ensuring

:25:47. > :25:51.that there are positive outcomes of people beyond the short-term

:25:52. > :25:53.economic reach. We would advocate that there is an imperative to

:25:54. > :25:58.insure that as many people as possible benefit. There is the

:25:59. > :26:02.potential for a step change in transport for those with

:26:03. > :26:07.disabilities and those suffering from social exclusion through

:26:08. > :26:11.mobility issues. We would also seek to ensure that even if people don't

:26:12. > :26:16.live in a city they are not left out and that's rural areas are giving

:26:17. > :26:21.the ability to take part. Thoughtful consideration has to be given to

:26:22. > :26:25.rural areas these autonomous vehicles and discussion should take

:26:26. > :26:30.place with the organisations representing disabled people to seek

:26:31. > :26:34.their views in this matter. We also need to see actions taken by the

:26:35. > :26:38.government to ensure that the moment is grasped the training and skills

:26:39. > :26:43.to create well-paid jobs. The employment opportunities

:26:44. > :26:47.specifically within the technology and autonomous vehicle sector in new

:26:48. > :26:52.territory. Therefore, we must ensure these are accessible for more people

:26:53. > :27:01.to access, especially the still disgraceful uncut resource that is

:27:02. > :27:07.women. -- on hacked the source. Work must be done to encourage girls and

:27:08. > :27:11.young women to be central. Back in 2015 the government provided ?90

:27:12. > :27:16.million to launch for driverless car scheme is based in Milton Keynes,

:27:17. > :27:22.Bristol and London. If there is to be further testing Scotland must be

:27:23. > :27:25.included in the next round, similarly was welcoming the

:27:26. > :27:29.industrial strategy with a review to an autonomous vehicle hob, we would

:27:30. > :27:37.look for cooperation between the UK and Scottish Government 's to find

:27:38. > :27:41.suitable site in Scotland. Road safety is our paramount concern as

:27:42. > :27:45.his clarity of responsibility for insurance claims. There is much work

:27:46. > :27:51.to be done to provide the race drawings and put in place the

:27:52. > :27:55.safeguards required to create public confidence. It would be helpful to

:27:56. > :28:00.consider the needs of the will develop and provide guidance on

:28:01. > :28:04.aspects that may not yet be at the forefront of consideration, such as

:28:05. > :28:09.the possible certification of vehicles without spinning wheels or

:28:10. > :28:13.control pedals. The honourable member from East Yorkshire raised an

:28:14. > :28:20.interesting point earlier when he was talking about responsibility.

:28:21. > :28:23.What will autonomous vehicles mean to drink-driving regulations for

:28:24. > :28:31.example? In all circumstances will assault passenger reconsidered just

:28:32. > :28:33.that, passenger? With those responsibilities, or will they be

:28:34. > :28:40.considered to be jointly responsible? There are

:28:41. > :28:44.considerations to require... Autonomist vehicles will need

:28:45. > :28:50.specialist test sensors and these should be equitably located around

:28:51. > :28:55.the nation 's UK, so that... People deserve to know how that will work

:28:56. > :28:59.in the future. There will need to be strong mobile signals from the

:29:00. > :29:07.technology to operate proper Blake, see yet again we would call on the

:29:08. > :29:12.government to ensure that the next licensing... And inside out method

:29:13. > :29:16.that has been shown to work for other European countries. Of course

:29:17. > :29:21.with guidance systems also comes a huge amount of data, vehicles will

:29:22. > :29:27.by virtue of their use be tracked and records of journey collated, the

:29:28. > :29:31.data can be enormously usable for proving performance but it also

:29:32. > :29:34.means there is the potential for misuse of that data. One measures

:29:35. > :29:41.will be put into place to protect the rights of us have since? I

:29:42. > :29:46.write, except in investigating and accidents or a fence should be

:29:47. > :29:51.giving to the public to own the data and to actively organise any

:29:52. > :29:56.nonperformance related use? On electric vehicles, we welcome the

:29:57. > :30:00.plan to make every car and van zero emission by 2050 as this now

:30:01. > :30:08.compliments the Scottish Government's plans to phase out all

:30:09. > :30:13.petrol and diesel vehicles by that year. The plan must now be stepped

:30:14. > :30:18.up and incentives such as free installation of homes charging

:30:19. > :30:23.points, no road tax, and over company car tax the pure electric

:30:24. > :30:28.vehicle should be continued by new incentives are developed. In

:30:29. > :30:31.Scotland, at the start of 2015, we had already seen the uptake of over

:30:32. > :30:38.200 electric vehicles across local authorities. The Scottish Government

:30:39. > :30:44.invested more than ?11 million to develop the Scottish network of over

:30:45. > :30:48.in 900 publicly available charging bays and ?2.5 million grant of

:30:49. > :30:53.funding has been offered to each of the 32 community planning

:30:54. > :30:57.partnerships to help them buy or lease electric vehicles. This is an

:30:58. > :31:03.addition to ?30 million provided over the last five years to support

:31:04. > :31:06.bus operators to bring in new low emission buses, these are great

:31:07. > :31:12.incentives and as I have said more can and should be done to encourage

:31:13. > :31:15.further uptake. Of course, there are other zero emission technologies and

:31:16. > :31:19.hydrogen is of growing interest in this field so I was glad to hear the

:31:20. > :31:22.Secretary of State State Elliott that there would be encouragement to

:31:23. > :31:28.support alternative fuels such as hydrogen. Already in Scotland we

:31:29. > :31:32.have the Aberdeen hydrogen bus project and the Scottish Government

:31:33. > :31:36.is a key funder will start now, Aberdeen has your's largest fleet of

:31:37. > :31:43.hydrogen powered Porters went to reach within the city. On the matter

:31:44. > :31:48.of Silvio aviation and Atol, there is a pressing for the government to

:31:49. > :31:52.start addressing the questions posed over the UK leaving you. Will the

:31:53. > :31:56.Secretary of State now give an assurance that the due package

:31:57. > :32:01.travel directive will be continued? There are similar concerns over

:32:02. > :32:05.passenger rights in compensation and no word, as yet, from the government

:32:06. > :32:10.as whether they will be maintained. I'm happy to allow him to intervene

:32:11. > :32:15.if he wants to make comment... No! Currently UK travellers benefit from

:32:16. > :32:21.the huge range of protections, the collapse of low-cost holidays last

:32:22. > :32:26.summer with the U package travel directive, crystal clear, given that

:32:27. > :32:30.76% of UK holidays are I'll answer the EU, what will the government do

:32:31. > :32:33.to guarantee that they will not cave in to lobbying the months of

:32:34. > :32:40.companies like Thomas Cook who have said that they feel but rights had

:32:41. > :32:45."Gone too far" in favouring passengers. On the matter of vehicle

:32:46. > :32:50.testing, we will be seeking assurances over safety on the future

:32:51. > :32:54.of operations of the VSA functions, we have concerns over the relentless

:32:55. > :32:57.wave of UK Government has sought to divest publicly and managed

:32:58. > :33:04.facilities. It's clearly an ideological approach. Public safety

:33:05. > :33:10.must be paramount and guarantees are needed that in future examiners are

:33:11. > :33:15.to be regulated as must adhere to procedure is at least as strict as

:33:16. > :33:20.those already in use. Will the Secretary of State commit to that?

:33:21. > :33:25.On laser pens and road safety we welcome very much clause 22, which

:33:26. > :33:29.would make shining a laser beam at any vehicle to dazzle distract the

:33:30. > :33:34.driver or operator and offence. Laser pen incidents are on the

:33:35. > :33:39.increase. In Scotland there have been over hundred and 50 incidences

:33:40. > :33:43.of the past 18 months and 24 at Glasgow airport in February alone.

:33:44. > :33:48.The SNP and the Scottish Government takes very seriously any actions

:33:49. > :33:53.which could potentially in danger aircraft, crew and passengers and

:33:54. > :33:58.strongly supports the civil aviation authorities's efforts to publicise

:33:59. > :34:00.the dangers and also strongly supports police garland in their

:34:01. > :34:08.efforts to prosecute those who maliciously threaten lives in this

:34:09. > :34:11.way. Shining lasers at pilots or drivers could prove fatal and these

:34:12. > :34:17.moves give clarity of the offence that should greatly improve greatly

:34:18. > :34:22.safety. I would, while talking about road safety as the UK Government to

:34:23. > :34:28.follow the example of the Scottish Government to take the opportunity

:34:29. > :34:32.to lower the drink-drive limits. In December 2014 Scotland introduced a

:34:33. > :34:34.blood alcohol limit of 50 mg per hundred millilitres, lower than the

:34:35. > :34:43.80 mg per hundred million metres in the rest of the UK. This has

:34:44. > :34:48.resulted in a 7.6% reduction in drink-driving in 2015, compared with

:34:49. > :34:52.the previous year. So Madam Deputy Speaker, to include we welcome the

:34:53. > :34:56.aims of the Bill and will work constructively to consider that it

:34:57. > :34:59.is strengthened and improved. We would take that communities at the

:35:00. > :35:04.periphery of both geography and opportunity are included and that

:35:05. > :35:08.the benefits of the technological advances in vehicles and fuels are

:35:09. > :35:12.shared fairly amongst all of our citizens in a positive outcomes for

:35:13. > :35:16.all of our communities of the first consideration. We want to see

:35:17. > :35:20.clarity and vision over the regulation and public safety issues

:35:21. > :35:28.arising from new vehicles to give the public confidence to embrace

:35:29. > :35:32.this changing transport. We must, now finally also have answers to the

:35:33. > :35:36.questions of what happens to the right of us had since travelling in

:35:37. > :35:41.Europe following the triggering of Article 50. We need a commitment to

:35:42. > :35:42.continue all of the raft of benefits that are currently enjoyed by

:35:43. > :35:52.people. I am pleased to have this

:35:53. > :35:57.opportunity to speak in support of this important bill. I wish to

:35:58. > :36:03.restrict my comments to Pars won at two of the bill, I have no concerns

:36:04. > :36:09.about the provisions parts three and four. I will speak on the first two

:36:10. > :36:14.parts, partly because of my role on the transport Select Committee, we

:36:15. > :36:20.have considered these matters before and also for my constituency

:36:21. > :36:25.interest. Milton Keynes is at the forefront of developing and testing

:36:26. > :36:31.autonomous vehicles and comprehensive charging network for

:36:32. > :36:36.electric vehicles. This bill is very timely. The technology for both

:36:37. > :36:43.autonomous and electric vehicles is quickly being developed and will be

:36:44. > :36:47.on our roads soon, not just through the experimental autonomous pods

:36:48. > :36:52.that Milton Keynes is innovating, and the Secretary of State has just

:36:53. > :36:56.left his place, I was going to reference the maiden voyage that he

:36:57. > :37:02.and I took in the latest RTM or to drive poured, somewhat bemusing

:37:03. > :37:08.shoppers in the Milton Keynes shopping centre a few weeks ago. No

:37:09. > :37:16.injuries were sustained, I am happy to report and the technology worked

:37:17. > :37:19.splendidly. Both established vehicle manufacturers and new entrants such

:37:20. > :37:27.as Tesla and Google are developing cars, whether they are wholly or

:37:28. > :37:31.partly automated and I think it was the Shadow Secretary of State

:37:32. > :37:35.mentioned, we already have cars that are partly autonomous with the

:37:36. > :37:40.technology that they have on board, whether it is through self parking

:37:41. > :37:47.mechanisms or intuitive cruise control. I will return to a concern

:37:48. > :37:53.I have about those a little later in my speech. The government is

:37:54. > :37:58.absolutely right to be addressing now how this changing technology has

:37:59. > :38:03.moved ahead of existing regulations for insurance purposes and for other

:38:04. > :38:10.matters. The intelligent mobility market is going to be huge and the

:38:11. > :38:16.honourable gentleman from Inverness referenced the potential size of the

:38:17. > :38:22.intelligent mobility market, 900 billion by 2025 and if he has not

:38:23. > :38:27.already read it, I would urge him to read the strategy document that the

:38:28. > :38:38.transport systems catapult produced last autumn. It also identifies a

:38:39. > :38:43.potential gap of 750,000 people, a skills gap, that same year. The

:38:44. > :38:48.skills debate is for another time but I mention this just to indicate

:38:49. > :38:56.the potential scale of what we are debating today. It is essential that

:38:57. > :39:02.we get the basic parameters correct. The government is right to address

:39:03. > :39:09.the gap in insurance legislation, that autonomous vehicles will

:39:10. > :39:12.produce. I did, with some amusement, read the impact assessment

:39:13. > :39:17.statement, perhaps it is not the most appropriate name, given that we

:39:18. > :39:21.are dealing with potential collisions of vehicles, so maybe

:39:22. > :39:25.they might wish to rephrase the title of the impact assessment, but

:39:26. > :39:32.it did contain some important points. Traditionally insurance is

:39:33. > :39:37.driver centric, but we do it needs to set a framework for what happens

:39:38. > :39:43.when an accident is caused by the machine or the software that governs

:39:44. > :39:49.it. I agree entirely with the clauses as far as they go. I do wish

:39:50. > :39:53.to highlight a few concerns I have, which I hope the minister will be

:39:54. > :39:58.able to address either in his response in committee or if he

:39:59. > :40:03.wishes to write to me, if he does not have the answers immediately to

:40:04. > :40:09.hand. The first relates to close four of the Bill and I agree with

:40:10. > :40:14.that as far as it goes, it deals with accidents that result from

:40:15. > :40:19.unauthorised alterations to the software or failure is to update it.

:40:20. > :40:31.It is absolutely right as far as it goes, however, is there sufficient

:40:32. > :40:34.clarification of where liability would like, should there be an

:40:35. > :40:37.accident resulting from a failure that has been caused by an external

:40:38. > :40:39.tampering with the software, whether it is deliberate or accidental. We

:40:40. > :40:42.have already seen in the testing of autonomous vehicles and the

:40:43. > :40:48.technology they contain, even on other vehicles as well, where the

:40:49. > :40:52.intelligent connections, have been hacked. There have been examples in

:40:53. > :41:00.the United States where this has happened, and potentially could lead

:41:01. > :41:06.to clashes, so in those scenarios, and we have seen, in the traditional

:41:07. > :41:11.insurance market, lots of clever criminals who tried to scan

:41:12. > :41:16.accidents, by faking accidents or somehow or other causing accidents

:41:17. > :41:22.to happen and then claim the insurance premiums as a result. If

:41:23. > :41:26.someone was maliciously to hack the smart technology, where with that

:41:27. > :41:32.liability light? Another example which would be more of an accidental

:41:33. > :41:41.nature, if a car with autonomous technology goes in for a service and

:41:42. > :41:45.the garage makes a error when it is under their supervision, the driver

:41:46. > :41:49.has no knowledge of that, then where does the liability light? I will

:41:50. > :41:54.give one example, a previous car I had went in for its service and the

:41:55. > :42:00.software that governs the engine, they messed up and the engine

:42:01. > :42:07.misfired and would not accelerate properly, when I took it off. It did

:42:08. > :42:12.not cause an accident, but that was an external intervention and I would

:42:13. > :42:17.be grateful for some clarification as to whether these sort of

:42:18. > :42:22.instances are covered by the legislation or by other legislation

:42:23. > :42:30.or if not, what further measures might be needed in the future. My

:42:31. > :42:36.second area of concern is where the onus of liability lies when a car is

:42:37. > :42:42.partly autonomous. As I mentioned before, that technology already is

:42:43. > :42:46.here with adaptive cruise control and self parking for example. At the

:42:47. > :42:53.moment, I understand that the legislation is quite clear, the onus

:42:54. > :42:58.of liability lies solely with the driver. I can see a time where this

:42:59. > :43:03.technology develops to the point where the driver will be in a

:43:04. > :43:09.position of switching off his or her control of the car and leaving it in

:43:10. > :43:15.control. Now, while in this bill will cover liability when the car is

:43:16. > :43:21.in its autonomous mode, is their cover for the onus on the driver to

:43:22. > :43:29.switch the autonomous controls off when he or she receives a danger? If

:43:30. > :43:34.they are on a motorway for example, and we develop a motorway car train,

:43:35. > :43:38.where the cars are autonomously controlled, and the driver spot some

:43:39. > :43:43.external incident that would make the continuation of that train is

:43:44. > :43:49.dangerous, is there an onus on the driver to switch that off and again,

:43:50. > :43:55.I would be grateful for some clarification as to whether this is

:43:56. > :44:01.already covered by law or if it is something that will need to be

:44:02. > :44:05.clarified at a later point. I appreciate it is difficult to

:44:06. > :44:10.specify exactly at the moment, because the technology is not there

:44:11. > :44:14.in operation, but it is something I think we will have to think about,

:44:15. > :44:18.particularly as other honourable members have mentioned, we need the

:44:19. > :44:22.insurance market to work speedily in the interests of consumers. We

:44:23. > :44:29.cannot have the consumers as the innocent party, while the different

:44:30. > :44:32.insurance companies fight out where liability lies. That would be

:44:33. > :44:37.helpful to have clarification on this matter. My third area of

:44:38. > :44:45.concern regarding the insurance part of the bill is more to do with the

:44:46. > :44:48.practicalities and costs for the insurance policyholder in what is

:44:49. > :44:55.going to be changing mobility market. The moment, most insurance

:44:56. > :45:02.is perfectly simple. The individual is insured either for a specific car

:45:03. > :45:06.or a comprehensive to drive any car. We are increasingly going to be

:45:07. > :45:10.moving to what are called mass products, mobility as a service,

:45:11. > :45:15.where the direct ownership of vehicles will probably decline and

:45:16. > :45:23.people will buy a comprehensive package to covered train fares,

:45:24. > :45:26.buses, hiring a car, summoning an electric pod so the insurance market

:45:27. > :45:31.will become more complex and new products will have to be innovated

:45:32. > :45:34.to cover the incidents where one individual person may over a

:45:35. > :45:42.relatively short period of trying maybe driving all sorts of vehicles,

:45:43. > :45:45.from a very simple city runabout, right up to high performance sports

:45:46. > :45:55.vehicles that you might want to hire for a week out. My question is, our

:45:56. > :45:59.existing regulatory frameworks for insurance companies sufficiently

:46:00. > :46:03.flexible to allow the innovation of these products or do we gain

:46:04. > :46:09.requires some further clarification? It is important that we get these

:46:10. > :46:15.regulations as watertight as possible because the market is going

:46:16. > :46:22.to be huge and it will come sooner than many of us believe. Turning now

:46:23. > :46:28.to part two of the bill, regarding electric vehicle charging. It is not

:46:29. > :46:32.unrelated to be autonomous vehicles, as autonomous vehicles will be a

:46:33. > :46:37.electric, and the more automated features cars have, the more power

:46:38. > :46:41.they are going to have to derive from the electric power supply. It

:46:42. > :46:46.is important that we look at these things in tandem. I think the

:46:47. > :46:51.government is right to take a broad brush approach to this. Different

:46:52. > :46:58.manufacturers are innovating different types of technology, from

:46:59. > :47:01.wholly elected cars to hydrogen vehicles, and I think particularly

:47:02. > :47:04.that hybrid market will be particularly important. Over the

:47:05. > :47:12.last few weeks I have had the opportunity to travel in the new BMW

:47:13. > :47:16.electric car and the new Volkswagen Passat hybrid that can be run fully

:47:17. > :47:24.on electric power but have petrol engines within them to extend the

:47:25. > :47:28.range or to provide a recharging alternatives to electric drive when

:47:29. > :47:33.that charge runs out. I wouldn't like the government have to make a

:47:34. > :47:40.call at this point, if I can show my age, and reference the VHS or

:47:41. > :47:45.Betamax call as to which technology will become most prevalent. I do not

:47:46. > :47:49.think we have yet reached the tipping point of consumer behaviour,

:47:50. > :47:58.to indicate which technology is going to become prevalent. We have

:47:59. > :48:02.still, I think, range anxiety, people are fearful of switching to a

:48:03. > :48:07.wholly electric car because they might get caught out midway through

:48:08. > :48:12.their journey and while it is appropriate for urban driving, they

:48:13. > :48:15.don't want to take it on a longer journey in case there is not a

:48:16. > :48:21.charging point available. I think the tipping point will come when we

:48:22. > :48:27.get the range with battery technology, the range of electric

:48:28. > :48:31.cars up to a level comparable with petrol or diesel cars and awe that

:48:32. > :48:37.charging an electrical car becomes as easy and convenient as going to a

:48:38. > :48:42.filling station to fill up with petrol or diesel. I don't have any

:48:43. > :48:48.concerns about the provisions in this part of the bill. The one

:48:49. > :48:53.concern I do have and it has been referenced by other members, is

:48:54. > :48:58.actually, with the scope of the Department for Transport, and that

:48:59. > :49:03.is the demand that electric charging will place on the grid, particularly

:49:04. > :49:07.if we do not find a way of smoothing out the demand. If everyone comes

:49:08. > :49:11.home at six o'clock and plugs in their car, causing a huge spike in

:49:12. > :49:18.demand, do we have the capacity in the grid and generating capacity to

:49:19. > :49:24.meet that? That is not just for this country, it applies right around the

:49:25. > :49:29.developed world and I think we would wish to see a cross departmental

:49:30. > :49:33.approach. This government is finally taking some initiatives on

:49:34. > :49:38.developing nuclear power, which I think we'll provide that resilience

:49:39. > :49:42.in the grid, all so I would urge them to look at nuclear fusion as a

:49:43. > :49:48.plentiful supply of electricity in the years ahead. That is another

:49:49. > :49:54.department matter, but it is important, if the government

:49:55. > :49:58.operates in a joined up way on these matters. Let me conclude by

:49:59. > :50:04.congratulating the government again on its four sides in bringing in

:50:05. > :50:10.this bill. It is important that the United Kingdom is a world leader in

:50:11. > :50:16.the technology and the regulatory framework for these new products. As

:50:17. > :50:21.I mentioned earlier, the market is huge and we want Britain to have a

:50:22. > :50:28.good share of that market and this bill will certainly help us along

:50:29. > :50:34.that way. Stewart McDonald. Thank you very much, it is a pleasure to

:50:35. > :50:39.follow my honourable friend and member of the transport Select

:50:40. > :50:51.Committee. He was also educated at a school in my constituency.

:50:52. > :50:59.I want to begin by recommending a book by a man called Alec Ross who

:51:00. > :51:04.was the innovations and technology adviser to President Obama during

:51:05. > :51:08.his election campaign. The honourable gentleman has obviously

:51:09. > :51:11.read the book. He was also information and technology adviser

:51:12. > :51:16.to Hillary Clinton when he was at the state apartment. The book is

:51:17. > :51:23.written is called "Industries of the future." Lord chunk of it is

:51:24. > :51:28.dedicated to the issue of driverless cars. But it also gives some context

:51:29. > :51:34.to what it is that we are discussing here today. -- a large chunk of it.

:51:35. > :51:38.It looks at the rise of the use of robotics not just in the vehicle

:51:39. > :51:43.industry but how that helps provide services, for example there is a

:51:44. > :51:48.remarkable part of that book that talks about how robotics are used to

:51:49. > :51:54.devour some social care services in Japan. -- used to deliver.

:51:55. > :51:58.Remarkable. Also, the use of robotics in the classroom and how

:51:59. > :52:03.that helps young children who cannot get to the classroom take full part

:52:04. > :52:08.in the education system. It looks at the rise of the use of genetic code,

:52:09. > :52:11.the codification of money markets, the weaponisation of code which I'm

:52:12. > :52:16.sure is very much of the Minister's mind as he is a former cyber

:52:17. > :52:22.Security Minister himself. It also looks at the big use of data -- the

:52:23. > :52:27.of the data. That was something that my honourable friend from Inverness

:52:28. > :52:32.touched on briefly. Just as land was the material of the agricultural aid

:52:33. > :52:37.in line with the material of the industrial age, so surely must they

:52:38. > :52:44.could be the material of the new information age that we find

:52:45. > :52:49.ourselves in. It has been mentioned previously, in this country that we

:52:50. > :52:56.are driving the innovation as far as driverless cars go, but let's be

:52:57. > :53:00.entirely honest with ourselves, we are slightly behind. I accept that

:53:01. > :53:06.the Bill goes some way in bringing us up to speed and indeed getting

:53:07. > :53:11.into a position where we can lead. But, self driving taxis have already

:53:12. > :53:14.been in use in Singapore, Pennsylvania and in Pittsburgh as

:53:15. > :53:20.well. It has been said that the technology has become sure over

:53:21. > :53:28.time, that we get the position where I driverless car will be a thing of

:53:29. > :53:32.the mass market. -- Web driverless cars. I hope we do get there because

:53:33. > :53:36.I think the last thing that anybody in this chamber wants is that they

:53:37. > :53:40.become plaything for the rich. I think this has to be something that

:53:41. > :53:44.can drive changes in members of our society. I give way. The honourable

:53:45. > :53:55.member is making a racist fine speech I was warned. Isa is making a

:53:56. > :54:02.very fine speech. -- the honourable member is making a very fine speech.

:54:03. > :54:07.Driverless technology could allow the use of cars to rise to 90% which

:54:08. > :54:12.would mean fewer need the road space, a huge transformation for our

:54:13. > :54:18.economy. He is absolutely right and I will touch on some of the things

:54:19. > :54:23.that he mentions. I am keen to hear more from the Minister about the

:54:24. > :54:28.testing, not just where it will take place because it hasn't happened in

:54:29. > :54:31.Scotland yet and can I hunt my own fair city of Glasgow which given

:54:32. > :54:37.that it is designed on the grid system actually makes it ideal for

:54:38. > :54:41.the testing of driverless cars, but also the conditions in which the

:54:42. > :54:46.cars are tested. Very few driverless cars have actually been tested in

:54:47. > :54:50.snow. In that respect, you can come to pretty much anywhere in Scotland

:54:51. > :54:56.at any time of year and you will find some snow somewhere.

:54:57. > :54:58.LAUGHTER But, these are important issues and although there were

:54:59. > :55:02.companies who are developing driverless cars that are recommend

:55:03. > :55:06.the difference between a pedestrian and a cyclist or a lamp post all

:55:07. > :55:11.another vehicle in front of it, it is quite clear that there is still

:55:12. > :55:14.some way to go. In that endeavour the government indeed has

:55:15. > :55:21.my support. I would love to give way. You just touched on such an

:55:22. > :55:25.important area that I know you will be a keen to speak about which is of

:55:26. > :55:29.course the ethics of the decision-making process, if the

:55:30. > :55:34.driverless car in his fair city of Glasgow has the awful decision of

:55:35. > :55:39.the lady the pram or two nuns, which should it hit? This Powerball

:55:40. > :55:47.ethical choice is very difficult to decide and I'm sure he will guide

:55:48. > :55:52.us. -- this parable choice. I am not going to suggest that it hits

:55:53. > :55:57.either, but he hits on an important point because in that book by

:55:58. > :56:04.Mendelssohn, he travelled to 41 different countries. -- in that book

:56:05. > :56:06.that I mentioned. He found that the suspicion of robotic technology is

:56:07. > :56:13.greater in developed western economies than is in the East, in

:56:14. > :56:18.reality driverless cars will be the first major robotic that people

:56:19. > :56:22.learn to trust, I suspect. If we are going to trust them then they do

:56:23. > :56:27.have to be tested so that they do not hit the lady with the pram or

:56:28. > :56:36.indeed the two nuns. Give way to the Minister. An extremely thoughtful

:56:37. > :56:42.speech, the socialisation of the on it, depends on understanding the

:56:43. > :56:46.interface. Asthma with the socialisation of the inanimate. --

:56:47. > :56:56.the socialisation of the understanding the impact this has

:56:57. > :57:00.and the benefit it might bring allows the acceptance of the

:57:01. > :57:06.inanimate and socialises it accordingly. The Minister is

:57:07. > :57:09.absolutely right. To come back to the honourable gentleman's first

:57:10. > :57:13.intervention where he asked about the change will bring to our

:57:14. > :57:18.economy, there are some unintended consequences to this big

:57:19. > :57:24.technological change that we stand for, for example if you have a

:57:25. > :57:29.driverless car and it becomes a thing of the mass market, what of

:57:30. > :57:34.the future of car parks, local authority car parks were favourably

:57:35. > :57:37.on pounds to the economy according to the British parking Association,

:57:38. > :57:41.that does not take into account private sector car parks but if you

:57:42. > :57:46.can get your car to take you to the airport and you can programme it to

:57:47. > :57:51.pick you up after your two weeks in the saloon or wherever you've chosen

:57:52. > :57:55.to spend your time, why on earth would you pay the fees, exorbitant

:57:56. > :58:00.in some cases, for your card set their full fortnight, although I'm

:58:01. > :58:05.sure you would not be away for that long, Mr Deputy Speaker. It does

:58:06. > :58:11.also raise questions about what that would mean for the workforce who

:58:12. > :58:20.drive taxis and buses, who are HCV drivers, these people who has to be

:58:21. > :58:24.said in large cases do not have the education and qualifications to go

:58:25. > :58:31.into other skilled parts of the economy. If you want to make a

:58:32. > :58:35.point... Forgive me, Mr Speaker, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is such a fine

:58:36. > :58:41.speech I feel I am only adding the smallest of cherries on the top of

:58:42. > :58:46.his extremely fine cake. Of course, at any moment of transition, there

:58:47. > :58:50.is always the danger that some people will be left out of that

:58:51. > :58:57.moment. I am sure the peace shares my confidence that such such a

:58:58. > :59:00.moment happen and I look forward to it happening, the opportunity for

:59:01. > :59:04.those people who were wanted one form of employment to be implied in

:59:05. > :59:08.other areas for example the caring sector, and for a car that could

:59:09. > :59:13.have sat as Lena car park for 14 days to instead be ferrying people

:59:14. > :59:20.to and from medical appointments to liberate the old and the firm is an

:59:21. > :59:23.amazing opportunity. I welcome all these cherries he's been throwing at

:59:24. > :59:30.me from the other side of the House, but he is absolutely right thinking

:59:31. > :59:36.of the workforce and thinking of the change that we will be presented

:59:37. > :59:42.with what I hope to see and perhaps this is less for the ministers

:59:43. > :59:46.Department and more for the business department at the education

:59:47. > :59:51.Department, is how does our education system do with that? How

:59:52. > :59:55.do we need to restructure vocational education because as some people

:59:56. > :59:59.will win some people will inevitably lose. That is something that I hope

:00:00. > :00:08.ministers, including the Minister at the dispatch box, that Bury will

:00:09. > :00:13.engage heavily in these discussions. Otherwise, what we risk will be the

:00:14. > :00:19.protests that we saw in 1999 in Seattle at the time of the free

:00:20. > :00:23.trade agreement protests, because if this big technological change which

:00:24. > :00:29.I cannot wait to see it happen on the scale that it inevitably will

:00:30. > :00:34.happen, if it is to mean anything, then it must mean that it does not

:00:35. > :00:37.leave out those who hang around the bottom end of society constantly

:00:38. > :00:40.looking to this government and indeed to all members of Parliament

:00:41. > :00:49.to make sure that the future belongs to them as well. Thank you very much

:00:50. > :00:51.it is a great pleasure to speak and listen vehicle technology in

:00:52. > :00:54.aviation Bill and it is a great pleasure to follow the honourable

:00:55. > :01:03.member for Glasgow South, who as the Minister said that

:01:04. > :01:09.before I deal directly with the clauses eight to 15 on the electric

:01:10. > :01:18.vehicle charging point in particular I want a store to raise the

:01:19. > :01:21.issues... I have a much echoed the words of the right honourable member

:01:22. > :01:26.the East Yorkshire who said what a wonderful team of ministers we have.

:01:27. > :01:33.This particular minister came before the select committee when asked

:01:34. > :01:36.because of air quality in particular. One of the point I

:01:37. > :01:39.wanted to make was that while this spill in itself does not solve all

:01:40. > :01:46.the problems of our quality, there are many parts of the code. I think

:01:47. > :01:52.the way we are able to target electric vehicles and also target

:01:53. > :01:56.them very much into our inner cities and hotspots where there are high

:01:57. > :02:03.knocks at the moment. I will give way. On that point about our quality

:02:04. > :02:10.I understand the needs in cities for our quality to be improved but does

:02:11. > :02:13.he not agree that with electronic vehicles that we will move the

:02:14. > :02:21.problems of pollution to energy production to the rural parts of our

:02:22. > :02:26.country. He raises a good point, because it is one which I have given

:02:27. > :02:30.much thought to. I think that you have to accept in the real world but

:02:31. > :02:33.if you are going to actually, where you have got a very high level of

:02:34. > :02:38.pollution that are really causing a great deal of detrimental to all

:02:39. > :02:43.affects the health is very much in the inner city where you have these

:02:44. > :02:48.early levels. You are going to have to produce the electricity somewhere

:02:49. > :02:52.and probably, unless you do it it in a entirely green technology, you

:02:53. > :02:57.will have some pollution. You have to accept that you can have little

:02:58. > :03:01.pollution across the country if you can actually reduce any inner-city

:03:02. > :03:07.use those knocks, because you cannot allow those individuals to actually

:03:08. > :03:12.suffer from the amount, the higher levels of nitrogen oxide that there

:03:13. > :03:16.now. Therefore, I have accept that there has to be some pollution

:03:17. > :03:21.somewhere otherwise you cannot reduce the levels of pollution in

:03:22. > :03:26.the inner-city. That is why I think the charging points for vehicles,

:03:27. > :03:33.but the electric vehicles in particular and for, not including

:03:34. > :03:36.this Bill, for any bills in the Chancellor's speech later this week,

:03:37. > :03:41.it will having any sort of scrappage scheme to convert to electric

:03:42. > :03:44.vehicles, then somehow or other we need to try and target that's

:03:45. > :03:51.towards our inner cities in particular. This is where there is a

:03:52. > :03:55.great need to have a reduction. We can use hybrid vehicles, and we can

:03:56. > :03:59.use many others to bring us to the cities, but when we are in the

:04:00. > :04:04.inner-city we will need to not own need to have electric cars, but

:04:05. > :04:08.electric taxis and we also need to convert many of our lorries to

:04:09. > :04:14.perhaps either LPG or something that will reduce the knocks that we are

:04:15. > :04:16.receiving at the moment. Unless we do serving really serious about

:04:17. > :04:25.pollution in the inner-city government is going to be in the

:04:26. > :04:30.dark, -- in the dark. You can reduce the little bit of nitrous oxide that

:04:31. > :04:34.comes from farming but you cannot cure the problem in the city, that

:04:35. > :04:40.has to be done by transport and by also, perhaps by local government as

:04:41. > :04:43.well. I better, I suspect move onto the clauses and the Bill, otherwise

:04:44. > :04:50.you will be getting slightly agitated with me going beyond what

:04:51. > :04:54.is in the Bill. I wanted to talk mainly about clauses eight to 15 of

:04:55. > :05:01.the Bill on the electrical vehicle charging points. I will outline the

:05:02. > :05:06.benefits of them to it incentivised their use. The need for electric

:05:07. > :05:11.vehicles, they are on the verge of a massive expansion is in the UK. The

:05:12. > :05:17.potential benefits are enormous as many speakers absurd, but we are on

:05:18. > :05:24.about under 2% and Norway are some 25% of the we do have a little way

:05:25. > :05:28.to go. -- as many speakers have said. Under your safe hands I'm sure

:05:29. > :05:36.it will happen overnight. Better air quality, toxic gases linked to over

:05:37. > :05:45.40,000 deaths in the UK, and is a bomb combustion engines. Road

:05:46. > :05:49.transport is responsible for... I moved away from combustion engines

:05:50. > :05:56.and towards electric vehicles would cut those levels and cut the number

:05:57. > :06:02.of early deaths. Cheaper costs for motorists will be needed, British

:06:03. > :06:05.motorists face in the highest fuel prices in Europe and electric

:06:06. > :06:12.vehicles that achieve three miles per kilowatt can cost around 4p per

:06:13. > :06:18.mile and in the end that is something that really will encourage

:06:19. > :06:22.people into electric cars. The AA has estimated that it is around five

:06:23. > :06:26.times cheaper than the average petrol car. The Chancellor may miss

:06:27. > :06:30.a bit of the pack that goes on the fuel, but I think this is a step in

:06:31. > :06:33.the right direction as far as air quality is concerned. -- Meme is a

:06:34. > :06:47.bit of the packs. Moving vehicles and carbon...

:06:48. > :06:52.Especially as renewable energy is rapidly rising in the UK will help

:06:53. > :06:57.the UK slash its carbon emissions further. How can we boost electric

:06:58. > :07:02.vehicles? The market has grown rapidly in recent years, all true

:07:03. > :07:07.vision vehicles only count the 1.2% of new registrations in Britain,

:07:08. > :07:12.though. The government's only search shows that one in five Britons has

:07:13. > :07:16.considered buying electric vehicles, however the biggest barrier to

:07:17. > :07:20.undertake is free charging particularly the availability of the

:07:21. > :07:24.charging points and the lack of knowledge of where to find them. I'm

:07:25. > :07:32.glad that the Bill seeks to address these.

:07:33. > :07:38.If you I am very grateful. I agree about the availability of charging

:07:39. > :07:43.points, I wonder if he would join with me in urging the minister to

:07:44. > :07:45.start this project at home on the Parliamentary estate, will be only

:07:46. > :07:51.have to charging points for electric cars, which means those of us who do

:07:52. > :07:58.have them have to compete for a space. He makes a very good point,

:07:59. > :08:02.we should lead by example and if there are more of us who have

:08:03. > :08:07.electric cars, then we will need more electric points to charge them

:08:08. > :08:13.and I look forward to the Minister answering a point. He is just about

:08:14. > :08:21.to do so. That is an excellent point and we will get on to it

:08:22. > :08:35.straightaway. I am asking you to bring me an urgent report. You raise

:08:36. > :08:41.an interesting point, I am sure, I have every faith in the Minister. I

:08:42. > :08:50.am certain he can achieve this. Probably through his PPS. I must not

:08:51. > :09:02.say that. I am being facetious. We need to make sure it is the other

:09:03. > :09:08.issue. It needs to be charged relatively quickly. The measures in

:09:09. > :09:14.the bill, clause nine gives operators the chance to assess

:09:15. > :09:19.public charging points. There is an issue, to make sure that particular

:09:20. > :09:23.charging points, your particular vehicle actually fits that

:09:24. > :09:29.particular type of charge. I hope they take this opportunity, there

:09:30. > :09:33.are currently a myriad of charging structures, membership and prices.

:09:34. > :09:38.Clear and uniformed charging structure so that the public can

:09:39. > :09:44.plan their bills and do not feel ripped off. Clause ten makes it a

:09:45. > :09:49.requirement for large fuel retailers to install electric charging points.

:09:50. > :09:53.This is a common-sense change and something we have been calling for a

:09:54. > :09:59.since last year. We will never boost electric car numbers to diesel or

:10:00. > :10:05.petrol levels until we have parity refuelling infrastructure. Is there

:10:06. > :10:11.enough incentive for large garages to have those points when they like

:10:12. > :10:15.to sell as petrol or diesel. Clause 11 is particularly important, it

:10:16. > :10:19.requires public information on availability of public charging

:10:20. > :10:25.points. We need a public awareness campaign, exactly where the electric

:10:26. > :10:28.charging points are, the public need to have confidence that if they buy

:10:29. > :10:34.an electric car, they will have charging points in those acidity.

:10:35. > :10:40.This is absolutely fundamental. Finally, clause 12, this sets a

:10:41. > :10:45.minimum standard, including the ability to transmit data to the

:10:46. > :10:50.user, energy efficiency requirements and the ability for data to be

:10:51. > :10:55.access remotely. It is a good start but I would like to see clause 12 go

:10:56. > :11:01.further, I would like to see minimum charging speed as a requirement for

:11:02. > :11:07.new charging points. We need more rapid DC charging points and then

:11:08. > :11:12.back can charge a car to 80% capacity in 30 minutes. I am sure

:11:13. > :11:18.that the Minister is more than capable of that. This will help

:11:19. > :11:22.electric vehicles properly compete with petrol and diesel vehicles and

:11:23. > :11:26.I hope the Minister will consider this change because until you can

:11:27. > :11:32.actually charger car up in a fast way, you will not be able to do the

:11:33. > :11:37.distances and that is partly what stops people from having electric

:11:38. > :11:43.vehicles. As it stands, lower emission vehicles make up 6.3% of

:11:44. > :11:47.the government car service, Minister. The government must get

:11:48. > :11:55.its own house in order. In conclusion, the government has the

:11:56. > :12:01.laudable aim of getting every new car in the UK, UL EV in the next 25

:12:02. > :12:06.years, the Business Secretary wants Britain to be the world leader in

:12:07. > :12:11.electric vehicles. This is a big step in the right direction. Let us

:12:12. > :12:15.be bolder with our electric charging infrastructure and give the public

:12:16. > :12:19.confidence to buy an electric car. The tangible benefits are within our

:12:20. > :12:26.grasp and I look forward to backing this bill in the lobby this evening.

:12:27. > :12:31.Alan Browne. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Just last week I was

:12:32. > :12:37.complimenting the government in bringing forward the amendment in

:12:38. > :12:43.the buses bill for talking buses and now I find myself in agreement and I

:12:44. > :12:48.look forward to the budget. I am looking forward to the budget and

:12:49. > :12:55.normal service will be resumed on Wednesday. In terms of this bill, we

:12:56. > :13:03.heard about autonomous vehicles, in their legislation for insurers,, as

:13:04. > :13:07.just a small step on the way to the future, outlined by my honourable

:13:08. > :13:10.friend, that is a welcome statement. We also need to start planning the

:13:11. > :13:16.necessary mobile infrastructure to allow these vehicles to be fully

:13:17. > :13:21.rolled out in the future and it is important that Scotland is not left

:13:22. > :13:24.behind. We have heard from other honourable friends, when it comes to

:13:25. > :13:28.trialling these vehicles we need to make sure that Scotland is involved

:13:29. > :13:33.in trials going forward and I think in particular, country and rural

:13:34. > :13:36.roads, Scotland is still quite unique in many areas where we have

:13:37. > :13:43.single track roads with passes in places. It is not unusual for people

:13:44. > :13:46.to become involved in American stand-off where two vehicles come

:13:47. > :13:52.head-to-head and it is who will be the one who has to reverse first? I

:13:53. > :14:03.would like to see how electrical vehicles tackle that dilemma. It is

:14:04. > :14:09.nothing that needs to be overcome. You don't want to know how they

:14:10. > :14:16.settle it in Glasgow! I would like to agree with my honourable friend

:14:17. > :14:23.from Inverness about the fact that we would like to see and Tom and hub

:14:24. > :14:27.in Scotland. That covers autonomous vehicles from my perspective and I

:14:28. > :14:35.want to focus on ultralow emission vehicles. Pat two of the bill is OK

:14:36. > :14:39.as far as it goes. There is no doubt that greater clarity and consistency

:14:40. > :14:42.is required regarding information on charging points. I think it is

:14:43. > :14:47.welcome that the government is going to clear that up. I think that we

:14:48. > :14:54.need to improve consumer confidence, because there is no doubt, but they

:14:55. > :15:05.are really concerned about how far they can actually move Charlie Weis.

:15:06. > :15:10.My key point to the Minister, does the bill go far enough with respect,

:15:11. > :15:14.to charging points and in terms of rolling out of the infrastructure.

:15:15. > :15:20.Is there another strategic thinking in government departments. The

:15:21. > :15:23.reason I pose this question, there is a fundamental reason that both

:15:24. > :15:29.the Scottish Government and the UK Government share a target that by

:15:30. > :15:34.2050, all the vehicles will be low emission vehicles and that the

:15:35. > :15:41.reason that that part of it is there is air quality greenhouse gas

:15:42. > :15:47.emissions. It contributes 23% and it is the joint largest contributor

:15:48. > :15:55.along with power generation, so decarbonisation of transport is

:15:56. > :16:00.vital. As the honourable member pointed out, there is 40,000 deaths

:16:01. > :16:11.a year from air quality and that underlines the need for action in

:16:12. > :16:15.this department. Recently the UN Department on ways, says if this

:16:16. > :16:20.plagues the UK and particularly children, and there is the political

:16:21. > :16:24.will by the UK Government to make timely, measurable interventions, I

:16:25. > :16:27.would point out that in November 2016, that was the second time in 18

:16:28. > :16:32.months that this government lost a court case about tackling air

:16:33. > :16:41.pollution. There is no doubt that more needs to be done about ultralow

:16:42. > :16:46.emission vehicles. In January last year, the Transport Minister

:16:47. > :16:53.suggested that it had reached a tipping point and the Department for

:16:54. > :16:58.Transport, try the fact that there was a 49% increase in registrations

:16:59. > :17:01.compared to the previous year. The reality is that the sale or

:17:02. > :17:09.registration of low emission vehicles was only 1.2%, so a 50%

:17:10. > :17:13.increase on .8% of sales is not really a tipping point and we have a

:17:14. > :17:21.long way to go. This government has to do more and cope with some other

:17:22. > :17:26.initiatives, such as the whole carbon transport fund. It offers

:17:27. > :17:34.interest-free loans up to ?35,000 for new hybrid or electric vehicles,

:17:35. > :17:37.and businesses can access funds of up to ?100,000. However, even that

:17:38. > :17:43.is not going to be enough. At the moment we have got the paradox of

:17:44. > :17:46.low oil prices keeping fuel costs down so a switch to electric

:17:47. > :17:52.vehicles becomes less attractive in the short term. Attached to the air

:17:53. > :17:56.quality issue, we need to get diesel vehicles off the road and the UK

:17:57. > :18:02.Government has to be bold in this regard. I would also suggest that

:18:03. > :18:06.those who bought diesel vehicles in good faith should not be penalised,

:18:07. > :18:09.I have been contacted by constituents who are concerned that

:18:10. > :18:12.they are going to be penalised for buying these vehicles in the past,

:18:13. > :18:17.so does the government have any plans to help such people in the

:18:18. > :18:20.future and do they have plans to actually disincentive I is the

:18:21. > :18:25.purchase of diesel cars going forward, rather than leaving it to

:18:26. > :18:29.local initiatives. I think it was touched on earlier, but the

:18:30. > :18:34.Independent Olly Bridge country of Norway has managed to achieve a

:18:35. > :18:41.market share of 18% of electric vehicles, somewhat less than if the

:18:42. > :18:49.government learning from Norway? The reality of people moving over to

:18:50. > :18:53.vehicles is at a snails pace. By not getting fixated on the roll-out of

:18:54. > :18:58.electric cars, the biggest polluter of air pollution is large diesel

:18:59. > :19:03.vehicles. We have started cereal progress with buses and the Scottish

:19:04. > :19:06.Government is leading the way in Aberdeen, and buses are switching to

:19:07. > :19:11.biofuels but the real elephant in the room is heavy goods vehicles,

:19:12. > :19:20.particularly refrigerated transport. There was an earlier intervention on

:19:21. > :19:23.this, but approximately 50% of tea are views that move goods and keep

:19:24. > :19:29.good is cold in transport are powered by a secondary diesel

:19:30. > :19:41.engine, these small engines emit more particles and nitrogen oxide

:19:42. > :19:46.than actual main engines themselves. That is the main diesel engine does.

:19:47. > :19:53.The main diesel engines are covered by European standards, yet there are

:19:54. > :20:00.three duration units are separate and not regulated at all. Also the

:20:01. > :20:02.fact that the secondary units can access red diesel means that the

:20:03. > :20:08.government is providing a subsidiary on diesel which allows units to

:20:09. > :20:16.pollute the atmosphere and cause the air-quality issues that the

:20:17. > :20:20.government has lost in court on. The government needs to think again

:20:21. > :20:24.about how to handle the regulation of these units and the government

:20:25. > :20:30.itself, to be fair, has invested the research and development to actually

:20:31. > :20:33.fund the development of zero emission refrigeration units.

:20:34. > :20:38.Therefore, it makes sense that the government should move on and

:20:39. > :20:43.provide more funding to allow haulage users and owners to upgrade

:20:44. > :20:48.their units. Thereby improving air quality and in the long run,

:20:49. > :20:52.providing health benefits and reducing the cost to the health

:20:53. > :20:53.service and there is a vicious circle there in terms of providing

:20:54. > :21:03.funding. So, twitching when research and

:21:04. > :21:05.development, I think the May when I go back to his strategic thinking

:21:06. > :21:12.the government needs to provide better joined up research and

:21:13. > :21:15.development, with regards to low admission transport and renewable

:21:16. > :21:23.energy. Bearing in mind this is a government who has enacted a

:21:24. > :21:28.renewable... One in six jobs in the renewable sector are under threat

:21:29. > :21:34.and government also withdrew funding for carbon capture and storage, so

:21:35. > :21:38.if we are really good to get to a case to meet our energy targets in

:21:39. > :21:41.the government needs to rethink policies on a whole. I do welcome

:21:42. > :21:48.this Bill but the government needs look at things across the ball

:21:49. > :21:52.rather than in isolation. I rise to support this Bill with a mixture of

:21:53. > :21:56.joy in apprehension. Joy because I perceive the great things it will

:21:57. > :22:00.bring to people's lives, if those who would otherwise not be to drive

:22:01. > :22:04.find themselves of the liberty of independent travel, but that will be

:22:05. > :22:08.a very good thing indeed. I think particularly of those who are

:22:09. > :22:11.perhaps disabled or blind. Also, when I look at the commute I had

:22:12. > :22:15.this morning when I happen to drive in a think about how much it would

:22:16. > :22:20.be improved if I hadn't actually had to drive the car, only a 40. I do

:22:21. > :22:26.view these development of automated vehicles with a degree of joy, but

:22:27. > :22:30.also a degree of apprehension because as I indicated earlier I

:22:31. > :22:35.would not wish to see conventional driving band. Some others do enjoy

:22:36. > :22:39.to drive a wider motorcycle as a matter of pleasure. We take some to

:22:40. > :22:45.joy in the skill of driving for ourselves so I would not want to see

:22:46. > :22:49.riding or driving band. Although it may seem preposterous and Lugar to

:22:50. > :22:52.this suggestion, the reason that I raise it is because and MPs

:22:53. > :22:55.yesterday this policy and these technologies took some pleasure in

:22:56. > :22:59.telling me that one day motorcycling would have to be banned because of

:23:00. > :23:05.course motorcycles cannot alter not to be made autonomous and therefore

:23:06. > :23:10.they would be dangerous alongside self driving cars. I do view these

:23:11. > :23:14.developments with something other degree of apprehension, if he wishes

:23:15. > :23:17.I will give way... I would be extremely grateful to my honourable

:23:18. > :23:23.friend who come in all the way from with Kim will know that not only are

:23:24. > :23:26.there the possibility of having driverless vehicles and therefore

:23:27. > :23:30.have an autonomous vehicles as well but other vehicles that could have

:23:31. > :23:34.been of and yet haven't been horses which an ever more popular than they

:23:35. > :23:37.are today despite the fact that technology has moved on. I do hope

:23:38. > :23:44.that he is not assuming that just because technology has moved on we

:23:45. > :23:48.have to abandon legacy technologies. I'm delighted to have his

:23:49. > :23:51.intervention, of course, he's absolutely right and we still enjoy

:23:52. > :23:56.our bicycles and all the rest of it. I do not doubt that should the dread

:23:57. > :24:00.day self drive was and, I do not doubt that these things would

:24:01. > :24:04.continue on the racetrack. The point I'm making is that an entity is yet

:24:05. > :24:07.these technologies, a member of the tile Reid policy group to the

:24:08. > :24:12.Conservative Party is forwarded to me with some joy that motorcycles

:24:13. > :24:14.would have to be banned because he considers the danger is compatible

:24:15. > :24:21.self tanning cars. I'll give way. I think my book Brendan Bellerin

:24:22. > :24:23.cheesier than way. With regard to that previous intervention from

:24:24. > :24:29.someone who has never ridden a horse, donkey or pony. Some of those

:24:30. > :24:35.few horses as autonomous vehicles already. Not only are they

:24:36. > :24:39.autonomous but they are even more dangerous that very reason. That is

:24:40. > :24:46.by the bye and perhaps a diversion from this Bill. As I said, I am a

:24:47. > :24:50.self-declared petrol head but I do not think we have anything to fear

:24:51. > :24:55.from electric vehicles and if anyone wants to check my YouTube channel

:24:56. > :25:00.they would find review of the agility and electric motorcycle, a

:25:01. > :25:04.vehicle with excellent levels. It put me onto this idea of charging,

:25:05. > :25:08.it is not a market failure that there is diversity in the marking

:25:09. > :25:13.blue marketplace, it is not a failure but the weight by which we

:25:14. > :25:17.make progress so I would encourage the government that stamp out

:25:18. > :25:21.competition and experimentation as we make progress with this new

:25:22. > :25:27.technology and in this new market. Just on the detail of the Bill, I

:25:28. > :25:34.hope the Minister will forgive me. I will give way. Just on that point of

:25:35. > :25:37.competition, does he agree that the government should also encourage

:25:38. > :25:41.competing technologies, one of the issues with electric vehicles is the

:25:42. > :25:45.method of power storage and the government is very much and has

:25:46. > :25:50.historically put a huge amount of effort and resources into a battery

:25:51. > :25:53.as a store of power and little comparative basalts into hydrogen is

:25:54. > :25:59.still of power. The fuel cell will be in my view the technology of the

:26:00. > :26:03.future and the battery might be possibly a temporary technology. The

:26:04. > :26:08.government should allow that kind of technology as well. He makes a very

:26:09. > :26:13.good point, the idea of the fuel cell is one who I think has time to

:26:14. > :26:18.come. The wise intervention. Turning to the substance of the Bill, can I

:26:19. > :26:23.say to the Minister as I am exercising my pedantry is an Oxford

:26:24. > :26:32.educated software engineer, looking out clause for accident resulted in

:26:33. > :26:35.another prize alterations and sub-clause 18 talks about

:26:36. > :26:43.alterations to the vehicle's system, it seems to me that there is one

:26:44. > :26:47.group of people who is more pedantic than software engineers it as

:26:48. > :26:50.lawyers and cause, it seems to me that sought an accident arise that

:26:51. > :26:53.this definition would be tested in court and I would just say to the

:26:54. > :26:59.Minister that underneath operating system there is firmware,

:27:00. > :27:04.nonvolatile memory within hardware then there is application software

:27:05. > :27:09.on top of that and it seems to me that the act of self driving a car

:27:10. > :27:12.autonomously driving a car is probably application software, if

:27:13. > :27:16.this were to be tested in court I fear that we might find there are

:27:17. > :27:20.problems if the door goes forward talking about the vehicle's

:27:21. > :27:25.operating system. I would encourage the government to consult

:27:26. > :27:29.specialists in the industry rather than any taking the advice of an out

:27:30. > :27:34.of date software and a junior but I think it is important that the right

:27:35. > :27:38.terminology appears here. So that the law meets its intended purpose

:27:39. > :27:41.of ensuring that people are insured and that liability. It showed when

:27:42. > :27:49.there is a failure to update software. I think perhaps what the

:27:50. > :27:55.honourable gentleman is trying to get to is the lack of any detail in

:27:56. > :28:00.the Bill of the regulation of that software. This Derry given what he

:28:01. > :28:06.has just said it should be enormously important. -- which

:28:07. > :28:15.given. I love the way he framed that to me, the point I was trying to get

:28:16. > :28:19.to was the one I made. Which was that the language of this clause

:28:20. > :28:24.must be tight enough to ensure that shouldn't be tested in court we do

:28:25. > :28:28.not find that the law fails as a result of describing software as the

:28:29. > :28:33.operating system, that is the wrong time I think. To his point, I dread

:28:34. > :28:37.the day that this House starts regulating how software is written.

:28:38. > :28:40.Having been a professional software engineer much as I respect my

:28:41. > :28:46.colleagues here the last thing I would want to see is legislation

:28:47. > :28:49.detail of how to write software, specifically safety critical

:28:50. > :28:54.software. When we are able in this House to have a detailed discussion

:28:55. > :28:59.of object Z I will be grateful that I did my MSc in computer science but

:29:00. > :29:05.I think that day is far off and I do not think the law should regulate on

:29:06. > :29:09.that. Just to be turned to the Bill, there are two other points that I

:29:10. > :29:13.would like to make, I am very glad that the legislation has come in for

:29:14. > :29:16.offences relating to the use of legions, I was an engineer Bob than

:29:17. > :29:21.a pilot by can certainly see the issue. I thing the government is

:29:22. > :29:25.wise, if anything at think the penalty might not be harsh enough

:29:26. > :29:29.given that we could be double that airline is. The final point to want

:29:30. > :29:35.to mix about loans, having looked at the legislation for remotely piloted

:29:36. > :29:40.vehicles, I think there was a danger of constraining things not just to

:29:41. > :29:46.tightly quite wrongly, if we were to require drones, such as these things

:29:47. > :29:52.which are hobbyists' toys were taking video footage, if we were to

:29:53. > :29:58.regulate them as aircraft we could rule out perfectly legitimate uses,

:29:59. > :30:02.for example the man who uses a drone to inspect rooftop so he can reduce

:30:03. > :30:08.household's bills because by looking at the pals on them refusing a drone

:30:09. > :30:11.he can avoid the expense of putting up scaffolding which is now legally

:30:12. > :30:16.required to use before he go up there. This is the person who by

:30:17. > :30:22.investing in a drone and flying its near a person's home saves the

:30:23. > :30:28.householder fortune, but where we to regulate it as an aircraft he would

:30:29. > :30:32.not be to do it. Just to reassure the honourable gentleman, we are

:30:33. > :30:36.consulting on those matters and indeed his contribution to that

:30:37. > :30:40.consultation is eagerly awaited and most welcome. I'm grateful for

:30:41. > :30:45.addition to my workload. With that in mind I would like to finish with

:30:46. > :30:49.one final point, diesel has been mentioned a couple of times and I

:30:50. > :30:53.drive it diesel vehicle and I'm conscious that there was good

:30:54. > :30:58.argument to say that so many of those are in diesel cars because

:30:59. > :31:02.government encourages to drive them in the interest of reducing CO2,

:31:03. > :31:06.let's not compound one bad incentive with over once let's just be a bit

:31:07. > :31:10.more humble about what we include people to do in large numbers leave

:31:11. > :31:15.room for experimentation and markets to work providing, always, the

:31:16. > :31:23.people carry the cost of the loan decisions. This is a modest and

:31:24. > :31:29.uncontentious Bill. To adjust legislation the new techno on cheap,

:31:30. > :31:37.but from the red flag on the House of Commons have not been great in

:31:38. > :31:40.anticipating the technologies of... Victoria members used to formulate

:31:41. > :31:48.on the railways on the love to revolution. In truth, it would be

:31:49. > :31:54.very hard in them to anticipate the astounding success of the combustion

:31:55. > :32:01.engine, and the huge social change that flowed from that. After all,

:32:02. > :32:07.cars are potentially a killing machine driven by millions of

:32:08. > :32:11.people, a variety of positions and are right if intelligences, and the

:32:12. > :32:14.fact that it does not create havoc is due to the existence of

:32:15. > :32:20.intelligence legislation that has evolved over time. Legislation, as

:32:21. > :32:25.I'm sure the Minister agreed was better in placed before we get the

:32:26. > :32:32.problems than after. I apologised that I sound like a petrol head, I

:32:33. > :32:38.must confess to being one, but I'm sure in the case of the new cars we

:32:39. > :32:43.have not quite sized up all the problems and indeed probably cannot.

:32:44. > :32:50.I do recognise that autonomous cars, electric cars now this is developed

:32:51. > :32:53.technology, and only improve, we already have quite satisfactory

:32:54. > :32:59.transport in the sky and on the rails which is actually autonomous.

:33:00. > :33:03.We know, we all agree the human errors are the principal sources of

:33:04. > :33:07.accidents. However, successfully trialling a few vehicles on Lo

:33:08. > :33:13.providing California offer that murder in dedicated areas in the UK,

:33:14. > :33:18.does not enable us to figure out the consequences in any easy way of mass

:33:19. > :33:26.adoption. -- or for that matter. Especially in a heavily congested

:33:27. > :33:31.network. Sure, we need to get insured those that exist and are

:33:32. > :33:35.charging Cassidy for electrics, but what will mass roll-out actually

:33:36. > :33:41.look like? What desirable and undesirable changes will result's

:33:42. > :33:45.and personally sceptical about the mass adoption of electric vehicles,

:33:46. > :33:49.which may be a strange thing to say for Liberal Democrat because we have

:33:50. > :33:53.always been massively infuse Yasser, School. There are big implications

:33:54. > :34:02.for a great, the greenhouse admissions. But the streetscape,

:34:03. > :34:06.planning authorities, for the world's resources in having all

:34:07. > :34:10.these batteries using where elements. For the second-hand

:34:11. > :34:17.market, which is not doing so well in electric vehicles and which I

:34:18. > :34:19.heavily depend on. A very fine speech, Luddites perspective. I

:34:20. > :34:27.appreciate he was instrumental in passing the red flag actually the

:34:28. > :34:31.House in the early 1900, but surely he can see the liberation of

:34:32. > :34:35.reducing the impact of the vehicle and liberating the sits in the

:34:36. > :34:40.others can bring? I did listen to the honourable member talking about

:34:41. > :34:44.the Deputy Speaker's voyage to the airport and saying he wouldn't need

:34:45. > :34:48.to leave his car in the car park. You look at the positive side but

:34:49. > :34:51.there was also a negative side his car has had to travel back to parts

:34:52. > :34:55.of Lancashire and again come back to get in again so he has filled up the

:34:56. > :35:00.road rather more. You can spin these things either way. I'm terribly

:35:01. > :35:03.grateful that is giving me the opportunity reply. He is issuing a

:35:04. > :35:08.level of ownership of today's vehicle that is not relevant. If you

:35:09. > :35:12.look at vehicle as a means of transportation and sees it more like

:35:13. > :35:16.a train to the Deputy Speaker, using a vehicle to get into the airport

:35:17. > :35:19.gets out gets on is playing, some else gets in the vehicle and goes

:35:20. > :35:26.all the way back to Lancashire, Lucky Lancashire to spread the use

:35:27. > :35:32.of two cars. I've also gone a plane. I have to say we all reinvented the

:35:33. > :35:36.train some time ago and there are trains available even Lancashire. My

:35:37. > :35:40.point is that the electric vehicle is probably a less flexible

:35:41. > :35:47.technology then the panel combustion energy and the hydrogen fuel cell.

:35:48. > :35:54.However, even if I'm wrong about that there some legislative problems

:35:55. > :35:59.that we anticipate a silent city of electric vehicles moving about that

:36:00. > :36:03.apace, the hazards that may present at a pedestrian safety, similarly

:36:04. > :36:06.with autonomous vehicles what prevents drivers of ordinary cars

:36:07. > :36:10.bullying the eponymous knowing that they must give way? Cutting out of

:36:11. > :36:15.junctions which I believe they are already tending to do. What

:36:16. > :36:19.responsibilities to the driver or owner have when he initiated journey

:36:20. > :36:22.and he may be tempted to plan a journey much longer, or more

:36:23. > :36:27.hazardous air night any previously might have done or more frequently

:36:28. > :36:32.than it would be had to drive himself? Denominator co-pilot, what

:36:33. > :36:37.a safety protocols that? Can the roads cope with possible additional

:36:38. > :36:40.vehicle use. Elderly people were to their cars having given up using

:36:41. > :36:47.cars, disabled people using cars, commonly.

:36:48. > :36:53.I feel like the honourable gentleman would have been arguing that with

:36:54. > :36:57.the light bulb be an inventor, candle makers will be put out of

:36:58. > :37:04.business. I hear the negatives and some of them are valid but can he

:37:05. > :37:09.enlighten us as to what it is that the Liberal Democrats have as a

:37:10. > :37:17.vision? He has acknowledged that there are problems and I am simply

:37:18. > :37:22.alluding to them. Thank you for giving way. Did he not actually make

:37:23. > :37:28.the point for autonomous vehicles, talking about people making journeys

:37:29. > :37:33.where it is long and they may be tired. That is a problem at the

:37:34. > :37:40.moment, drivers fall asleep and lose concentration and Tom and is

:37:41. > :37:47.vehicles must be an improvement. -- autonomous vehicles. Clearly,

:37:48. > :37:49.obviously, if there are autonomous vehicles, people will not get tired

:37:50. > :37:53.in them in the same way that they will make longer journeys than

:37:54. > :37:57.perhaps they would have done. Both points remain valid and people are

:37:58. > :38:03.going along the waterways in the same way, in convoy, going at the

:38:04. > :38:08.right speed all the time, if we not discover that everyone could get

:38:09. > :38:13.into the same vehicle? Have we not really, through a back door,

:38:14. > :38:17.invented the bus all over again? From the manufacturing side, there

:38:18. > :38:21.are imponderables, it is easy to insist on technology that does not

:38:22. > :38:25.let you drive if it is not safe, but once on the road, vehicle failure

:38:26. > :38:31.midstream is always a possibility even if software is up-to-date, say

:38:32. > :38:37.unexpected damages to sensors or equipment due to conditions, weather

:38:38. > :38:40.or accidental damage. And at what point in responding to this

:38:41. > :38:43.circumstance that occurs mid-journey, is it the

:38:44. > :38:48.responsibility of the driver? At what point when road signals fail,

:38:49. > :38:52.road markings are obscured or traffic is unexpectedly redirected

:38:53. > :38:57.in a haphazard fashion does the manufacturer, the Council or the

:38:58. > :39:01.passenger take the blame if an incident actually occurs? We can

:39:02. > :39:05.leave out all the hypothetical dilemmas about nuns or how a vehicle

:39:06. > :39:11.would distinguish between a black bin bag waving and a child frozen in

:39:12. > :39:13.terror where a collision is inevitable, there are different

:39:14. > :39:19.calculation that machines will make. I am sure that they have solutions,

:39:20. > :39:25.with the development of artificial intelligence, machines will better

:39:26. > :39:28.our moral inclinations. They will become smarter. What would happen if

:39:29. > :39:33.two autonomous vehicles bet on a single road were one could not pass

:39:34. > :39:37.the other and one had to give way with both systems predicting that

:39:38. > :39:44.they would, then you have a parallel to that other dilemma. It is a

:39:45. > :39:49.modest attempt to tackle these issues. The pious hope behind the

:39:50. > :39:53.bill is that the tricky issues will eventually become apparent out in

:39:54. > :39:59.court, but courts can only operate within the law that they have got my

:40:00. > :40:11.expectation is that the technology will move faster than the law and we

:40:12. > :40:15.will back here soon. Thank you. I am generally supportive of the aims of

:40:16. > :40:22.this bill, not least because as a mother of an 18-year-old son who has

:40:23. > :40:25.just passed his driving test, ensuring him is almost impossible. I

:40:26. > :40:35.think the cheapest quote we have had is ?1700. The prospect of autonomous

:40:36. > :40:40.vehicles will offer young people and people who have possibly given up

:40:41. > :40:43.driving, the elderly and disabled, as had previously been mentioned,

:40:44. > :40:50.great opportunities to get into vehicles. I am also excited about