06/03/2017 House of Commons

members will update the House as soon as. I hope that is helpful to

the House. Order, urgent question, Rebecca Long Bailey. I would like to

ask the Secretary of State for business energy and industrial

strategy if he will make a statement on the sale of Opel Vauxhall to the

PSA group. The Secretary of State for business energy and industrial

strategy. I am grateful. Mr Speaker, this morning the boards of General

Motors and the PSA group announced plans for PSA to acquire GM Vauxhall

Opel operations. The proposed deal is expected to be completed by the

end of the year. The Prime Minister and I have been engaged in

discussions with both parties and the French and German governments to

ensure that the terms of the agreement can give confidence to the

Vauxhall UK workforce now and for the future. Vauxhall is an iconic,

important and successful British car manufacturer. Vauxhall cars have

been made in Britain for 113 years and we are determined they should

continue to be for many years to come. The car plants have a proud

record is amongst the most efficient in Europe with workforces are

skilled, committed and flexible. Both PSA and GM have confirmed that

the Prime Minister Anthony a number important components. The company

will honour the agreements they have with the Vauxhall workforce. The

Vauxhall pensions be at least as good as they are today. The

treatment of the UK division will be equal to those of other countries

within the Vauxhall Opel group. The identity of Vauxhall will continue

to be distinct and prominent. The strategy of the new company will be

one of the building on additional strengths and commitments, and plant

closures, taking opportunities to increase sales around the world. The

company would work with me and the rest of the automotive sector to

ensure that it can participate in the substantial programme of

research and investment and innovation in areas that electric

vehicles and battery technology which we have as part of our

industrial strategy. This morning I had a further conversation with my

French correspondent the energy minister and we spoke to the German

counterpart to agree a consistent approach. I speak frequently with

Len McCluskey, the general secretary of the largest trade union at

Vauxhall and will keep colleagues with particular constituency

interests up today of times. Mr Speaker, it is in the interests of

others that Vauxhall should look forward to a successful future. A

generation ago, the British car industry was one that epitomised our

economic woes. Today, the industry is a big success. Companies invest

in Britain because our automotive sector as a high-quality workforce,

has world-class efficiency and is part of one of the most exciting

places on earth for innovation and research in new technology. The

future of the motor industry is bred in Britain and we will be active at

all times everything we can still. I thank the Minister for that positive

response but there are a number of issues I would like further

clarification on. Firstly, although I welcome the promise to honour

existing contracts I am concerned about the 40,000 workers currently

employed in Luton and Ellesmere Port and in the wider supply chain who

will be worried about the future of their jobs today sucked and the

Secretary of State confirm what assurances he has personally

received from future of the Vauxhall plants and the wider UK workforce

beyond existing contracts. In addition, during his discussions

with PSA, did the confirm the production of the new Astra model

would take place in the UK? Secondly, there has been some

commentary about the ?1 billion deficit in the General Motors UK

pension scheme with commentators stating it could have jeopardised

the deal. The scheme as 15,000 members and is one of the largest in

the UK. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the pensions

of the UK workforce are guaranteed in full? Thirdly, it is increasingly

clear that the government has little power to ensure certain corporate

takeovers are in the public interest and accord with the industrial

strategy of Britain. The present legislation is an invention on

matters relating to national security or media concentration, so

can the Secretary of State confirm whether he has plans to broaden the

definition of public interest, for example to serve stakeholders, not

just shareholders in mind when will he play -- published draft

legislation to that effect? Finally, can the Minister confirm what

support is being offered to PSA following the exit from the European

Union? We welcome the Nissan decision to remain in the UK as a

result of assurances provided by this government. Has PSA been

offered the same deal? If so, would it make sense for the government to

set out its strategy for this sector as a whole, rather than enlightening

businesses one crisis a time? I am grateful to the honourable lady for

her questions. These have been worrying times for the workforce

over the last two weeks and I think the statements that have been made

by both parties today have been welcomed, but just by me but by the

trade unions as being very much steps in the right direction. It is

important we should hold the company to account for this. In terms of the

points that she mentioned, the company has said it will honour the

agreements they have with the company and with the unions.

As she will know, new models come in at various points in the cycle. We

are fortunate that both of the principal models of the UK are quite

early in the cycle, and I want, as I'm sure she will want, for both

plants to be competitive in expanding their production in the

years to come. In terms of pensions, it was something I discussed in

detail and regularly both with GM and PSA. They had given an absolute

certainty that no pension are current or prospective will be worse

off in any way, and of course the pensions regulator, independent of

government, is required to confirm any changes in pension arrangements.

In terms of the takeover regime generally. She will now this is one

overseas owned company being taken over by another, so it is not a

listed UK company that would fall within the UK merger regime but

buying discussions with my underparts in France and Germany

have agreed that we should take a consistent approach in the

assurances that are needed, and which the trade unions are equally

in contact with their opposite numbers in other countries. In terms

of the support that is available for the automotive sector, as I

mentioned to colleagues if you moment ago, the automotive sector

has been a great success in this country, one of the foundations of

that success is the cooperation we have had, government the sector, but

within the sector through the automotive counsel to invest in

research and development particularly in electric vehicles

are buttressed to make sure we have institutions to train the future

workforce. That has been a great success and the future owners of

Vauxhall I hope will participate. Can I thank my honourable friend

before his statement and for his engagement with those of us who have

employees who work in the areas concerned, mine in relation to

Luton. I would be very grateful if he could indicate what reassurance

has been given the PSA to recognise that part of the strength of the

Luton plant arises from the quality of the supply chain and the

investment that has been made in it ever recent years? And that he can

give some reasserts that understanding that will help to

secure those jobs not just at Luton but also in the supply chain. It is

both the workforce directly employed by Vauxhall but also the substantial

implement in the supply chain, both are very important, so this has been

part of our discussions. I think there is every opportunity, and I

will be vigorous in reviewing it, that to expand the supply chain, not

only Vauxhall but other plants, and in the context of our industrial

strategy this is one of the active use -- avenues we intend to expand

on in the months to come. I congratulate the honourable member

for securing this urgent question. I welcome initial comments with

regards to pensions and short-term jobs, which is clearly welcome. Even

then we have to appreciate that workers are undergoing some

uncertainty at the moment. I also know from marketing hair places in

the past, it is not protect you from wider politics but also from some

media box pops. The repeat the other question, what guarantee is has the

Secretary of State got for a wider supply chain, in terms of

components, given that it is a much bigger multinational company? Any

discussions with regards the possibility of the UK being out of

the customs union and what effect that would have in cost and

components supply, and what discussions has he had with the

Chancellor about provision of our and the money, which is clearly

needed to do what he says to support these plants? On the first point, it

is evident that these discussions are about the restructuring of GM's

operations, and are not tied to Brexit. In terms of the supply

chain, think there are opportunities. It has been very

clear PSA have been talking about expanding their production, which

should create further opportunities for the supply chain that I intend

to pursue in this country, and in terms of research and development,

it has been an area of success, it is recognised by companies in the

sector, and in the industrial strategy challenge fund announced in

the Autumn Statement we made a specific commitment to expand our

research into battery research in particular, which will be very

attractive to suppliers in this sector. What has the Secretary of

State learned of PSA's plan to build ultralow emission vehicles in this

country, where they are electric, high-pitched -- hybrid or LPG, for

which there will be increasing demand in the future? He is

absolutely right and we have had many discussions about the

opportunities for expanding the provision and the manufacture of

ultralow emission vehicles. We have a very good reputation in this

country as a hotbed of research. PSA are exposing their -- expanding

their exposure to that that gives us the opportunity to go strength to

strength in our sector. The plants at Luton and Elsner put a

productive, efficient with a very highly skilled workforce. This is

not a basket case industry. However in the face of strong foreign

government support, we need an active and interventionist

government, determined to safeguard these competitive skills and

manufacturing assets for Britain. If the new enterprise scheme plans to

become profitable by moving car production on the PSA assembly

lines, what specific things were the government pledged to do to win the

new model Astra for Britain and to develop the automotive supply chain

in Britain? Don't think anyone in PSA, GM, in the French and German

governments would think we have been anything except completely active in

promoting the strengths of the UK. The presence of these factories in

this country is not a matter of altruism, they are efficient and

mimic a great contribution to the performance of the company. We will

build on that through the industrial strategy. I mentioned research and

develop and into electric vehicles are the training and of element of

the workforce is a very important asset. We had a good workforce

there, we need to keep them equipped for the future. He will see in the

industrial strategy as it develops a renewed commitment to research and

training in the auto sector. My right honourable friend has outlined

how the UK automotive industry has been a huge success in recent years,

and has mentioned the industrial strategy a number of times but I

just wonder if he can provide a little bit more detail as to how the

industrial strategy will help to ensure that the automotive industry

continues to develop and grow? I will indeed. I have mentioned two

areas in particular, research and development, bringing together our

institutions, our research and university institutions with the

companies in the sector. The training of people who will work in

the sector. I had the pleasure of being at the campus of Warwick

University, where the automotive innovation centre is being built

with a school for apprentices that will train 1000 apprentices a year

to work in this sector. These are very important developments. I

mentioned a supply chain through the industrial strategy we will make

Britain even more attractive for the small and medium-sized enterprises

in particular the service the major companies. Can I also thank the

Secretary of State to keeping colleagues informed. Clearly it is

good news we have a guarantee that production will continue until the

end of the current Astra building but there is concerned about what

will happen after that. The noise as we have had from PSA is all about

plants showing their efficient sheep and being based on that, and I am

very confident that we can put a very case forward. However there are

things beyond their control, which is where government will step in,

beer business rates, procurement, the supply chain. I would like

assurances from the Secretary of State that he will do everything in

his power to make sure we have as competitive and environment for Elf

Bearpark -- Elsner Ellesmere Port and Luton. He is absolutely right

that the fact that the plants will be judged as they tend to be in the

automotive sector for new models on the basis of their competitive

efficiency is a strength for us in this country because our automotive

plants are the strongest in the world. So I would rather that we

competed on efficiency rather than some other means. I will work

through the automotive council and through our international --

industrial strategy to make sure that all the elements of

competitiveness that have been so successful to date will continue

indeed increase. Like my right honourable friend and other members

of the house from Cheshire, I want to ensure that the renaissance will

be seen in the automotive sector continues the decades to come. Can

my right honourable friend tell the house what steps he will take to

improve technical skills and apprenticeships to make sure that

automotive chains in Cheshire and the Northwest get the support that

they need in the years ahead. I mention and pay tribute to the

workforce in both plants that folks will have. They are efficient and

highly committed and have been very flexible. As technology changes, we

need to keep their skills up-to-date. The automotive sector is

aware of that. It will train other people in the industry and it will

have my full hearted commitment. The Secretary of State will be aware

that the looted workforce is brilliant and produce a superb

vehicle. But Britain is still a net importer of products, particularly

of the higher value added components. Will the Secretary of

State be discussing with Peugeot and PSA the possibility of developing

more higher value production in the supply chain here, particularly in

view of the recent appreciation of sterling, which looks likely to be

Parliament. I am honourable there is a big opportunity across

the automotive sector to increase the supply chain. It is one of the

areas which I think we can make further progress in what is already

a successful sector. We will do that through the industrial strategy and

it will have my personal engagement. Might that opportunity to increase

the UK component of the UK component supply chain be increased if there

is a change in our relationship with the internal market? In any case,

whether we were leaving the European Union or staying in the European

Union, that opportunity is there and I am determined we should take it.

Many others who are reliant for they implement on the local supply chains

have said this is causing huge worry in the area. What can he said to

reassure my constituents about the future, particularly given that our

employment laws make it easier to sack workers of the UK, compared to

those who work in France and Germany, which puts them at an

immediate disadvantage, and what can he say to reassure them about the

fact that we are leaving the European Union and the single

market, and that again puts them potentially at a disadvantage in the

competition that is to come? What I would say is first of all of the

reason that we have a successful record in this country is that our

car plants and their workforces are highly efficient. And we shouldn't

forget that. The second is that the commitments that have been given,

and they have been shared with the trade unions, are to honour

agreements that include the trade unions, and that I think is

something that she will welcome. But in the long term, we want to expand

the industry, we want to take every opportunity of working together as

we have done with the automotive sector to increase the number of

good jobs that are available to her constituents and those right around

the country? I welcome the commitment by Pearce

to continue with their existing payments to Vauxhall workers. While

the machine work with PSA to ensure that the assurances are not just

kept that they will continue to build on the success of both plants

for the long term? I will indeed. As soon as we heard about these

proposals I and my colleagues were immediately engaged with management

and the unions in this country and with our counterparts. Our

engagement and activity will not abandon. It is welcome that we have

these assurances but we need to make sure they are implemented in

practice. Can I echo the thanks to the Secretary of State for his

efforts to keep us informed and involved, those of us with the

constituency interest. Does he accept that our car industry is at a

competitive disadvantage with those in other European countries because

of the way business is operating and when new plant is installed, that

increases business rate costs? Will he speak to his colleagues in the

government to see if we can find a way around this this and said that

to invest? I would remind the honourable gentleman that we are a

competitive place to do business, including in the car manufacturing

sector. Different countries will have different policies, it is my

determination to make sure we are competitive, we remain competitive

so we can expand production in future. Could my right honourable

friend opted the House on any discussions he has had around this

over with reference to steal supply chains? I talked about the supply

chain in general and there are opportunities around the supply

chain from individual components to materials. I wanted to make full use

of that. With the steel industry, we are discussing a special sector deal

to make sure that there are bigger opportunities for the products to be

made use of their customers in the UK. Is the Secretary of State aware

that the reassurances he has obtained from the usual are limited

in extent and duration and it would take much longer than that they

decided to close one of the British factories, and that is exactly what

happened in Coventry? He cannot rest on the assurances such as they are

at this stage but we must push continued to push with the

reassurance we have which is the replacement models for the plants

when they close. The honourable gentleman is right that we need to

stay engaged and to make sure that these commitments are delivered. I

will nature that we do that as our colleagues in the trade unions and

others well. People agree it is important that these commitments

have been given very clearly in writing today. Far better than the

opposite. In terms of the experience of Peugeot in Brighton, he will know

that I have raised that with the management of PSA in the past. They

describe their very different strategy from that time. It is a

different management. The strategy now is based on expanding action,

not closing plants. I welcome that. The Secretary of State is right to

draw attention to the transformation that has happened in the motor

industry since the days of PSA running and operating elsewhere in

the UK. We have an industry with experts in autonomous vehicles which

the Secretary of State sought from Jaguar Land Rover on his recent

visit to work University. Does he agree that this merger provides PSA

group with an opportunity to access the innovation and creative thinking

of our designers and the flexibility and quality of our workforce? I

completely agree. One of the big advantages of locating in this

country is that manufacturers can join a vibrant consortium of people

collaborating in that work at Warwick. It is recognised as a world

leading players to do automotive research. We want to build on that

and attract businesses to support it. I support the Secretary of

State's approach of being demanding of PSA, so he will understand we are

delivered demanding of him about what he is going to do the sums can

I ask them as my friend from Chester did, about the business rates regime

is it related to investment in plant and machinery? Has he asked the

Chancellor to change it, yes or no? The competitiveness of our

automotive sector is high. I will nature of that across the board we

retain a word competitive, not just European competitive, sector and an

aspect of that I will look at if it is brought to my attention. The

whole house would like to thank the Secretary of State for his efforts

on behalf of Vauxhall and it has been reported that the chief

Executive of PSA has said there will be no plant closures and jobs will

be protected and he points and he has never closed a time in his life.

He is actually looking for expansion. Might this merger mean

you'd use for Vauxhall future? I hope it is. We should do everything

we can image that it is. It is an opportunity for a company that is

committed to expansion to make sure that expansion includes the

expansion of UK plants. It is an area in which we are strong, it is

an area in which we have a high reputation. This should be an

opportunity for us to make what is good even better. I cannot help but

feel the minister is being complacent. 76% of the Ellesmere

Port production is exported, much of it is left-hand drive for Europe.

Would it make sense for future to continue left-hand drive production

outside the EU and not in Poland or Germany? I persuade companies to

invest in Britain. He is thinking of reasons why they should be put off.

I think the efficiency and innovation that we have in this

country is what causes people to invest here. I will do everything I

can to make this a positive and expanding industry in the future.

The Secretary of State is right to say the announcement underlines the

importance of reinforcing... Could he tell the House what more can be

done to move on from that to ensure that PSA and other manufacturers can

take a leaf out of the Nissan but and make those vehicles in the UK as

well? I have enjoyed working with the honourable gentleman to promote

the automotive sector. This is an opportunity for the company, PSA,

but has not had the same footprint in Britain in recent years to help

join in and benefit from the benefits that accrue to those who

participate authors through the automotive Council in our industrial

strategy. Prominent amongst which is the opportunity to participate in

our research programmes, in just an electric vehicles, but autonomous

vehicles as well. The Secretary of State must support the long-term

future of these efficient plants and their highly qualified workforces,

despite backing the models. Does he accept the long-term prospects of

the plants are weaker as a result of Brexit and French ownership and he

might have to offer an even better deal than the one he offered the

Nissan to secure their futures? Will he make that the public so other

industries also badly affected by Brexit can know what level of

financial support they can expect from the government? I am

disappointed he would start off by talking about negatives when there

are big opportunities for the sector here. In fact, PSA said today that

there are opportunities from Brexit. I have been clear that what is

available to any automotive manufacturer and member of the

supply chain in this country is to work with us through the sector to

invest in research and development, the development of skills, the

expansion of the supply chain. That is an invitation to manufacturers

across the world to come and invest in Britain. If they do they will

find a ready partner in This House and in this country. It was recently

reported that the government has offered the new owners of Vauxhall

assurances similar to those given to Nissan. Will the government

committed to full transparency regarding this with full disclosure

of promises made to PSA and copies of any correspondence placed in the

library of the House? It couldn't be more clear, by being part of the UK

automotive sector, all of the benefits of that, in terms of

research and development, trading, the expansion we see through the

industrial strategy will be available to all such companies.

Hundreds of the excellent workforce at Ellesmere Port and many in the

supply chain reside over the border in north-east Wales, will he liaise

with the Welsh Government on the objective of having a car for free

access to European markets in the European Union? I will work with our

colleagues in Wales through the Secretary of State here and through

the Welsh Assembly government. I end my ministers will begin shortly with

ministers in Wales to discuss the industrial strategy and I would

imagine they will want to have those conversations with us. I would like

to commend the Minister for his dialogue with the trade unions and

hope you will give us a commitment he will continue to do that. I was

interested to hear that the minister doesn't seem to be answering the

questions on Brexit head-on. Many of my constituents are concerned

because they work at Ellesmere Port. Given the thousands of high skilled

jobs and the importance of them and the risk of them going, what is the

government doing to ensure future EU market access for this and other

important exporting industries? What I would say is we have been clear

that our objectives as we start negotiations, which haven't

convinced yet, because we haven't triggered Article 50, are about

making sure we can have access to the single market without impediment

and without tariffs. In any case, we are determined that our industry,

whether it is in the automotive sector, advanced Manufacturing

generally, or the whole economy will be competitive. The head of PSA said

himself that Brexit offers some opportunities, but she can have my

assurance that I will do everything within my power to make sure that

the terms of trade that we have through negotiations are as as

possible. I would like to thank the Secretary of State for his kind

offer after last week to meet with me later today with colleagues from

along the M4 corridor to talk about what happened last week in Bridgend.

Today we have got another announcement. It looks like we will

have trip trip announcement is causing great anxiety to those in

the automotive industry. I asked the prime ministers if we could have a

summit involving MPs, when factories and the trade unions. Is it not now

time to call such a summit so that rather than one by one company is

being taken apart, we can actually discuss it as a good house? I am

looking forward to meeting the honourable lady later today but I

don't think that is the right way to think about what has been proposed

between the two companies today. It is a transfer of the assets of GM in

Europe to those of PSA. I think what is needed is activism and alacrity

on the part of every one of these investments. I will make that

commitment to her with respect to forward and when we meet later today

we can talk about what is required in terms of those discussions. The

Secretary of State knows that the efficiency of the plans is down to

the industry and the policy is down to him. Does is activism grew so far

as to have instructed his officials yet to have done an impact

assessment of leaving the customs union on the automotive sector? As

the honourable lady knows, what she asks applies to the debate in

general about our negotiating position and, of course, is a member

of the Cabinet I am part of the discussions about negotiation, but

she will note that in terms of the automotive sector and other sectors

of the economy, I will do what I can, only to ensure we get the best

deal in our negotiations, but to make sure we are a competitive force

in the world, whatever the result. Whilst I welcome the Secretary of

State's announcement, I would also urge him to be cautious. We had this

in Coventry in 2005 and the government intervened to do its

best. The workers there were promised new models, they never

materialised, they were brutally cut, the factories were totally cut.

I would say do not pour cold water on it, but be careful about what you

are dealing with. I accept the advice of the honourable gentleman

based on his experience. I said earlier today that I am

cautiously optimistic. The commitments going the right

direction. Actually the language I have used is the same as Len

McCluskey has used and I dare say he is a veteran of some these

negotiations. I think all of us need to welcome a positive future for

Vauxhall to everything we can to make sure that it is delivered. Is

the Minister aware that twice, twice, he has praised Len McCluskey

in this house? Five times he has mentioned the trade unions as if

they were part of the CBI. Is this the same man, this minister, that

walked through the lobbies to attack the trade unions's authority and

introduced that lousy act of Parliament? I am not sure that Len

McCluskey would want me to praise him, I think we have acknowledged I

have been working with him on this, as I hope you would expect. And I

hope that the honourable gentleman, in fact every member in this house,

would want all of us to put party political differences aside to do

what we can to secure jobs in this country in every single constituency

represented by colleagues here. Order, statement, the Secretary of

State for culture, media and sport. Secretary Karen Bradley. Mr Speaker,

before Christmas I promised to give the house and update about progress

on the process for the bed by 20th Century Fox to acquire the 61% of

Sky that it does not already own. I can confirm that formal notification

for the proposed merger of Sky and 21st-century fox was lodged with the

European Commission on Friday third march, and that I on Friday wrote to

the parties to inform them that I am minded to issue a European

intervention notice, on the basis that I believe there are public

interest considerations, as set out in enterprise act 20 -- 2002 that

may be relevant to this proposed merger that warrant further

investigation. To be clear, I have not taken a final decision on

intervention at this stage, but have indicated what I am presently minded

to do, in line with the guidance that applies to my cause I judicial

role, I will aim to come to a final decision on whether to intervene

with the merger within ten working days of Friday's notification.

Before I make my decision, I have invited further representations in

writing from the parties, and have given them until Wednesday 8th of

March to provide these. In December I made clear I would make this cause

I judicial decision -- this quasi judicial decision. To enable this, I

instructed my officials to commence work to analyse the relevance of the

public interest considerations to the merger, and to consider the

available evidence. Since the 9th of December announcement, I have

received representations from the parties to the merger, as well as

representations made to the department from a range of people

and organisations, this includes over 8700 responses made in

connection with the department's consultation on the Levinson enquiry

and its implementation, which referred to the merger. Given my

quasi judicial role I can only consider evidence relevant to my

decision. On the basis of this paratroop work, I have issued a

minded to letter to the parties on two of the public interest grounds

specified in section 58 of the enterprise act 2002. The first

public interest ground on which I am minded to intervene is media

clarity, that is specifically -- media Plume --

The second public interest ground is commitment to broadcasting

standards. This relates to the need for persons and for those with

control of such media enterprises to have a genuine commitment to

obtaining broadcasting standards objectives. As I have indicated to

the parties to the merger, I am concerned about the nature of a knob

of breaches of broadcasting standards by 21st Century Fox, as

well as the behaviour and corporate governance failings of News

Corporation in the past. In light of those matters, I am minded to

intervene on this ground and to ask Ofcom to investigate them further. I

also want to be clear on what this means in terms of the overall

process. My decision on whether to intervene or not is not the end of

the matter. Instead, it would recognise this public interest

considerations may be relevant to the merger, and will trigger action

by Ofcom to assess and report to me on them, and for the Competition and

Markets Authority to report on jurisdiction. There would then be a

further decision-making stage for me to undertake in light of these

reports, but we are not at that stage yet. As I said at the outset,

I will aim to take the final decision on whether to issue a

European intervention notice within the ten working days set out in the

guidance, and will return to this house to notify Parliament of this

decision. I am today, as I said I would, keeping this house

appropriately informed of development on this important matter

and it is right that I continue to do so. However, given this remains a

quasi judicial process in which I retain a decision-making role for

the next ten days and potentially beyond, it would be inappropriate

for me or any other number of this government to comment on the

substantive merits of the case. I hope this update is helpful to

honourable and right on all members that this statement gives an

opportunity to debate this important issue, but at the same time I hope

that honourable and right honourable members will respect the limits of

what I can say, given my ongoing decision-making role. I commend this

statement to the house. I thank the Secretary of State for advance

notice of the statement and for writing to be on Friday, setting out

her intentions, and I am also extremely grateful that she has come

to the house at the earliest possible opportunity following

notification of the bed. I also understand that she is in quasi

judicial mode and what that means. I hope, however, that she will listen

carefully to concerns about this merger, which are being expressed

both inside and outside this chamber. The company names may have

changed since the previous bid for Sky was withdrawn in 2011, but we

are still dealing with media plurality, misconduct and the

Murdochss. The Secretary of State has said she is minded to intervene

first on media polarity grounds. The bid would put -- media ten threw.

The bid would put even more media power in the hands of the Murdoch

family, making the Murdoch empire even bigger, we might call at Empire

2.0. Ofcom should look at the whole group of Murdoch owned and

controlled companies in assessing whether the Sky takeover would

threaten media plurality. The second is broadcasting standards. We need

to be satisfied that the merging company would comply with the

broadcasting code, just as we need to be confident that it would not be

used by Rupert Murdoch and his families to promote his political

views and interests. But the most troubling is not about the content

of James Murdoch's programming, but about his character. It is not clear

that these failings for strictly speaking under the heading

broadcasting standards. Even though they are central to whether this

merger should be approved. A commitment to broadcasting standards

test is not a fit and proper person test. We'll Ofcom's assessment of

21st entry box's and to broadcasting standards include in its scope the

following fact that six employees of News International have been

convicted of phone hacking and another of perverting the course of

justice, that over 30 police and public officials have been accused

of -- convicted of accepting corrupt payments from News International

that were approved at a high level? That one journalist has been accused

of making unlawful payments and another handling stolen property,

namely a mobile phone from my honourable friend the member for

Mitch and Morecambe, when private information was taken from it at the

request of some Sun executives. That former editors at the News of the

World were held in contempt of Parliament for lying to a select

committee. That the standards and privilege committee cast further

light on the paying of hush money to employees guilty of criminal

offences and to deter them from cooperating with the police and

prosecution authorities? That it seems likely therefore that a number

of News Corporation employees gave. That News International has admitted

phone hacking in several hundred claims so far, and has made payments

to victims and lawyers, amounting to $600 million? And that is without

mentioning the many outstanding civil claims against newspapers

owned by News International, or the fact that allegations have been made

in open court that James Murdoch was involved in the e-mail deletion

programme at News International, which has made it more difficult to

get to the truth? If those facts can't be included in Ofcom's

assessment, then the opposition is ready to work with her to make a

sure a solution can be found that deals with the gravity of wrongdoing

in Company is controlled by the Murdoch family. Can the Secretary of

State ask Ofcom to clarify that they will conduct a full fit and proper

person test before approval of this merger is completed? Ofcom has

already made an assessment of James Murdoch in 2012. It found in

relation to his time at newsgroup newspapers during the period phone

hacking was taking place that his conduct repeatedly fell short of

conduct to be expected of him as a Chief Executive Officer and

chairman. But it also said that evidence available today does not

provide a reasonable basis to conclude that James Murdoch

deliberately engaged in any wrongdoing, and why did Ofcom not

have enough evidence to draw conclusions? Because the liver is an

enquiry had not been in a position to gather evidence. -- the lettuce

and enquiry first with the Secretary of State is concerned about the

behaviour of corporate -- then any case of not going ahead with part

two of the livers and enquiry has just collapsed, because the

behaviour she is so concerned about, and which she once investigated is

precisely the behaviour part two of livers and is supposed to look into.

We are still -- of Levinson. I hope the Secretary of State's words

indicate that she will show some courage, stand-up to vested

interests, do the right thing, and allow the enquiry to proceed. She

must not ask Ofcom to do its job with one hand tied behind its back.

Mr Speaker, can I thank the honourable gentleman for his

response and can I assure him that Ofcom will not be doing any work

with one hand tied behind their backs, as the honourable gentleman

has suggested. If I can deal with the issue of the Levinson enquiry,

the consultation first. It is important to put on the record that

the consultation has closed, but is subject to judicial review, which

makes it very difficult for me to make any further comment at this

stage. That if I can just turn to the evidence that Ofcom will look

at, to be clear I am not ruling any evidence in or out. If I do decide

to intervene, then Ofcom will then into being -- reportedly on any

matters they consider relevant. On commitment and broadcasting

standards there is no exhaustive list of evidence. Ofcom can look at

whatever they think is right. As I have said, Ofcom has sufficient

powers and they can investigate anything they think is appropriate.

I thank the honourable gentleman to the commentary has made, I am sure

they will be part of what Ofcom considers. Ofcom does have a fit and

proper test for broadcasting licences. That is different a test

of the one that will be considered on this merger, but the same

evidence may be relevant to both. Finally, my letter sets out a number

of matters I consider relevant and warrant further investigation,

including facts that led to the Levinson enquiry, for example

corporate governance at News of the World. It will be open to Ofcom to

look at all relevant areas and I am not ruling out any areas if I decide

to intervene. Again can I thank the Secretary of State for her letter to

the select committee on Friday, setting up the case she has made in

the house today but also just ask about the fit and proper person

test. Can she confirmed that this is rightly a matter for Ofcom? Ofcom

can initiate a fit and proper person test any time and consider any

evidence they think is relevant in making that determination? My

honourable friend is right, the fit and proper person test Ofcom have is

different from the grounds on which I can intervene under the terms of

the enterprise act. But as I said in response to the honourable gentleman

for West Bromwich, the evidence may well be the same. I would like to

thank the Secretary of State for advanced sight of her statement and

I am encouraged to hear if she is minded to intervene in the proposed

merger of Sky and Que frocks. It would

the measure is likely to increase the influence of Rupert Murdoch and

his family in the media in the UK, and Fox already have a controlling

stake as we all know in the Inter, while another Murdoch company, new

score, runs newspapers and media Gunn radio stations through the

wireless group. The time when established newspapers are having to

rethink their business models to survive, giving yet more power to

the already dominant media giant seems counterintuitive, to say the

least. Yet it should also be acknowledged that TV is adapting to

changes and viewing habits and from accommodation around the world, many

might argue that the investment in Sky might allow the UK to thrive in

the international arena and to continue to compete with competitors

such as Netflix. It is important the Secretary of

State clarifies whether she will prioritise domestic or international

competition when she makes a final decision on this merger.

Furthermore, should rightly highlights a number of breaches of

broadcasting standards by Fox and the behaviour and corporate

governance of News Corporation in the past. The NUJ and victims of the

phone hacking scandal have expressed concerns of how this deal can take

place when part two of the loveless and enquiry has yet to be commenced.

Does she agree that we should remain acutely aware of the reasons why

past attempts to buy sky was so fiercely resisted Russian market

finally, it was proposed that Sky News could be spun off to preserve

its independence. Would she welcome such a move, after all she, like the

rest of us, is far from convinced that Fox is committed to the

required editorial standards such as accuracy and impartial news coverage

that we expect in this country? The honourable gentleman has asked a

number of detailed questions concerning the merits of the bid. I

am not able to comment on those at this stage. What I can comment on is

that I have an intention, based on the evidence I have seen so far, to

refer the matter to us,. The referral would be on the basis of

the rules set out in the enterprise Act 2002 and I look forward to

representations from all parties to determine whether or not to make a

final decision to intervene. I ensure the honourable gentleman, I

will return to the cells as and when I make that house and tell the House

first. May I begin by declaring my interest in this subject, but also

jog the mind of the honourable member for West Bromwich East and

the half million pounds he received from Mr Mosley which may have some

bearing on these matters. What I want to ask Mike right honourable

friend is whether she will be certain not to involve herself in

this socialist witchhunt against Mr Murdoch and News Corporation, which

has done so much both through newspapers, publishing and

efficiency after waffling and through the launch of Sky News to

increase the relative in the media in this country, a wonderfully

successful company that should not be prosecuted because the left

doesn't like it. Just before the Secretary of State response, can I

say to the honourable gentleman that I am sure he is not suggesting and I

hope you will take the opportunity to make clear that he is not

suggesting that pecuniary gain has influenced a member in his thinking

or statements in the chamber. Most certainly not. I was merely

declaring an interest and it occurred to me it was only there to

remind the honourable gentleman that he had referred to his interest in

the half million pounds he received which I am absolutely certain it was

an inadvertent oversight. I am grateful for what he said, but I

would just say, and they do so and advice, the honourable gentleman

uncharacteristically has over interpreted his responsibility. It

is his responsibility to declare his own interest, but he does not have

to declare and should not clear whether, out of a spirit of altruism

or otherwise, another member has interests. It is a member of that

member to declare as he or she thinks fit. We will leave it there.

I am better informed, thank you Mr Speaker. I am grateful for his good

grace. If I could perhaps reassure my honourable friend, I am in a

quasi-judicial capacity looking at the rules as set out in the

enterprise Act 2002 and I am very much minded, very much aware of

those rules and sticking to the letter of those rules. I want to

make sure this process is fair, scrupulously fair, and that all

parties have the opportunity to make representations before I make a

decision. Can I say to the Secretary of State, I welcome her coming to

the House of their work and her apparently robust intentions, but

like my honourable friend from the front bench, I am worried about this

issue of the fit and proper test. The key thing about this test is it

is a wider test than the test of broadcasting standards and many of

us believe the Murdoch family are in no way fit and proper to have full

control of sky, given their corporate record. Can the Secretary

of State clarify this, because I have not been able to establish it

on the basis of my correspondence with off,. Will the fit and proper

test take place before the bid can be completed and, secondly, if that

isn't clarity on that, why doesn't the Secretary of State of the work

she can do under the enterprise Act, which is to specify that and proper

as a third run for referral to off, to make sure that assessment takes

place? Mr Speaker, the enterprise Act is clear in relation to the

grounds on which this was a judicial decision can be taken. I have the

position from Maginn intervene on the grounds of media plurality,

range and quality and genuine commitment to broadcasting

standards. He will know that fit and proper is an ongoing test for off,

to apply to the holders of broadcasting licences. While many of

the issues often would consider in reaching the judgment are also

relevant to me in considering genuine commitment to broadcasting

standards, the tests are different and apply different points. I would

like to thank the Minister for coming to the House with this

statement. On the basis that this would put ownership of a large part

of the UK media into an organisation, I think my

constituents would want to know is what she is able to do the nature of

that such an organisation is run by people who are appropriate and

suitable to do so. I note my honourable friend's and will open in

mind. We already know that under James and Rupert Murdoch 's micro

leadership, the companies they controlled bribed and bullied their

way around British politics. The poison the well of British political

engagement, they used anti-competitive practices at every

possible time to try to destroy competitors and they made it

impossible for me diversity to flourish in this country. Why on

earth would anybody think they were fit and proper people to take over

now. The only excuse when they led the evidence Parliament was that the

company was far too big for them to possibly know what was going on in

some small outpost in the United Kingdom. That doesn't suggest they

would be any good at running this now, does it? The honourable

gentleman has been on the record on his views on these matters and I am

sure his points would have been heard. No one could accuse of the

Secretary of State of overstatement. Even if the notorious phone hacking

had never taken place, if we were totally unaware of such events, is

the Minister aware that such a concentration of media ownership

that is being proposed would be simply unacceptable and is it not

interesting that one reference has been made to a witchhunt on the

riverside, the drugs into doing many Tories willing to defend Murdoch? I

have come to the cells to be as open and transparent as it possibly can

in terms of my position in this decision. I have set out the terms

and look forward to representations in order that I can make a final on

this matter. Would the Secretary of State not agree that the fit and

proper person test referred to by my right honourable friend in with the

goal is, as she put it, an ongoing process which continues that must

mean that past behaviour is also taken into account without

compromising her quasi-judicial position, surely that must mean that

previous behaviour of the Mavericks in running the companies is also

taken into account? The honourable gentleman is right. The fit and

proper person test is an ongoing test of compact but I am here today

looking at the position of the enterprise Act on the grounds on

which I can intervene major image a have set up my current thinking to

the House. I representations. Does the Secretary of State agree with me

the principles of competition and media plurality are vital in a

modern democracy and will she confirm that when Britain believes

the European Union we will continue to apply these principles and

regulations in order to avoid the unfair concentration of media

ownership in the UK? The enterprise Act is a piece of UK legislation and

I am not aware that there is any intention to change it as a result

of leaving the European Union force of UK legislation will remain in

place and the enterprise Act will still be there. I welcome the

Secretary of State's mine did this to report on her oral statement, but

would she not agree that part of the process should be the bus into the

complete to look at issues of corporate governance she referred to

herself in this and which are whirling around this issue and

concerning to the public at large? I have to look at the evidence as

presented to me given the basis of information today using the rules

set out in the enterprise Act 2002 double repeat, amid the honourable

gentleman on the front bench that the consultation on Bill Esterson

enquiry is subject to judicial review and I can make no further

comment. I thank the Minister for her statement. This merger would

appear to operate against the public interest. The Minister has laid out

the steps of her Department and I have had correspondence from

constituents on this issue. Since that has been the dramatic changes

to the issue of whether this is to reject the bid five years ago, there

are no grounds whatsoever that indicate that the merger should be

acceptable? Mr Speaker, I am not in a position to make that judgment. I

have come to the House to let us know that I am minded to intervene

but I do with the representations before you make a final decision.

She is handling this matter in a careful and considered minor. On the

bus and two, is she saying that she is now legally constrained there as

well and she cannot simply decide to go ahead, which is what many people

think she ought to be doing? If I can repeat, the consultation, the

public consultation that was held and closed in January is now subject

to judicial review and cannot therefore comment further on the

matter. Mr Speaker, as I mentioned during the urgent question on the

20th of January, a substantial number of my constituents have

contacted me to voice their concerns over this proposed measure.

Particularly regarding media plurality. Would the Secretary of

State agree with them and with the previous premise that we should not

let anyone media group get too powerful? Based on the evidence I

have seen so far I am minded to refer this matter to come on the

basis of media plurality but I would further representations before

making a final decision. Over 8000 people work at the sky head office

and broadcast facilities in my constituency. When the original bid

was abandoned in 2011, David Cameron said it was the right decision for

the country. Will the Minister make sure that this deal receives the

fullest possible scrutiny? I have come to the House today to say aye

am minded to a friend matter to us, for the idea would further

recommendations, which will live together and I will return to the

cells when I have made a final decision on whether or not to

intervene. -- to the House. I understand that the Secretary of

State cannot talk about the substantive issues here, but I

wonder if she was able to give an estimate of the time frame for when

a final decision will be made and, also, whether it is then open if it

is a refusal to allow the merger to go ahead, is it open for the

Murdochs to keep coming back again and again and again on this issue?

Without wishing to detain the House, perhaps it would be helpful that I

wrote to the honourable lady city on the precise details of the lot as

set out in the Enterprise Act in In terms of media plurality, she may

be aware that 18 academics have written to the Guardian today to

express their concerns about what is possible merger may mean. We

certainly don't want to go down the road of fake news first I welcome

the comments she made about James Murdoch's pass baby so I look

forward to you coming back in ten days' time to say she will intervene

and refer it to Ofcom, and hopefully it will remain robust in terms of

any representation she may receive. Mr Speaker, I note the honourable

gentleman's Commons, I too look forward to coming back to this house

with a decision. A profusion of points of order. Thank you Mr

Speaker. A constituent contacted me last week to tell me that a friend

of his had been prevented from entering the house because he was

wearing a Free Palestine badge. After discussion with the security

staff, he removed the badge and was allowed access to Parliament, only

to come across a large exhibition, one of the posters which was about

Zionist diplomacy. Mr Speaker, we all respect the important job

security staff do in keeping us safe and we are grateful to them but I

wonder if you could give some guidance of the wearing of small

badgers, because my constituent is a bit confused by the situation he

came across. I thank him for his courtesy of giving me advance notice

of this, I think it is fair to say and I say it on pass on that the

present of a poster is irrelevant for the purpose of his point of

order, because that poster formed part of an historical exhibition,

and I'm sure an historical exhibition would be a great interest

possible to the honourable gentleman's constituent but almost

certainly to the honourable gentleman. As far as is point of

order is concerned, under what are now long-standing instructions,

members of the public wishing to visit the house are not supposed to

display clothing with slogans or badges which may cause controversy.

Of necessity, this has to be interpreted case-by-case by

individual staff, and they may get the balance wrong. For my own part I

have not been encouraged to say this but I am entitled to say this and I

intend to say this, it seems to me that we should err on the side of

caution, and, where possible, of non-intervention in these matters,

rather than erring on the side of being too prescriptive or officials.

I sense that that would probably be the wish of the house. I will of

course convey the concern of the honourable gentleman, which has been

expressed with his usual restraint and courtesy, to the Sergeant at

Arms. I hope in turn the honourable gentleman will forgive me if I

gently suggest to him as I have been encouraged to do that he could have

sought such a meeting himself rather than bringing the matter to the

chamber, but he has done, and he has done so with fairness and I hope I

have responded accordingly. Point of ordered Debbie Abrahams. Mr Speaker,

I seek your advice concerning the timely response of the Home Office

to MPs offices. I made representation to the Home Office on

the 18th of January on behalf of my constituent, Irene O'Reilly, who had

been informed by the Home Office at the end of October 20 16th she would

be notified if her spouse or Visa had been successful by the end of

the year. That the beginning of last week, despite numerous phone calls

from eye office to the Home Office, neither she nor I had heard from

them, and as a consequence of the delay she lost the job that had been

held open for her from the beginning of this year. Mr Speaker as you know

government departments are meant to respond in a timely manner to MPs.

Please can you advise me on how we can ensure that the Home Office are

held to account for this matter for this sort of issue to never happen

again? It is a point of order. I don't have any direct responsibility

in relation to such a matter, but I do understand the very serious

concern that the honourable lady feels. I have often made the point

that responses to Parliamentary questions should be both timely and

substantive. However I think it is fair to say that the same principle

applies to ministerial responses to colleagues who write letters to

ministers. Responses should be timely and preferably a substantive.

Where, for some reason, which members can probably fathom for

themselves, it is not possible for a minister at that point to give ace

of stunted response, my human sense, leaving aside my role as Speaker, is

that a void is always undesirable. There is nothing more infuriating

than hearing absolutely nothing, and finding that one's follow-up letters

or e-mails or telephone calls are simply ignored. It is both deeply

dissatisfying and also, frankly, somewhat discourteous, so I would

hope that this situation doesn't arise again and I would only very

gently say in the direction of ministers that I have come to know

the honourable lady over the last few years, and she is a very

persistent parliamentarian and campaigner, so if you think she will

go away, that is an extraordinarily misguided view. There was in the

slightest prospect of that happening. The honourable lady will

keep burrowing away on behalf of her constituents until she receives a

response, and rightly so. Point of order, Kat Smith. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. My constituent Michael Gibson was alarmed last week when he

looked in the boundary commission for England website and could not

find evidence of the petition he had supported, supporting one member of

Parliament for the Hisham, Morecambe and Lancaster area. It further

transpires that the data had in error been added to a petition in

opposition to such a seat, and I am very grateful that the boundary

commission have informally today they are correcting that error.

Would you be able to advise me about how I might be a bit make other

members of this house where that perhaps they would like to check

their local areas to see whether any data is being entered incorrectly in

other parts of the country? My advice to her would be if she feel

strongly that other members may have been similarly misrepresented, or

their constituents misrepresented or disadvantaged, colleagues may not

appreciate me suggesting this, she could e-mail her colleagues in order

to advise them of the risk. That would certainly be a public service

discharge of duty on her part, for which they may or may not be

grateful. So far as the honourable lady is concerned, may I sympathise

for stop clearly the error was an innocent error, but it was a

peculiarly unfortunate error, as it had the effect of very, very, very

fundamentally misleading quite significant numbers of the

honourable lady's constituents who were doubtless very irritated. And

she has now had to help put the record straight, but she has the

benefit, both of the boundary commission's intended correction,

and of my recognition to her in the form of this exchange that she is an

innocent party in these matters who has been inadvertently

disadvantaged, but nonetheless the supplanted. I hope the matter can be

clarified for the benefit of all of her constituents on this matter,

sooner rather than later. If there are no further points of order, we

come down to the main business, the clerk will now proceed to read the

orders of the day. I called the Secretary of State for

Transport, Secretary Chris Grayling. Mr Speaker I beg to move that the

bill now be read a second time. You will know that this is a government

which recognises the value of investment, and you will also be

aware that the Prime Minister has made clear her intention that this

country should be the best place in the world to develop, test and

deploy cutting edge transport technology. We have already

established ourselves as one of the world's best places to research and

develop the next generation of technology, we also need to interact

-- to act to make sure the UK benefits from the economic

opportunities those technologies provide. This bill helps ensure the

United Kingdom is ahead of our European and global competitors by

creating the right balance of an open regulatory framework that keeps

safety and consumer needs paramount. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are

enormous possibilities ahead with these technologies. In a few years,

we will all increasingly have the opportunity to use semiautomated and

automated vehicles. While amusing and novel for many of us it will

actually revolutionise the way many people live their lives, and in

particular I think it will make a huge difference to the disabled and

the elderly. But to make these technologies a reality we need to

act now, we need to create the regimes which will help developers

bring their products to market in a safe way that protects consumers.

The bill as I bring to the house today is forward-looking, urgent and

ambitious. Urgent because we need to maintain and lead the modern

transport revolution by attracting investment and becoming a hub for

researching and developing the next generation of transport

technologies. Ambitious because we are establishing the right

regulatory framework in advance to spearhead innovation in a safe

manner. Thank you for giving away so soon in your speech. Is he aware of

a company who are producing clean engines on the Federation units? I

am a bit disappointed there was nothing of this bill that relates to

that, and in particular of the subject of red diesel, which is what

those engines use and they are incredibly dirty, so I hope the

Secretary of State if not in this bill will consider that technology

as a technology of the future. And can I just remind him that I invited

him to come for a cycle ride around London with me and I'm still waiting

for his response. I am not aware of the technology the honourable

gentleman refers to but what I would say to him is that we are very

interested in seeing this country be a real success in developing new

technologies. The issues of clean engine technology don't just affect

this country but many around the world, and clearly any company that

has a breakthrough in that area has a real opportunity worldwide, and of

course the department for international trade is very focused

on try to help not just our biggest businesses but smaller business as

well explain to the opportunities that are out there. Advances in data

science, connectivity and automation are converging to bring about the

biggest changes to mobility since the internal combustion engine.

Automated vehicles will have a profound effect on how we get

around. Can the gentleman tell us what progress is being made in

batteries for electric cars, and secondly what infrastructure of the

batteries might need? I will come on and talk in a moment about electric

vehicle technology. We are certainly seeing a transformation in battery

technology, I expect the new generation of battery vehicles, we

are expecting a new model of the Nissan Leaf to be selling in this

country over the coming months to be a real step forward, they have been

previously. Of course the longer the range of a battery in the vehicle,

the more that vehicle becomes a very realistic alternative, not just for

those driving around cities but those driving around the country

more broadly. I believe that we need to ensure that the benefits of a

shift towards intelligent mobility felt far and wide. Journeys that are

easier and more fuel transport networks more accessible and

responsive to the needs of those who use them and you are high-value jobs

in the technology and automotive sector where we already have a

number of businesses that are pathfinders in the field of

developing autonomous vehicles. We are embracing these develop men. We

are acting to position the United Kingdom as a global leader in

automated vehicle technology, building on our heritage as a nation

of entrepreneurs. I am delighted to hear what my right honourable friend

is saying and fully supported with this bill. I am aware that in

Norway, around a quarter of all vehicles are either electric or

hybrid electric. In order to maintain our position of leadership

by what sort of dates does he think the United Kingdom might be on a

parallel with that proportion in Norway? I would not put a forecast

on it, suffice to say that I know my honourable friend has been a

diligent follower of this area and is keen to pursue this and has been

engaged in discussions with my department about this. I can say

that our ambition remains strong. We have lots of good incentives for

this country, we have measures in this bill to make an electronic

vehicle charging network much more transparent and visible. These are

things that will accelerate the production and sale of these

vehicles in the United Kingdom and with the Nissan Leaf in Sunderland

we have the world's first mass production car of that kind.

Projections of car sales will rise from something in the region of 74

million today to 100,000,020 30, not least I think helped by the launch

of the fourth-generation Range Rover, which my noble friend the

Minister of State for transport jointly with last week. The

honourable member for Coventry makes a very good point, in terms of the

structure being in the right place for battery technology to be

developed, and those plants to be developed. We need that

infrastructure in place near Jay Allah, so can he please tell me what

his plans are for that? Indeed we do need that infrastructure, and I am

all very excited by what JL are is doing in the field of electrical

vehicles were stopped by the forward to becoming a customer of the

company, we already are through the government car service, but I look

to being an early customer as they are manufactured and sold. The

company said very specifically it needed to see infrastructure

movements to help it with its ambitions. I was -- I want to give

an assurance to the house it will receive that support. We have

provided extra funding for electric vehicle charging point in the Autumn

Statement. This bill provides for much greater transparency of data,

making it much easier for those who own and drive electric vehicles to

identify where the best charging points for them. This is part of a

strategy that will, in my view, drive forward sales of these

vehicles this country substantially. But we should not be in Tiley

technologically biased. We will also be taking further steps to encourage

the development of hydrogen vehicles in the United Kingdom, and we

provide tax incentives for hybrid vehicles in the United Kingdom. We

must drive in this country for a higher quality of vehicle when it

comes to the propensity to pollute, and we must provide the right

support for that market to emerge but of course we must allow the

technologies themselves to win the battle is rather than the government

winning the battle for them. I think there is not only electric

vehicles and zero emissions, but we have an interim stage where we could

convert some of the lorries and diesel vans to LPG in order to get

those levels than in the hotspot quicker than if we tried to convert

everything straight to electricity. Indeed. My honourable friend has

been determined to push this argument, and rightly so, because

what he is arguing for is one of the technologies that could make a

difference on the emissions front. I support those who seek to transition

vehicles to LPG, but government should not seek to be focused on one

technology. What we need is to create the right environment for all

technologies to compete to deliver the cleanest possible because of the

future, something of this and all of our interests. What this Bill does

is, on the electric vehicles front, let me talk about that and I will

come back and talk about autonomous vehicles. What this does is that it

creates the right environment for those markets to develop. We have a

clear goal that by 2050, nearly all cars and vans should be emissions

free, but we want to accelerate the transition. One part of doing that

is to give financial help to motorists choosing cleaner vehicles

through grants, the tax system and we are supporting local authorities

who provide incentives through free or cheap parking to those who move

down the road toward acquiring a cleaner vehicle. We have also helped

to develop a network of more than 11,000 public charge points in the

UK. Significant funding is in place to allow more of those to be

developed. We are going to want to see the optic continue for electric

cars come with it be hydrogen fuel cell battery power to Britain to the

mass market. What this Bill does is it brings forward a number of new

powers that will help make that possible. It enables common

technical standards, better interoperability and ensures

consumers have reliable information on the location and availability of

charge points. We will be able to accelerate the ruler of electric

vehicle infrastructure at key locations such as motorway service

areas and large fuel retailers and make charge once ready for the needs

of the marketplace. Of course, we will then see further technological

development of hydrogen and more development on the LPG front. This

Bill will create more of the necessary powers to drive forward

that ambition of getting a much cleaner fleet of vehicles on our

roads. I thank him for giving way and I welcome this Bill. Ultra low

emission vehicle registration is rising rapidly. I would like to

follow up on the point of a local authorities were to your local

authorities can work better on air quality pollution issues are taking

advantage of this Bill in order to reduce pollution, but could we also

have a commitment from the Minister that were infrastructure investment

is needed more widely in roads such as roads well known to the

Department in my constituency, that that will come hand in hand with

this Bill? Probably not a day for going into detailed schemes, but I

will assure that we see part of the solution to ease congestion, because

emissions are generated not just by dirty vehicles, they are also

created by car is being stuck in traffic jams for long periods of

time or crawling along very slowly for long periods. Therefore, the

investment this government is putting into road infrastructure

will help ease some of the emissions problems where congestion is the

principal cause. If I might just talk briefly about the issue of

automotive vehicles. What this Bill is designed to do is to set the

first steps in motion to set automotive vehicles in use. This is

where to improve the situation with congestion and air quality because

they will drive more efficiently and effectively in a way that doesn't

create the congestion that sometimes human driving habits can contribute

to. We are not going to work up tomorrow with a whole fleet of

automated vehicles are some which are going to see rapid change.

Technology will go step-by-step by step as cars become more committed

to the point where not too many years ahead we will start to see

widespread use of automated vehicles on our roads. Where we can see the

obvious barriers to that happening, we will have to safely remove those

barriers. We want to see more fuel-efficient journeyer --

journeys. Of course, one part of that is what this Bill does, which

is to deliver an insurance framework for the first time that makes it

possible for those vehicles to operate on our roads. You will know,

your insurance policy on your car is for you as the driver, it is not for

the vehicle itself. What this will do this it will create a

two-dimensional insurance policy, or will allow the creation of

two-dimensional policies which will cover you when you are driving, but

will also cover a vehicle if it is being driven autonomously. That

makes it possible for us to move forward to provide a framework in

which insurance companies can provide cover for the vehicles of

the future. Hopefully I locations the technology within the car, when

it is being driven autonomously, might have been at fault. In those

circumstances, surely the insured person would not be covered? I think

the honourable gentleman is understood -- misunderstood the

point. The two-dimensional policy would uncover -- cover both the

driver and vehicle. If the car is driving itself, the insurance policy

will be extended to cover the vehicle itself. But when it covers

all eventualities and makes it possible, in our view, for those

cars to operate on our road when the technology is ready. It is an

important step, it has been welcomed by the ancient industry. I think it

opens the door to a generation of vehicles on our roads and sends a

message to the world that this is a country that is going to make sure

it would have the right regulatory framework in place for those

vehicles to operate in the future. Now, if I can change moods and move

on to aviation. I might right honourable friend will be

disappointed if it didn't mention motorcycling. I noticed that would

motorcycle doesn't appear in the pathway to drivers versus cars

document which initially pleased me because I Thomas motorcycle would be

entirely pointless. I am slightly concerned whether we have adequately

considered the ability of driverless cars to safely coexist on our roads

with motorcycles and, since I am on my feet, can I said that many of his

objectives could be achieved with a small shift. I know he is a great

champion of the motorcycle and I cannot imagine him wanting to have

anything to do with an autonomous motorcycle, given the pleasure he

gets driving. I do think that one of the important parts of the insurance

changes that this Bill paves the way forward is to ensure precisely that

we have a framework that gives comfort to all those on the roads,

but there is proper insurance in place if there is, God forbid, an

unfortunate non-interaction between any vehicle and an autonomous

vehicle. It is important we get that right. We are some way away from the

technology being clear-cut enough to be dependable to operate freely and

openly as a matter of routine on our roads. But they will come. West

before you move on to aviation and why we are talking about insurance

and vehicles and safety on the road and I welcome the Secretary of

State's comments, can I touch on cards which are not licensed for

insured and cause tremendous grief in central London in the sense that

they are not seen as safe. TEFL don't have a method to regulate them

work to ensure them, so might I ask the Minister to consider these when

looking at other insurance possibilities? I am aware of the

issue and I am happy to give my honourable friend that assurance and

to discuss the issue with her. Can I programme on these autonomous

vehicles and the responsibility of the passenger. Can it not be the

case, when the driver is not in control of the vehicle and the

vehicle is in autonomous vehicle, is he exonerated of the goal

responsibility? It cannot be as simple as that? The legislation

focuses on insurance. If the vehicle is on its own control the insurance

policy is still applicable. If the insurance policy applies to the

driver and the driver is not driving the vehicle that he cannot by

definition be at fault, but if something goes wrong it would be

possible to have an insurance policy that covers both eventualities with

the driver driving and also when the vehicle is in autonomous mode. It is

one of the key changes necessary to create an environment in which these

vehicles can operate freely on the roads. He has been extremely

generous. He will be aware of the prohibitive cost of insurance for

young drivers and does he foresee a time when autonomous vehicles might

help young people have the freedom of the car are much more affordable

cost? I absolutely think that is a possibility and not just younger

drivers. This will help elderly drivers, disabled drivers. Once the

vehicles start to operate in an autonomous environment and the

controlled environment, I think it becomes much easier for people who

have struggled to get onto the road to do so. It is right that that is a

potential benefit for the future. One of the possible outcomes for

this in the next 2425 years is that the number of taxi cab drivers in

this country will fall very dramatically because people will be

able to get an automated car to pick them up. What planning has the

Department done in terms of what a challenge that would pose to

employment in this country? It is the case of the government thinks

all the time about the impact of future technologies. We are some

years away and some considerable years away from the situation he

envisages. Cars bought today will be on the roads in the decade and more

to come. It is something that will be on the roads in the decade and

more to come. It is something that the issue for Parliament in the 20

30s. He is right to defy that, but we have, throughout modern history,

seen changes in technology that changes ways of working and we will

see more of that in the future and it is up to us as a society, up to

this tournament and our successors to make sure that we ensure this

country is a dynamic, entrepreneurial one that takes

advantage of new technologies and crisp new job opportunities of the

back of them. That is something we are doing and one of the ways this

Bill will help is if we set ourselves at the forefront of the

development of this technology, that will create a new generation of job

opportunities that was not there before. If I can move on briefly to

other matters in the Bill, to innovations in the energy sector --

aviation sector, or air traffic controllers provide services under a

licence, it develops innovative solutions used around the globe. It

is essential that the license is fit for purpose and put consumers at the

heart of the regulatory regime. The Bill modernises the licensing regime

for on road traffic controller, currently undertaken by a subsidiary

of gnats overseen by the Civil Aviation Authority. We are proposing

to update the licensing framework in three ways by changing the way in

which the conditions were modified by the regulator. Currently that

needs to be agreement before modifying changes. The changes in

the Bill will give it greater flexibility to make necessary

changes without a long negotiating process. They make sure that... It

ensures that the license holder is also able to appeal modifications to

the Competition and Markets Authority. It clarifies the power to

amend the length of the license term. Frankly license termination

period is ten years which sits uncomfortably alongside the average

asset life of an investment. With the exercising the power to extend

the license termination of this period will increase the financial

ability and lead to more efficient services being provided to users.

Thirdly, we are enhancing the enforcement regime which is

bureaucratic and inflexible. What we will do is ensure that the CAA is

accountable for the enforcement decisions through copyrights, but

they will have a staggered approach to enforcement. Instead of the

situation where there is no middle ground between serious action and a

slap on the wrist, this will allow for a staged programme of

enforcement, is staged penalty regime which should give the CAA

declarer power to drive better performance

The second aviation measures about consumer protection holiday-makers.

By its very nature there are a number of risks in the holiday

market. It is common for consumers to pay up front on the promise of a

holiday which may be many months away and as we know all too often

financial stability of the individual holiday providers can be

shaky and sometimes the system lets down holiday-makers. In the rare

event of a company failure, consumers may experience financial

loss from difficult being stranded abroad. That is why the ATOL scheme

was introduced in the 1970s, the primary method for which the

transport sector provides insolvency protection within the package travel

regimes. But you will know the way we broke our holidays are changing

too. And we need to adapt the schemes and regulations that protect

them. The measures of this bill will enable the ATOL scheme to respond to

innovation in the travel sector. What it does is it extends ATOL

protection to a broader range of holidays and makes it easier for UK

businesses, ensuring the scheme remains fit for the day's world.

Then a couple of final measures to explain to the house, firstly on

vehicle testing. We all work in partnership with the private sector

to deliver it bus and Laurie MOT tests at private sector sites

whether used to be delivered and government sites with cars. The

testing is done by private operators around the country. With this bill,

we want to extend the partnership of the private sector to also deliver

specialist vehicle test from those established or additional private

sector sites, providing services that are convenient and local. It

benefits the government is wealth about having to pay for the upkeep

of government side, it keeps down the cost of vehicle tests, which

will still be delivered by government examiners who will travel

to those private sites. We're not going to come from eyes on vehicle

safety nor will we remove any government sites from operation

until a suitable private sector site has been established, and those are

inspected and appropriately approved. It is a partnership

approach that has worked well and has been popular with industry. We

will introduce a statutory charge for the site owner for the use of

their premises and equipment. They will be known as the pit and it will

be capped to avoid any unreasonable charges. One of the highest profile

issues facing the aviation and transport sector in particular over

the last few months has been misuse of laser printers. The penultimate

measure in this bill should bolster safety across all transport modes

and over this issue properly. Each year there are a proximal Mutley

1500 laser attacks on aircraft, causing air damage to pilots -- I

damage to pilots and endangering the lives of passenger and crew on

board. We are going to create an offence of dazzling or distracting a

person in control of a vehicle. It will be triable either way and they

will allow police to enter a private property for the purposes of arrest

and the search for a laser pointer. It will act as a clear deterrent

with unlimited fines and a potential five-year sentence in prison. It

sent a clear message. I thank the Minister forgiving way. Part four,

the offence of shining lasers into operator's eyes in South London has

been very concerning, and throughout consultative committees the impact

has been raised. At regional airports it is particularly bad.

Many of my constituents working at NATS and reporting these incidents

but also drones and the concern they are talking about that. Is there an

opportunity to cover the issue of drones? We are currently consulting

on a new regime for drones, not all of which needs to go into the field

of primary legislation but I give her my assurance that we are looking

very carefully at how we provide proper protection from airports and

others from the use of drones in our society. I am sorry I was not here

for the opening of his speech on this important bill. As far as

lasers are concerned, I am delighted the government is doing this. Whilst

it is the case according to my constituent and eminent eye surgeons

Professor John Marshall that irreversible damage is unlikely to

be done because of the distances that these lasers are operated from.

Nevertheless the risk to pilots is very serious indeed. My honourable

friend knows I am a pilot myself and the idea that passengers can be put

at risk is imperative that this is taken seriously. I wonder what

discussions my right honourable friend has had with the

manufacturers of lasers, and on drones may I encourage them to take

action on this quickly. To take my honourable friend's point about

drones, I know he is a committed aviator and understands the issues.

We have had a broad discussion about the impact of lasers and we think

this level of deterrent, the risk of a five-year jail sentence is a

pretty strong one and I hope they will focus the minds of those who

are tempted down the road of something that should be a simple

and innocuous tool of presentations in a conference room to be used in

such a dangerous way. If it happens in future, if you do it, you should

expect a very serious penalty indeed and I hope people will think twice

before they act in such a reckless manner again. Lastly, the issue of

courses. Where drivers and motorcyclist transgress but not

excessively, the police do have the discretion to offer them an

educational course. They are valuable and they help to remind

participants of the consequences of inattentive driving. Drivers pay to

attend the course but avoid paying a fixed penalty fine. This bill

provides provisions to clarify the basis when police have the

opportunity to charge. It is a technical measure which won't affect

road users, it is simply clarifying the legislative is Ishant, it

provides greater transparency and police accountability regarding the

way fees are set. So this is a bill containing a number of measures

designed to improve the way our transport system works, but above

all else it seeks to pave the way for what is going to be a revolution

on our roads, as we see the emergence of connected and

autonomous vehicles, our lives will change. I think for many people in

our society their lives will change for the better. This is one of the

most exciting technological development mankind has developed

for a very long time. It is an area that we want this country to be at

the front of the development of the technology and the trialling of the

technology and of the experience of the technology. This bill paves the

way for that. It brings into play in above improvements across our

transport system but I hope more than anything else it is starting

this country down the road to an automotive revolution that will

transform everyone's lives and I beg to move the second reading. The

question is now that the bill be read a second time. Thank you Madam

Deputy Speaker. We were here just last week on the buses Bill and I

said there would be another transport Bill along in a minute,

and areas. I would like to thank the Secretary of State for his account

and his summary. I wholeheartedly agree that the vehicle technology

and aviation Bill, I think VTAB from here on in the present an

opportunity to put the UK ahead of the curve on transport. It will

shape how we travel in the future and to create the high skilled jobs

that are economy needs, as well as tackling our environmental and

climate change challenges. I would like to take this opportunity to

place on record the number for his collegiate attitude and corporation

and we share his objective to make this the best possible piece of

legislation as it passes through the house. We are not opposed to this

bill, we are broadly very, very supportive. There are, however, some

concerns around the impact of some parts of the bill, and we will be

pressing the government on some issues and seeking a number of

amendments at committee stage. Of course this bill is no substitute

for the wider policy framework required for the UK to take

advantage of the opportunities available to us but it is an

important bill that we wish to support. Madam Deputy Speaker I

would like to speak to part one of the bill about automated vehicles