23/10/2017

:00:00. > :00:00.the press that we might be able to have an important debate about

:00:00. > :00:07.misogyny and degrading language toward women which I am sure...

:00:08. > :00:11.Order. I don't think this is going to be a point of order for the chair

:00:12. > :00:17.and I did indicate to another member who made a holy absurd and

:00:18. > :00:21.inappropriate application for a debate that she should not raise it

:00:22. > :00:26.as a point of order but I will hear the honourable lady out but I'm very

:00:27. > :00:28.uncertain to put it mildly is the responsibility of the cheque may be

:00:29. > :00:33.very important but that a different matter from being a matter for the

:00:34. > :00:38.chair. I will hear her out as I always do but please don't abuse the

:00:39. > :00:42.point of order procedure. Don't abuse the point of order procedure,

:00:43. > :00:47.that is not something to be done in this chamber. Order. And I don't

:00:48. > :00:50.take such a matter lightly but if the honourable lady is in order I

:00:51. > :00:55.will hear her. I'm very grateful and I would like to seek your advice in

:00:56. > :01:01.that case in terms of how we can bring this debate to the house. If

:01:02. > :01:05.the honourable lady wants to apply for an adjournment debate for a

:01:06. > :01:10.matter which falls within the aegis of a government minister it is open

:01:11. > :01:14.to her to do so. Members can table motions in this place as the

:01:15. > :01:17.honourable lady, now a relatively experienced member of hours, will be

:01:18. > :01:22.well aware but that is different from a point of order in which this

:01:23. > :01:27.matter is not, or indeed the other form of exchange which most assured

:01:28. > :01:32.it was not so I hope that they help for clarification and the honourable

:01:33. > :01:40.lady will use her adroit parliament the skills to highlight such matters

:01:41. > :01:45.in an orderly way. Mr speaker when you replied to my honourable friend

:01:46. > :01:48.for Totnes about certain committees including the liaison committee and

:01:49. > :01:52.the intelligence and Security committee that have yet been

:01:53. > :01:57.constituted committee did not mention one that has not yet been

:01:58. > :01:59.constituted which is the joint committee on the national security

:02:00. > :02:04.strategy. Saint hearing your strong response to that earlier point of

:02:05. > :02:12.order, I have received a letter from the National security adviser,

:02:13. > :02:15.declining to appear about the review of national security capabilities

:02:16. > :02:19.before the defence committee because he points out, not unreasonably, as

:02:20. > :02:23.you note in your letter the established procedure is that I

:02:24. > :02:27.appear before the joint committee on the national Security strategy on

:02:28. > :02:33.these issues. Although it has not yet been constituted, you are an

:02:34. > :02:39.ex-official member so what can I do in terms of practical advantage of

:02:40. > :02:43.being a member of a committee that has not yet been constituted this

:02:44. > :02:48.far into the new parliament? The best thing he can do is seek to

:02:49. > :02:51.persuade his colleagues who are in a position in a matter of days to

:02:52. > :02:59.facilitate the establishment of those committees to do so without

:03:00. > :03:04.further delay. Traditionally I don't think it will be objected to.

:03:05. > :03:13.Certainly not by any serious whip, if I say that the whips have not

:03:14. > :03:16.regarded it as their prime concern to establish select committees to

:03:17. > :03:23.scrutinise the executive of which they are the defenders. That is to

:03:24. > :03:30.put it mildly. However, they do have a responsibility in this matter and

:03:31. > :03:38.of course the leader of the house... As the house's representative in the

:03:39. > :03:42.government... Has a particular responsibility supported by members

:03:43. > :03:46.opposite, the shadow leader of the house and the opposition Chief Whip,

:03:47. > :03:52.to bring about the Constitution of these committees. For those who were

:03:53. > :03:56.not here earlier, the matter was raised in respect of the liaison

:03:57. > :04:02.committee, and I pointed out that the same concern applied to the

:04:03. > :04:05.European scrutiny committee, and to the intelligence and Security

:04:06. > :04:08.committee, not in fact a select committee but a very important

:04:09. > :04:15.committee. The Right honourable gentleman has now identified how it

:04:16. > :04:19.applies with such force to the joint committee on the national Security

:04:20. > :04:24.strategy and has also explained how the failure to constitute the

:04:25. > :04:29.committee has effectively created a void for an important potential

:04:30. > :04:34.witness. This is now frankly an embarrassment and it needs to be

:04:35. > :04:38.sorted, preferably this week. Point of order.

:04:39. > :04:43.Further to your point of order and your ruling, Mr Speaker, knowing

:04:44. > :04:46.that team do that the whips are not able to speak, I felt it would be

:04:47. > :04:51.helpful if I say I suspect there's going to be very good news on this

:04:52. > :04:54.subject in the foreseeable future. However, I believe the usual

:04:55. > :04:57.channels are stuck and there are certain names that the opposition

:04:58. > :05:03.parties need to return to the government. Well I don't know about

:05:04. > :05:08.that. The honourable gentleman says in the course of his contribution

:05:09. > :05:13.that whips can't speak. Well, they are not supposed to speak, that is

:05:14. > :05:18.true, it does not stop them now and again doing so, sometimes from a

:05:19. > :05:22.sedentary position in a more or indeed less orderly fashion. As to

:05:23. > :05:26.the subject of disputed names, that is not something with which the

:05:27. > :05:29.honourable gentleman would expect the speaker to preoccupy himself. My

:05:30. > :05:34.concern is simply to facilitate the constitution of the committees,

:05:35. > :05:39.which are those of Parliament, and which I suspect most members on both

:05:40. > :05:47.sides of the house want to see established. In short, let's get on

:05:48. > :05:50.with it. Order. I shall call in a moment the shadow Secretary of State

:05:51. > :05:53.for Work and Pensions to make an application for leave to propose a

:05:54. > :05:56.debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent

:05:57. > :06:00.consideration under the terms of standing order number 24, the

:06:01. > :06:09.honourable member has up to three minutes in which to make such an

:06:10. > :06:13.application. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to propose the house

:06:14. > :06:18.should debate a specific and important matter that should have

:06:19. > :06:20.urgent consideration. Namely, that this house has considered the matter

:06:21. > :06:26.of the government's response to the decision of the house on pausing

:06:27. > :06:30.roll-out of Universal Credit full service. May I first thank you Mr

:06:31. > :06:33.Speaker for allowing this important application which arises, as you

:06:34. > :06:37.know, after a decisive vote on a motion to pause Universal Credit

:06:38. > :06:46.roll-out, supported by this house last week by 299 votes to zero. This

:06:47. > :06:52.was the second such government defeat on an opposition day motion

:06:53. > :06:55.in 40 years, Mr Speaker. Since then, we have heard nothing from the

:06:56. > :06:59.government, despite the fact that after the last time this happened,

:07:00. > :07:03.the government made a statement within three and a half hours. Worse

:07:04. > :07:07.still, in business questions the day after the government's resounding

:07:08. > :07:10.defeat, the leader of the house used a change to government policy on the

:07:11. > :07:15.phone lines of the Universal Credit made before the vote last week as a

:07:16. > :07:20.justification for refusing to inform the house as to when we might expect

:07:21. > :07:22.a further statement on this matter. I would like to thank the many

:07:23. > :07:26.honourable and right honourable friend on this side of the house who

:07:27. > :07:29.pressed the government for a statement as well as the member for

:07:30. > :07:33.Gainsborough and the member for Wellingborough on the government

:07:34. > :07:37.benches for their remarks on this constitutional issue, the lack of a

:07:38. > :07:41.statement exposes the government to. -- on the constitutional issue is

:07:42. > :07:44.the lack of a statement. Mr Speaker, one of the few formal rights of

:07:45. > :07:49.opposition parties is to decide the topic and motions for debate on 20

:07:50. > :07:51.sitting days. All previous governments have recognised the

:07:52. > :07:55.failure to carry the house against an opposition motion is a serious

:07:56. > :08:02.rebuke to the government's policy on an issue and has been treated

:08:03. > :08:06.accordingly. This is even more important when the house has spoken

:08:07. > :08:11.on an issue that could dramatically affect the lives of up to 7 million

:08:12. > :08:15.people. And they are the people who will be subject to the flawed

:08:16. > :08:20.Universal Credit programme. I thank you once again, Mr Speaker, for

:08:21. > :08:25.considering this application. I've listened to it carefully to the

:08:26. > :08:29.application for the honourable member and I'm satisfied the matter

:08:30. > :08:34.raised is to be discussed, understanding order number 24. As

:08:35. > :08:42.the honourable member the leave of the house? The honourable member has

:08:43. > :08:47.obtained the leave of the house. The debate will be held, thank you, the

:08:48. > :08:53.debate will be held tomorrow, Tuesday 24th of October, as the

:08:54. > :08:59.first item of public business. The debate will last for three hours and

:09:00. > :09:04.will arise on a motion that the house has considered the specified

:09:05. > :09:14.matter set out in the honourable member's application. Thank you.

:09:15. > :09:21.Order. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. Orange

:09:22. > :09:27.automated and electric vehicles Bill, second reading.

:09:28. > :09:41.I call the Minister of State to move the second reading of the Bill. Mr

:09:42. > :09:47.John Hayes. Thank you, Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be now

:09:48. > :09:50.read a second time. I had, as you quite rightly imagined, Mr Speaker,

:09:51. > :09:56.for a moment thought that these crowds well for me but now I know

:09:57. > :10:02.that's not the case, I will be measured in what I say and hope that

:10:03. > :10:06.the crowds will re-emerge as a result of the strength of the

:10:07. > :10:13.argument that I am able to make on behalf of this government and this

:10:14. > :10:17.important bill. In living memory, working-class lives have changed

:10:18. > :10:22.radically. The health and well-being now enjoyed routinely by working

:10:23. > :10:28.people is of a kind beyond the expectations, indeed the apps --

:10:29. > :10:31.perhaps beyond the dreams of my grandparents who lived alongside

:10:32. > :10:36.most of the people around them with the daily grind of need. The chance

:10:37. > :10:41.to travel easily has been an important part of the altered lives

:10:42. > :10:49.of millions. My father bought his first car when I was a baby. He was

:10:50. > :10:53.42 years old. It transformed my family's experiences. Suddenly, new

:10:54. > :10:57.places could be explored, new opportunities realised, new

:10:58. > :11:01.adventures imagined. Until then, a bicycle was his way of getting to

:11:02. > :11:07.and from work. Train travel was a rarity and aircraft, except in

:11:08. > :11:14.wartime, entirely unknown. My family, like so many others, owed so

:11:15. > :11:17.much to motor cars. They brought challenge, chances and change to

:11:18. > :11:24.millions. Yet cars themselves have changed little. Cars, the foundation

:11:25. > :11:27.of our transport system for the last 100 years, still have a lot in

:11:28. > :11:34.common with the first model T that rolled off the production line in

:11:35. > :11:36.1908. Same mass production methods, the same front mounted internal

:11:37. > :11:41.combustion engine, the same adaptable chassis to support a wide

:11:42. > :11:46.range of body styles. Now we are going to see significant changes.

:11:47. > :11:53.Over the next decades, cars will change more than they have for

:11:54. > :11:59.lifetimes. In those changes, it is vital that we consider the scale of

:12:00. > :12:04.the opportunities that now present themselves, how those opportunities

:12:05. > :12:08.may be shaped and indeed, how they will need to be constrained. There

:12:09. > :12:13.will be changed to the way in which we power and fuel our cars and even

:12:14. > :12:18.changed the way we pay for motoring. It is not just happening in the UK.

:12:19. > :12:22.It is happening around the world. But just as Henry Ford proved a

:12:23. > :12:27.century ago, there are huge chances for innovators who are able to

:12:28. > :12:32.realise the revolutionary potential of new automotive technologies.

:12:33. > :12:38.Exports of low emission vehicles are already worth ?2.5 billion to our

:12:39. > :12:44.economy. It is estimated the market for autonomous vehicles could be

:12:45. > :12:49.worth ?28 billion by 2035. Ford himself said that before everything

:12:50. > :12:54.else, getting ready is the secret of success. Well, that is what this

:12:55. > :13:01.Bill is about. As I shall explain in this summation, the chances are

:13:02. > :13:07.profound, the Bill is salient, these matters are not, by the way, party

:13:08. > :13:12.political. They are things which frankly any responsible government

:13:13. > :13:16.would look at, would take action upon and indeed, I expect the whole

:13:17. > :13:24.house to take a considered and measured interest in these affairs.

:13:25. > :13:30.Now, I'm going to speak a bit about history, as you might have -- the

:13:31. > :13:33.Whig view of history, as you might expect, the weekly of history was

:13:34. > :13:37.progress as deceit, the Marxist notion of history is a fallacy, not

:13:38. > :13:41.all change is beneficial, indeed, it can be the opposite but change can

:13:42. > :13:45.be virtuous when it is shaped, harmonised and yes, as I said,

:13:46. > :13:54.sometimes constrained. Enterprise and the market provide immense

:13:55. > :13:59.opportunity through the innovative, imaginative, creativity which they

:14:00. > :14:04.breed. But government must be the good. Government must be prepared to

:14:05. > :14:11.step forward, to make sure the market acts for the common good. I

:14:12. > :14:16.will happily give way. I'm grateful to him for giving way and I refer to

:14:17. > :14:19.my declaration in the register of members interests. Some academics

:14:20. > :14:24.are saying that when automated vehicles become commonplace, the

:14:25. > :14:28.government will seek to ban people from driving cars themselves or at

:14:29. > :14:33.the very least, will introduce a policy which severely restricts

:14:34. > :14:39.motorists driving. Will he confirm that that is not government policy

:14:40. > :14:42.today and that he has no intention of making that government policy in

:14:43. > :14:47.the future? It is certainly not the government policy. It would be

:14:48. > :14:52.intolerable, I think, to imagine a future where people were banned from

:14:53. > :14:58.using, for example, classic cars. I know my right honourable friend is

:14:59. > :15:02.very experienced and indeed very knowledgeable and one might even go

:15:03. > :15:05.so far as to say experts in such matters and he will know the vintage

:15:06. > :15:09.and classic cars owned by many people, including him in

:15:10. > :15:17.considerable number... Well, I was going to add that but yes, and me in

:15:18. > :15:24.rather less number, add a vivid aspect to motoring. An elegance and

:15:25. > :15:28.style which we would not wish to see lost in any move towards this

:15:29. > :15:34.changed technology. But for most people, the daily experience is not

:15:35. > :15:39.going to be to drive a classic car of the type that the gentleman and I

:15:40. > :15:44.revere. It will be driving a car to get to places in which they work, it

:15:45. > :15:48.is going to be driving a car to access educational opportunities, it

:15:49. > :15:53.is going to be driving a car to get to places where they can buy the

:15:54. > :15:56.goods they need to service their well-being. It is going to be using

:15:57. > :16:01.a car for recreational purposes, in the way my father did for his family

:16:02. > :16:08.as I described the moment ago, all that time in the past. So the change

:16:09. > :16:14.that we are now experiencing, and will experience to a greater degree

:16:15. > :16:17.in the coming years, is not a threat, not something to doubt or

:16:18. > :16:22.fear. It is an opportunity. It is an opportunity for Britain, from the

:16:23. > :16:26.perspective of the technology which we will develop and export. It is an

:16:27. > :16:33.opportunity to give access to cars to those that have never had them.

:16:34. > :16:36.The profoundly disabled. The elderly, the infirm, the partially

:16:37. > :16:41.sighted and blind people, who have not been able to drive, and have

:16:42. > :16:45.relied on others to drive them, will suddenly have the opportunity of car

:16:46. > :16:51.ownership, which they have been denied by nature of their disability

:16:52. > :16:55.or their need for so long. So that is the kind of future that I

:16:56. > :17:00.envisage. I will happily give way to the honourable gentleman and then to

:17:01. > :17:02.that honourable gentleman. The Minister is making a

:17:03. > :17:07.characteristically wide-ranging speech and he touches an important

:17:08. > :17:11.points. But this Bill is remarkably thin. It does not deal with many of

:17:12. > :17:14.these points. There are so many other issues, the social issues, the

:17:15. > :17:21.skills issues. When will the government be bringing forward the

:17:22. > :17:25.issues that actually deals -- a bill which deals with and miserable as

:17:26. > :17:28.do? The honourable gentleman knows I'm preoccupied, one might say, by

:17:29. > :17:32.the subject of skills because I understand relationship between

:17:33. > :17:35.skilled and social justice, that I have been characterised, one might

:17:36. > :17:40.even say, by my determination to ensure that people get chances to

:17:41. > :17:42.acquire the skills, not only necessary for our economy but

:17:43. > :17:48.necessary for them to fill their potential. -- fulfil their

:17:49. > :17:51.potential. There will of course be all kinds of new skills associated

:17:52. > :17:56.with this technology but I'm not sure it is the time at the moment to

:17:57. > :18:03.dictate what they might look like. The job the government is doing here

:18:04. > :18:06.is to legislate sufficiently so that change, develop and, innovation,

:18:07. > :18:11.research development, is not inhibited. But not to the point

:18:12. > :18:15.where we dictate or try to dictate what the future might look like.

:18:16. > :18:18.Happily give way. I'm grateful to my right honourable friend for giving

:18:19. > :18:23.way. Wouldn't he agree with me that it is important that the message

:18:24. > :18:29.should not be that an electric car Warren automated vehicle is an

:18:30. > :18:34.unpleasant driving experience and the only kind of car that is worth

:18:35. > :18:38.driving is a classic car? I mean, the modern car is a joy to drive. I

:18:39. > :18:43.hope that will remain the case and that he's not going to stop us doing

:18:44. > :18:50.it. Yes, I think that is true. I think electric cars can be... They

:18:51. > :18:54.are different but altogether just as enjoyable and experience. I've had

:18:55. > :18:57.the opportunity of test driving an electric car, and I travel in an

:18:58. > :19:02.electric car, not driven by me but by the government car driver from

:19:03. > :19:07.the government car service, very frequently, as the Minister. I've

:19:08. > :19:12.had the chance to drive, just in the last two days, one of the new

:19:13. > :19:16.electric taxis. -- in one of the new electric taxis, and to experience

:19:17. > :19:23.that is to see a different kind of future, to enjoy a different kind of

:19:24. > :19:25.driving experience. I don't think worse, I think different. But

:19:26. > :19:27.certainly better in all kinds of ways and I shall explain in my

:19:28. > :19:42.speech. I will give way. Will he give the scope and

:19:43. > :19:47.intelligence of the vehicles he is describing, the automotive vehicles

:19:48. > :19:52.are capable of assessing a situation in the event of an accident, which

:19:53. > :19:57.is is the cause of offence that is least like to cause injury. To what

:19:58. > :20:02.degree will this Bill cover the decision-making process that those

:20:03. > :20:09.vehicles? He introduces to this debate with his usual skill a really

:20:10. > :20:17.important aspect for consideration and that is exactly how autonomous

:20:18. > :20:22.vehicles develop over time. I was fortunate enough this morning to be

:20:23. > :20:26.looking at autonomous vehicles and discussing with some of those

:20:27. > :20:34.engaged in research and development and considering how the programming

:20:35. > :20:41.of autonomous vehicles and this is in essence a combination of software

:20:42. > :20:47.development, sophisticated software which helps drive your car and the

:20:48. > :20:52.technological develop and associated with the dip running of the vehicle.

:20:53. > :20:58.Now testing that software needs to be made. How do we want autonomous

:20:59. > :21:08.vehicles to emulate what a human being would do at if they were at

:21:09. > :21:13.the wheel. As he implies, many accidents and the insurers tell is

:21:14. > :21:22.95% of car accidents are in some well due to human error. Now, if we

:21:23. > :21:28.can imagine for a moment that we eliminate that error or reduce it

:21:29. > :21:33.significantly we would in effect completely change the profile of

:21:34. > :21:37.driving by reducing the number of accidents are making our roads

:21:38. > :21:47.safer. Now that is not something to be sniffed at. I thank you the

:21:48. > :21:53.honourable Minister the giving way. With regards to the huge advances in

:21:54. > :22:00.automated and electric vehicles will be technology industry in particular

:22:01. > :22:05.has made an immense contribution particularly in my own constituency.

:22:06. > :22:11.Would the Minister agree that we need to provide further support for

:22:12. > :22:15.the technology industry to continue with these advances? Yes. And we

:22:16. > :22:20.are. We are providing support and we will continue to do so and I will

:22:21. > :22:25.elaborate on that later on. But the honourable gentleman is right, this

:22:26. > :22:33.has to be a calibration between industry, academia, Gunnar Manta and

:22:34. > :22:41.local authorities. I was encouraged Greenwich this morning and it really

:22:42. > :22:48.is important that we see this work as salient, as I described it

:22:49. > :22:52.earlier, but also capable of making a huge beneficial difference in the

:22:53. > :23:01.national interest for the common good. And I note the honourable

:23:02. > :23:06.friend is a champion of all that is good for the common good. I thank

:23:07. > :23:14.you my honourable friend for giving way. When we had the chance to be a

:23:15. > :23:24.world leader in technology, I would like to ask if we could use this

:23:25. > :23:29.Bill to affect engine noise in innovation in that we expect

:23:30. > :23:38.vehicles to make a noise and we are distracted by the noise of our smart

:23:39. > :23:45.phones, sadly we still expect engines to give us a clue in terms

:23:46. > :23:50.of safety. Parts of the research effort is about societal change and

:23:51. > :23:55.persuading people that this technology is right and good, it is

:23:56. > :24:00.efficacious. To do that we will have to be certain about Sophie. So of

:24:01. > :24:06.course she is right that until people can be certain that the

:24:07. > :24:12.technology is safe and secure, they are unlikely to embrace in the way

:24:13. > :24:19.that we hope they will. I am grateful to the Minister and can I

:24:20. > :24:23.just say that I'd like to declare an interest as a fellow of the

:24:24. > :24:28.Institute of the motor industry and we know that when this Bill was

:24:29. > :24:32.before the House in its previous incarnation the opposition tabled an

:24:33. > :24:37.amendment on the question of skills to require a certification for

:24:38. > :24:43.technicians to working on these advanced vehicles, particularly when

:24:44. > :24:48.a survey of garages shows that 80% of them don't have the skilled

:24:49. > :24:53.technicians they need to work on these vehicles. At that time the

:24:54. > :24:58.Minister said that he hoped we can make progress on this matter during

:24:59. > :25:03.the course of the Bill's passing. Well that Bill Bell with the general

:25:04. > :25:10.election and I wonder if the Minister has made any progress with

:25:11. > :25:21.that and can anything be pursued in this Bill's passage? I think he is

:25:22. > :25:27.right that the development of the necessary skills to service this new

:25:28. > :25:32.technology is critical as well to its acceptance as well as the

:25:33. > :25:37.absolute insurance of accept safety. I expect that skill set to develop

:25:38. > :25:46.verdant and I expect the industry to do so. The market will provide and

:25:47. > :25:49.the government needs to shake that provision and this is an example

:25:50. > :25:55.where we would hope to see frameworks develop to cope with the

:25:56. > :26:00.new demands that are set out and I want to see government are working

:26:01. > :26:03.with the further education sector and high in education sector sector

:26:04. > :26:08.accordingly and I want to ensure that the market, through the work

:26:09. > :26:13.that is being done by most of the big manufacturers, in fact I don't

:26:14. > :26:22.know any manufacturer that isn't investing in this field, that a

:26:23. > :26:30.proper consideration is given to developing people to sue Gilles

:26:31. > :26:35.skills to develop that market. I am not unpersuaded that the government

:26:36. > :26:41.should play its part in that. It's not in the Bill as presented to the

:26:42. > :26:46.House at present, but this discussion may well give us the

:26:47. > :26:54.opportunity to further this Gus the points he has made and I have no

:26:55. > :27:00.doubt that the opposition, I can't believe they won't return to that.

:27:01. > :27:07.Not that I'm not accusing them of being repetitious. the Minister has

:27:08. > :27:17.used the phrase common good in the national interest of safety. . In

:27:18. > :27:28.the previous Bill the Minister heard from pilots how that has been

:27:29. > :27:36.dropped from the Bill. Looking round the chamber, I see on all sides and

:27:37. > :27:42.in all parts of the members with a laser-like approach to the way they

:27:43. > :27:46.address legislation. At and it won't have escaped anyone's noticed that

:27:47. > :27:50.this is a cutdown version of what we considered earlier in the year and

:27:51. > :27:54.we have chosen to focus on the core elements of the previous Bill which

:27:55. > :28:05.enjoyed a second reading and the committee stage, ie those dealing

:28:06. > :28:10.with autonomous vehicles. But there is concern about the use of lasers.

:28:11. > :28:15.And it is something I have discussed was shadow ministers, too. I and

:28:16. > :28:23.attempt to do more as we are by the way with respect to drones, which

:28:24. > :28:30.fly above are hell heads in this chamber, at least as a metaphor. I

:28:31. > :28:34.hope only as a metaphor, by the way. So, yes, we are determined to do

:28:35. > :28:39.with those issues and we will talk about that to a greater extent and

:28:40. > :28:46.in more detail in the coming weeks and months. I thank my right

:28:47. > :28:51.honourable friend or giving way. He is of course right, drones and

:28:52. > :28:57.automated vehicles are going to make a huge difference in the logistics

:28:58. > :29:01.industry. All too often government framework has blogged like behind

:29:02. > :29:07.technology. The government is putting in place a framework that

:29:08. > :29:17.puts in place certainty for the industry that once that innovation.

:29:18. > :29:24.I agree 100% with that. I give way. Thank you. My right and of a friend

:29:25. > :29:31.is right to put safety at the heart of his speech. One of the issues

:29:32. > :29:34.around safety is that unfortunately even with autonomous vehicles there

:29:35. > :29:39.will still be the occasional accident. One of the advantages it

:29:40. > :29:43.is that when dad is an accident it will be shared across an entire

:29:44. > :29:48.network so we won't individually how to learn by our mistakes we will

:29:49. > :29:54.learn collectively. However, when a decision is made by zero on must

:29:55. > :29:59.there does need to be a way that can be challenged so putting back into

:30:00. > :30:07.the algorithm would be useful. The aim of the Bill is to instigate

:30:08. > :30:14.further developments that can happen. I'll explain in a moment

:30:15. > :30:21.when I get onto the main thrust of my contribution, we focus mainly on

:30:22. > :30:30.insurance because it is essential, we were told by the insurance market

:30:31. > :30:40.themselves, to establish absolutely the clarity and certainty of the

:30:41. > :30:43.framework that would allow the development of a summary is of

:30:44. > :30:48.insurance products. So the Bill essentially goes about setting out

:30:49. > :30:52.that framework. Those again who recalled the previous discussions

:30:53. > :30:57.about this and who have studied the record will know that the insurance

:30:58. > :31:05.industry are welcome our endeavours in that respect. It would tie the

:31:06. > :31:19.House in Julie if I read from Hansard. Tie the House on Julie.

:31:20. > :31:24.Insurance products will develop to rest any doubts that may have

:31:25. > :31:28.previously prevailed. Thank you Minister. On this point of insurance

:31:29. > :31:33.cover what discussions has the had with the insurance industry about

:31:34. > :31:40.the likely cost of premiums. Would he expect premiums to fall? We spoke

:31:41. > :31:47.a bit during the earlier considerations of the previous Bill.

:31:48. > :31:54.What happened, we introduced the Bill, we had a separate reading, and

:31:55. > :31:59.as part of that we took evidence from the insurance industry. This

:32:00. > :32:04.Bill is very similar to the the previous Bill. And in those

:32:05. > :32:11.sessions, the industry debated battered bit. My guess is that

:32:12. > :32:18.initially as the marketplace develops, as the new products

:32:19. > :32:25.emerge, the prices will be much as they are now. But as the record

:32:26. > :32:31.becomes established, and calculations that insurers make

:32:32. > :32:34.about the likelihood of claims is affected by the greater sect safety

:32:35. > :32:40.of autonomous vehicles, it may be that prices fall. Now that is up to

:32:41. > :32:45.ensure owners insurers and it's not up to the government to stipulate

:32:46. > :32:50.with all predict. But it does seem to me that following the

:32:51. > :32:56.intervention, if the safety of autonomous vehicles means less

:32:57. > :33:03.accidents, the insurers will know that and as they know it, the

:33:04. > :33:08.ability to insure a vehicle will grow and the price for doing so will

:33:09. > :33:15.fall. But that is as I say a matter for the future but not now. It is

:33:16. > :33:20.very at the site that we are discussing this Bill on the day that

:33:21. > :33:27.the petite charge has come into London, the toxic charge, which will

:33:28. > :33:31.take the cost of over ?20 for people coming into London with in cars over

:33:32. > :33:36.a certain age and it brings to mind that there are incentives for people

:33:37. > :33:43.to buy electric cars that on the statue do but as it were.

:33:44. > :33:49.I just wondered what representations he had made to the Treasury so we

:33:50. > :33:52.can make sure the take-up of electric vehicles expand more

:33:53. > :33:56.rapidly? In the end, these are matters for

:33:57. > :34:04.the mayor and he must come to his own judgment about them. My own view

:34:05. > :34:11.is that it should be called the K charge, or the M charge for the

:34:12. > :34:14.mayor's try so people know white is being levied and I worry about the

:34:15. > :34:18.impact it will have on as well of drivers and families. I do take the

:34:19. > :34:22.view that we need to strike a balance between being ambitious in

:34:23. > :34:26.respect of clean air and we have set out our plans for that and I was

:34:27. > :34:31.involved in helping to draw up those plans and on the other hand,

:34:32. > :34:36.disadvantaging many people who own older diesel and perhaps petrol

:34:37. > :34:41.vehicles who will be affected by this charge. It is not progressive,

:34:42. > :34:44.after all, to say everyone, regardless of their circumstances

:34:45. > :34:47.and regardless of who they are and what they are doing and where they

:34:48. > :34:51.are working, should pay the charge so I have some doubts about it but

:34:52. > :34:55.it is in the end a matter for the mayor and he will have to be

:34:56. > :35:02.answerable for his own K charge. Let me move on to the substance of what

:35:03. > :35:06.we are trying to do today. In practice, we have long since moved

:35:07. > :35:13.beyond the question of if road transport will be electrified. It is

:35:14. > :35:19.now irrefutable that that will occur. The question is when, not

:35:20. > :35:24.weather and at what pace. For many manufacturers in the UK, the answer

:35:25. > :35:28.to that question is frankly, now. For Nissan, it means the second

:35:29. > :35:34.generation of its bestselling Leaf, capable of around 200 emission field

:35:35. > :35:38.-- emission free miles without charges, being built in Sunderland,

:35:39. > :35:42.and for B, it means the electric mini, built in Oxford 40,019 of the

:35:43. > :35:45.Jaguar Land Rover it means the introduction of the world's first

:35:46. > :35:49.premium electric sport utility vehicle, coming next year, with

:35:50. > :35:54.every single Jaguar Land Rover vehicle electrified from 2020. Just

:35:55. > :35:57.those examples alone show that British made electric vehicles are

:35:58. > :36:00.increasingly competitive around the world. If we are to keep that

:36:01. > :36:04.leading edge into the next decade, with the UK's charging

:36:05. > :36:08.infrastructure -- we need the UK's charging infrastructure to keep

:36:09. > :36:14.improving. There are three... I will happily give way. I'm grateful to

:36:15. > :36:19.the Minister for giving way. I bought a Nissan Leaf last month and

:36:20. > :36:24.I was very struck by the fact that to have your own charging point, you

:36:25. > :36:29.need off street parking. Obviously, that is not possible for anyone who

:36:30. > :36:34.has a flat or a terraced house so will ministers please consider in

:36:35. > :36:41.all new housing development changing the planning rules to require

:36:42. > :36:45.charging points to be put into new roads, as well as at railway

:36:46. > :36:53.stations and in all publicly owned car parks as in France? It is my

:36:54. > :36:58.habit, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be influenced by members of this house

:36:59. > :37:04.during the course of debates. That may sound unconventional. But I

:37:05. > :37:07.actually take the contributions that members make in these kind of

:37:08. > :37:12.debates extremely seriously. I think that's a very good point and I will

:37:13. > :37:16.be happy to have discussions with my colleagues in DC LG. There are

:37:17. > :37:21.issues about the inconsistent provision of an street charging.

:37:22. > :37:25.That is partly due to planning and partly due to the fact some local

:37:26. > :37:30.authorities are more willing to install charging points than others.

:37:31. > :37:34.But that is a discretionary matter for planners at the moment. It seems

:37:35. > :37:37.to me to be entirely appropriate to consider some of the things she has

:37:38. > :37:42.suggested so I more than happy to have those discussions. I will

:37:43. > :37:49.happily give way. So while he is in this open-minded frame, can he also

:37:50. > :37:54.then look, not simply at the lack of provision on the street but on the

:37:55. > :38:01.unreliability of the network as it stands at the moment? If here's

:38:02. > :38:04.regularly driven in an electric car, he may well, like so many of us,

:38:05. > :38:08.have had the experience of coming to a motorway service station, finding

:38:09. > :38:13.that the charger is not working, there being no 24-hour help which if

:38:14. > :38:18.you have got down to 0% battery, is a very significant problem, or the

:38:19. > :38:22.myriad at the moment of different companies who provide, all of which,

:38:23. > :38:26.many of which are not interoperable and don't allow access when you

:38:27. > :38:30.first arrive. This is something that a government which is going to frame

:38:31. > :38:36.the market could easily intervene and make better. That is... I don't

:38:37. > :38:41.know if the honourable gentleman had early sight of my speech, and if he

:38:42. > :38:44.did, he is a remarkable person, even more remarkable than I regarded him

:38:45. > :38:48.as being previously. But I was about to come on to the principal reasons

:38:49. > :38:54.that people site for not buying electric cars. Of course, they

:38:55. > :38:59.include the upfront cost. That will come down as volume grows, of

:39:00. > :39:04.course, and the government come as he will know, already contributes a

:39:05. > :39:08.considerable amount of money, we will speak more about it later,

:39:09. > :39:14.towards offsetting some of the cost. The second is battery reliability

:39:15. > :39:18.and the doubts people have about the technology that drives electric

:39:19. > :39:21.vehicles. And the third is the charging infrastructure, as he

:39:22. > :39:26.describes, which is precisely why this Bill addresses that point. It

:39:27. > :39:32.is vitally important we put in place a charging infrastructure which is

:39:33. > :39:37.widely available, which is consistent and which works. He

:39:38. > :39:42.describes the circumstance where someone who might otherwise why an

:39:43. > :39:46.electric vehicle will be put off from doing so because they are not

:39:47. > :39:49.confident that the infrastructure is as good as it should be. That is

:39:50. > :39:54.precisely why the government is addressing that matter in this Bill

:39:55. > :40:01.and we have got the chance to debate that tonight and beyond through the

:40:02. > :40:05.Bill's consideration. I will give way once more to buy honourable

:40:06. > :40:08.friend, then make a little progress if I may. I thought while he was

:40:09. > :40:12.talking about the commitment the government is making Kucera, perhaps

:40:13. > :40:16.you would like to remind house about the ?246 million being in battery

:40:17. > :40:19.research through the Faraday Challenge which is actually a

:40:20. > :40:24.serious investment in solving some of those challenges and can reassure

:40:25. > :40:27.people we are serious about this? It is an extreme you well made point

:40:28. > :40:32.which I won't amplify except to say that the honourable gentleman is

:40:33. > :40:35.right that each of the three objections given are likely to be

:40:36. > :40:40.dealt with in one way or another over time. Some will be dealt with

:40:41. > :40:46.by the industry concerned. Some will be dealt with by changing market

:40:47. > :40:51.circumstances and some will be dealt with by the sagacious and pertinent

:40:52. > :40:54.behaviour of government and it is both the sagacity and pertinent is

:40:55. > :41:03.that I will continue my short, some will say all too short, introduction

:41:04. > :41:10.of the Gabi. Some may not, actually! -- of the Bill. I prefer to side

:41:11. > :41:14.with those that will so let me continue. We certainly need to

:41:15. > :41:21.improve the UK's charging structure. To ensure that we remain at the

:41:22. > :41:26.forefront of these developments into the future. Now, you know and we

:41:27. > :41:31.began to debate it briefly tonight, the government has set a goal that

:41:32. > :41:34.by 2050, nearly all cars and vans should be emission free at the tail

:41:35. > :41:41.which means less pollution and more clean air. -- at the tailpipe. I'm

:41:42. > :41:44.disappointed the honourable member for Brighton is not here because I

:41:45. > :41:47.was going to say this is not about a preoccupation with some high-flown

:41:48. > :41:53.theory about what the climate might look like in hundreds of years. It

:41:54. > :41:57.is about clean air now. It is about the air our children are breathing

:41:58. > :42:01.in cities. It is about the particular to material that affect

:42:02. > :42:05.human health day in, day out. That is why it is imperative we take

:42:06. > :42:12.action and we are determined to do so. I'm not prepared to have my

:42:13. > :42:15.sons, who are in the gallery tonight, breathing air that is less

:42:16. > :42:19.clean than it ought to be. I want the same for them as I want for

:42:20. > :42:24.every other young person, to live in a cleaner world with fresher air,

:42:25. > :42:29.that is better for their health and their futures. I'll give way. That's

:42:30. > :42:32.very kind and I welcome his words. Can he confirm in terms of the

:42:33. > :42:37.priorities for the charging infrastructure, that the focus is on

:42:38. > :42:41.shopping centres and places that people can actually leave their cars

:42:42. > :42:45.for a considerable amount of time and not just petrol stations, where

:42:46. > :42:48.they want to nip in and out? Obviously, if there's a limited

:42:49. > :42:51.amount of resource, it is in the interests of the oil companies do

:42:52. > :42:53.have the charging at the petrol stations, to put people off but

:42:54. > :42:58.where you need them is where people are going shopping and at services

:42:59. > :43:05.on the motorways and that to be the top priority. It is a well made

:43:06. > :43:09.point and one which we export to some extent when we previously

:43:10. > :43:13.considered these matters. -- we explored. It is importantly charging

:43:14. > :43:16.infrastructure is spread. It is a risk and one that has been

:43:17. > :43:21.highlighted by members from across the house, actually, in all parties,

:43:22. > :43:24.I remember the members of the SNP that served on our Bill committee

:43:25. > :43:30.last time around made the point, amongst others, there is risk that

:43:31. > :43:37.charging infrastructure becomes focused on major routes and in urban

:43:38. > :43:42.and suburban areas and the smaller roads and the row parts of our

:43:43. > :43:49.kingdom might be under provided. That is not acceptable and we will

:43:50. > :43:53.look at ways of addressing that. The Bill is born of a determination to

:43:54. > :43:57.increase the number of charging points. It does, as he suggests, at

:43:58. > :44:02.the moment, talk of major route retailers but I am prepared to look

:44:03. > :44:09.at other ideas, for how we can cede more charging points more widely. --

:44:10. > :44:13.how we can have more charging points more widely. I'm not going to give

:44:14. > :44:15.way because I want to make a little progress and then I will give way

:44:16. > :44:24.more liberally although I hate to use that word except as a

:44:25. > :44:27.pejorative, as time goes on. So we are not alone in recognising the

:44:28. > :44:31.benefits of electric vehicles. Many major car producing countries are

:44:32. > :44:33.looking beyond conventional petrol and diesel technology, that is why

:44:34. > :44:37.we want to accelerate the transition and bring the benefits of electric

:44:38. > :44:42.vehicles to drivers, the public and the environment as soon as possible.

:44:43. > :44:44.We are giving financial help to motorists choosing clean vehicle

:44:45. > :44:47.through grants and the tax system, as I mentioned. We are supporting

:44:48. > :44:50.local authorities, providing centres like free parking and congestion

:44:51. > :44:53.charge exemption is, and through the bill, we want to make it easier and

:44:54. > :44:59.more convenient to recharge electric vehicles. The government has already

:45:00. > :45:07.helped the development of a network of about 11,500 public charging

:45:08. > :45:12.points in the UK. Significant funding is already in place to

:45:13. > :45:18.develop many more. But in the years ahead, we want electric cars, be

:45:19. > :45:22.they hybrid fuel cell technology or battery-powered, to break into the

:45:23. > :45:25.mass market. This Bill in Cuba -- include several new powers to help

:45:26. > :45:29.make this a reality which will establish common technical standards

:45:30. > :45:33.and greater interoperability. They will increase consumer information

:45:34. > :45:36.on the location of available charge point and accelerate the roll-out of

:45:37. > :45:40.electric vehicle infrastructure at key locations, as I said, like

:45:41. > :45:46.motorway service areas and large fuel stations. But we will look at

:45:47. > :45:51.other measures because I do think it is important that we ensure that the

:45:52. > :45:54.charging points are not concentrated in the way the honourable gentleman

:45:55. > :46:00.and others have described they might become. There is a rapid Charger

:46:01. > :46:03.already at nearly all motorway service areas but I'm mindful of

:46:04. > :46:08.what was said about making sure that they are working efficiently and we

:46:09. > :46:12.will look at that as well as a result of his contribution. I'm

:46:13. > :46:16.going to give way briefly to the honourable lady and then again,

:46:17. > :46:20.press on a little. I'm grateful to the minute -- to the minister

:46:21. > :46:24.because I understand you try to make progress. On the specific point

:46:25. > :46:27.about charges that motorway service stations, can we also look at in

:46:28. > :46:29.terms of the network, the availability of the different types

:46:30. > :46:36.of not just connectors but providers, so you have a variety?

:46:37. > :46:41.That is a very good point and I mentioned a few seconds ago,

:46:42. > :46:47.interoperability. I think often with new technology, there is a tendency

:46:48. > :46:52.for a series of parallel systems to develop. We know that, don't we,

:46:53. > :46:56.from the development of the microchip, of the information

:46:57. > :47:04.technology industry of which I was part. And so I think greater

:47:05. > :47:07.interoperability, greater standardisation overtime, actually,

:47:08. > :47:13.and certainly charge points having a similar look and feel is very

:47:14. > :47:18.important indeed. I think at the moment, we are not quite in that

:47:19. > :47:22.place but we can be and I think we need to be and I will come back... I

:47:23. > :47:26.can see the shadow Secretary of State smiling because he thinks I'm

:47:27. > :47:30.going to talk about the haze hook ups and I will come to that. I read

:47:31. > :47:33.his mind, Madam Deputy Speaker. We must know each other too well. I'm

:47:34. > :47:37.going to come to that shortly. I will give way one more time because

:47:38. > :47:44.I think there was some astounding. No, there isn't! My honourable

:47:45. > :47:47.friend. -- someone standing. While he is looking at one of the most

:47:48. > :47:50.important thing is, the infrastructure for charging electric

:47:51. > :47:54.vehicles, will he also bear in mind the rule all areas of our country?

:47:55. > :48:01.Their access to the grid is going to be limited and it will be

:48:02. > :48:05.exacerbated by a rapid roll-out of electric cars. Would he look at

:48:06. > :48:09.encouraging solar car ports and canopies to help address those rural

:48:10. > :48:15.grid issues at the same time as he is looking at the charging points

:48:16. > :48:19.for motorway service stations, coffee shops, retail outlets, etc? I

:48:20. > :48:23.think that is very significant and rural communities always being left

:48:24. > :48:29.behind and it could be ahead of the curve if he looks at incentivising

:48:30. > :48:38.solar carports and canopies. The honourable lady makes a bold case on

:48:39. > :48:45.behalf of rural places, given that I've present places like Southern St

:48:46. > :48:50.James, many of which are glorious, that can only be described as

:48:51. > :48:54.essentially rural, I represent one of the most rural constituencies in

:48:55. > :48:59.the country. She could hardly expect neglect the interests of those that

:49:00. > :49:04.live there and we will do our utmost to ensure that they are not

:49:05. > :49:06.disadvantaged by the changes that are part of this Bill or indeed any

:49:07. > :49:21.of the things tangential to it. More charge points across our

:49:22. > :49:30.kingdom. I have talked about the common technical standards I we must

:49:31. > :49:34.go further. There are already charging points at virtually all

:49:35. > :49:41.motorway service areas and just last week Shell chose the UK to roll out

:49:42. > :49:47.its forecourt rapid charges which will be have the first ten

:49:48. > :49:54.operational early next year. So we may not need the Bill to, if

:49:55. > :50:00.industry continues at this pace. I thank the Minister for giving way. I

:50:01. > :50:04.wanted to raise the point of technical standards. In my

:50:05. > :50:10.constituency we have a small business which is doing successful

:50:11. > :50:16.work of retrofitting delivery vans, where the old diddly diesel injury

:50:17. > :50:22.has reached the end of its life and are being fitted with battery packs.

:50:23. > :50:27.To retrofitting is an important part of how we improve the existing fleet

:50:28. > :50:33.of vehicles and she will know that some of the money that is being

:50:34. > :50:42.invested in vehicles is about changing the existing fleet. So she

:50:43. > :50:50.is right about that. I thought of Disraeli as she rose, as am sure she

:50:51. > :50:57.did, too. This Disraeli said man is not a creature of circumstances.

:50:58. > :51:01.What we do in the future about these things is in our hands, in the hands

:51:02. > :51:07.of government and parliament, we can create the kind of future that we

:51:08. > :51:13.want and in bracing this technology ensure that is harnessed to the best

:51:14. > :51:21.effect. Not all technical Lloyd technological change is virtuous.

:51:22. > :51:27.You mustn't assume that ten of technological change is efficacious.

:51:28. > :51:33.It has no moral aspect. It is up for us to decide how the best outcome

:51:34. > :51:36.can be achieved through the technological changes that we are

:51:37. > :51:46.considering tonight and that can be done across the House by people of

:51:47. > :51:52.goodwill. Now, we need to also think about what workplaces can do. I want

:51:53. > :51:57.to help workplaces provide charging facilities for fleets and cars and I

:51:58. > :52:04.want to make sure that charging is flexible to meet the demands of the

:52:05. > :52:07.grid and make the running of vehicles as easy as possible and get

:52:08. > :52:12.them on the roads as quickly as possible and in that way the

:52:13. > :52:15.government will be... I just want to make this point because this is

:52:16. > :52:23.going to be an exciting part of my speech. It may not be evident, but

:52:24. > :52:28.it may it will be it in a moment. We will be seeking the views of the

:52:29. > :52:32.public of the charging infrastructure. I promise previously

:52:33. > :52:38.a public consultation, indeed a competition to develop a aid

:52:39. > :52:41.charging infrastructure that is instantly recognisable. It seems to

:52:42. > :52:46.me to be right that when you drive down the street you should be able

:52:47. > :52:53.to spot an electrical charging spoiler, rather like you can spot a

:52:54. > :53:02.pillar box. Although I leave this for others to decide. If my name

:53:03. > :53:16.were associated with such a thing! The Secretary of State has suggested

:53:17. > :53:19.that and I will take as a proposal. We'll have to make a decision about

:53:20. > :53:25.the name, something alliterative and something memorable. But we need to

:53:26. > :53:32.think about getting consistency about charging points, we need to

:53:33. > :53:37.know where a charging point is. We have allergic vehicle charging

:53:38. > :53:42.points but if unless you know where they are and are familiar where they

:53:43. > :53:53.are, I'm not sure you'd currently spot them. I give way. I'm grateful.

:53:54. > :53:57.He may remember that at this point in his speech last time this Bill

:53:58. > :54:02.was in the House I pointed out to him that there were only two

:54:03. > :54:06.charging points in the House of Commons car park, for those of us

:54:07. > :54:14.who have electric cars and he undertook to rectify that situation.

:54:15. > :54:16.After his speech I was met by somebody from the House authorities

:54:17. > :54:20.who said those points would work coming but they are still not there

:54:21. > :54:25.and I wonder whether he will be willing to give them a further kick

:54:26. > :54:31.so we can have charges in the car park. I didn't want to rush ahead

:54:32. > :54:37.and not give the honourable gentleman the chance to make that

:54:38. > :54:42.point. It does seem to me important that we do set an example and lead

:54:43. > :54:48.by example. And it does therefore be fit the House I think that we

:54:49. > :54:52.correct the necessary infrastructure in the way that he describes. He's

:54:53. > :55:01.done a great service to the House in raising the matter in the wake way

:55:02. > :55:14.that he has. So let's have a bid for more charging places in other places

:55:15. > :55:19.perhaps. I'm grateful. Can I ask whether he has had any further

:55:20. > :55:23.thoughts on the data log of automated vehicles, how long such

:55:24. > :55:29.information ought to be kept for and who should have access to it. Quite

:55:30. > :55:33.clearly we are all expecting that insurance companies will have the

:55:34. > :55:37.right to act access the data log and also the police because even if

:55:38. > :55:42.there has been no accident, the vehicle might have been involved in

:55:43. > :55:49.a crime, but will others be able to seek and have access to this data

:55:50. > :55:53.log such as employer who was to say what an employee has been up to join

:55:54. > :55:59.a day or perhaps an ambitious divorce lawyer who was a whether an

:56:00. > :56:06.adulterous activity has taken place or whether Bickle is gone that

:56:07. > :56:12.afternoon. Just before the Minister and so is that unnecessary long

:56:13. > :56:17.intervention, I would like to draw to attention to the House at the

:56:18. > :56:23.Minister has already come to the end of this preliminary remarks and he

:56:24. > :56:30.is now in the body of his speech. Which is necessary to be lengthy

:56:31. > :56:37.because he is educating averse as well as entertaining as. He will

:56:38. > :56:44.very soon be approaching the finale. Minister. The honourable gentleman

:56:45. > :56:51.attempts made to move into salacious matters, which I will work at to

:56:52. > :56:57.pull sub but he is right. He raised this matter in committee. In the

:56:58. > :57:02.first bid to macro Bill. He's right that we need to look at these

:57:03. > :57:05.matters. Information is a powerful tool and the collection and storage

:57:06. > :57:10.of information is something about which this House takes a very

:57:11. > :57:17.serious view. So I think here's right to explore it and we will do

:57:18. > :57:22.that in committee and I don't know if he was volunteering to be on it,

:57:23. > :57:27.but that is more for the office rather than for me. But it does seem

:57:28. > :57:31.to be important that we consider information in this debate and we

:57:32. > :57:42.will discuss that further. Now, as we have said, again it is almost as

:57:43. > :57:49.if you have foresight of my speech, I am well into the main part of my

:57:50. > :57:59.speech and will be rapidly moving to a conclusion. In essence, the rise

:58:00. > :58:03.of electric vehicles, other technologies have profound

:58:04. > :58:12.implications for how we use our cars. Can you imagine, a parent

:58:13. > :58:20.could not have envisaged the idea of sat now or, or even cruise control.

:58:21. > :58:24.It would have seemed like science fiction just a generation ago. But

:58:25. > :58:30.this is not science fiction it, it is science fact. And they merely

:58:31. > :58:34.mark the way to a much more significant change, the combination

:58:35. > :58:40.of technologies that we enjoy in our lifetime and certainly in children's

:58:41. > :58:46.will change motoring profoundly. We expect automated cars to appear from

:58:47. > :58:52.the 20 and they are present an enormous opportunities for the UK,

:58:53. > :58:59.providing jobs and transforming lives and improving load safety. In

:59:00. > :59:05.2016, to human error was responsible for a very significant portion of

:59:06. > :59:14.accidents. Automatic cars -- automated castle rapidly change

:59:15. > :59:18.that. Accidents, as I described, will need an insurance framework

:59:19. > :59:25.that is fit for purpose. Currently, they may not be covered for

:59:26. > :59:33.collisions from automatic failure, because in the UK only the driver is

:59:34. > :59:39.insured. Taking companies to court is timely and expensive than

:59:40. > :59:46.undermines our insurance system. Not tackling the system, undermines the

:59:47. > :59:49.system. We have consulted widely as the House will know and having

:59:50. > :59:54.worked closely with colleagues and the industry and the insurance

:59:55. > :00:00.sector, the government is creating new compulsory framework that covers

:00:01. > :00:05.a motorist when they are driving and when they hand over control to the

:00:06. > :00:10.vehicle. We will ensure that consumers are provided with

:00:11. > :00:17.insurance as they are now and are quickly offered compensation. We'll

:00:18. > :00:26.make sure that... Not only will this make it easier for consumers, over

:00:27. > :00:31.time it will also reduce premiums. David Williams, chief commercial

:00:32. > :00:39.underwriter at ABTA, one of the UK's largest insurers, as well as making

:00:40. > :00:51.roads safer, he expects Read juiced premiums to follow. - barrack

:00:52. > :00:55.reduced premiums. We have had many productive debates in this chamber

:00:56. > :01:02.and in committee in the last sessions of the technology in

:01:03. > :01:10.aviation Bill, so with this in mind we have made amendments. There was a

:01:11. > :01:15.considered debate as I said earlier. Members raised issues around

:01:16. > :01:24.software and we have addressed those. And those who study these

:01:25. > :01:27.matters closely know that how we should improve legislation and they

:01:28. > :01:32.will see from what is published now that we have done that. There was an

:01:33. > :01:38.issue to about how we find an automated vehicle and we have

:01:39. > :01:46.listened and clarified the debtor nation of what an automated vehicle

:01:47. > :01:50.is. So far the scrutiny has resulted in improvements. What we bring

:01:51. > :01:55.before the House now is a better product than we want the one we

:01:56. > :01:59.brought before you the first time round, though that was I think

:02:00. > :02:04.important and welcomed by the House and industry. We can't be

:02:05. > :02:12.prescriptive, that might inhibit their very in inevitable unless we

:02:13. > :02:18.want to encourage. We want to strike the right balance between

:02:19. > :02:26.establishing the right certainties, and full that a number of rural

:02:27. > :02:32.constituencies, and I don't want big to dictatorial about what that

:02:33. > :02:39.future might be like. Has the government considered that the

:02:40. > :02:45.automation might be able to make moral decisions, so if a car was

:02:46. > :02:50.hurtling down a road and it might go into some children or into a lorry,

:02:51. > :02:56.will the software build to say only the driver will die all the

:02:57. > :03:04.children? Is able to make moral decisions? The developer Kurt

:03:05. > :03:08.developers are looking at hundreds of thousands of scenarios in getting

:03:09. > :03:15.the software capable of getting all the variables that drivers might

:03:16. > :03:20.encounter is exactly the process which those who are developing those

:03:21. > :03:26.products are now engaged in. So it is complex and it is challenging.

:03:27. > :03:35.But frankly, it is going to happen. But the honourable gentleman is

:03:36. > :03:40.right, doing at as well, in fact doing better than a driver in

:03:41. > :03:46.control of a vehicle would do and then making that vehicle sofa is

:03:47. > :03:52.what this is all about. -- baking that vehicle safer.

:03:53. > :03:57.In those circumstances where a computer is making a moral decision,

:03:58. > :04:03.it could be a single child on the road or whether to career into a

:04:04. > :04:08.bus. If they choose, if a machine or computer chooses that the child is

:04:09. > :04:12.the least dangerous option, what comfort is that the parents? These

:04:13. > :04:16.are major issues which we need to have some answers to before we allow

:04:17. > :04:21.these vehicles with these kind of capabilities on the roads. That is

:04:22. > :04:27.the very point I was making earlier about how much we want autonomous

:04:28. > :04:33.vehicles to emulate human behaviour and how much we want them not to.

:04:34. > :04:37.Now that is a fine balance but it is not a balance we can strike through

:04:38. > :04:41.legislation debated in this house. It will need to be considered

:04:42. > :04:44.further down the line but it's not the business of this Bill to do so.

:04:45. > :04:50.The honourable gentleman is absolutely right to raise it because

:04:51. > :04:56.it is about whether we can get vehicles that we can be sure about,

:04:57. > :05:00.confident in, and then are going to be purchased on the basis that

:05:01. > :05:06.people enjoy that kind of certainty. I'm glad he's raised the issue. It

:05:07. > :05:08.is not what is before us but it is not unreasonable to put it on the

:05:09. > :05:14.table are something we need to debate. Let me move to my

:05:15. > :05:17.conclusion. I spoke about a desire to be a global leader in automated

:05:18. > :05:22.vehicles, both in their production and in their use. We all in this

:05:23. > :05:27.house have experienced the benefits that could access to transport can

:05:28. > :05:34.bring and I think we can continue to debate these issues in that spirit.

:05:35. > :05:40.As I said earlier, perhaps what moves me most is that for some

:05:41. > :05:46.people, good access to transport is not yet possible. For those who are

:05:47. > :05:52.elderly, with disabilities, for those who cannot drive, the

:05:53. > :05:55.transport system can be tough, potentially leaving them unable to

:05:56. > :05:57.enjoy the opportunities which come easier to others. This government

:05:58. > :06:03.strongly believe that we should act to improve that situation. If

:06:04. > :06:07.autonomous vehicles make a significant difference to those

:06:08. > :06:11.currently disadvantaged by their inability to access transport

:06:12. > :06:17.easily, then they will have done an immense service to our country. We

:06:18. > :06:21.published our draft transport accessibility action plan with

:06:22. > :06:25.proposals to improve the transport access of people with disabilities

:06:26. > :06:28.and a key part of that will be exploring the opportunities new

:06:29. > :06:32.technology offers to make travelling easier for those people. It may be

:06:33. > :06:35.awhile before vehicles can fully drive themselves but when this

:06:36. > :06:41.happens, it has potential to be transformational, improving lives,

:06:42. > :06:45.bringing opportunities, enabling a transport system that works for

:06:46. > :06:49.everyone. Taken together, these two measures will ensure the UK is at

:06:50. > :06:53.the forefront of the most profound change for road transport in over a

:06:54. > :06:56.century. In the spirit of opportunity that enabled my father

:06:57. > :07:00.to provide a good life for his wife and family, we will be driven by the

:07:01. > :07:06.common good. That means cleaner vehicles, ease of travel and safer

:07:07. > :07:10.roads. Good governments know when to step forward and when to step aside

:07:11. > :07:15.to allow others imagine, innovate and improve how we live. Ours is an

:07:16. > :07:19.ambitious plan, to support the invention, development and

:07:20. > :07:24.manufacture of new vehicle technologies, building skills,

:07:25. > :07:27.building jobs here in the UK, a transport system that works for

:07:28. > :07:32.everyone, now and in the future, means believing in a new generation

:07:33. > :07:35.of cars available to all, who can benefit from the chance to travel.

:07:36. > :07:39.Our glorious past was made by those with the confidence to dare to

:07:40. > :07:45.dream. The will to make dreams come true, the means to craft, to create

:07:46. > :07:49.a future filled with wonder because when our reach extends beyond our

:07:50. > :07:56.grasp, we can do our best, we can be out best. That is the prospect

:07:57. > :08:03.before us. Now let us reach out to that future. I commend this Bill to

:08:04. > :08:16.the house. The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Oh,

:08:17. > :08:19.not Mr McDonnell, R, Sir! Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker, can I start by

:08:20. > :08:25.putting on record my sincere thanks to the right honourable member for

:08:26. > :08:28.South Holland and the deep things. I don't say that entirely for the

:08:29. > :08:32.benefit of his family in the gallery. It is true that the

:08:33. > :08:38.Minister is always cooperative with the opposition and his collegiate

:08:39. > :08:43.approach is very much welcomed by this side. We share his objective of

:08:44. > :08:48.making this the best possible piece of legislation as it passes through

:08:49. > :08:51.the house. We would have liked more time from the first reading until

:08:52. > :08:57.today, which would have allowed members time to properly scrutinise

:08:58. > :09:03.the bill before coming to the house. It is true that this in some has

:09:04. > :09:07.already been rehearsed in the feet up bill but the reality is, we have

:09:08. > :09:09.new members since the election and they would and should have been

:09:10. > :09:16.given more opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. I accept this is not the

:09:17. > :09:21.right honourable gentleman's doing but rather another symbol, Madam

:09:22. > :09:25.Deputy Speaker, of the weakness of his government in pushing their

:09:26. > :09:32.non-contentious legislation to the fore. We are broadly supportive of

:09:33. > :09:37.the Bill, although there are, however, some concerns about the

:09:38. > :09:43.impact of some parts of the Bill. We shall press the government on those

:09:44. > :09:47.issues and table appropriate amendments in committee. We

:09:48. > :09:53.recognise that this is a crucially important Bill and one which we wish

:09:54. > :09:58.to support. Part one of the Bill deals with automated vehicles and

:09:59. > :10:01.insurance, ultralow emissions and autonomous vehicles are going to

:10:02. > :10:04.play an important role in our country's transport in the years to

:10:05. > :10:09.come so it is right the government are seeking to address some of the

:10:10. > :10:13.issues relating to autonomous vehicles. Last year, I think I'm

:10:14. > :10:20.right in saying, the UK automotive industry added some 18.9 billion in

:10:21. > :10:26.value to the UK economy. It supported 169,000 people directly in

:10:27. > :10:32.manufacturing and some 814,000 across the industry and throughout

:10:33. > :10:37.the supply chain. Forecasters have estimated the overall benefits of

:10:38. > :10:44.you believe the and autonomous vehicles are in the region of wristy

:10:45. > :10:49.1 billion a year, creating an additional 320,000 jobs. In light of

:10:50. > :10:55.Brexit, Madam Deputy Speaker, supporting this industry will be

:10:56. > :10:58.vital for the future of our economy. The uptake of these vehicles will

:10:59. > :11:03.play an important role in tackling the air quality crisis which

:11:04. > :11:09.reportedly leads to 50,000 premature deaths each year as well as hundreds

:11:10. > :11:13.of thousands of cases of respiratory illness, which is choking many of

:11:14. > :11:18.the towns and cities and which the government have failed properly to

:11:19. > :11:24.address. Labour in government would do better and I think it is fair to

:11:25. > :11:28.mention that we do do better in government. That can be seen from

:11:29. > :11:34.the mayor of London's announcement on toxic vehicle charges today. Such

:11:35. > :11:39.vehicles will also be vital to the UK's meeting of its climate change

:11:40. > :11:43.objectives for which the government currently lack a clear plan. It is

:11:44. > :11:48.vital that we introduced the legislation that is needed to

:11:49. > :11:52.facilitate and encourage investment, innovation and the uptake of

:11:53. > :11:57.vehicles of this kind but if that is to be possible, a definition of

:11:58. > :12:02.autonomous vehicles will be necessary. At present, there is no

:12:03. > :12:08.clear distinction between advanced driver assistance systems and fully

:12:09. > :12:14.automated driving technology in UK policy standards and legislation.

:12:15. > :12:17.The Bill requires the Secretary of State to prepare, keep up-to-date

:12:18. > :12:21.and publish a list of all motor vehicles to be used on roads in

:12:22. > :12:28.Great Britain that are deemed to be capable of safely driving themselves

:12:29. > :12:32.without having to be monitored by an individual. For some or part of the

:12:33. > :12:35.journey and the definition of an automated vehicle will be a vehicle

:12:36. > :12:40.that is included in a list drawn up by the Secretary of State. We are

:12:41. > :12:44.concerned this gives the Secretary of State the individual power to

:12:45. > :12:50.define what is and what isn't an automated vehicle. There is clearly

:12:51. > :12:55.a need for collaboration between the government, manufacturers, insurers

:12:56. > :12:59.and consumers to develop a viable and practical system of

:13:00. > :13:06.classification to identify when a vehicle is deemed to be automated or

:13:07. > :13:08.autonomous. The dividing lines between automated and autonomous

:13:09. > :13:14.vehicles are not always completely clear. The government must give more

:13:15. > :13:20.detail of the plans to classify vehicles as automated and consult

:13:21. > :13:28.widely on the definition and criteria for adding to the list of

:13:29. > :13:31.AVs in the Bill. We will be pressing the government in committee for that

:13:32. > :13:34.to be subject to secondary legislation, resolving the issue of

:13:35. > :13:38.how automated vehicles can be insured is essential as well if they

:13:39. > :13:44.are to become a feature on our roads. Consequently, we support the

:13:45. > :13:48.government's action to ensure that vehicles' insurance policies

:13:49. > :13:52.facilitate that in the future. We are however concerned about the

:13:53. > :13:55.potential cost of policyholders -- to policyholders, and the contention

:13:56. > :14:01.of a liability between manufacturers and insurers. It is imperative that

:14:02. > :14:05.in the event of a technological failure in an AV, it is easy for the

:14:06. > :14:11.consumers to establish quickly where liability rests and are able to make

:14:12. > :14:17.a claim as appropriate. At present, insurance law in the UK is driver

:14:18. > :14:20.centric. Drivers must have insurance in order to provide compensation for

:14:21. > :14:27.third parties for personal injury or property damage. The government's

:14:28. > :14:30.intention to emphasise that if there is an insurance event, the

:14:31. > :14:33.compensation route for the individual remains within the motor

:14:34. > :14:42.insurance framework rather than through a product liability

:14:43. > :14:47.framework of a manufacturer. I will give way. On this issue about the

:14:48. > :14:52.insurance policy and who has liability, in the event where a

:14:53. > :15:00.human driven vehicle is in a collision with a vehicle that is

:15:01. > :15:05.being driven by its computer technology... Oh, yes! Does the

:15:06. > :15:08.insurance companies seem, given that 95% of accidents are due to

:15:09. > :15:17.Jumeirah, that the computer is right and the human is wrong and therefore

:15:18. > :15:23.is at fault? Computer says no! Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a

:15:24. > :15:28.salient point but as I understand it, the fully automated vehicle

:15:29. > :15:35.would rest with the manufacturer. But as I say, Madam Deputy

:15:36. > :15:38.Speaker... The honourable member is making a very good series of points

:15:39. > :15:41.but why does he assume that the error would rest with the

:15:42. > :15:45.manufacturer and not perhaps the software designer or perhaps the

:15:46. > :15:51.programmer or even the ethicist who informed it? He is right to correct

:15:52. > :15:58.me, actually, the claim is with the insurer. But this is, as members

:15:59. > :16:03.have pointed out, not entirely clear and the Association of British

:16:04. > :16:07.insurers has expressed concerns that existing insurance practices would

:16:08. > :16:11.need to be significantly changed to deal routinely with road traffic

:16:12. > :16:17.accidents involving automated vehicles. The government

:16:18. > :16:21.acknowledges Distin the impact assessment for the Bill and said

:16:22. > :16:25.this might result in increased administrative and procedural for

:16:26. > :16:28.insurers, although the Bill does enable insurers to claim from the

:16:29. > :16:34.Manufacturers where the vehicle is in automated mode and beamed at

:16:35. > :16:36.fault for an incident. The government acknowledged that there

:16:37. > :16:39.could be significant teething problems with this system,

:16:40. > :16:44.particularly with early disagreements between the parties

:16:45. > :16:49.about the liability. I hope that clears up the points made by the

:16:50. > :16:52.honourable gentleman. As such, it is difficult to estimate how different

:16:53. > :16:57.insurance premiums will be when automated vehicles are fully

:16:58. > :17:02.functional on the road. The roll-out and the proliferation of autonomous

:17:03. > :17:05.vehicles should produce significant safety benefits, with driver error

:17:06. > :17:11.being either significantly reduced or eliminated completely. While that

:17:12. > :17:16.should consequently reduce premiums, a great deal of work will be

:17:17. > :17:23.necessary as we prepare for this new environment to better assess whether

:17:24. > :17:26.that will in fact be the case. If there are increased procedural and

:17:27. > :17:31.administrative costs for insurers, there could be higher premiums. If

:17:32. > :17:36.that is the case, there would be a severe impact on the uptake of AVs

:17:37. > :17:39.in the UK, making the government's action is self-defeating. We believe

:17:40. > :17:46.the government must review at regular intervals how the insurance

:17:47. > :17:52.for AVs is working so Labour will be pressing for a review day on the

:17:53. > :17:55.face of the Bill. He makes some extreme important points and forgive

:17:56. > :17:58.me for interrupting him again but on the very point of insurance, the

:17:59. > :18:02.honourable member behind him made a very good point that human error is

:18:03. > :18:06.the greatest cause of accidents these days and therefore, the

:18:07. > :18:10.arrival of driverless vehicles would likely, one can't be 100% sure of

:18:11. > :18:13.anything but likely reduce the number of accidents and therefore

:18:14. > :18:16.reduce the amount of insurance required and therefore indeed reduce

:18:17. > :18:22.insurance premiums. Would this not in some ways liberate the driver in

:18:23. > :18:26.many ways rather than hamper them? I agree with the honourable gentleman,

:18:27. > :18:32.I think I made that point in my remarks. Let me now move, Mr Deputy

:18:33. > :18:40.Speaker, to the second part of the Bill relating to electric vehicles,

:18:41. > :18:44.charging and infrastructure. I just wanted to ask whether he felt there

:18:45. > :18:50.was any risk at all of any intervention to the software by

:18:51. > :18:51.someone malicious, even terrorists, to make some of these automated

:18:52. > :19:05.device is dangerous? It is a point of know of through my

:19:06. > :19:11.discussions with the minister that the Government are considering and

:19:12. > :19:17.taking very seriously. Mr Deputy Speaker, I should declare at this

:19:18. > :19:26.point that I'm the very proud owner of an entirely electric vehicle.

:19:27. > :19:40.It's a little tiny Renault. I like to think it's the tesler for the

:19:41. > :19:44.mini, not the few. They are key to reducing air pollution and meeting

:19:45. > :19:50.the UK's climate change objectives, as well as presenting economic

:19:51. > :19:52.opportunities. The uptake of electric and hybrid and

:19:53. > :19:59.alternatively fuelled vehicles is under way and increasing. Yet, we

:20:00. > :20:06.note the Government is 1.5 million short of their 1.6 million target

:20:07. > :20:12.for 2020. So, it is imperative that action is taken to encourage their

:20:13. > :20:16.uptake. Of course I give way. Most grateful to him for giving way.

:20:17. > :20:24.Isn't currently the problem with some of these smaller electric

:20:25. > :20:28.vehicle the range they have. Doubt his vehicle would get him from here

:20:29. > :20:32.to Hull without stopping for a recharge. As battery technology

:20:33. > :20:37.progresses, that is a difficulty which hopefully will disappear. The

:20:38. > :20:41.Right Honourable gentleman represents a constituency very close

:20:42. > :20:46.to my own. He's absolutely right. I think the range on the vehicle that

:20:47. > :20:55.I own currently in London is about 50 miles. It would take me several

:20:56. > :20:58.days I think to get to Westminster. But the technology is improving

:20:59. > :21:05.constantly. I am right to say the Nissan Leaf t range for the current

:21:06. > :21:10.model is about 90 miles but about to be 235 miles which would suit me

:21:11. > :21:16.very well it is about 230 miles from my home address to Westminster. I

:21:17. > :21:20.give way to the minister. Partly as a result of the overchairs of North

:21:21. > :21:27.West Hampshire partly to alleviate any fears the honourable gentleman

:21:28. > :21:31.might have, Mr Deputy Speaker, from next summer, when we begin the

:21:32. > :21:35.refurbishment of the underground car park at the House of Commons we will

:21:36. > :21:40.put in place 80 new electric charging points.

:21:41. > :21:46.Well, I am sure the house will be very pleased to hear the minister

:21:47. > :21:50.say. That this section of the bill on charging and infrastructure is

:21:51. > :21:55.largely about enabling secondary legislation and will not have

:21:56. > :22:00.significant impacts in the short time F the UK intends to be a global

:22:01. > :22:05.leader, we agree that we need to take broader action sooner rather

:22:06. > :22:08.than later. Given the importance of future proving, the legislation for

:22:09. > :22:15.work in this area, the oppositioning are nices the need to use --

:22:16. > :22:18.opposition recognises the need to use secondary legislation and to

:22:19. > :22:23.consult widely throughout the process. We will seek assurances and

:22:24. > :22:28.a review on how the provisions of the bill fit within a broader

:22:29. > :22:39.strategy for reducing harmful vehicle emissions and switching to

:22:40. > :22:44.LEVs and EVIs for uptake vehicles need to be practical which means

:22:45. > :22:48.putting in place the necessary infrastructure. On this issue of

:22:49. > :22:52.infrastructure my honourable friend is absolutely right. This is

:22:53. > :22:57.essential. What thought has he given to what we need to do to prevent the

:22:58. > :23:02.situation we have with broadband, where we have very good coverage in

:23:03. > :23:11.some places and not spots in other places? Because that situation has

:23:12. > :23:15.really disadvantaged some areas. My right is absolutely right. It is a

:23:16. > :23:19.point that my honourable friend and I have discussed on this. And I come

:23:20. > :23:28.to that in my remarks a little later. I don't want to interrupt him

:23:29. > :23:32.too often. Given the point the honourable lady has made and the

:23:33. > :23:38.points he's making too, he will want to know last week we announced a

:23:39. > :23:41.further ?4.5 million toll make charging points available for those

:23:42. > :23:46.without off-street parking because we are determined to make sure this

:23:47. > :23:51.facility is spread as widely as possible.

:23:52. > :23:57.I thank the minister for. That there are currently nearly 12,000 charging

:23:58. > :24:01.points for vehicles in the UK. At present there are multiple

:24:02. > :24:06.operators, each with their own plug, software, customer charges, billing

:24:07. > :24:09.systems and payment methods. There are also unevenly distributed, which

:24:10. > :24:15.is a point made by my honourable friend. There are more charging

:24:16. > :24:18.points available in the Orkney islands than in Blackpool, Grimsby

:24:19. > :24:22.and my own fair city of Hull combined. Although I had an

:24:23. > :24:28.opportunity of speaking briefly with the chief executive of my local

:24:29. > :24:32.authority area today. He assures me there are currently 32 charging

:24:33. > :24:37.points in Hull. But in the not too distant future we expect there to be

:24:38. > :24:43.70. It's welcome, therefore, that this bill seeks to increase the

:24:44. > :24:48.number of charging point facilities and to address their harmonisation

:24:49. > :24:51.and standardisation. The bill will allow the Government to require

:24:52. > :25:02.co-operation and sharing of facilities and information from

:25:03. > :25:08.operators allowing the Government to allow operaibility regardless of

:25:09. > :25:14.what specific EVB a person may have. Clause 11 gives the power to have

:25:15. > :25:21.requirements for operators to provide information about charging

:25:22. > :25:26.points such as location, operating hours, cost and inter-operability.

:25:27. > :25:31.These are very welcome. It is right this legislation should be put in

:25:32. > :25:38.place. It will not be enough on its own to encourage the uptake of

:25:39. > :25:43.electric vehicles. The Governments slashed the grants for electric

:25:44. > :25:47.vehicles and plug the cut in grants for EVs and for home charging. In

:25:48. > :25:52.May last year, the grant for purchasing an electric vehicle was

:25:53. > :26:00.cut from ?5,000 to ?4,500 and the grant for hybrids cut from ?5,000 to

:26:01. > :26:07.?2,500. The scheme was grant for hybrids cut from ?5,000 to

:26:08. > :26:12.?2,500. The scheme further issues not addressed by the bill, which the

:26:13. > :26:17.Government must get right. They must ensure that the grade is capable of

:26:18. > :26:20.meeting the additional demands that electric vehicles will bring. I

:26:21. > :26:27.heard what the minister said in his remarks thant. That must be planned

:26:28. > :26:31.for, and closely monitored, as electric vehicle use becomes more

:26:32. > :26:35.common. The Government must also develop a strategied to tackle the

:26:36. > :26:38.skills gap. Without training the necessary personnel, we as a nation

:26:39. > :26:42.will not be able to support the growth of this new generation of

:26:43. > :26:47.vehicles and could miss out on the benefits it presents. On

:26:48. > :26:52.infrastructure more broadly, Mr Deputy Speaker... Of course... The

:26:53. > :26:57.second time it has been raised and I think rightly so. I am very happy to

:26:58. > :27:02.agree now to initiate discussions during the passage of this bill with

:27:03. > :27:07.the department responsible for developing apprenticeships for

:27:08. > :27:11.education and other departments, so that we can address, begin to

:27:12. > :27:14.address at least the skills. He's right to raise it.

:27:15. > :27:22.I am very grateful for the minister's intervention. Will my

:27:23. > :27:27.friend give way, please? On this point of skills, as I said, I bought

:27:28. > :27:31.a Nissan Leaf. One thing that really struck me was the men in the garage

:27:32. > :27:37.were not good at explaining how it worked. And I think, out of the 20

:27:38. > :27:43.people they employed, only one really understood it. So, the sales

:27:44. > :27:50.force also has to understand how these things work. Absolutely. She's

:27:51. > :27:56.absolutely right. There must be proper training for sales personnel

:27:57. > :28:00.as well. Mr Deputy Speaker on infrastructure more broadly the

:28:01. > :28:03.Government must ensure that regulatory divergence does not

:28:04. > :28:08.develop teen the UK and EU as a result of Brexit. This is a really

:28:09. > :28:11.important issue, I think. We must absolutely ensure that regulation

:28:12. > :28:18.and standards are maintained after Brexit. This is essential if the UK

:28:19. > :28:23.is to be the vehicle manufacturer's location of choice for development,

:28:24. > :28:28.testing and deployment of automated and electric vehicles. However if

:28:29. > :28:33.the Government continues to mess up Brexit, any positives this bill

:28:34. > :28:41.brings, in terms of encouraging the automated and low emission vehicles

:28:42. > :28:48.industry will be completely negated. He'll be aware that companies like

:28:49. > :28:52.Volvo are getting rid of petrol Andesle production, focussing on

:28:53. > :28:58.France and Germany, who will bring about the stopping of diesel and

:28:59. > :29:01.petrol vehicles, 2030, as opposed to 2040 and the infrastructure is

:29:02. > :29:06.moving faster. Would he agree we really do need to go at least at the

:29:07. > :29:11.pace of our European counterparts in providing the range of I from

:29:12. > :29:16.structure needed to encourage the public sector to get a move --

:29:17. > :29:22.private sector to get a move on in Britain? He is absolutely right. We

:29:23. > :29:29.will table amendments at the committee stage. But it's fair to

:29:30. > :29:30.say that we, the opposition, are very broadly supportive of this

:29:31. > :29:39.bill. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Can I suggest that we

:29:40. > :29:43.start an introduction of say 12 minutes.

:29:44. > :29:47.Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the opposition front bench

:29:48. > :29:50.spokesman, particularly as he's supporting this bill as I am. Can I

:29:51. > :29:55.say to my Right Honourable friend I really do welcome the introduction

:29:56. > :30:00.of this bill and as I said in one of my interventions it is rather

:30:01. > :30:03.timely. Just to the front bench opposition spokesman as he was

:30:04. > :30:07.talking about the official ranges or the ranges of various cars, I

:30:08. > :30:14.thought it would be interesting for him to know that when I was reading

:30:15. > :30:19.green car, I saw that the new Renault Zoe ZE40 has an official

:30:20. > :30:24.range of 250 miles. And it seems to me that almost on a weekly basis we

:30:25. > :30:30.are seeing new vehicles coming on to the market with that range extended,

:30:31. > :30:34.which of course is so important for those people we electric vehicles

:30:35. > :30:40.that are worried about range and suffer from range anxiety, which I

:30:41. > :30:45.gath sister a new form of anxiety that we can all suffer from if we

:30:46. > :30:52.get an electric car. Can I just say, it is a great pleasure to be taking

:30:53. > :30:57.part in a transport debate where I am not discussing HS2.

:30:58. > :31:04.This will come as a bit of a shock to some of my fans. But I have to

:31:05. > :31:08.say that I am more than excited about electric vehicles and

:31:09. > :31:17.automated vehicles to a degree that I am not excited about HS2. But Mr

:31:18. > :31:22.Deputy Speaker, enough of HS2, apart to suggest perhaps the track could

:31:23. > :31:26.be used to run automated vehicles along rather than the antiquated

:31:27. > :31:30.technology that we appear to be ordering at the Department for

:31:31. > :31:33.Transport. So often legislation and Governments are behind the curb when

:31:34. > :31:39.it comes to technology and scientist. I remember in the 90s we

:31:40. > :31:45.were discussing the human Human Genome Project to a greater degree

:31:46. > :31:50.and the regulations were far behind the science and technology at that

:31:51. > :31:52.time. So, unlike the opposition front bench spokesman I don't think

:31:53. > :31:56.this bill could be introduced soon enough and put through its stages

:31:57. > :32:00.soon enough. It is one of the foundations of this new technology.

:32:01. > :32:04.We are behind countries such as Norway, where in fact more than 5%

:32:05. > :32:11.of the passenger cars that have been sold now are plug ins. And so the

:32:12. > :32:15.legislation covering the insurance position on automated vehicles and

:32:16. > :32:20.electric vehicle charging is setting the framework for some of the most

:32:21. > :32:25.significant advance that I think we have seen since the internal

:32:26. > :32:29.combustion engine which itself made an appearance and in fact halted the

:32:30. > :32:34.progress of electric vehicles the first time around. I don't know how

:32:35. > :32:40.many people appreciate that electric vehicles are far from being new.

:32:41. > :32:45.Wider public ownership is new. The first practical electric car was

:32:46. > :32:50.built in London in 1884 by Thomas Parker. Now I have seen a picture of

:32:51. > :32:54.this and it looks like a pram on wheels. I wouldn't recommend it to

:32:55. > :32:58.anybody. It is interesting that electric vehicles did come into use

:32:59. > :33:05.commercially, particularly in a small fleet of 12 cabs used in New

:33:06. > :33:11.York as far back as 1897. So, what was interesting was the advent of

:33:12. > :33:17.the internal combustion engine which had the advantages of a longer range

:33:18. > :33:22.and quicker refuelling and the rapid development of the infrastructure

:33:23. > :33:25.for petrol vehicles meant that electric vehicles, forget the pun -

:33:26. > :33:29.a back seat. I think there is a lesson in the death of the electric

:33:30. > :33:34.vehicle the first time around and the introduction of the rapid

:33:35. > :33:38.charging infrastructure, if you like, for petrol vehicles, meant

:33:39. > :33:43.that we may progress. I'll give way briefly.

:33:44. > :33:49.Is she aware that following World War II, when previously all British

:33:50. > :33:52.cities had electric tram systems, the oil industry and the motorcar

:33:53. > :33:56.industry conspired to get them ripped out as part of the Marshall

:33:57. > :34:03.plan and we should be aware of the oil industry in terms of our bid to

:34:04. > :34:07.get electrification and clean air? I will leave the honourable gentleman

:34:08. > :34:10.to make his own point but I am particularly excited about the

:34:11. > :34:16.progress of electric vehicles because of my concern about the

:34:17. > :34:19.environment and speakers and interventions have talked about air

:34:20. > :34:23.quality but there is no doubt about it, the Paris climate talks started

:34:24. > :34:26.to exert that downward pressure on CO2 emissions that I think will

:34:27. > :34:33.inevitably result in the phasing out of fossil fuels. Indeed, I have been

:34:34. > :34:37.talking to the renewable energy Association, which is the UK's

:34:38. > :34:41.largest trade association for renewable energy and clean

:34:42. > :34:43.technology and it has produced an excellent forward view which

:34:44. > :34:47.estimates that the move towards electric vehicles will be even more

:34:48. > :34:53.rapid than that which is currently anticipated by government. I will

:34:54. > :34:57.give way. My right honourable friend is making a fine speech about energy

:34:58. > :35:00.purity and clean air. Would she not be as excited as I am that so much

:35:01. > :35:06.tiny technologies coming along in this vein, largely due to the

:35:07. > :35:10.dirtiness of so many Chinese cities and air pollution? Will she

:35:11. > :35:14.therefore also welcomed the amount of invention that is coming not

:35:15. > :35:19.through government but through the free market and through the

:35:20. > :35:23.technology that it is spurring? I agree entirely with my honourable

:35:24. > :35:28.friend and I will refer to the international scene a bit later in

:35:29. > :35:32.my speech. In fact, the renewable energy is initiation estimates that

:35:33. > :35:37.most new car sales will be electric welder for the 2040 diesel and

:35:38. > :35:41.petrol sales ban and they also further estimate that 75% of new

:35:42. > :35:47.cars and light commercial vehicle sales will be all electric, or

:35:48. > :35:52.plug-in hybrid, by 2030. I think that goes to show that the EV market

:35:53. > :35:57.is going to be set to be one of the most exciting in modern times but of

:35:58. > :36:02.course as people have been referring to, there are several barriers. They

:36:03. > :36:06.range from public policy and the cost and range of vehicles to the

:36:07. > :36:12.current lack of infrastructure and the availability of low carbon

:36:13. > :36:17.energy. Currently, the UK's EV and energy storage markets directly

:36:18. > :36:20.employ over 16,000 people and I think that is going to grow

:36:21. > :36:25.significantly, particularly if our public policy supports growth for

:36:26. > :36:31.example, off grid flexibility, strengthening our building codes and

:36:32. > :36:34.even workplace regulation. And in addition to the domestic growth, we

:36:35. > :36:37.also have the possible at your post Brexit manufacturing and export

:36:38. > :36:43.opportunities which are potentially very significant. -- the

:36:44. > :36:46.possibilities of post Brexit Manufacturing. To exploit those

:36:47. > :36:49.opportunities, we need a robust domestic market which in turn

:36:50. > :36:55.depends on a reliable, available, affordable low-carbon electric

:36:56. > :36:59.vehicle charging network and the network has certainly got a long way

:37:00. > :37:02.to go. I had a look in Chesham and Amersham because I thought, well,

:37:03. > :37:07.they are pretty go-ahead places, they are going to be early adopters

:37:08. > :37:12.of new technology and I was really disappointed at the electric

:37:13. > :37:15.charging map I looked at. I had one point in great Missenden, one in

:37:16. > :37:21.little Chalfont, one in Chalfont Saint Peter. Whereas Chesham was

:37:22. > :37:27.ahead of the game, it had two. What is interesting for me is that Little

:37:28. > :37:30.Chalfont's point is that the London underground car park so I hope the

:37:31. > :37:35.minister in summing up may say something about encouraging

:37:36. > :37:41.organisations such as London Underground and transport for London

:37:42. > :37:45.to invest in far more charging points at their car parking facility

:37:46. > :37:50.throughout the south-east. As I said earlier, I think international

:37:51. > :37:55.progress is going to be rapid and my honourable friend mentioned China. I

:37:56. > :37:58.think it is worth taking a few minutes just to look at what is

:37:59. > :38:02.happening internationally in more detail. In the UK, the government

:38:03. > :38:06.has confirmed they will ban the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles

:38:07. > :38:10.without a battery element by 2040. France has actually done the same.

:38:11. > :38:16.The Netherlands has confirmed its plan to ensure all new vehicles are

:38:17. > :38:21.emission free by 2030. That really is an effective ban on the sale of

:38:22. > :38:25.new diesels and petrol vehicles. Germany is considering banning new

:38:26. > :38:28.petrol and diesel cars by 2030. That certainly would require the

:38:29. > :38:34.upgrading of the country's entire manufacturing processes and supply

:38:35. > :38:38.chain by then. China is considering a ban similar to the one being

:38:39. > :38:41.introduced in the UK but it is yet to announce a timeline and I think

:38:42. > :38:46.that will be very significant but moving on to another country with a

:38:47. > :38:53.vast population, India, it has announced it wants all new car sales

:38:54. > :38:55.to be electric by 2030. An interesting by-product is of course

:38:56. > :39:02.what will be needed for manufacturing of the batteries?

:39:03. > :39:04.Volkswagen estimates that 40 geiger factories for manufacturing

:39:05. > :39:09.batteries are going to be needed globally. -- giga factories. I think

:39:10. > :39:13.there is some believe that there is a scope for a number of these

:39:14. > :39:17.factories to be located in the UK and those would create new

:39:18. > :39:20.manufacturing jobs and inward investment if domestic markets are

:39:21. > :39:24.created for those battery products. I hope the Minister in his summing

:39:25. > :39:27.up will look at what possibilities there are of encouraging that kind

:39:28. > :39:35.of investment in our Manufacturing in the UK. Now I want to turn

:39:36. > :39:41.specifically to the Bill because I have welcomed it and there is no

:39:42. > :39:43.doubt that the national roll-out of a strategic smart and effective

:39:44. > :39:52.charging infrastructure is a critical component to developing

:39:53. > :39:55.this electric car market. The move to powers to require service area

:39:56. > :40:01.operators to operate a minimum level of EV charging is welcome, both on

:40:02. > :40:04.motorways and trunk roads. Whilst there is already some provision of

:40:05. > :40:09.charging on the majority of major motorways and trunk roads by one

:40:10. > :40:13.dominant operator, there is a need for more competition and to make the

:40:14. > :40:19.access easier to break down the perceived barriers to the uptake of

:40:20. > :40:26.EVs. The applicability of this too large fuel retailers, where not part

:40:27. > :40:28.of a trunk road, service area or motorway service area, may not be as

:40:29. > :40:34.valuable because of something which is known as the dwell time at such

:40:35. > :40:40.sites, which is less desirable to the motorist. EV drivers typically

:40:41. > :40:44.stop for a short break, commensurate with the time required to get a

:40:45. > :40:47.significant charge and there may be a need in areas where a customer may

:40:48. > :40:52.rely on public rapid charging instead of the classic overnight

:40:53. > :40:56.charging at home or work. In this case, the charging will most likely

:40:57. > :40:59.be combined with another amenity and therefore, it is most essential that

:41:00. > :41:05.government considers retail sites, coffee shops, and all places where

:41:06. > :41:11.there can be some associated activity to the charging of a

:41:12. > :41:16.vehicle. I think also in light of the alternative fuels infrastructure

:41:17. > :41:19.directive, we are starting to prescribe a common standard on what

:41:20. > :41:26.the future of EV charging should look like. But we also need to allow

:41:27. > :41:29.roaming, just as we have roaming for phones, we need roaming so that

:41:30. > :41:33.vehicle operators can use other people's equipment and I would like

:41:34. > :41:43.to know what the government is doing to encourage operators' hardware, to

:41:44. > :41:48.make it possible to cross the barriers of a contract with a single

:41:49. > :41:52.user. I also think that the point that has been made, that the various

:41:53. > :41:58.ways of accessing these points, whether it is through the account,

:41:59. > :42:02.card or smartphone, is confusing and unnecessary and I think we need to

:42:03. > :42:06.look at standardising that. The requirement for these charge points,

:42:07. > :42:09.especially those at home and in workplaces and for those to be

:42:10. > :42:14.smart, I think, is essential, because it will allow electric

:42:15. > :42:19.vehicles to become part of the developing, decentralised grid. We

:42:20. > :42:25.need to be able to use those vehicles to not only take part out

:42:26. > :42:30.of the network and out of the grid but to put them back into the grid

:42:31. > :42:38.at certain times. And I hope that massively distributed part of our

:42:39. > :42:42.grid infrastructure will be -- will become a reality with EV Raw so I

:42:43. > :42:46.hope the Minister will say something about that and I've already

:42:47. > :42:49.mentioned for rural areas, the solar carports and canopies which I think

:42:50. > :42:54.are essential to make sure that rural areas are not disadvantaged.

:42:55. > :42:58.But turning the bill itself, I wondered whether there was any

:42:59. > :43:01.opportunity for amendment? I would just like to make a couple of

:43:02. > :43:04.suggestions, Mr Deputy Speaker, before I sit down. I think the

:43:05. > :43:09.government could consider going further so we can regulate all new

:43:10. > :43:14.houses with driveways or a capacity on site for EV charging and housing

:43:15. > :43:18.element, to have the three phase electricity supply that will be

:43:19. > :43:24.necessary for effective charging of electric vehicles. I also think that

:43:25. > :43:28.we should make sure that we regulate so the minimum power supply levels

:43:29. > :43:32.that are included in building codes for all new homes, offices, shopping

:43:33. > :43:37.centres, public buildings and other areas where parking is available to

:43:38. > :43:42.the public will ensure that whilst we only have a small number of EV

:43:43. > :43:47.charge stations at present, those retail sites can rapidly expand as

:43:48. > :43:51.the demand grows. I also think we should regulate so that all new

:43:52. > :43:56.workplaces should have EV charging facilities or a provision to install

:43:57. > :43:59.charge points. I have to say, lastly, I think those people that

:44:00. > :44:03.have electric vehicles should be identified. In Norway, they have

:44:04. > :44:13.identifying letters on their license plates. They have EDL and a capacity

:44:14. > :44:19.to go to and 99,999 vehicles. I think they are up to about 69,000 at

:44:20. > :44:23.the moment. I hope people can be rewarded for turning to electric.

:44:24. > :44:26.This is indeed an exciting technology, the future, and I'm glad

:44:27. > :44:34.our government is grasping it by the horns. Alan Brown. Thank you, Mr

:44:35. > :44:37.debit is bigger. In this place quite often, you get a feeling of deja vu

:44:38. > :44:41.and tonight is another of those times where there is a feeling of

:44:42. > :44:44.deja vu, there's a feeling we have been here before and some of the

:44:45. > :44:48.comments have already been heard before. I must warn members of the

:44:49. > :44:51.house, if any of them have actually paid attention to the speeches I

:44:52. > :45:02.have made an electric vehicle before, you're going to get another

:45:03. > :45:06.feeling of deja vu. Merited, that. Anyway, on that deja vu, that is

:45:07. > :45:10.because clearly, this Bill is part of the vehicle technology and

:45:11. > :45:16.aviation Bill previously, and it also means it is testament to the

:45:17. > :45:20.folly of calling a general election before. The general election not

:45:21. > :45:24.only was a waste of money, it is shown in fact we root -- we are

:45:25. > :45:27.revisiting the legislation which effectively already went through

:45:28. > :45:33.committee stage, we are redoing work that was done before and it is

:45:34. > :45:37.taxpayers money. -- costing taxpayers money. I will give way if

:45:38. > :45:40.the member wants to make an intervention. The honourable member

:45:41. > :45:44.is making the point that the general election is a waste of money, I

:45:45. > :45:51.can't possibly agree, we have 13 Conservative MPs in Scotland which

:45:52. > :45:55.is a great success on its own. No, no, I think... I need to help a

:45:56. > :45:59.little, just sit down, Mr Brown, just to say, I'm not quite sure

:46:00. > :46:03.where a debate on the number of MPs in Scotland has any relation to

:46:04. > :46:10.electric vehicles. Alan Browne. Stop enticing him! Thank you, Mr Deputy

:46:11. > :46:13.Speaker, before I move on, again proof of where this government is

:46:14. > :46:21.that because the position they have put themselves in, the bill before

:46:22. > :46:24.was already split into and we have had the atoll bill which is a too

:46:25. > :46:27.close bill and now we have got this and I'm surprised the government has

:46:28. > :46:33.not split this the i to pretend they have a bigger legislative programme

:46:34. > :46:37.in the next two years. -- this the i 2%. That said, despite what me is

:46:38. > :46:42.seen as churlish comments, I welcome what is in this Bill so it is a

:46:43. > :46:48.welcome step forward even with that feeling of deja vu. The minister set

:46:49. > :46:52.out and it is clear that there is a wider desire to get to the stage

:46:53. > :46:57.where we increase the use or get to the place where we can usefully

:46:58. > :47:00.autonomous cars. That is going to increase road safety because it has

:47:01. > :47:03.been touched on that generally, accidents are the cause of human

:47:04. > :47:07.behaviour, driving when tired, people being distracted and there

:47:08. > :47:13.are other causes of accidents. Clearly, autonomous vehicles take

:47:14. > :47:17.away the human risk factors. Therefore, changing the insurance

:47:18. > :47:21.regulations so that insurance is not dependent on driver regulation, as

:47:22. > :47:26.is the case at the moment, is clearly welcome and it is enabling

:47:27. > :47:34.the process from the government so I welcome that part of bill for that

:47:35. > :47:36.reason. The minister earlier on and said it is hoped that autonomous

:47:37. > :47:43.vehicles will lead to reduced insurance premiums but conversely,

:47:44. > :47:45.we need to make sure that increased procedural and administrative costs

:47:46. > :47:49.for insurers don't actually lead to higher premiums. If that is the

:47:50. > :47:53.case, a risk that it will impact on the uptake of autonomous vehicles so

:47:54. > :47:59.I would ask that the government reviews the procedure going forward

:48:00. > :48:02.in terms of reviewing the cost of insurance premiums and if there is a

:48:03. > :48:08.negative impact on the uptake of autonomous vehicles. Mr Deputy

:48:09. > :48:15.Speaker, it is really important that Scotland is not left behind in this

:48:16. > :48:17.process. When it comes to the take-up of autonomous vehicles,

:48:18. > :48:21.Scotland needs to be included. What better country would there be to

:48:22. > :48:25.trial the use of autonomous vehicles on narrow country roads than

:48:26. > :48:29.Scotland? Indeed, in Scotland, we have got country roads that are

:48:30. > :48:34.still single-track roads with passing places, so right now,

:48:35. > :48:38.drivers need to make a decision, sometimes you have a stand-off where

:48:39. > :48:41.drivers are looking at each other and wondering which one is going to

:48:42. > :48:45.reverse all the way back to the passing place? Autonomous vehicles

:48:46. > :48:50.could actually improve that and make these narrow rural roads saved but

:48:51. > :48:53.equally trials need to be held to see other vehicles cope with such

:48:54. > :48:57.situations. -- narrow rural roads safer. I also welcome the UK

:48:58. > :49:01.Government's commitment with the industrial strategy to look at an

:49:02. > :49:05.autonomous vehicle hub and touching on what I said about trials in

:49:06. > :49:08.Scotland, I would ask that the UK Government looks at and discusses

:49:09. > :49:11.with colleagues in Scottish Government opportunities to find a

:49:12. > :49:27.suitable hub in Scotland as well. To be a global leader it needs

:49:28. > :49:31.greater financial commitment. Needs collaboration and the Government

:49:32. > :49:35.needs to think how it will play out in a post Brexit world. If I move on

:49:36. > :49:39.to part two of the bill which relates to the infrastructure

:49:40. > :49:48.necessary for electric vehicles, again, this is required and overdue,

:49:49. > :49:53.if further progress is to be made towards decarbonised transport. The

:49:54. > :50:00.there is a commitment they will be none carbon by 2040. The Scottish

:50:01. > :50:06.Government has a more ambitious target, 2032.

:50:07. > :50:10.We hear of a future electric charging can be part of this. So,

:50:11. > :50:14.therefore, the UK Government needs to be doing some strategic planning

:50:15. > :50:17.and long-term planning towards that. It needs to be wider policies that

:50:18. > :50:23.link together to be able to implement this and make it happen.

:50:24. > :50:27.If pollution contributes to 40,000 premature deaths a year, so we

:50:28. > :50:31.really have to decar nonise much quicker. That is why I am asking the

:50:32. > :50:43.Government to think of more ambitious targets. 23% of carbon

:50:44. > :50:50.dioxide emissions, contributor, I repeat decar nonisation is

:50:51. > :50:52.important. As we plan for ultra low emission vehicles, an inacceptive to

:50:53. > :50:58.get this cars off the road. It cannot be left to car manufacturers

:50:59. > :51:03.to operate diesel scrappage schemes. The UK Government policy years ago

:51:04. > :51:09.that actually incense teased people to buy diesel cars and run these on

:51:10. > :51:19.the road. I suggest it is a UK Government responsibility to incense

:51:20. > :51:23.tease scrappage -- insensitise people to use electric vehicles. In

:51:24. > :51:33.terms of road transport, as we need to consider the use of the second

:51:34. > :51:38.engines that drive the refridgerationup its in HGV lorries.

:51:39. > :51:44.These pollute more heavily than engines. I welcome the fact the

:51:45. > :51:48.Government is consulting on the use of red diesel in these

:51:49. > :51:52.refridgeration units. More Government action will be required.

:51:53. > :51:59.So this bill does provide some limited interventions. It will help

:52:00. > :52:04.towards the uptake of electric or ultra low emission vehicles. Much

:52:05. > :52:09.more is required going forward. The bill does provide or make provision

:52:10. > :52:15.for providing better clarity regards information and charging points. It

:52:16. > :52:21.will be needed to improve consumer confidence, as has been outlined.

:52:22. > :52:25.Not just the range, a concern of consumers, but they, or users, but

:52:26. > :52:30.they need to know where to charge their vehicles. Now also for me it

:52:31. > :52:33.makes sense to have continuity of the charging points and access to

:52:34. > :52:37.these, which is required to build consumer confidence in terms of

:52:38. > :52:42.people being willing to undertake longer journeys and not have the

:52:43. > :52:48.concern of being stranded due to incompatibility of charge points.

:52:49. > :52:52.So, in that regard, clause nine is an enabling clause, but proper

:52:53. > :52:59.secondary regulations will be required sooner rather than later.

:53:00. > :53:02.Within the bill other specification requirements in terms of technology

:53:03. > :53:05.will be welcome. In the previous bill committee, concerns were raised

:53:06. > :53:11.about possible hacking. To ensure this is not a risk is important

:53:12. > :53:21.again. Just in terms of cybersecurity and safety, but in

:53:22. > :53:26.actual fact for underlying consumer confidence and people having the

:53:27. > :53:33.funds to buy electric vehicles. If there's to be a bigger uptake, there

:53:34. > :53:43.needs to be a larger infrastructure charging provision. While there is a

:53:44. > :53:45.bill to force retailers to provide charging points, clarity will be

:53:46. > :53:50.needs and how funded from the Government will be provided. I would

:53:51. > :53:55.also suggest as we move towards ultra low emotion vehicles than the

:53:56. > :54:01.current fuel provision will not be fit for purpose. The networker may

:54:02. > :54:06.not be the best way forward. Clearly as we move towards non-carbon

:54:07. > :54:15.transport than existing fuel suppliers will change and modify and

:54:16. > :54:19.no longer be in existence. So, to ensure this, better stra egek

:54:20. > :54:25.intervention and direction is required. It is not sufficient that

:54:26. > :54:27.the Government believes the best plan is delivered by low cart

:54:28. > :54:33.authorities and individuals. This is why we've heard of the

:54:34. > :54:40.inconsistentsy of the roll out of electric infrastructure today. The

:54:41. > :54:43.Government pledge of ?32 million for charging infrastructure from

:54:44. > :54:48.2015-2020 is also, I would suggest, insufficient. This should be

:54:49. > :54:56.compared to the Scottish Government investment, which has been more than

:54:57. > :54:59.?11 million since 2011. And a network of 900 electric public

:55:00. > :55:04.charging bays. The Scottish Government has acknowledged that

:55:05. > :55:10.they need to do more. Currently around ?15 million is spent on low

:55:11. > :55:15.carbon vehicles and infrastructure. The gosh Government to ride that

:55:16. > :55:25.concession is going to more than triple the budget to ?50 million per

:55:26. > :55:28.an number from 2019-2021/22. I suggest the UK Government

:55:29. > :55:35.reconsiders its funding arrangements as well. SNPs in the Scottish

:55:36. > :55:41.Government will accelerate the procurement of the public vehicles

:55:42. > :55:47.in the public and private sector. Commercial bus fleets by the 2020s.

:55:48. > :55:51.I would ask what the UK Government's doing in that regard as well?

:55:52. > :55:56.Another example where the Scottish Government is leading the way is

:55:57. > :56:03.SNPs committed to the first electric highway. We are committed to

:56:04. > :56:08.providing support for scale-scale research and development to address

:56:09. > :56:15.issues such as charging in ten that meant properties. This is --

:56:16. > :56:20.tenament properties. Terrace houses have been touched on as well I seems

:56:21. > :56:25.to me there needs to be greater, joined up thinking across the sector

:56:26. > :56:28.regards the Transport Secretarior and renewable energy which has been

:56:29. > :56:33.alluded to in terms of industrial strategy. I do acknowledge the

:56:34. > :56:44.Faraday challenge may assist in this regard going forward. But I repeat,

:56:45. > :56:48.more needs to be done. In conclusion to trackle decarbonisation without

:56:49. > :56:51.increasing demands from the electric network and meet the targets means

:56:52. > :56:58.more that is happening at press sent. More needs to be done and

:56:59. > :57:03.sales of ultra low emission vehicles are hovering over the 1% range. It

:57:04. > :57:09.is clear we have a long journey to go. This is a wee baby step forward

:57:10. > :57:16.that that regard. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The

:57:17. > :57:20.thrust of this bill is rightly uncontroversial and consensual and

:57:21. > :57:31.were persuasion of the merits needed it was supplied by the elegance

:57:32. > :57:35.indeed and exhaustive explanations which which the minister

:57:36. > :57:39.characteristically set out his case. As honourable and Right Honourable

:57:40. > :57:46.members have said, the pace of technology change in this area, as

:57:47. > :57:50.in others, is rapid, dramatic and a manifestation, in many ways of the

:57:51. > :57:55.much talked about fourth Industrial Revolution. The prize in this space

:57:56. > :58:03.is huge. We all want the UK to be the best place in the world to

:58:04. > :58:06.innovate, invest and for society, as for individuals, and for the

:58:07. > :58:10.environment to all benefit as we do that. My honourable friend the

:58:11. > :58:15.member for Wimbledon and my Right Honourable friend the member for

:58:16. > :58:23.Chesham and Amersham made important points. Too often the regulatory

:58:24. > :58:26.framework where technology advances lags behind and in cases can act as

:58:27. > :58:32.a drag upon that new technology. The key to this bill is that it seeks to

:58:33. > :58:36.remove those barriers to the market operating and developing as we would

:58:37. > :58:42.all wish it. Given the pace of change, I believe

:58:43. > :58:47.it is right that we include in this bill provisions to enable the use of

:58:48. > :58:50.delegated legislation, with appropriate scrutiny to allow the

:58:51. > :58:56.regulatory framework to continue to keep one the pace of that change,

:58:57. > :59:03.creating a framework to stimulate the market, but not specifying the

:59:04. > :59:07.specific technological solutions. There are key aspects to this bill

:59:08. > :59:14.as others have stated. Firstly, that is around automated vehicles and

:59:15. > :59:18.this is about creating a new technology and stimulating and a

:59:19. > :59:23.technology in its infancy. And then there are the provisions relating to

:59:24. > :59:29.electric vehicles. A technology already set fair and continuing to

:59:30. > :59:33.grow, but which must be encouraged. On automated vehicles. The

:59:34. > :59:41.technology continues to develop a pace. I believe in 2015, only a

:59:42. > :59:46.couple of years ago, there were four test sites in the UK looking into

:59:47. > :59:51.that technology and how it might develop. I hope there'll be more

:59:52. > :59:57.such sites exploring this technology in the future. And in any future

:59:58. > :00:02.rounds, drawing on the track record highlighted by the honourable member

:00:03. > :00:05.for opposite representing the SNP, I hope that at least one of those

:00:06. > :00:10.sites might be in Scotland as well to draw on that experience and that

:00:11. > :00:18.innovation we see north of the border. But to grow one of the key

:00:19. > :00:23.barriers that must be overcome is insurance. Insurance policies and

:00:24. > :00:27.framework was designed for an age, indeed our age and before when all

:00:28. > :00:33.vehicles were controlled by a human and the idea they wouldn't be was

:00:34. > :00:36.inconceivable. With that individual being held responsibility through

:00:37. > :00:40.the courts and through the insurance framework for their decisions and

:00:41. > :00:45.actions. Now we have already seen that technology move on in terms of,

:00:46. > :00:54.for example, automated parking. But we have yet to see the insurance

:00:55. > :00:57.framework move with it. He makes a very interesting distinction between

:00:58. > :01:01.a vehicle that is controlled by a driver who is actually sitting at

:01:02. > :01:04.the steering wheel and a vehicle that is controlled by technology,

:01:05. > :01:08.suggesting that the latter is not controlled by a human. Of course it

:01:09. > :01:13.is controlled by a human, it is just a human who wrote the code. A human

:01:14. > :01:17.who came up with the ethical choices, a human who designed the

:01:18. > :01:21.system and who is now remote from the vehicle. There is human control.

:01:22. > :01:24.It is questioning which human is responsible, not whether a human is

:01:25. > :01:27.responsible. My honourable friend makes an

:01:28. > :01:31.important point. Perhaps if I say the driver of the vehicle has

:01:32. > :01:36.historically been held responsible. Although, of course in the context

:01:37. > :01:40.of what is proposed here, the person who wrote that code would not be

:01:41. > :01:44.held responsible. The insurer in the first I stance would be held

:01:45. > :01:48.responsible with the remedies through the court were there to be a

:01:49. > :01:51.technological flaw or error for that to be pursued by the insurer or the

:01:52. > :01:58.authorities against the manufacturer. I believe it is the

:01:59. > :02:03.right approach to keep the insurer, as the first step in seeking redress

:02:04. > :02:08.to make that redress as swift and easy as possible for an injured

:02:09. > :02:11.party, but while not taking away from the opportunity through the

:02:12. > :02:17.courts to address any issues that araise with the -- arise with the

:02:18. > :02:22.manufacturer. There are perhaps four areas of policy relating to

:02:23. > :02:25.automated vehicles. One is safety. I know there are concerns that have

:02:26. > :02:28.been expressed in the press and within this House on occasions about

:02:29. > :02:33.whether the technology is safe and whether this will be a Safeway to

:02:34. > :02:36.proceed. Quite rightly it is something in its infancy and

:02:37. > :02:42.continues to be explored. The the tes tick from the -- the thes the

:02:43. > :02:46.tick from the Department for Transport, 60% of accidents or

:02:47. > :02:52.collisions relate to human error. Where if I recall the explanatory

:02:53. > :02:57.notes behind the bill, that falls into two categories. One, a driver

:02:58. > :03:00.losing control of their vehicle or essentially driving too fast for the

:03:01. > :03:03.conditions or not being able to manage that vehicle's progress. The

:03:04. > :03:08.other, a driver not seeing something. The reality is that while

:03:09. > :03:13.we would hope technology would be perfect and I am not sure whether it

:03:14. > :03:19.will or won't, I would argue any technology is likely significantly

:03:20. > :03:25.reduced that level of accidents and human error. It goes to the second

:03:26. > :03:30.challenge raised by members on both sides, but arguably addressed by

:03:31. > :03:36.members on both side, the impact on the insurance premiums and the

:03:37. > :03:42.market. If that reduction we would all hope and see in accidents occurs

:03:43. > :03:46.most recently in this debate, the members made the point that we would

:03:47. > :03:51.expect to see that helping drive down premiums, that is not a reason

:03:52. > :03:55.that the insurance industry doesn't continue, and I would hope it would,

:03:56. > :04:01.to develop new products and streamline processes so it does not

:04:02. > :04:06.add to an administrative burden to those purchasing insurance. There is

:04:07. > :04:11.an ability to drive down premiums there.

:04:12. > :04:16.I know the honourable member will know from his expected that the car

:04:17. > :04:19.insurance market underwrites a lot of other insurance market as it is

:04:20. > :04:22.the most profitable and the loss of praemia in the car insurance market

:04:23. > :04:25.could have other consequences to other insurance markets including

:04:26. > :04:29.home insurance and song -- and so on which would have other societal

:04:30. > :04:33.consequences and I'm sure he's going to... He's absolutely right that

:04:34. > :04:35.changes on this scale has the potential not just to change the

:04:36. > :04:39.technology and the way we use it and the way we live our lives but indeed

:04:40. > :04:43.the supply chain, for example, the energy market and indeed the

:04:44. > :04:47.insurance market. I think that one of the challenges for all of us and

:04:48. > :04:51.for that market is how it evolves and adapt to that change but as he

:04:52. > :04:58.will know, and I think in his speech in March of this year, the precursor

:04:59. > :05:00.of this Bill, I think he highlighted to honourable members who perhaps

:05:01. > :05:05.suggested the pace of change was too fast that we can't sit still and use

:05:06. > :05:09.the challenges posed to current ways of doing things as a reason for not

:05:10. > :05:14.progressing. The final two areas I would touch on in respect of

:05:15. > :05:18.automated vehicles are the environmental benefits that I

:05:19. > :05:23.genuinely think have the potential, through fuel efficient

:05:24. > :05:27.transportation, for want of a better way of putting it, because the

:05:28. > :05:30.decisions made by a computer, one would hope, are that little bit

:05:31. > :05:35.quicker and more efficient than reactions by human, we may well see

:05:36. > :05:38.increased fuel efficiency and of course, the point I think the

:05:39. > :05:41.Minister highlighted which is the opportunity that automated vehicles

:05:42. > :05:46.provide for those who may until now have been excluded from driving or

:05:47. > :05:50.from making use of vehicles, be they in some cases elderly people or

:05:51. > :05:53.disabled people. It may well increase the opportunities for them

:05:54. > :06:00.to make use of this way of getting around. An electric vehicles, the

:06:01. > :06:03.second part of this Bill, this is a technology already well-developed,

:06:04. > :06:06.it is an issue I was very much involved with in a past life as

:06:07. > :06:12.Westminster City Council's Cabinet member for the environment and

:06:13. > :06:16.transport. One of the key things I worked on back then, with the mayor

:06:17. > :06:20.and my colleagues in City Hall was to expand access to electric vehicle

:06:21. > :06:24.charging points in central London. In many ways, this is the easy end

:06:25. > :06:29.of the scale in expanding use. My honourable friend for Hampshire

:06:30. > :06:34.North West, who is currently not in his place but has spoken very

:06:35. > :06:38.eloquently on this subject, in his very successful time as deputy mayor

:06:39. > :06:45.London, did much to drive forward the technology and access to it and

:06:46. > :06:50.as we look at expanding those points, one of my honourable

:06:51. > :06:53.friends, the honourable member for Derbyshire North East, a former

:06:54. > :06:56.Cabinet colleague of mine on Westminster City Council at the same

:06:57. > :06:59.time, did a huge amount of work to expand the network so I believe

:07:00. > :07:04.Westminster is arguably one of the, if not the most heavily covered

:07:05. > :07:10.parts of the capital in respect of EV charging points. Increasing

:07:11. > :07:15.access. Of course, the reality is in some ways, you could argue it is

:07:16. > :07:19.part of the country which needs are points that others are the journey

:07:20. > :07:25.in London I think is around ten kilometres or under and even battery

:07:26. > :07:31.technology developed as it is is normally capable of delivering that.

:07:32. > :07:35.But to achieve the roll-out, the commercial success of EVs more

:07:36. > :07:41.widely requires the number of key issues to be addressed in the

:07:42. > :07:45.country as a whole. Firstly, choice. In any market where you have a

:07:46. > :07:48.consumer making a decision on where to invest their money and what to

:07:49. > :07:52.buy, particularly a purchase of this size, we want to make sure there is

:07:53. > :07:55.a functioning market and we see that with a myriad of new electric

:07:56. > :08:03.vehicles coming onto the market every year. It needs to be

:08:04. > :08:09.affordable and we need to make sure that the charging networks are

:08:10. > :08:16.simple to use, that the prices come down and that this is seen as a

:08:17. > :08:20.viable and affordable alternative to conventional fuels. We must ensure

:08:21. > :08:25.that there is that network of charge points and indeed, interoperable

:08:26. > :08:29.charge points, where, wherever you see one, you can plug-in, regardless

:08:30. > :08:34.of what your network is or what deal you are signed up to honour to a

:08:35. > :08:36.degree addressing the point made by the right honourable lady for

:08:37. > :08:45.Chesham and Amersham about concerns around range. The grid must be

:08:46. > :08:48.smart, so that we can ensure you don't overload the grid when

:08:49. > :08:51.everybody comes home from work in the evening and plugs in their cars

:08:52. > :08:59.and suddenly we see a surge in demand. Charging must also be swift.

:09:00. > :09:03.While the point was well made that at service stations or motorway

:09:04. > :09:07.service areas, there is an opportunity for people to plug in

:09:08. > :09:10.their car, electric vehicle, and charge it whilst doing other things,

:09:11. > :09:15.the reality is, many people will want a quick charge and to move on.

:09:16. > :09:19.The technology continues to develop but it isn't there yet. There was a

:09:20. > :09:26.wonderfully interesting book written some years ago, called Start-up

:09:27. > :09:31.Nation, which is about innovation in Israel and it talked about

:09:32. > :09:34.technology being developed to charge an electric vehicle's battery in a

:09:35. > :09:37.matter of minutes. I don't know if it worked or whether it is still

:09:38. > :09:40.continuing to be developed but it shows the innovation is there and

:09:41. > :09:45.the willingness to drive it forward. But in many ways, all of these

:09:46. > :09:51.issues are redressing the challenges of battery technology. -- are

:09:52. > :09:56.addressing the challenges. The reality is, I'm believe, as we have

:09:57. > :09:58.moved forward and we will see with renewable energy, we will see

:09:59. > :10:01.significant strides forward in battery technology which will

:10:02. > :10:05.address these overtime and the issues all of I've highlighted

:10:06. > :10:11.there, this Bill allows the scope for them to be addressed. As

:10:12. > :10:16.technology advances, one of the best analogies we could perhaps draw is

:10:17. > :10:22.with the early mobile telephones. 20 years ago, 30 years ago, a mobile

:10:23. > :10:26.phone basically came with a briefcase which was its battery

:10:27. > :10:30.pack. Over a very short period of time, we saw that reduced to

:10:31. > :10:34.something probably smaller than my thumb. I see no reason why is the

:10:35. > :10:42.market develops, we won't see similar developments in this area. I

:10:43. > :10:45.believe the future is bright. Mr Jeopardy speaker, we have an

:10:46. > :10:49.obligation to future generations. -- Mr Deputy Speaker will stop not only

:10:50. > :10:56.the economic and individual benefits evident but we hold our environment

:10:57. > :10:59.in trust and it is in environmental opportunities, that in some ways the

:11:00. > :11:11.greatest opportunities with this technology exist. As the honourable

:11:12. > :11:15.member for Kilmarnock and Lowden the lack -- Kilmarnock and lewd and set

:11:16. > :11:21.out, around 40,000 people are estimated to die every year of bad

:11:22. > :11:24.air quality, and 83rd of nitrous oxide in inner cities is due to road

:11:25. > :11:28.transport, the potential to address both air quality and climate changes

:11:29. > :11:34.there. They're rather those who might fear that we are sobbing dirty

:11:35. > :11:37.fuel in cars instead to dirty power generation as more electricity is

:11:38. > :11:43.needed. I would say simply that that is not a reason not to act, it is

:11:44. > :11:46.exactly why we must aim parallel continued to embrace the

:11:47. > :11:50.opportunities presented by green and renewable power generation, building

:11:51. > :11:56.on the real progress made so far, also enabled by technology. Mr

:11:57. > :12:00.Deputy Speaker, to conclude, this is a Bill to be welcomed, we must seize

:12:01. > :12:05.the opportunities new technology offers for our for enhancing our

:12:06. > :12:10.daily lives and for preserving and enhancing our environment for future

:12:11. > :12:18.generations. This Bill does that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am pleased to

:12:19. > :12:20.support it. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I'm pleased to have the

:12:21. > :12:24.opportunity to contribute on this bill. As the automotive sector is an

:12:25. > :12:29.important part of my constituency, we are of course home to Vauxhall

:12:30. > :12:34.Motors and the car park there, where last week we had the sad news of 400

:12:35. > :12:38.redundancies. The site has built Vauxhall vehicles for over 50 years

:12:39. > :12:41.and there is once again a real concern about the future of the

:12:42. > :12:45.plant, something I will return to later in my remarks but in addition

:12:46. > :12:48.to Vauxhall itself, there are hundreds of dependent jobs in the

:12:49. > :12:52.supply chain as well as many of my constituents employed in nearby

:12:53. > :12:59.manufacturers like Toyota and Jaguar Land Rover. It is the impact on jobs

:13:00. > :13:01.I want to focus on, not just the immediate challenges to the

:13:02. > :13:05.automotive sector but also the long-term implications for

:13:06. > :13:11.employment that this Bill, which I fear we are not going to address

:13:12. > :13:14.until it is too late. But first, turning to the Bill itself, it is

:13:15. > :13:18.right that we begin to address the legal impediments to automated

:13:19. > :13:22.vehicles and help them become part of the road network. As with all

:13:23. > :13:26.technological developers, we need to ensure that the legislative

:13:27. > :13:29.framework is there, not only to keep our citizens safe and protected but

:13:30. > :13:35.also to send a signal out that we are a country that encourages

:13:36. > :13:39.innovation. We need a simple and timely method of determining

:13:40. > :13:43.liability in the event of accident and I think this legislation will

:13:44. > :13:46.achieve that aim. Of course, the likelihood is that actually, the

:13:47. > :13:51.number of accidents will reduce quite substantially overtime with

:13:52. > :13:54.the opportunity for driver error being significantly reduced although

:13:55. > :13:58.I am not quite as persuaded as some of the honourable members that this

:13:59. > :14:01.will lead to any dramatic reduction in insurance premiums. I would

:14:02. > :14:06.imagine as well that the Highway code will need to be reviewed in due

:14:07. > :14:12.course and while we are addressing tonight the civil liability aspects

:14:13. > :14:17.of this, in due course, there may be consideration given to possible

:14:18. > :14:20.changes to Grenoble. At what point does the occupant, and I use the

:14:21. > :14:24.word occupant rather than driver operator, cease to become personally

:14:25. > :14:30.liable for any breaches of criminal law? Will there be a need for new

:14:31. > :14:36.offences to take account of the consequences that deliberate hacking

:14:37. > :14:39.could lead to? I read the lengthy discussions on the issue of software

:14:40. > :14:42.updates which came up in the previous incarnation of this Bill

:14:43. > :14:45.and I have to say I'm not at all clear where responsibility would lie

:14:46. > :14:49.in the event that the vehicle did not have the required software

:14:50. > :14:54.updates. Is this something that needs to be looked at in the context

:14:55. > :14:58.of MOT certificate, for example? We are used to consumer products like

:14:59. > :15:00.phones having regular updates and how this is part of the

:15:01. > :15:04.manufacturer's business model to encourage us to buy new phones every

:15:05. > :15:07.few years but a car is a rather different position. There needs to

:15:08. > :15:12.be a balance struck between public safety and consumer rights. I don't

:15:13. > :15:15.want to see a ?30,000 vehicle becoming unusable because the owner

:15:16. > :15:20.of uses to pay what they consider to be an extortionate cost for a

:15:21. > :15:24.software update. I also think there is a broader issue about value

:15:25. > :15:26.judgments that we need to continue -- considerable sum in all the films

:15:27. > :15:30.about artificial intelligence, when of course, most of the time, things

:15:31. > :15:33.go wrong, machines usually have some kind of fail-safe bulletin which

:15:34. > :15:36.prevents them doing harm to humans and one can see how that could be

:15:37. > :15:41.transferred the operating system of an autonomous vehicle. There will

:15:42. > :15:45.occasionally be actions were evasive action that might prevent harm being

:15:46. > :15:50.done to the passenger could cause injury or worse to a pedestrian. My

:15:51. > :15:52.honourable friend, the member for Eltham, raised an example of how

:15:53. > :15:56.that might arise early in the debate. Of course, where a car

:15:57. > :16:01.swerved off the road to avoid hitting another vehicle, but in

:16:02. > :16:06.doing so, it's a pedestrian on the pavement, I think that is something

:16:07. > :16:11.that we as a body need to have a view on because I am not comfortable

:16:12. > :16:16.subcontracting that kind of value judgment to a software developer and

:16:17. > :16:20.I am even less comfortable subcontracting it to some kind of

:16:21. > :16:26.machine device which will learn through trial and error which

:16:27. > :16:32.decisions to take. Of course, they will take those decisions in a way

:16:33. > :16:36.that humans will not have clear sight of and may not even be able to

:16:37. > :16:40.understand anyway. I have disabled I was less than reassured by what the

:16:41. > :16:43.minister said in response to the point raised by the honourable

:16:44. > :16:49.member for Eltham. I suspect it is not straightforward but something

:16:50. > :16:52.that nature in Bill and it may be a few years before that kind of

:16:53. > :16:57.dilemma becomes relevant but we need to consider now how Parliament can

:16:58. > :16:58.ensure transparency and accountability for what could be

:16:59. > :17:04.potentially life-and-death decisions. Those are some of the

:17:05. > :17:07.general observations on the kind of moral and legal questions we need to

:17:08. > :17:10.consider in the context of this Bill but the main issue I want to address

:17:11. > :17:15.today is the impact this bill will have an employment, both good and

:17:16. > :17:19.bad. I know the government are looking to make this country a world

:17:20. > :17:22.leader in automated and battery vehicle technology, with initiatives

:17:23. > :17:26.such as the Faraday Challenge but I have a concern that we will be a

:17:27. > :17:28.market leader in developing these technologies but Maracana me won't

:17:29. > :17:32.feel the full benefit of them because the mass manufacture of new

:17:33. > :17:37.vehicles will take place elsewhere. Dyson is a good example of this.

:17:38. > :17:41.They are currently employed hundreds of people in this country to develop

:17:42. > :17:43.their own electric vehicle which of course is a very positive

:17:44. > :17:48.development but they have not made any commitment so far that when the

:17:49. > :17:52.product is finalised, that manufacturer will take place on

:17:53. > :17:58.these shores and of course we know Dyson have form in this area.

:17:59. > :18:00.Certainly. The honourable member will be aware that we manufacture

:18:01. > :18:04.more automobiles in this country than in the whole of Italy. Does he

:18:05. > :18:08.not think that when we change from the combustion engine to the

:18:09. > :18:13.electric vehicle, that manufacturing can go on in this country? I thank

:18:14. > :18:16.the honourable member for his intervention and I'm going to

:18:17. > :18:19.develop that point because I think there are some challenges that we

:18:20. > :18:26.need to address in terms of the investment in manufacturing. The

:18:27. > :18:29.move to manufacturing electric vehicles is actually going to

:18:30. > :18:33.require huge investment in plant machinery if we are going to

:18:34. > :18:36.maintain our manufacturing base. The majority of Manufacturing Plant in

:18:37. > :18:39.this country are still building combustion engines so we need to

:18:40. > :18:43.think about what assistance we can give to make those companies make

:18:44. > :18:47.the change to electric manufacturing. This Bill I think is

:18:48. > :18:50.very comprehends within the infrastructure in place for

:18:51. > :18:53.consumers but I think, I'm not sure we have got the same level of

:18:54. > :18:58.commitment for the country as a producer of these vehicles. We have

:18:59. > :19:02.already had the government's intentions to seize the saleable

:19:03. > :19:05.petrol and diesel cars by 2040. The temptation might be to think that

:19:06. > :19:10.that is a couple of decades off so we don't need to worry about it now

:19:11. > :19:15.but if we are serious about that and the major manufacturers will begin

:19:16. > :19:20.to shift their production to the new model types within the next one or

:19:21. > :19:23.two production cycles, particularly if consumer trends accelerate that

:19:24. > :19:26.and people will begin to look at the resale value of their vehicles and

:19:27. > :19:29.if they can see that petrol and diesel vehicles will lose their

:19:30. > :19:31.resale value at a much greater rate than electric vehicles, they are

:19:32. > :19:34.bound to purchase electric vehicles in much greater numbers and I know

:19:35. > :19:40.the honourable member for Chesham and Amersham said there are some

:19:41. > :19:43.studies out there which suggest the government's predictions at the

:19:44. > :19:46.take-up of electric vehicles are possibly on a little -- a little on

:19:47. > :19:51.the conservative side so I believe we need to be ready to swiftly

:19:52. > :19:54.intervene when decisions are made on vehicle manufacturers we have the

:19:55. > :19:55.best possible conditions for companies to in their production

:19:56. > :20:06.lines. It has a negative consequence for

:20:07. > :20:09.them in terms of business rates. The challenge to all manufacturing is

:20:10. > :20:16.the uncertainty created by Brexit. We know that in the automotive

:20:17. > :20:20.sector, investment has halved in the last 127 months. We need tos are

:20:21. > :20:25.verse that, otherwise new vehicles this bill hopes to facilitate will

:20:26. > :20:31.be manufactured elsewhere. A big part is we look to resure much of

:20:32. > :20:36.the car chain in car manufacturing than possible. Too many parts

:20:37. > :20:39.needlessly travel back and forth across the continent. That doesn't

:20:40. > :20:45.make economic or environmental sense. In the short-term it

:20:46. > :20:49.minimises the risk that we have of a hard breakit. In the short-term I

:20:50. > :20:54.think there is -- Brexit. In the short-term I think there is a need

:20:55. > :20:58.to support car manufacturers. In the budget next month I hope we hear

:20:59. > :21:04.good news. There is concern about how the bill would immact on

:21:05. > :21:09.employment levels. There are plenty of predictions about how many jobs

:21:10. > :21:13.will be lost to automotion. Technological advances have created

:21:14. > :21:17.more jobs they have lost. This revolution will be on a scale and at

:21:18. > :21:22.a pace that I believe we are quite unprepared for. It is estimated one

:21:23. > :21:33.million driving jobs could be lost within the next five to ten years. A

:21:34. > :21:37.study that -- there needs to be a twin strategy of dealing with the

:21:38. > :21:47.economic impact of these proposals. I would like to see an economic

:21:48. > :21:51.impact that would happen. What do we know about the sort of jobses with

:21:52. > :21:56.which will be create and where they will be based? There was a report

:21:57. > :22:01.last week which look at the impact on a constituency by constituency

:22:02. > :22:05.basis, which had the worst performing set to lose 40% of their

:22:06. > :22:09.jobs in 15 years. While there were plenty from across the country at

:22:10. > :22:19.the top end, the pattern was actually clear, the biggest loses

:22:20. > :22:25.were in the Midlands and the north. I rather fear that if we did a

:22:26. > :22:29.strategy it would tell us new jobs that will be created will not be in

:22:30. > :22:35.the areas set to lose the most. I don't want to see a repeat of the

:22:36. > :22:39.1980s where industry outside the south east was subject to

:22:40. > :22:45.catastrophic job loss which were not replaced. I want to conclude by

:22:46. > :22:49.saying although I have painted some rather gloomy pictures here. I am a

:22:50. > :22:54.realist and I realise that the genie's out the box and there are

:22:55. > :22:58.tremendous advantages that a number of honourable members have referred

:22:59. > :23:02.to about the positives that driverless technology can bring to

:23:03. > :23:06.our society. We should not be blind to the consequences that these

:23:07. > :23:12.changes may bring and we do need a fundamental debate about what it is

:23:13. > :23:17.we are trying to achieve here. It is as much important as the consumer

:23:18. > :23:22.infrastructure. The impact on jobs needs to be considered as much as

:23:23. > :23:27.the tremendous opportunities this brings. A legal framework in the

:23:28. > :23:30.context of the moral framework that underpins it.

:23:31. > :23:37.Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I think I should draw the attention of the

:23:38. > :23:42.House to potential interest that's related to this because I am in

:23:43. > :23:46.discussion with the Faraday institute about a role, an institute

:23:47. > :23:52.founded to promote battery development in this country. I want

:23:53. > :23:56.to make two points about two aspects of the bill that I think are going

:23:57. > :24:00.to need further discussion in committee. And that I would in fact

:24:01. > :24:06.have raised in the earlier incarnation of the bill if it hadn't

:24:07. > :24:15.become so eve Kent evident that it would disappear from view due to the

:24:16. > :24:20.election. The first relates to section two and six. It is clear

:24:21. > :24:25.that the bill is intending in these sections to do what my Right

:24:26. > :24:30.Honourable friend, the Minister of State, said. And that was to make

:24:31. > :24:35.the situation clear for the insurance industry. Unfortunately I

:24:36. > :24:40.don't think it quite succeeds in that as it is currently drafted. If

:24:41. > :24:45.fact my Right Honourable friend slipped into pointing out the

:24:46. > :24:51.problem himself when he inadvertently spoke, not of the

:24:52. > :24:57.driver handing over control to the automated system, but, I think the

:24:58. > :25:01.Hansard record will show legitimately handing over control.

:25:02. > :25:06.If one looks at the articulation of one and six, what one sees is that

:25:07. > :25:11.actually what determines whether the insurer is liable or the person is

:25:12. > :25:17.liable, is, apart from the question of whether the vehicle was insured,

:25:18. > :25:21.whether the machinery was on, so to speak, whether the vehicle was being

:25:22. > :25:26.run by the machinery rather than by the person. Unfortunately that is

:25:27. > :25:30.not a complete explanation of what we need explained in order to make

:25:31. > :25:36.this work in terms of liability. And it won't be a complete explanation

:25:37. > :25:40.for what we will need to treat in the criminal law and incidentally

:25:41. > :25:44.section 6 is coming very close to a piece of criminal law. And it will

:25:45. > :25:48.be very important that the criminal law does reflect the liability

:25:49. > :25:52.structure in the civil law and the reason why none of these questions

:25:53. > :25:55.are quite completely answered is that the question arises, was it

:25:56. > :25:58.under these circumstances appropriate or not appropriate for

:25:59. > :26:01.the person who was or might have been the driver to hand over control

:26:02. > :26:07.to the machine which had become the driver? And in case anybody thinks

:26:08. > :26:14.that that is an academic point, I would like to point out that it is

:26:15. > :26:19.extraordinary likely that as the technology develops and as

:26:20. > :26:24.artificial intelligence more and more becomes a part of that

:26:25. > :26:31.technology it is very, very likely that we will find that the minister

:26:32. > :26:34.has in his orders, under these sections to distinguish between

:26:35. > :26:38.different moments when it is appropriate to hand over control and

:26:39. > :26:45.moments when it isn't. For example, it may be that for the sake of our

:26:46. > :26:49.motorways, running much more efficiently, accident-free and much

:26:50. > :26:56.more intensively, that it would be appropriate, might even at a certain

:26:57. > :27:00.point become mandatory for a driver to hand over control of the vehicle

:27:01. > :27:05.on a motorway, where as it might not be on a rainy road in my

:27:06. > :27:10.constituency on a rainy day. It may take a lot longer for the machinery

:27:11. > :27:16.to handle the single track road in West Dorset than for it to handle

:27:17. > :27:20.steady progress along the M4. The moment of handover is a crucial

:27:21. > :27:24.element of getting the liability structure sorted out. If we don't

:27:25. > :27:29.get that sorted out now, at this early stage, I think the insurance

:27:30. > :27:34.companies will discover they don't have the framework they thought they

:27:35. > :27:37.had and we will not get the benefits my honourable friend seeks from that

:27:38. > :27:43.part of the bill. In part two of the bill, which I also welcome, I was

:27:44. > :27:47.involved, when I was in Government in considerable efforts to improve

:27:48. > :27:51.the charging structure and this is the right thing to be doing. And

:27:52. > :27:58.much that needs to be done is dealt with here. And the regulation-making

:27:59. > :28:02.powers enable ministers also to deal with many of the points which have

:28:03. > :28:07.been raised in the proceeding parts of this debate. All of which is very

:28:08. > :28:14.welcome. Unfortunately the regulation-making power here in

:28:15. > :28:20.section 9, however, and indeed even including sections 10, 11 and 12, is

:28:21. > :28:24.incomplete and not only incomplete, but very materially incomplete. In

:28:25. > :28:30.fact miss out the single biggest part of what needs to be regulated.

:28:31. > :28:38.Reference has been made in this debate to off-street charging and to

:28:39. > :28:45.free phase charging. These are the crucial elements because for that

:28:46. > :28:51.roughly speaking half of car users, which don't have, who don't have

:28:52. > :28:55.off-street parking and that's typically therefore urban dwellers,

:28:56. > :29:02.especially as was said by the opposition front bench those who

:29:03. > :29:08.live in flats and in terraced houses in urban settings, who don't have

:29:09. > :29:11.off-street parking, for them actually charging overnight or any

:29:12. > :29:16.time they are not at work will typically have to go on streets and

:29:17. > :29:19.on urban streets and the people who will deal with urban streets are not

:29:20. > :29:23.local authorities, which was mentioned in the debate, and not any

:29:24. > :29:29.of the objects of regulation here, but rather are the public utilities

:29:30. > :29:34.that service our streets with the electric cables that run through

:29:35. > :29:40.them. Does my Right Honourable friend not agree with me that during

:29:41. > :29:45.the transition stage whereby we move to electric or autonomous vehicles

:29:46. > :29:50.where the population retain a normal, as I call diesel or petrol

:29:51. > :29:56.vehicles, how will you divide up the streets? If every single parking

:29:57. > :30:00.space is given over to electric charging will that prevent them who

:30:01. > :30:07.don't need electric charging of the park or will they be discriminated

:30:08. > :30:14.against? My honourable friend raises a good question with a clear answer.

:30:15. > :30:18.In western Canada, where it is extremely cold, for many, many

:30:19. > :30:22.years, in fact decades now, every single parking metres and parking

:30:23. > :30:26.metres are regular on their streets there has been equipped with with a

:30:27. > :30:32.power point which enables the drive tore plug the car radiator into the

:30:33. > :30:35.power point, with the advantage that the car can then be started, which

:30:36. > :30:43.it otherwise would not be able to do. It is perfectly able to mandate

:30:44. > :30:47.that the utilities place charging throughout all urban streets so that

:30:48. > :30:51.every place is a charging point and then the question that my Right

:30:52. > :30:57.Honourable friend raises disappears because you use it if you are

:30:58. > :31:12.conventional, in terms of combustion engine, if you are electric and

:31:13. > :31:17.there will be more electric . We will find that the largest part

:31:18. > :31:21.of the problem of charging disappears. Unfortunately the way

:31:22. > :31:24.the regulatory powers here have been cast, that the Secretary of State

:31:25. > :31:29.doesn't have the power to make regulations of that kind, as I read

:31:30. > :31:35.it. Therefore there are some substantial ameantments to nine that

:31:36. > :31:41.would be required. It would enable if Secretary of State to mandate

:31:42. > :31:47.also that there be free phase charging. The charge for those who

:31:48. > :31:53.do have off-street places to put cars is very material to the take up

:31:54. > :32:02.of electric vehicles and that speed will be materially improved if the

:32:03. > :32:05.charging is available. So, my point, Mr Deputy Speaker, very simple -

:32:06. > :32:11.this is an excellent bill. It does some necessary things. It isn't the

:32:12. > :32:14.whole answer to life. It isn't the whole answer to automated electric

:32:15. > :32:19.vehicles - it never was going to be. There are deficiencies in the way it

:32:20. > :32:24.is drafted if it is to achieve the two main purposes that it sets out

:32:25. > :32:28.rightly to achieve. Can you elaborate further on the point on

:32:29. > :32:31.charging verses non-charging. Domestic charging, the whole point

:32:32. > :32:35.with an electric car is you can feed back some of the electricity into a

:32:36. > :32:40.metre overnight and make some money. Will that be the same if you are off

:32:41. > :32:45.street plugging, plugging your car in if you want to feed back some

:32:46. > :32:51.charge overnight, will there be a way of gaining compensationfy man

:32:52. > :32:57.Shali? -- compensation Financially? It needs to be so. If one looks at

:32:58. > :33:02.section 12, clause 12 of the bill, it is clear that it has been

:33:03. > :33:09.correctly drafted in that respect, because n the smart charge points

:33:10. > :33:13.provisions, it allows precisely the Secretary of State to ensure that

:33:14. > :33:18.there is interactive charging and that is precisely what we need on

:33:19. > :33:25.our streets evidently so that the electric cars of Britain become a

:33:26. > :33:34.massive battery resource which helps obviously to reduce the shape of the

:33:35. > :33:42.load curb, so that we can have larger periods of the low curb

:33:43. > :33:47.during which renewable energy and nuclear energy are producing

:33:48. > :33:51.unlimited quantities of energy at low marginal costs, without having

:33:52. > :33:56.to built the large amounts of back-up I would be required to deal

:33:57. > :34:00.-- which would be required to deal with the peak. That can be dealt

:34:01. > :34:05.with by the nation's cars when they are not being used. You only get

:34:06. > :34:10.that effect if all the cars that are plugged in are plugged into smart

:34:11. > :34:17.points that can receive as well as transmit electricity and of course

:34:18. > :34:24.that also requires a designer vehicle, which enables the on-board

:34:25. > :34:29.computers to the price and the grid which is being introduced. So, there

:34:30. > :34:32.is, we have made a good deal of progress towards the aim my Right

:34:33. > :34:36.Honourable friend rightly advocates and in that respect the bill will

:34:37. > :34:42.enable the Government to press that progress further.

:34:43. > :34:49.It will only do through if it relates to an cheap parking to

:34:50. > :35:02.facilities that are done to add universal basis, and that is

:35:03. > :35:06.urgently needed. I welcome the Bill, and I'm going to concentrate on the

:35:07. > :35:10.issue related to automated vehicles, but can I just say any relation to

:35:11. > :35:14.electric vehicles, I support all the points that are being made this

:35:15. > :35:19.evening, particularly the one about the compatibility of the

:35:20. > :35:22.infrastructure so that people aren't inconvenienced by different

:35:23. > :35:27.connectors and things like that, so it is an obvious point to make, but

:35:28. > :35:30.I think it is one that has been overlooked Juanmi have had the

:35:31. > :35:33.experience in the past when such things happen overlooked, and I

:35:34. > :35:39.think that is a point well made. Clearly, it is a technology of which

:35:40. > :35:44.the time has come. The batteries have longer life, they vehicles can

:35:45. > :35:47.now travel greater distances as a consequence of that, and the

:35:48. > :35:51.environmental benefits are obvious and because of the vehicles is

:35:52. > :35:55.starting to come down, making it much more accessible to people, so I

:35:56. > :36:04.very much supports that element of the Bill. This Pacific points that I

:36:05. > :36:09.wanted to concentrate on the late to automated vehicles, and the impact

:36:10. > :36:14.assessment that accompanies this Bill actually the first to connected

:36:15. > :36:18.and automated vehicles, but the Bill doesn't, it is silent on that

:36:19. > :36:23.particular issue, and I do wonder why, and perhaps the Minister can

:36:24. > :36:27.tell us this, perhaps I am just been too much of a conspiracy theories,

:36:28. > :36:34.but connected and automated vehicles to open up a whole different range

:36:35. > :36:37.of issues that but I understand to be straightforward automated

:36:38. > :36:42.vehicles. If that is not the case, then correct me, because the issue

:36:43. > :36:51.that concerns me is when an arts mated vehicle is operating, and the

:36:52. > :36:58.software is driving the vehicle, then there are a whole lot of

:36:59. > :37:04.options that open up to, in certain instances, that that software has to

:37:05. > :37:08.make decisions about. We have heard are ready from the Minister that it

:37:09. > :37:16.is accepted that summer between 90 and 95% of accidents with vehicles

:37:17. > :37:24.occurred due to human error, so if a vehicle is being driven under the

:37:25. > :37:31.control of the software, and that vehicle has an accident with a

:37:32. > :37:37.vehicle being driven by a human, but a pedestrian, and the technology is

:37:38. > :37:43.checked and it is found to have been in perfect operating order, is it

:37:44. > :37:48.the case then, that it is assumed that it is the human who is at

:37:49. > :37:53.fault. And I think this is a question that we need to have an

:37:54. > :37:57.answer to in terms of... Because it is 20 impact enormously on how

:37:58. > :38:02.insurance companies are going to approach making decisions. I want to

:38:03. > :38:07.give away, because I am tied to make progress, but I may later. How

:38:08. > :38:10.insurance companies are going to make decisions about who is at fault

:38:11. > :38:15.and who should be paid out. We had that the Minister has visited this

:38:16. > :38:20.site in Greenwich when they are testing automated vehicles. I had

:38:21. > :38:23.about an incident when someone threw a Chair in front of the automated

:38:24. > :38:29.vehicle and a vehicle smashed into the Chair, which raises the question

:38:30. > :38:33.of when a child runs into the road. It may be, that even if the vehicle

:38:34. > :38:37.driven by a human and accident that happened because it's your fluid out

:38:38. > :38:42.in front of the car factory late to be able to physically stop, but

:38:43. > :38:46.imagine an incident when we have an odd mated vehicle on the road that

:38:47. > :38:50.is capable of making a decision of how to elevate that accident, and if

:38:51. > :38:54.that is a child that suddenly ran out, and a split second, the

:38:55. > :39:00.software is trying to make a decision as to what is it safe is

:39:01. > :39:04.evasive action, if any, did take in order to avoid running that child

:39:05. > :39:12.over. We are immediately end the situation where imaging, and a piece

:39:13. > :39:19.of computer software, is making a moral judgment. If the are going to

:39:20. > :39:23.be opening ourselves up to this situation were connected automated

:39:24. > :39:29.vehicles are going to have to make such judgments were incidents are

:39:30. > :39:36.accidents and about to happen, we as legislators have to be aware that

:39:37. > :39:40.these eventualities are going to come around and try as much as

:39:41. > :39:42.possible to be a head of the technology, because one of the

:39:43. > :39:48.things that is emerging quite clearly in this debate around

:39:49. > :39:53.emerging technologies is that these huge companies are getting ahead of

:39:54. > :39:56.the regulators, and the legislators, and they are driving the barriers

:39:57. > :40:06.backwards. If we take for instance the recent incident with Uber in

:40:07. > :40:11.London, and the need for the Mayor of London to step in and take

:40:12. > :40:17.action, these companies, and there are other examples where technology

:40:18. > :40:21.is driving regulators to distraction, and forcing them to

:40:22. > :40:28.catch up with where the new technology is taking us. A B is

:40:29. > :40:37.another example where in some cities they had Devon up rents because of

:40:38. > :40:40.this sudden availability of businesses hiding out their

:40:41. > :40:44.properties. There are consequences for this legislation and there are

:40:45. > :40:55.consequences here. We have automated if the planes -- aeroplanes flying

:40:56. > :41:00.on a daily basis. Most of the fights that we take on a regular basis are

:41:01. > :41:06.fully automated and a part of the side that is controlled by a palette

:41:07. > :41:09.is on the a few minutes of each flight. Many people don't appreciate

:41:10. > :41:16.the fact that most of their fight is now controlled by a computer. We are

:41:17. > :41:23.a fraction away from technology where a plane could be flying

:41:24. > :41:27.without a pilot, and if there was an incident where the plane had to be

:41:28. > :41:31.taken over by somebody who is capable of flying it, that could be

:41:32. > :41:35.done from an air traffic control centre. You do not have to have the

:41:36. > :41:41.pilot on board. That technology is there, it exists. But the point is

:41:42. > :41:45.that we don't have a situation where the air industry is actually

:41:46. > :41:49.imposing that upon us because public opinion is so much against the idea

:41:50. > :41:52.of having fully automated flight that they are not removing the

:41:53. > :41:57.pilots from aeroplanes. I will give way. But isn't that exactly visit

:41:58. > :42:07.and other areas of the industry such as driverless trains? Yes, but the

:42:08. > :42:14.actual dive on a dedicated track. My point is that in an area where the

:42:15. > :42:18.possibilities are already there for this technology, to pilot these

:42:19. > :42:21.planes, that we are not seeing this technology being used, and we are

:42:22. > :42:26.not seeing it and planning to, but in our streets and on our roads,

:42:27. > :42:33.where there are quite a complex range of incidents that could occur,

:42:34. > :42:37.where vehicles that are being driven by software are going to come into

:42:38. > :42:42.contact with humans, we are prepared to see that rolled out and go

:42:43. > :42:48.forward. I accept that the technology is here, and the schools

:42:49. > :42:52.that we are going to have to accept that there is going to be demand for

:42:53. > :42:59.these types of vehicles going forwards, not least seven by these

:43:00. > :43:05.huge companies like Uber who are already using driverless cars around

:43:06. > :43:10.Pittsburgh. We are seeing this technology driven far was by these

:43:11. > :43:12.large companies, but I do think that we as legislators have to start to

:43:13. > :43:17.question some of the issues that arise around the moral questions

:43:18. > :43:27.that may have to be answered by machines. I give way. On the point

:43:28. > :43:32.of said it, if nine out of ten of the accident again are caused by

:43:33. > :43:35.human error, often because the two drivers miscommunication with each

:43:36. > :43:38.other, with the honourable gentleman not agreed that one of the

:43:39. > :43:43.advantages of automation is that the community with each other and thus

:43:44. > :43:51.avoid accidents, and thus make the world a safer place? With this

:43:52. > :43:55.situation is involving two vehicles, but of course that is not the only

:43:56. > :43:58.thing that we have on our roads, and that is not the only thing that any

:43:59. > :44:06.vehicle could come into contact with. I accept the point that the

:44:07. > :44:10.honourable lady makes, that this technology can improve safety, and

:44:11. > :44:13.it can improve the situation. We have heard a lot tonight about

:44:14. > :44:18.reading expect premiums to come down. I think we have more chance of

:44:19. > :44:23.finding hen 's teeth! But the fact is that that is one of the

:44:24. > :44:28.expectations, fewer accidents, fewer payments needing to be made, and

:44:29. > :44:32.that will be passed onto the consumer. I hope that is the case.

:44:33. > :44:40.Nonetheless, there is a model as she here two vehicles may well be about

:44:41. > :44:46.to survive, -- collide, and an accident may well happen, but the

:44:47. > :44:52.question that I am raising is where the software that has been

:44:53. > :44:56.programmed by a human, which we have heard but make it moral judgment

:44:57. > :45:02.about what is it safest course of action to avoid that accident, which

:45:03. > :45:07.is the path which will cause least injury and least damage. And that

:45:08. > :45:12.could involve a situation where that software is making a decision about

:45:13. > :45:16.which individual gets hit, whether it really is over into the oncoming

:45:17. > :45:19.traffic, while it appears in this direction and goes on the

:45:20. > :45:24.embankment, of other goes straight on and collides with the other

:45:25. > :45:30.vehicle. There is no question that these situations are going to come

:45:31. > :45:35.about, so what I would like to seem, particularly in section one, was one

:45:36. > :45:40.of the Bill, is for the Secretary of State to have two listed sites of

:45:41. > :45:45.technology that can be attached to these vehicles so that we have some

:45:46. > :45:49.idea of where we are actually going, and some control over it, because

:45:50. > :45:54.this general reference to an automated vehicle does not allow us

:45:55. > :45:58.to consider whether this type of technology is going to be placed on

:45:59. > :46:03.our roads, where moral judgments are going to be made by a piece of

:46:04. > :46:07.software. And I just think that that is somewhere where we as legislators

:46:08. > :46:13.are to be a great deal of attention. I don't want to see, by default, the

:46:14. > :46:20.door open by two this technology as a result of this Bill. I would like

:46:21. > :46:24.us to examine it as a barriers are pushed back by this sort of

:46:25. > :46:27.technology, and the questions that are raised, the moral questions that

:46:28. > :46:34.are raised about machines making these sorts of decisions, come back

:46:35. > :46:37.to us so that we can judge whether this is going in the right

:46:38. > :46:42.direction, and by that this is where we are worried to go. I am not

:46:43. > :46:45.arguing against technology, I am not arguing that it should not be

:46:46. > :46:49.applied, I am not suggesting for a minute that we should hold it back,

:46:50. > :46:57.are denying the opportunities for our economy that developing this

:46:58. > :47:02.technology does open up for us. But there are... It is unavoidable,

:47:03. > :47:06.there are moral questions for us as legislators to answer about where we

:47:07. > :47:14.are going with this legislation and this type of technology, and I hope

:47:15. > :47:23.the Government are listening. It is a great pleasure to be called to

:47:24. > :47:28.speak in this important Bill debate. For completeness, may I declare an

:47:29. > :47:33.interest in this. I declare the future parliamentary group, which is

:47:34. > :47:37.funded by the transport systems catapulted, and I also chaired the

:47:38. > :47:44.Smart cities all-party group, which is a range of public and private

:47:45. > :47:48.bodies finding its secretariat. I had a great prize serving on the

:47:49. > :47:54.public Bill committee the vehicle technology and aviation Bill in the

:47:55. > :48:00.last Parliament. The honourable gentleman for, and lied and said it

:48:01. > :48:04.is a case of deja vu. Perhaps it directories is that this Bill is a

:48:05. > :48:10.system upgrade to the one that we had them. This is a better Bill,

:48:11. > :48:13.because as has been mentioned, a number of concerns, genuine

:48:14. > :48:17.concerns, well expressed by members on both sides and they have been

:48:18. > :48:21.affected in the clauses today. I should add that I thought that

:48:22. > :48:26.committee was a perfect example of how committees should work. We had a

:48:27. > :48:32.very cordial and practice exchange of views, and I am genuine concerns

:48:33. > :48:38.were raised and as I said, had been taken on board. I remain very

:48:39. > :48:42.supportive of both parts of the Bill, and as had been said, it is

:48:43. > :48:48.important that we are ahead of the game in this country. It is forecast

:48:49. > :48:54.that the market will be worth ?900 billion globally by 2025, and we

:48:55. > :48:59.have to make sure that our industry and our system of regulation is as

:49:00. > :49:01.up-to-date as possible to make sure that we can get a good share of that

:49:02. > :49:11.market. I don't think it is possible for us

:49:12. > :49:17.to day to predict the precise technology which will be innovative.

:49:18. > :49:20.I take a different approach from the honourable gentleman from Eltham. We

:49:21. > :49:26.cannot prescribe too much at this stage. The legislation has to be

:49:27. > :49:32.enabling and qualified by secondary legislation at the appropriate time.

:49:33. > :49:35.The potential advantages of electric vehicles are huge.ly not detain the

:49:36. > :49:41.House by repeating the ones which have been mentioned. I do think it

:49:42. > :49:46.will make transport more accessible to people with disabilities or who

:49:47. > :49:50.are elderly or do not, or do not have the means to afford a private

:49:51. > :49:56.car, for them to be able to access car transport. I think that is a

:49:57. > :50:01.very important social objection. I happily give way. Surely there's

:50:02. > :50:05.three things which must be done by the manufacturing sector. Number

:50:06. > :50:10.one, that is the performance of the cars t price of electric cars and

:50:11. > :50:14.also a commercial relationship with Government to provide the charging

:50:15. > :50:18.points. If we don't have those three things in place then you don't have

:50:19. > :50:23.electric cars or a way forewafrmtd I do agree with the -- forward. I do

:50:24. > :50:28.agree with the honourable gentleman. I think this bill provides a way for

:50:29. > :50:32.that to happen. If he will bear with me I will touch on these points

:50:33. > :50:37.later. The other advantages of course are environmental and making

:50:38. > :50:43.better and more efficient use of the limited resources we have. It is no

:50:44. > :50:47.mistake that the United Nations has as one of its top priorities the

:50:48. > :50:52.increasing urban noisation of the world. We are as a human race going

:50:53. > :50:56.to have to find better ways of moving people and goods around to

:50:57. > :51:00.make that development sustainable. In that regard I should mention of

:51:01. > :51:05.course that my own constituency in Milton Keynes is at the forefront of

:51:06. > :51:10.a lot of innovation of this technology. We were recognised in

:51:11. > :51:15.the smart cities index, 2017, as one of the top cities in the country.

:51:16. > :51:18.Before I move on to the detail of the bill, it was mentioned earlier

:51:19. > :51:24.in the debate the importance of matching skills to this new

:51:25. > :51:28.technology. And I very much welcome the minister's willingness to have a

:51:29. > :51:31.constructive dialogue in committee and more broadly with other

:51:32. > :51:37.departments to look at this issue and as a starting point the

:51:38. > :51:41.transport systems catapult recently published their intelligent mobility

:51:42. > :51:57.skills stratd gi, which identified we will have by 2025750,000 job gap

:51:58. > :52:03.in skills and there is an our -- by 2025 a 750,000 job gap in skills.

:52:04. > :52:07.Addressed to my satisfaction by the minister and in my comments today I

:52:08. > :52:14.wish to get reaffirmation of these and raise some additional concerns

:52:15. > :52:20.that I have. In clause 1, it provides for the minister to provide

:52:21. > :52:26.a list of vehicles that are deemed to have autonomous capability. I

:52:27. > :52:31.just ask a simple question when this list is compiled and then updated.

:52:32. > :52:36.Does it include the freight sector and public Transport Secretarior as

:52:37. > :52:42.well? Are we simply looking at what are deemed to be motorcars today? I

:52:43. > :52:48.think it would be helpful to have that clarification. In clause 2, of

:52:49. > :52:56.the bill, we had extensive debates in the previous bill about what

:52:57. > :53:01.would be an umbrella term classified as driver assistance technology. The

:53:02. > :53:07.lane guidance, cruise control, reverse parking guidance and what

:53:08. > :53:13.constitutes a wholly autonomous vehicle. The minister was clear that

:53:14. > :53:20.driver-assisted technology is not the point of this bill. When we have

:53:21. > :53:24.the gadgets in the car they are there to assist the driver, they do

:53:25. > :53:27.not replace the driver, so the driver remains in control.

:53:28. > :53:33.I am grateful to my honourable friend. In committee, did they also

:53:34. > :53:39.look at the relationship between the driver and actually passing some

:53:40. > :53:44.kind of driving test? And is it envisaged that the whole Highway

:53:45. > :53:49.Code and how somebody gets a license to drive either autonomous or semi

:53:50. > :53:56.autonomous vehicle will have to sit a different test? If so when it will

:53:57. > :54:00.be phased in? I am afraid I cannot recall in that was... I don't think

:54:01. > :54:10.it was. But it is a very fair point that my Right Honourable friend

:54:11. > :54:17.raises. I hope it will be considered in committee. There will be cases in

:54:18. > :54:21.the middle, where the car has dual function. And there's going to be a

:54:22. > :54:27.blur of when that technology is applied.

:54:28. > :54:30.And I would just still like to see greater clarification from the

:54:31. > :54:36.ministers in the bill, by the ministers in the bill to make clear

:54:37. > :54:40.to drivers and industry at what point this transition occurs. We've

:54:41. > :54:44.had talk of road trains in the future, where a car may drive under

:54:45. > :54:50.ordinary control up to a certain point and then it will form part of

:54:51. > :54:56.a convoy on the motorway. And just needs to be greater clarity as to,

:54:57. > :55:02.for the public, in particular, as to what point that changeover happens.

:55:03. > :55:07.I certainly give way. I am very interested in what he's having to

:55:08. > :55:12.say. Relating to the earlier point, if we've got totally automated

:55:13. > :55:15.vehicles end to end the purpose is to liberate people who otherwise

:55:16. > :55:19.would not be able to drive. Isn't it logical they would not be subjected

:55:20. > :55:25.to any test whatsoever in the conduct of that vehicle? Indeed the

:55:26. > :55:29.Shadow Secretary makes a fair point. We cannot predict what all these

:55:30. > :55:34.vehicles will be. And there may be some which have dual function. And

:55:35. > :55:41.we should prepare for that eventuality. Moving on to Clause IV,

:55:42. > :55:46.I wanted to touch on the point of where, such as on where the

:55:47. > :55:51.liability lies if the software has been tampered with. That could

:55:52. > :55:55.happen accidentally, if the car was in, being repaired and some engineer

:55:56. > :56:02.didn't upgrade or put the thing back together properly. Or it could be

:56:03. > :56:07.deliberate. We've had cases of cyber attacks on autonomous and connected

:56:08. > :56:13.vehicles. We had reassurance in the committee before that in the absence

:56:14. > :56:19.of further regulations the current system would apply and ultimately

:56:20. > :56:25.the motor insurance bureaus uninsured scheme would come into

:56:26. > :56:30.force. Does that remain the case, as the insurer of last resort? Sadly,

:56:31. > :56:36.given the huge number of scams we currently have in the insurance

:56:37. > :56:42.market, with arranged accidents and so on, man nef lent people will

:56:43. > :56:54.device new ways to scam autonomous vehicles and how they are insured

:56:55. > :56:59.them. I I urge the minister to work with industry to make sure we can

:57:00. > :57:07.work with industry as those scams come. Another point that causes me

:57:08. > :57:11.concern is in Clause IV.1B, failure to install safive updates that the I

:57:12. > :57:17.sured person knows or ought reasonably to know are safety

:57:18. > :57:21.critical, if that is not done, then the insurer's liability is

:57:22. > :57:38.diminished. I would like some further clarification as to what

:57:39. > :57:42.does reasonably to know mean? My iPhone has many updates. I am

:57:43. > :57:47.awaiting goodness how many. I am fearful of doing it because it will

:57:48. > :57:53.mess up my contact list, etc. That is my phone, that is my choice. If I

:57:54. > :57:59.am going into a vehicle that is controlled by soft ware, what is the

:58:00. > :58:01.point of liability? Will the upgrades have limiting capabilities

:58:02. > :58:08.that if not upgraded the vehicle will not work? Where would that be

:58:09. > :58:11.specify if that is the case? So, on the insurance part, I'm broadly

:58:12. > :58:16.subject to clarification on the questions I have raised. I do

:58:17. > :58:19.welcome this general approach as it will allow the industry to develop a

:58:20. > :58:24.variety of appropriate products. The market will change and we need to

:58:25. > :58:28.give the industry the flexibility to develop them. Moving quickly on to

:58:29. > :58:34.part two of the bill on electric vehicles. Again I welcome the

:58:35. > :58:36.general approach taken by the bill. We cannot predict future technology,

:58:37. > :58:42.it is therefore difficult to specify. Equally we need to give

:58:43. > :58:48.industry and consumers the confidence that concerns over range

:58:49. > :58:52.anxiety, charging points will be harmonised? Will there be enough at

:58:53. > :58:58.motorway services? Will they have time to charge? All these points

:58:59. > :59:02.need to be made to give consumers and industry some clarification. In

:59:03. > :59:12.the few minutesvy left, I just want to flag up a few concerns I have. We

:59:13. > :59:17.are seeing an increasing take-up of the vehicles, electric only. We've

:59:18. > :59:21.had developments from Volvo and others saying all their vehicles

:59:22. > :59:28.will be electric or hybrid in the near few churkts. -- future. There

:59:29. > :59:31.are concerns, not merely the jurisdiction for the Department for

:59:32. > :59:34.Transport but the transport needs to be in discussion with other

:59:35. > :59:40.departments. The first is the cost to Government in terms of lost

:59:41. > :59:43.revenue from fuel duty. And potentially parking charges which

:59:44. > :59:48.local authorities levy on motor vehicles but are free for electric

:59:49. > :59:52.vehicles. One estimate is the Government without making any

:59:53. > :59:56.changes will lose ?170 billion in revenue by 2030 as people

:59:57. > :00:03.increasingly shift to electric vehicles. What does that mean for

:00:04. > :00:07.how we charge for our vehicles? I appreciate that is a broader issue

:00:08. > :00:11.than simply this bill, but it is one which will have to be addressed at

:00:12. > :00:16.some point. Then we also need to look at how we're going to power

:00:17. > :00:20.these cars. Atkins drawing on a report by the Energy Technologies

:00:21. > :00:24.Institute recently said, we need to understand when and where people

:00:25. > :00:30.will want to charge their cars. It is likely at the moment to be in the

:00:31. > :00:36.early evening, particularly Sunday evenings as people have more leisure

:00:37. > :00:40.time then. That is forecast to add a 20% increase to the grid at a time

:00:41. > :00:45.when the grid maybe at its least resilient. How are we going to

:00:46. > :00:50.address that? It will largely come down, I suspect, to the technology

:00:51. > :00:54.that my Right Honourable friend from West Dorset has outlined - the

:00:55. > :01:01.battery technology. Finally, I would make the point others have made,

:01:02. > :01:06.that 30% of UK res dentses are not current -- residents currently do

:01:07. > :01:10.not have off-street parking, in flats and terraced houses in areas

:01:11. > :01:14.where it is not easy to put a plug out of the window and attach it to a

:01:15. > :01:20.car. That is something which will have to be addressed in our planning

:01:21. > :01:24.as we go forward. But we had a very good bill prior to the election.

:01:25. > :01:28.This current bill has been improved. It has addressed many of the

:01:29. > :01:31.concerns raised. I have raised a few more tonight and I very much hope

:01:32. > :01:36.these will be picked up by the committee. It is an important bill.

:01:37. > :01:40.We have got to get it rieg and it has my full support -- right and it

:01:41. > :01:48.has my full support tonight. Thank you. This debaited is important to

:01:49. > :01:53.our future well being as a nation. About so much more than a driving

:01:54. > :02:01.experience. It could be a radical departure in travel, transport and

:02:02. > :02:10.low-carbon fuels. Where my party happy to support this bill to let

:02:11. > :02:14.the koon consumers set a regulatory framework for that improved

:02:15. > :02:17.technology, that is not reserved. We do have serious reservations that

:02:18. > :02:21.perhaps it is not the wide-spread approach which is needed to maximise

:02:22. > :02:26.the benefits and effectively control these new technologies. Issues we

:02:27. > :02:32.have already heard about. Moral judgment by computers. Insurance,

:02:33. > :02:38.vehicle excise. On the plus side, my party is committed to encouraging

:02:39. > :02:43.the swift spread and accessibility of electic vehicles to reduce --

:02:44. > :02:47.electric vehicles to reduce emissions. Similarly with air

:02:48. > :02:52.pollution in the UK a killer, we have heard already it claims about

:02:53. > :02:57.40,000 people a year and in my own constituency I know that the

:02:58. > :03:01.pollution levels in St John's Road, the most polluted stretch of roadway

:03:02. > :03:06.in Scotland are a genuine cause for concern. The Government's stated

:03:07. > :03:11.support for low-carbon transport is welcome and vital if we have to

:03:12. > :03:17.reach our commitment to reducing greenhouse gases by 20% by 2050. Our

:03:18. > :03:22.commitment to the development, the Lib Dems of automated vehicles was

:03:23. > :03:27.clear in the kolings's ?10 million programme of -- in the collision's

:03:28. > :03:31.?10 million programme of research. It will enable more elderly and

:03:32. > :03:35.disabled people to use the roads. This bill does not go far enough.

:03:36. > :03:45.There are several areas where it falls short of the sort of

:03:46. > :03:49.far-reaching, indeed vizry -- visionary approach needed to cleaner

:03:50. > :03:51.transport which protects both our health now and the environment for

:03:52. > :04:00.future generations. I believe the government should be

:04:01. > :04:05.looking at the sort of measures that the Liberal Democrats have committed

:04:06. > :04:13.to, a green transport act, air quality plan, diesel salvage scheme

:04:14. > :04:19.and a ban on diesel vehicles and vans and we want the introduction of

:04:20. > :04:22.ultralow or zero emission private hire and buses within five years and

:04:23. > :04:28.we also need low or zero emission zones and reformed vehicle excise.

:04:29. > :04:34.We also need to look at more accessible charging points, the

:04:35. > :04:38.importance of this must not be underestimated. As my right

:04:39. > :04:43.honourable friend from West Dorset mentioned, if electrical vehicles

:04:44. > :04:50.are Depor, sufficiently popular that they reach a critical mass of usage

:04:51. > :04:54.-- are to become. They must have convenient charging points and that

:04:55. > :04:58.means residential facilities and workplace charging facilities.

:04:59. > :05:05.Petrol stations and motorway services as the government proposes

:05:06. > :05:09.are all well and good but work places and homes are more useful and

:05:10. > :05:14.councils should maybe require new industrial developments provide

:05:15. > :05:18.electric charging points, we need a pilot scheme to look at developments

:05:19. > :05:22.such as the use of lamp posts and residential areas, without

:05:23. > :05:28.driveways, where there are flats or terraced housing. The minister has

:05:29. > :05:31.said he is happy to have discussions but these discussions and the

:05:32. > :05:36.consultation he mentioned must be affected. And if the roll out of

:05:37. > :05:41.electric vehicles is to be truly effective, in reducing emissions,

:05:42. > :05:47.the energy they use must be clean energy. There is no point in every

:05:48. > :05:53.single one of us driving about in clean vehicles if the electricity

:05:54. > :05:59.they used was generated using old-fashioned dirty power stations,

:06:00. > :06:03.that is critical. We need an expansion of the renewable energy

:06:04. > :06:09.sector, subsidy restored for solar power and onshore wind, and electric

:06:10. > :06:16.vehicles must not be the sole focus. The hydrogen fuel sector has much to

:06:17. > :06:23.offer and should not be ignored. While this bill also looks at

:06:24. > :06:27.drivers vehicles their development although highly desirable will also

:06:28. > :06:32.demand significant changes to insurance and road traffic laws as

:06:33. > :06:35.we have heard from other speakers. The government has not in our

:06:36. > :06:41.opinion given sufficient attention to these issues and indeed what we

:06:42. > :06:45.are now presented with is a Bill which is narrower than originally

:06:46. > :06:50.envisaged. Where is the regulation on drones or the use of laser pens

:06:51. > :06:56.which can be so dangerous to landing aircraft? Much of this bill is

:06:57. > :07:01.admirable but sadly as I said it lacks the vision of the original

:07:02. > :07:05.promised legislation. Where is the overarching strategy in which

:07:06. > :07:11.electric and driverless cars are part of society's change in vehicle

:07:12. > :07:18.use, road safety and carbon emissions? Madame Deputy Speaker,

:07:19. > :07:22.there can't be any of us in this place who doubt the value and

:07:23. > :07:28.desirability of encouraging the take-up of new Greener safer vehicle

:07:29. > :07:32.and transport technology, the underlying principles of this bill

:07:33. > :07:38.are sound. We should be thinking about cleaner air and renewable

:07:39. > :07:43.energy, these are our future and we should not approach them in a

:07:44. > :07:50.guarded half-hearted or compromising way, but with real ambition and

:07:51. > :07:58.adventurous spirit. I see us as pioneers of a better and cleaner

:07:59. > :08:02.society. Amanda milling. I'm very grateful to have the opportunity to

:08:03. > :08:06.speak this evening, and I would like to put on record that I welcome this

:08:07. > :08:10.bill and I would like to focus my contribution on clauses 8-15 which

:08:11. > :08:18.focus on the electric vehicle part of the legislation. A couple of

:08:19. > :08:22.points I would like to make. Partly based on experience of market

:08:23. > :08:27.research into looking at new and developing technologies and those

:08:28. > :08:32.that are in their infancy, and some of the difficulties that we face in

:08:33. > :08:38.that area. And also some of the points made by my constituents,

:08:39. > :08:43.Cannock Chase has previously been a blackspot when it comes to public

:08:44. > :08:46.charging points. One of the reasons I welcome this bill is because it

:08:47. > :08:53.actually really looks to address some of the barriers to adopting a

:08:54. > :08:58.electric vehicles and these are key to meeting the targets in terms of

:08:59. > :09:07.take up and carbon emissions and air quality. To meet these targets, we

:09:08. > :09:13.need a step change in order to get a breakthrough into the mass-market. I

:09:14. > :09:18.touched at the beginning in terms of my previous experience in terms of

:09:19. > :09:23.researching new technologies and my honourable friend the member for

:09:24. > :09:29.Milton Keynes South made the point quite rightly that it is so

:09:30. > :09:33.difficult to predict the take-up of new technologies and emerging

:09:34. > :09:41.technologies, and I remember having to research issues such as broadband

:09:42. > :09:47.contactless cards and mobile banking, and I can take you that

:09:48. > :09:52.before these came to market people just could not get their heads

:09:53. > :09:57.around it, they said they didn't always go down terribly well, the

:09:58. > :10:03.barriers they were putting up were in terms of price, simple fears of

:10:04. > :10:09.the unknown, security issues, the status quo kicking in, just being

:10:10. > :10:16.much happier with sticking with what we already know. And not always

:10:17. > :10:19.having a clear view of what the benefit is, and I could go on at

:10:20. > :10:26.length, but I will come back to electric vehicles. Fundamentally,

:10:27. > :10:30.the learning was a need to address these issues and these barriers, and

:10:31. > :10:34.to engage the public, it was about making sure the awareness was there,

:10:35. > :10:41.that consumers really understood the new technology and could see the

:10:42. > :10:45.benefits of such. Why is this relevant in terms of electric

:10:46. > :10:52.vehicles? There are some barriers in place which are stopping consumers

:10:53. > :10:56.and the public buying these electric vehicles in the first instance, and

:10:57. > :11:02.some frustrations of those who already own one. I welcome the idea

:11:03. > :11:07.that we are looking to improve the consumer experience and expand the

:11:08. > :11:13.electric vehicle infrastructure because this will go some way to

:11:14. > :11:19.addressing the barriers. These are really important to make sure that

:11:20. > :11:22.we address the fears and concerns of those who do not already own one of

:11:23. > :11:29.these vehicles, and actually some of the frustrations of existing owners.

:11:30. > :11:35.Indeed, and at this point, either like to turn my attention to some of

:11:36. > :11:40.the points made by one of my constituents -- I would like to

:11:41. > :11:44.time. Mark Clements has raised this issue with me on numerous occasions

:11:45. > :11:48.because I knew the bill was coming to the house last week and I sort to

:11:49. > :11:56.get more feedback from my constituents. I asked him to

:11:57. > :12:00.elaborate further. I would like to say that I'm very grateful to Mr

:12:01. > :12:04.Clements and I don't have enough time to go through all of the

:12:05. > :12:09.detail, but he provided a lot of detail which has been very helpful

:12:10. > :12:15.because I don't own an electric car and I don't know some of the issues

:12:16. > :12:21.that consumers face. It is important that this bill addresses the things

:12:22. > :12:25.which will enable people which are Paul factors to the market rather

:12:26. > :12:33.than push factors to adopting electric cars, so going back to Mr

:12:34. > :12:38.Clements. To quote him, he says," the three sound bite message is,

:12:39. > :12:44.make it easy to own and run an electric vehicle, keep the cost of

:12:45. > :12:47.commercial public charges reasonable, and encourage local

:12:48. > :12:54.authorities to install charge points in car parks. He continues, we are

:12:55. > :12:58.happy to pay for electricity but if the cost per mile reaches that of a

:12:59. > :13:03.petrol car then there will be no incentive to change to an electric

:13:04. > :13:12.vehicle. This is why those points, and this bill, do a line incredibly

:13:13. > :13:16.neatly. I have been talking to other constituents have written about

:13:17. > :13:22.these issues, and there is concern about the access ability and many

:13:23. > :13:27.members have spoken about the access ability of public charging points.

:13:28. > :13:31.And that fear on the part of consumers who haven't got an

:13:32. > :13:35.electric vehicle and maybe even for some of those who have, that they

:13:36. > :13:41.are going to run out of power. I have learned this evening this is

:13:42. > :13:45.called range anxiety. Bearing in mind in Cannock Chase we have been a

:13:46. > :13:51.blackspot in terms of public charging points and in Staffordshire

:13:52. > :13:54.it has been patchy at best, you can understand why my constituents have

:13:55. > :13:58.not been at the forefront necessarily of adopting electric

:13:59. > :14:04.cars, but I am pleased to learn we have a charge master which has been

:14:05. > :14:12.recently installed... Sorry, charge master have installed a public rapid

:14:13. > :14:19.and also in a car park, although there are issues with these charging

:14:20. > :14:23.points. It would seem that we need to make sure that all places are

:14:24. > :14:27.well served in terms of charging points because there are some places

:14:28. > :14:32.where I believe, like Milton Keynes, it is well served, in contrast to

:14:33. > :14:38.Staffordshire. We need to look at where the public want to charge

:14:39. > :14:44.their car and aligning the type of charging points to those locations,

:14:45. > :14:48.I spoke about the points in Hednesford, Mr Clements tells me it

:14:49. > :14:56.would take in ten hours to charge his car in the car park in

:14:57. > :15:03.Hednesford. But with a rapid it gets and 95% of the power in 35 minutes,

:15:04. > :15:08.-- it gets him 95% of the power in 35 minutes. Other constituents

:15:09. > :15:13.raised the issue of public charging points at motorway service stations

:15:14. > :15:16.and large retailers and I'm pleased to see this in the bill. Another

:15:17. > :15:21.suggestion that we should make sure that this is included in planning

:15:22. > :15:27.for new fuel stations, we have one in Canning Chase ourselves. --

:15:28. > :15:32.Cannock Chase. The other issue Mr Clements raised was the issue of

:15:33. > :15:36.cost, and the sheer complexity because you have so made different

:15:37. > :15:42.variables involved, the unit price and per kilowatt hour, and

:15:43. > :15:48.subscription fees, I could go on. Everyone would rather I didn't. In

:15:49. > :15:54.terms of the consistency in terms of the way in which pricing information

:15:55. > :16:03.is provided. In terms of the user experience at the moment it is

:16:04. > :16:07.rather clunky. Mr Clements riveted -- really did give me a lot of

:16:08. > :16:14.information, he has three apps and supply cards for suppliers, but

:16:15. > :16:19.maybe it would be easier to have a universal system. It strikes me as a

:16:20. > :16:25.little bit like cash machines when we have lots of different cash

:16:26. > :16:30.machines which you can and can't use, you have a network and you

:16:31. > :16:33.can't use the universal... The entire network, so I'm hoping this

:16:34. > :16:40.bill will resolve some of these issues. As I say, I welcome this

:16:41. > :16:44.bill and the fact that it is addressing a lot of the issues that

:16:45. > :16:51.the public have raised, and also there is work for the market to

:16:52. > :16:57.address. By making these moves, we should be able to overcome some of

:16:58. > :17:03.the issues in terms of public awareness and confidence in electric

:17:04. > :17:08.vehicles. And this kind of concern around range anxiety, the more

:17:09. > :17:12.points we see around the country, at more locations, the more comfortable

:17:13. > :17:18.and confident people will be that they will be able to charge their

:17:19. > :17:27.car. I'd also like to pick up on one final point which is in terms of the

:17:28. > :17:31.universal signpost or icons, branded icons, which signified this is a

:17:32. > :17:36.location where you can charge your electric vehicle. Again, I believe

:17:37. > :17:42.this will help to raise consumer and public awareness of these points,

:17:43. > :17:46.but also then feeling more comfortable that they have these

:17:47. > :17:53.different locations where they can charge their car. In short, I

:17:54. > :17:58.welcome the bill and I hope these measures and these developments, and

:17:59. > :18:03.the work on the part of the industry, as well, will help to make

:18:04. > :18:16.sure of that breakthrough in electric cars being adopted. I want

:18:17. > :18:19.to set out my welcome of this bill and I welcome the government's

:18:20. > :18:24.position to end the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030, and

:18:25. > :18:27.that aim will only be successful when consumers can afford electric

:18:28. > :18:31.vehicles and when charging infrastructure is readily available

:18:32. > :18:46.was on the question of affordability I asked the government to Pecos --

:18:47. > :18:51.pay close attention to the FCA and hire purchase of cars. Many people

:18:52. > :18:55.are not sure of the terms and costs are the end of the loan, no doubt

:18:56. > :18:58.with the increase in the uptake of electric vehicles, that part of the

:18:59. > :19:02.car market should be watched closely.

:19:03. > :19:12.In my constituency, as many honourable members have said about

:19:13. > :19:16.their own, I have only three public electric charging points for homes

:19:17. > :19:22.and a large industrial estate. I clearly tli there should be mother.

:19:23. > :19:26.I hope the Government has a proper plan to ensure the communications

:19:27. > :19:35.infrastructure is fit for purpose too. With updates to our Victorian

:19:36. > :19:41.grid, power, including local general race and distribution.

:19:42. > :19:45.Communications structure to deal with the data, which can deal with

:19:46. > :19:53.vehicles, safe from the threat of cybersecurity. As ever, Madam Deputy

:19:54. > :19:58.Speaker, Bristol is leading the way. I welcome recent investment at the

:19:59. > :20:03.Bristol and bath science park and for further funding into further

:20:04. > :20:08.funding for pilots for autonomous vehicles in Bristol. Bristol has a

:20:09. > :20:12.strong environmental record, recently as green capital. We

:20:13. > :20:23.struggle with our air pollution targets. We welcome vehicles powered

:20:24. > :20:28.by clean renewable nerge. -- energy. The debate focussed on this mundane

:20:29. > :20:31.obviousliness, is missing the bigger picture. We need to take the

:20:32. > :20:37.opportunity to look up from our papers. This is the first bill in

:20:38. > :20:45.this Parliament that paves the way for technological reform of our

:20:46. > :20:51.economy. The start of a journey of robots becoming part of our daily

:20:52. > :20:57.lives, posing questions to the Government in its role in steering

:20:58. > :21:03.Britain to this globalised. To touch on one point, Government members

:21:04. > :21:07.have raised question on the use of personal details. The regulation

:21:08. > :21:11.which will set the framework for this processing in our country is

:21:12. > :21:16.currently not set for debate in this House, being adopted with consent

:21:17. > :21:24.under a statutory implement. It does not allow us to debate the substance

:21:25. > :21:27.of GDPR. As it stands, it appears to me the so-called fourth Industrial

:21:28. > :21:31.Revolution is happening to us, not because of our leadership. The

:21:32. > :21:36.minister quoted Disraeli and said that our future is in our hands. And

:21:37. > :21:40.it is to this point that I wish to direct my remarks today. Because

:21:41. > :21:43.given the apparent lack of parliamentary time to do anything

:21:44. > :21:49.complicated or contentious, we should look at what is not in this

:21:50. > :21:55.bill and what should be. Was this bill is technical. It is legislating

:21:56. > :22:00.for insurance policies and plug sockets. This may be another example

:22:01. > :22:08.of a Government failing to lead on the big issues. We must set the tone

:22:09. > :22:13.of what is and is not acceptable. Protections from cyberrisk.

:22:14. > :22:18.That debate, these debates must have had in this place and we are missing

:22:19. > :22:23.the opportunity to do so. Where in this bill does the Government set

:22:24. > :22:28.out how it will prevent the mass unemployment associated with

:22:29. > :22:32.driverless vehicles? According to the House of Commons's liable nearly

:22:33. > :22:36.one million people are employed. Taxi drivers, driving instruck tors.

:22:37. > :22:40.It is clear that automated vehicles will be deployed in the easiest of

:22:41. > :22:47.options first. No-one suggests that will not rule out every aspect of

:22:48. > :22:50.our daily lives. In Bristol North West there are distribution centres,

:22:51. > :22:54.Morrisons, UPS and all of the activities of the ports to name but

:22:55. > :23:00.a few. What will happen to those jobs when those vehicles drive

:23:01. > :23:06.themselves or the shopping baskets pack themselves or drones deliver

:23:07. > :23:12.our parcels? Where is the market to help reduck dant workers --

:23:13. > :23:17.redundant workers find new work? I welcome the remarks from the member

:23:18. > :23:19.who recognised it is China leading the ways in developing these

:23:20. > :23:25.technologies. I note that we are still waiting for

:23:26. > :23:30.the industrial White Paper from the Government, Madam Deputy Speaker.

:23:31. > :23:34.Where the digital skills agenda. For younger people who need to

:23:35. > :23:44.manufacture and maintain and produce these vehicles, but for older people

:23:45. > :23:50.who will need to re train for new work. Whilst Brexit is the biggest

:23:51. > :23:55.threat to our country in peace time it is nonetheless a short to medium

:23:56. > :24:00.term risk. I would rather that Brexit isn't happening. What does

:24:01. > :24:02.Britain look like after that period of ridiculous self-harm? This bill

:24:03. > :24:07.could be part of that vision. It could start the debate. It could set

:24:08. > :24:11.the tone, but it fails on every test. The Government quite rightly

:24:12. > :24:15.sees the adoption of robotics connectivity and the cloud to a

:24:16. > :24:19.means to unblocking economic productivity problems. Autonomous

:24:20. > :24:25.vehicles are part of that solution. I am all for that. I am pro-business

:24:26. > :24:31.and protect know logical reform, at home, and especially in the public

:24:32. > :24:37.sector. The Government is silent on these vital strategic concerns.

:24:38. > :24:41.Thousands of my constituents potentially have their jobs at risk,

:24:42. > :24:46.yet we are not debating that issue today. We must be on the right side

:24:47. > :24:52.of the fourth Industrial Revolution. If we go head first, first with

:24:53. > :24:56.automation and then to artificial intelligence we risk being on the

:24:57. > :25:00.wrong side of a Industrial Revolution. It is upon us to ensure

:25:01. > :25:04.we debate these issues now, not after millions of people lose their

:25:05. > :25:08.jobs. To reiterate, I welcome this bill. But I am disappointed by the

:25:09. > :25:13.missed opportunities it presents. I call on the Government to take this

:25:14. > :25:15.opportunity to put forward its vision for a modern connected

:25:16. > :25:19.transformed Britain that also focuses on workers and the lives of

:25:20. > :25:27.my constituents. If it fails to do so, I know that we on this side of

:25:28. > :25:31.the House will happily step in. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you

:25:32. > :25:36.for the opportunity to be able to contribute to this debate tonight. I

:25:37. > :25:39.will limit my comments to just one element as many members have

:25:40. > :25:45.outlined. There are two parts to this bill and I would like to

:25:46. > :25:52.comment on the automation side, for at least attempts bravety at this

:25:53. > :25:55.time of evening. I welcome the bill and I welcome the limitations, the

:25:56. > :25:59.limited nature of this bill which has been obviously debated at length

:26:00. > :26:05.by members in this chamber for the past few hours. We have a decision

:26:06. > :26:08.to make as a country, and the decision is, because this technology

:26:09. > :26:12.is coming, with regards to automation. The decision is whether

:26:13. > :26:18.we allow it to happen with us, or whether we allow it to happen to us.

:26:19. > :26:22.And I fear that some of the conversations that have been

:26:23. > :26:26.happening in this chamber today and it's been a very constructive debate

:26:27. > :26:30.and I welcome the opposition front bench's comments in general. They

:26:31. > :26:34.have been very constructive debate. Buff I do worry that some of the

:26:35. > :26:38.contributions in the last few contributions are tending towards

:26:39. > :26:43.more solving problems which we are not necessarily fully understanding

:26:44. > :26:46.at this stage and the development of automation and where sometimes

:26:47. > :26:52.legislation is not the immediate answer. As a Conservative you would

:26:53. > :26:55.naturally expect me to work from the basic principal that basic

:26:56. > :26:58.regulation should be provided where necessary rather than necessarily

:26:59. > :27:02.always put there in order to create a framework which will guarantee

:27:03. > :27:06.every single problem at tend. That is essentially my point today. And

:27:07. > :27:12.the honourable member for Bristol North West and I were on a panel in

:27:13. > :27:17.the summer and we debated this away from this place, whilst he's put

:27:18. > :27:22.forward many important points which need to be debated in this place and

:27:23. > :27:25.without this place there is a clear and consistent argument for the

:27:26. > :27:30.limitation of the activities we are seeking to do with this bill and the

:27:31. > :27:33.way we reg late automation which will allow people to innovate in

:27:34. > :27:38.general. I was also going to say until the member stood that I

:27:39. > :27:42.welcome the fact we have spent most of the last three hour speaking

:27:43. > :27:48.about something without using the B word. As important as Brexit is and

:27:49. > :27:52.as important it is for my constituents that it is delivered. I

:27:53. > :27:56.feel there is a danger within our political discussion within this

:27:57. > :28:04.country that we are losing the capability and the bandwidth to talk

:28:05. > :28:09.about much bigger and equally issues we are talking about tonight. Brexit

:28:10. > :28:15.will influence us for the next 18 months and will influence us beyond

:28:16. > :28:20.that. Things like automated vehicle technology has the potential to

:28:21. > :28:24.influence our society for 18 years, 56 years, that is the ultimate point

:28:25. > :28:29.that is important for all of us here. Importantly because we have

:28:30. > :28:32.allocated time here to talk about this but the wider discussion which

:28:33. > :28:35.intends to be breathless about Brexit and perhaps reduce the amount

:28:36. > :28:41.of time we have for issues like this. So, in order to avoid me

:28:42. > :28:46.falling into the same trap I just talked other people doing so, I will

:28:47. > :28:51.move on from Brexit. I would like to welcome the Government's approach to

:28:52. > :28:57.a rolling regulatory reform here. I can understand why members opposite

:28:58. > :29:01.have outlined the need for a vision, about a need for an expansive

:29:02. > :29:05.understanding of this issue. We are at an early stage in the development

:29:06. > :29:12.of automated vehicles. We have to accept that at the moment we are

:29:13. > :29:18.seeking to guide a industry from some very small scale trials which

:29:19. > :29:22.have been in semi pedestrianised areas into a more large-scale set of

:29:23. > :29:29.trials, which is essentially the next stage of what we are seeking

:29:30. > :29:33.to. It is important that regulation moves, necessarily ex-bands, but

:29:34. > :29:36.moves. It needs to be done in a measured and controlled way. At the

:29:37. > :29:40.moment we are at an early phase in the development of this and the

:29:41. > :29:44.regulation should be acore dant with that. We will move into a place for

:29:45. > :29:49.our early adoption relatively soon. It is appropriate to look again at

:29:50. > :29:53.the future of regulation, will move to a place if this technology is

:29:54. > :29:57.successful where this becomes large scale adopted on our roads and we

:29:58. > :30:00.will move to a place where it is the majority and eveptdually deal with

:30:01. > :30:05.that long -- eventedually deal with that long tale about how to ensure

:30:06. > :30:08.the technology is taken up. The regulation in each of those stages

:30:09. > :30:13.are necessaries sarly different and we should not seek to complicate the

:30:14. > :30:18.process as it stands by trying to answer all the questions now about

:30:19. > :30:27.things which may not occur for a number years in the future. Turning

:30:28. > :30:31.to some clauses in the legislation put forward, I welcome what the

:30:32. > :30:34.Government is doing in terms of tidying up and ensuring the

:30:35. > :30:39.framework around automated vehicles is appropriate. With regards to

:30:40. > :30:42.Clause 2, which ensures there is clarity about what happens within

:30:43. > :30:47.the insurance market when the machine is in control of the vehicle

:30:48. > :30:53.rather than the driver is in control of the vehicle. I welcome Clause IV

:30:54. > :30:57.which makes statements about product liability and the continuation with

:30:58. > :31:02.regards to the use of pooled insurance. There may be a case which

:31:03. > :31:07.we can debate here and elsewhere that pooled insurance, that the

:31:08. > :31:10.point about pooled insurance verses product lieblingt is appropriate in

:31:11. > :31:15.the few -- liability is appropriate in the future. The point about a

:31:16. > :31:20.product manufacturer liability is it will only be appropriate at a stage

:31:21. > :31:24.where almost everyone on the roads is insuring, are in automated

:31:25. > :31:28.vehicles. Until that pointed we have to ensure the framework is

:31:29. > :31:32.appropriate. That is why a system of pooled insurance is appropriate.

:31:33. > :31:38.Whilst there will never be an absolute silver bullet on this,

:31:39. > :31:40.there will not be a way to solve all the philosophical conversations

:31:41. > :31:44.about pooled insurance can be applied to this kind of market,

:31:45. > :31:48.particularly in a transitionary form which we are talking about. What the

:31:49. > :31:53.Government is trying to do here is to be welcomed. We've talked today

:31:54. > :31:57.in particular about how we want to be a world leader in this kind of

:31:58. > :32:00.technology and many members have mentioned that in their speeches and

:32:01. > :32:09.their contributions to this House. It is something that I would support

:32:10. > :32:12.extensively here. The honourable member for Kilmarnock stated earlier

:32:13. > :32:15.about the importance of putting money behind these kind of

:32:16. > :32:20.activities. Something I would concur with to an extent. I think it is

:32:21. > :32:30.appropriate and important that we have the right regulatory framework

:32:31. > :32:32.behind this. There are places like Silicon Valley which run around

:32:33. > :32:36.automated vehicle technology, but it is important to know that actually

:32:37. > :32:39.in America many States have not taken up the opportunities that

:32:40. > :32:44.automated vehicle technology have provided. It is only a handful that

:32:45. > :32:47.have. In China, we have heard earlier from other honourable

:32:48. > :32:55.members and honourable friends about companies which have, which are

:32:56. > :32:57.moving forward at pace with automated technological development

:32:58. > :33:05.and Volvo which is doing the same within our continent. Have an early

:33:06. > :33:08.opportunity here as a country to provide the kind of frameworks which

:33:09. > :33:14.will allow these companies to innovate and to thrive. That is why

:33:15. > :33:17.we should be very careful about the regulatory framework. Before I

:33:18. > :33:29.conclude, if I can make one other point and one I could con -- I would

:33:30. > :33:33.concur with. It creates important questions about how we adopt, as a

:33:34. > :33:36.society, in the future and I concur with the importance of the debate on

:33:37. > :33:41.that. Changed by its necessity comes in three parts. It comes in the part

:33:42. > :33:46.of technology n the part of regulatory and legal change and in

:33:47. > :33:50.the part of cultural change. We have the technological change coming

:33:51. > :33:54.forward. That is why we are here and talking about it. We are talking

:33:55. > :33:58.about the regulatory and legal framework, which is necessary. The

:33:59. > :34:01.cultural change is one not just the responsibility of members oh this

:34:02. > :34:05.House but wider society in order to discuss and debate and one which

:34:06. > :34:09.will take many years to come forward.

:34:10. > :34:20.There was a poll by YouGov a few months ago that said 50% of drivers

:34:21. > :34:25.who were asked questions by drivers vehicles do not think that drivers

:34:26. > :34:32.technology is safe at this point and over 33% people -- who were asked

:34:33. > :34:40.questions about drivers vehicles do not think drivers technology is safe

:34:41. > :34:44.for them people are not commence by the technology coming if we don't

:34:45. > :34:47.take the opportunity of this technology, which has been outlined,

:34:48. > :34:54.we are doing a disservice to ourselves as a country, and I accept

:34:55. > :34:58.the point about the disruption and dislocation of the technology and

:34:59. > :35:03.what it might bring in the long term, but it is important we don't

:35:04. > :35:05.get too far ahead. I have moved into far too existential questions for

:35:06. > :35:12.nine o'clock at night on a Monday evening, but I welcome what the

:35:13. > :35:16.government is doing and I welcome the limited nature of the bill which

:35:17. > :35:20.is being put forward and the deliberate limitations of that bill

:35:21. > :35:25.and I welcome the opportunity of the wider question it opens for society

:35:26. > :35:39.that is why I'm happy to support the bill the ceiling. -- this evening.

:35:40. > :35:43.Thank you. I welcome the bill, although clearly it is much reduced,

:35:44. > :35:48.I understand, from what was originally put forward. In the

:35:49. > :35:52.debate so far, it is interesting how much of the discussion is around

:35:53. > :35:58.cars as vehicles as opposed to vehicles more generally, and I draw

:35:59. > :36:02.attention to an electric bikes, scooters, taxes, which has been

:36:03. > :36:08.mentioned, fans and lorries and buses, I would like to come back to

:36:09. > :36:12.later. Likewise, I welcome the initiative which is a terrific

:36:13. > :36:17.example of how government can work with academia and businesses to

:36:18. > :36:23.bring about change and revolution in a particular sector, it is that

:36:24. > :36:30.stimulus which is so crucial when we are looking at such a major step

:36:31. > :36:36.change as we are with what we are discussing here, a little vehicle

:36:37. > :36:43.technology and autonomous vehicles. -- with electric vehicle technology.

:36:44. > :36:46.A good example of this is a manufacturing group, many of the

:36:47. > :36:50.people who work there in my constituency, live with it, and it

:36:51. > :36:56.is very much at the cutting edge in the development of battery fuel cell

:36:57. > :37:01.technology, working with many other universities across the country, and

:37:02. > :37:10.vehicle manufacturers from around the world. It is critical that we

:37:11. > :37:14.actually gain leadership in this sector, we need a competitive

:37:15. > :37:21.advantage against the likes of China, Korea and Japan, which are

:37:22. > :37:27.the stab list dominant players in the fuel cell, the battery cell,

:37:28. > :37:33.technology -- which are the established dominant. As part of

:37:34. > :37:36.that we need to establish a battery prototype centre that is able to

:37:37. > :37:46.adapt to the rapid change in this technology as we see in other

:37:47. > :37:50.sectors as well that it is so rapid it is easy to be caught out, and I

:37:51. > :37:56.very much hope that such a centre could be located at the heart of the

:37:57. > :38:03.automotive industry which is very much in my constituency, Coventry

:38:04. > :38:08.and Warwickshire, which really is at the heart of the development of

:38:09. > :38:12.connected vehicles. And that would be a very welcome move indeed. I

:38:13. > :38:19.look forward to an announcement on that. That ambition has to be

:38:20. > :38:24.matched by our legislative will and as policymakers in our need to

:38:25. > :38:27.change consumer behaviour and there has been talk about that recently

:38:28. > :38:33.from other members on the other side of the chamber. We have doing

:38:34. > :38:38.carriage through initiatives and exemptions and fiscal measures,

:38:39. > :38:41.maybe scrappage schemes to accelerate the change in behaviour

:38:42. > :38:48.but also that investment from other factors and also in the investment

:38:49. > :38:54.of infrastructure as well. Several weeks ago I was lucky enough to be

:38:55. > :38:59.invited to the Tech -fest event by Jaguar Land Rover in London, where

:39:00. > :39:05.they announced that every new vehicle as of 2020 will have

:39:06. > :39:11.electrified versions and that is a terrific innovation coming from such

:39:12. > :39:17.a major employer and investor in this country. Even the eight type

:39:18. > :39:22.Jaguar is being retrofitted with back to sell, so there is something

:39:23. > :39:29.for everyone in what they offer. We have heard about Nissan. A terrific

:39:30. > :39:36.economic stimulus for the North East, and we have heard I'm sure

:39:37. > :39:43.about mini and their electric versions coming through and also we

:39:44. > :39:46.have heard about Volvo which will be the first car malefactor with it

:39:47. > :39:53.entirely purely electric vehicle range Tuitt -- manufacturer. The

:39:54. > :39:56.incentives need to be there, but if you look at other countries where

:39:57. > :40:01.there is a certainly the ship, greater than we are showing, and in

:40:02. > :40:08.Norway, where I'm right in saying, over 10% of new vehicles sales are

:40:09. > :40:13.pure electric vehicles in their total car market, compares to just a

:40:14. > :40:20.few percent in this country. We are really behind the curve compared to

:40:21. > :40:27.other European countries and our ambition of actually being purely or

:40:28. > :40:36.non-petrol and diesel by 2040 is an ambition which is too late. Would

:40:37. > :40:40.you not agree, we need a minimum density of electric charge points in

:40:41. > :40:43.residential areas to stimuli that market to make sure that we can move

:40:44. > :40:49.to fully electric vehicle market here? I welcome that intervention

:40:50. > :40:53.and I do think there needs to be a minimum density and it is one of

:40:54. > :40:57.those areas for infrastructure we should be insisting and urging

:40:58. > :41:01.through all development in our town centres but also in our new build

:41:02. > :41:05.housing which has been much talked about, the local plans which are

:41:06. > :41:11.being considered, and it is a critical part of that framework

:41:12. > :41:17.which we should be showing leadership as government and local

:41:18. > :41:23.leaders, as well. Figure that iPod, is a a great opportunity, we need to

:41:24. > :41:27.accelerate the uptake of electric vehicles especially in the next few

:41:28. > :41:34.years -- to go back to my point. I wanted to talk about buses, and it

:41:35. > :41:39.is our buses and lorries and vans were just some of the dirtiest

:41:40. > :41:43.vehicles we have in our urban areas. They are the ones that we more

:41:44. > :41:50.urgently need to get taken off the road. I was recently proud to attend

:41:51. > :41:56.the launch of the new Volvo bus, electric vehicle, which I understand

:41:57. > :42:01.has been tested in certain areas around the country, most recently in

:42:02. > :42:04.Greater Manchester where it was very well received. These are the

:42:05. > :42:08.vehicles which will dramatically change the air quality in our town

:42:09. > :42:15.centres and may need to accelerate and encourage that adoption -- we

:42:16. > :42:19.need. The challenge lies in the power grid, as well, which is hard

:42:20. > :42:26.to access in so many areas, we have heard about rural areas especially,

:42:27. > :42:31.but also the second issue for bus adoption, electric vehicle bus

:42:32. > :42:35.adoption, the operability and standardisation of en route charging

:42:36. > :42:42.sites and this is where I think our European neighbours are further

:42:43. > :42:46.ahead. It is rather like the VHS Betamax debated many years ago, that

:42:47. > :42:51.we remember, and we have to make sure that there is a general

:42:52. > :42:55.acceptance and standardisation of that to make sure we have the right

:42:56. > :43:00.sort of infrastructure in place in our town centres. At the same time

:43:01. > :43:05.there needs to be subsidies and fiscal incentives for bus operators

:43:06. > :43:11.to adopt these EU buses, buses receive money as public subsidies

:43:12. > :43:20.and I would argue this should be targeted to advantage electric

:43:21. > :43:23.vehicles. As was mentioned by the member for Milton Keynes Apple there

:43:24. > :43:29.has been debate about domestic charging points -- Milton Keynes

:43:30. > :43:33.South, there has been debate. I also want to focus on the revolution that

:43:34. > :43:37.can be had with the event of smarter cities where street lights and other

:43:38. > :43:39.street furniture can be used as charging points, this is happening

:43:40. > :43:48.elsewhere on the supply can be to weight of the user or the

:43:49. > :43:51.municipality. -- can be two way. I welcome the bill but we need to be

:43:52. > :43:58.more ambitious in some areas and more cautious in others. We need to

:43:59. > :44:02.arrest the serious problems of air quality and climate change, and we

:44:03. > :44:05.must be as ambitious as India and the Netherlands and others in

:44:06. > :44:12.banning new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030, because 2040 is

:44:13. > :44:17.too late, and considering the merits and needs of autonomous vehicles I

:44:18. > :44:20.would urge legislative caution, because the legislation must be

:44:21. > :44:24.enabling, yes, but as we have seen through Sagna systems, the concern

:44:25. > :44:31.is about the date on the software's interpretation of it -- Sagna

:44:32. > :44:37.system. In my constituency there is a narrow street which is a

:44:38. > :44:41.cul-de-sac which is regularly used erroneously by continental

:44:42. > :44:45.articulated lorries to access a local industrial estate, they must

:44:46. > :44:50.then reversed 300 metres back down a very narrow street with a school on

:44:51. > :44:54.it. Finally, can ministers make sure that the bill is more clear in terms

:44:55. > :45:00.of vehicles, that it includes lorries and and scooters and

:45:01. > :45:07.electric bicycles. In all other respects I welcome the intent of the

:45:08. > :45:13.Bill, thank you. Luke Graham. Thank you for calling me to speak on this