23/10/2017 House of Commons

the press that we might be able to have an important debate about

misogyny and degrading language toward women which I am sure...

Order. I don't think this is going to be a point of order for the chair

and I did indicate to another member who made a holy absurd and

inappropriate application for a debate that she should not raise it

as a point of order but I will hear the honourable lady out but I'm very

uncertain to put it mildly is the responsibility of the cheque may be

very important but that a different matter from being a matter for the

chair. I will hear her out as I always do but please don't abuse the

point of order procedure. Don't abuse the point of order procedure,

that is not something to be done in this chamber. Order. And I don't

take such a matter lightly but if the honourable lady is in order I

will hear her. I'm very grateful and I would like to seek your advice in

that case in terms of how we can bring this debate to the house. If

the honourable lady wants to apply for an adjournment debate for a

matter which falls within the aegis of a government minister it is open

to her to do so. Members can table motions in this place as the

honourable lady, now a relatively experienced member of hours, will be

well aware but that is different from a point of order in which this

matter is not, or indeed the other form of exchange which most assured

it was not so I hope that they help for clarification and the honourable

lady will use her adroit parliament the skills to highlight such matters

in an orderly way. Mr speaker when you replied to my honourable friend

for Totnes about certain committees including the liaison committee and

the intelligence and Security committee that have yet been

constituted committee did not mention one that has not yet been

constituted which is the joint committee on the national security

strategy. Saint hearing your strong response to that earlier point of

order, I have received a letter from the National security adviser,

declining to appear about the review of national security capabilities

before the defence committee because he points out, not unreasonably, as

you note in your letter the established procedure is that I

appear before the joint committee on the national Security strategy on

these issues. Although it has not yet been constituted, you are an

ex-official member so what can I do in terms of practical advantage of

being a member of a committee that has not yet been constituted this

far into the new parliament? The best thing he can do is seek to

persuade his colleagues who are in a position in a matter of days to

facilitate the establishment of those committees to do so without

further delay. Traditionally I don't think it will be objected to.

Certainly not by any serious whip, if I say that the whips have not

regarded it as their prime concern to establish select committees to

scrutinise the executive of which they are the defenders. That is to

put it mildly. However, they do have a responsibility in this matter and

of course the leader of the house... As the house's representative in the

government... Has a particular responsibility supported by members

opposite, the shadow leader of the house and the opposition Chief Whip,

to bring about the Constitution of these committees. For those who were

not here earlier, the matter was raised in respect of the liaison

committee, and I pointed out that the same concern applied to the

European scrutiny committee, and to the intelligence and Security

committee, not in fact a select committee but a very important

committee. The Right honourable gentleman has now identified how it

applies with such force to the joint committee on the national Security

strategy and has also explained how the failure to constitute the

committee has effectively created a void for an important potential

witness. This is now frankly an embarrassment and it needs to be

sorted, preferably this week. Point of order.

Further to your point of order and your ruling, Mr Speaker, knowing

that team do that the whips are not able to speak, I felt it would be

helpful if I say I suspect there's going to be very good news on this

subject in the foreseeable future. However, I believe the usual

channels are stuck and there are certain names that the opposition

parties need to return to the government. Well I don't know about

that. The honourable gentleman says in the course of his contribution

that whips can't speak. Well, they are not supposed to speak, that is

true, it does not stop them now and again doing so, sometimes from a

sedentary position in a more or indeed less orderly fashion. As to

the subject of disputed names, that is not something with which the

honourable gentleman would expect the speaker to preoccupy himself. My

concern is simply to facilitate the constitution of the committees,

which are those of Parliament, and which I suspect most members on both

sides of the house want to see established. In short, let's get on

with it. Order. I shall call in a moment the shadow Secretary of State

for Work and Pensions to make an application for leave to propose a

debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent

consideration under the terms of standing order number 24, the

honourable member has up to three minutes in which to make such an

application. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to propose the house

should debate a specific and important matter that should have

urgent consideration. Namely, that this house has considered the matter

of the government's response to the decision of the house on pausing

roll-out of Universal Credit full service. May I first thank you Mr

Speaker for allowing this important application which arises, as you

know, after a decisive vote on a motion to pause Universal Credit

roll-out, supported by this house last week by 299 votes to zero. This

was the second such government defeat on an opposition day motion

in 40 years, Mr Speaker. Since then, we have heard nothing from the

government, despite the fact that after the last time this happened,

the government made a statement within three and a half hours. Worse

still, in business questions the day after the government's resounding

defeat, the leader of the house used a change to government policy on the

phone lines of the Universal Credit made before the vote last week as a

justification for refusing to inform the house as to when we might expect

a further statement on this matter. I would like to thank the many

honourable and right honourable friend on this side of the house who

pressed the government for a statement as well as the member for

Gainsborough and the member for Wellingborough on the government

benches for their remarks on this constitutional issue, the lack of a

statement exposes the government to. -- on the constitutional issue is

the lack of a statement. Mr Speaker, one of the few formal rights of

opposition parties is to decide the topic and motions for debate on 20

sitting days. All previous governments have recognised the

failure to carry the house against an opposition motion is a serious

rebuke to the government's policy on an issue and has been treated

accordingly. This is even more important when the house has spoken

on an issue that could dramatically affect the lives of up to 7 million

people. And they are the people who will be subject to the flawed

Universal Credit programme. I thank you once again, Mr Speaker, for

considering this application. I've listened to it carefully to the

application for the honourable member and I'm satisfied the matter

raised is to be discussed, understanding order number 24. As

the honourable member the leave of the house? The honourable member has

obtained the leave of the house. The debate will be held, thank you, the

debate will be held tomorrow, Tuesday 24th of October, as the

first item of public business. The debate will last for three hours and

will arise on a motion that the house has considered the specified

matter set out in the honourable member's application. Thank you.

Order. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. Orange

automated and electric vehicles Bill, second reading.

I call the Minister of State to move the second reading of the Bill. Mr

John Hayes. Thank you, Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be now

read a second time. I had, as you quite rightly imagined, Mr Speaker,

for a moment thought that these crowds well for me but now I know

that's not the case, I will be measured in what I say and hope that

the crowds will re-emerge as a result of the strength of the

argument that I am able to make on behalf of this government and this

important bill. In living memory, working-class lives have changed

radically. The health and well-being now enjoyed routinely by working

people is of a kind beyond the expectations, indeed the apps --

perhaps beyond the dreams of my grandparents who lived alongside

most of the people around them with the daily grind of need. The chance

to travel easily has been an important part of the altered lives

of millions. My father bought his first car when I was a baby. He was

42 years old. It transformed my family's experiences. Suddenly, new

places could be explored, new opportunities realised, new

adventures imagined. Until then, a bicycle was his way of getting to

and from work. Train travel was a rarity and aircraft, except in

wartime, entirely unknown. My family, like so many others, owed so

much to motor cars. They brought challenge, chances and change to

millions. Yet cars themselves have changed little. Cars, the foundation

of our transport system for the last 100 years, still have a lot in

common with the first model T that rolled off the production line in

1908. Same mass production methods, the same front mounted internal

combustion engine, the same adaptable chassis to support a wide

range of body styles. Now we are going to see significant changes.

Over the next decades, cars will change more than they have for

lifetimes. In those changes, it is vital that we consider the scale of

the opportunities that now present themselves, how those opportunities

may be shaped and indeed, how they will need to be constrained. There

will be changed to the way in which we power and fuel our cars and even

changed the way we pay for motoring. It is not just happening in the UK.

It is happening around the world. But just as Henry Ford proved a

century ago, there are huge chances for innovators who are able to

realise the revolutionary potential of new automotive technologies.

Exports of low emission vehicles are already worth ?2.5 billion to our

economy. It is estimated the market for autonomous vehicles could be

worth ?28 billion by 2035. Ford himself said that before everything

else, getting ready is the secret of success. Well, that is what this

Bill is about. As I shall explain in this summation, the chances are

profound, the Bill is salient, these matters are not, by the way, party

political. They are things which frankly any responsible government

would look at, would take action upon and indeed, I expect the whole

house to take a considered and measured interest in these affairs.

Now, I'm going to speak a bit about history, as you might have -- the

Whig view of history, as you might expect, the weekly of history was

progress as deceit, the Marxist notion of history is a fallacy, not

all change is beneficial, indeed, it can be the opposite but change can

be virtuous when it is shaped, harmonised and yes, as I said,

sometimes constrained. Enterprise and the market provide immense

opportunity through the innovative, imaginative, creativity which they

breed. But government must be the good. Government must be prepared to

step forward, to make sure the market acts for the common good. I

will happily give way. I'm grateful to him for giving way and I refer to

my declaration in the register of members interests. Some academics

are saying that when automated vehicles become commonplace, the

government will seek to ban people from driving cars themselves or at

the very least, will introduce a policy which severely restricts

motorists driving. Will he confirm that that is not government policy

today and that he has no intention of making that government policy in

the future? It is certainly not the government policy. It would be

intolerable, I think, to imagine a future where people were banned from

using, for example, classic cars. I know my right honourable friend is

very experienced and indeed very knowledgeable and one might even go

so far as to say experts in such matters and he will know the vintage

and classic cars owned by many people, including him in

considerable number... Well, I was going to add that but yes, and me in

rather less number, add a vivid aspect to motoring. An elegance and

style which we would not wish to see lost in any move towards this

changed technology. But for most people, the daily experience is not

going to be to drive a classic car of the type that the gentleman and I

revere. It will be driving a car to get to places in which they work, it

is going to be driving a car to access educational opportunities, it

is going to be driving a car to get to places where they can buy the

goods they need to service their well-being. It is going to be using

a car for recreational purposes, in the way my father did for his family

as I described the moment ago, all that time in the past. So the change

that we are now experiencing, and will experience to a greater degree

in the coming years, is not a threat, not something to doubt or

fear. It is an opportunity. It is an opportunity for Britain, from the

perspective of the technology which we will develop and export. It is an

opportunity to give access to cars to those that have never had them.

The profoundly disabled. The elderly, the infirm, the partially

sighted and blind people, who have not been able to drive, and have

relied on others to drive them, will suddenly have the opportunity of car

ownership, which they have been denied by nature of their disability

or their need for so long. So that is the kind of future that I

envisage. I will happily give way to the honourable gentleman and then to

that honourable gentleman. The Minister is making a

characteristically wide-ranging speech and he touches an important

points. But this Bill is remarkably thin. It does not deal with many of

these points. There are so many other issues, the social issues, the

skills issues. When will the government be bringing forward the

issues that actually deals -- a bill which deals with and miserable as

do? The honourable gentleman knows I'm preoccupied, one might say, by

the subject of skills because I understand relationship between

skilled and social justice, that I have been characterised, one might

even say, by my determination to ensure that people get chances to

acquire the skills, not only necessary for our economy but

necessary for them to fill their potential. -- fulfil their

potential. There will of course be all kinds of new skills associated

with this technology but I'm not sure it is the time at the moment to

dictate what they might look like. The job the government is doing here

is to legislate sufficiently so that change, develop and, innovation,

research development, is not inhibited. But not to the point

where we dictate or try to dictate what the future might look like.

Happily give way. I'm grateful to my right honourable friend for giving

way. Wouldn't he agree with me that it is important that the message

should not be that an electric car Warren automated vehicle is an

unpleasant driving experience and the only kind of car that is worth

driving is a classic car? I mean, the modern car is a joy to drive. I

hope that will remain the case and that he's not going to stop us doing

it. Yes, I think that is true. I think electric cars can be... They

are different but altogether just as enjoyable and experience. I've had

the opportunity of test driving an electric car, and I travel in an

electric car, not driven by me but by the government car driver from

the government car service, very frequently, as the Minister. I've

had the chance to drive, just in the last two days, one of the new

electric taxis. -- in one of the new electric taxis, and to experience

that is to see a different kind of future, to enjoy a different kind of

driving experience. I don't think worse, I think different. But

certainly better in all kinds of ways and I shall explain in my

speech. I will give way. Will he give the scope and

intelligence of the vehicles he is describing, the automotive vehicles

are capable of assessing a situation in the event of an accident, which

is is the cause of offence that is least like to cause injury. To what

degree will this Bill cover the decision-making process that those

vehicles? He introduces to this debate with his usual skill a really

important aspect for consideration and that is exactly how autonomous

vehicles develop over time. I was fortunate enough this morning to be

looking at autonomous vehicles and discussing with some of those

engaged in research and development and considering how the programming

of autonomous vehicles and this is in essence a combination of software

development, sophisticated software which helps drive your car and the

technological develop and associated with the dip running of the vehicle.

Now testing that software needs to be made. How do we want autonomous

vehicles to emulate what a human being would do at if they were at

the wheel. As he implies, many accidents and the insurers tell is

95% of car accidents are in some well due to human error. Now, if we

can imagine for a moment that we eliminate that error or reduce it

significantly we would in effect completely change the profile of

driving by reducing the number of accidents are making our roads

safer. Now that is not something to be sniffed at. I thank you the

honourable Minister the giving way. With regards to the huge advances in

automated and electric vehicles will be technology industry in particular

has made an immense contribution particularly in my own constituency.

Would the Minister agree that we need to provide further support for

the technology industry to continue with these advances? Yes. And we

are. We are providing support and we will continue to do so and I will

elaborate on that later on. But the honourable gentleman is right, this

has to be a calibration between industry, academia, Gunnar Manta and

local authorities. I was encouraged Greenwich this morning and it really

is important that we see this work as salient, as I described it

earlier, but also capable of making a huge beneficial difference in the

national interest for the common good. And I note the honourable

friend is a champion of all that is good for the common good. I thank

you my honourable friend for giving way. When we had the chance to be a

world leader in technology, I would like to ask if we could use this

Bill to affect engine noise in innovation in that we expect

vehicles to make a noise and we are distracted by the noise of our smart

phones, sadly we still expect engines to give us a clue in terms

of safety. Parts of the research effort is about societal change and

persuading people that this technology is right and good, it is

efficacious. To do that we will have to be certain about Sophie. So of

course she is right that until people can be certain that the

technology is safe and secure, they are unlikely to embrace in the way

that we hope they will. I am grateful to the Minister and can I

just say that I'd like to declare an interest as a fellow of the

Institute of the motor industry and we know that when this Bill was

before the House in its previous incarnation the opposition tabled an

amendment on the question of skills to require a certification for

technicians to working on these advanced vehicles, particularly when

a survey of garages shows that 80% of them don't have the skilled

technicians they need to work on these vehicles. At that time the

Minister said that he hoped we can make progress on this matter during

the course of the Bill's passing. Well that Bill Bell with the general

election and I wonder if the Minister has made any progress with

that and can anything be pursued in this Bill's passage? I think he is

right that the development of the necessary skills to service this new

technology is critical as well to its acceptance as well as the

absolute insurance of accept safety. I expect that skill set to develop

verdant and I expect the industry to do so. The market will provide and

the government needs to shake that provision and this is an example

where we would hope to see frameworks develop to cope with the

new demands that are set out and I want to see government are working

with the further education sector and high in education sector sector

accordingly and I want to ensure that the market, through the work

that is being done by most of the big manufacturers, in fact I don't

know any manufacturer that isn't investing in this field, that a

proper consideration is given to developing people to sue Gilles

skills to develop that market. I am not unpersuaded that the government

should play its part in that. It's not in the Bill as presented to the

House at present, but this discussion may well give us the

opportunity to further this Gus the points he has made and I have no

doubt that the opposition, I can't believe they won't return to that.

Not that I'm not accusing them of being repetitious. the Minister has

used the phrase common good in the national interest of safety. . In

the previous Bill the Minister heard from pilots how that has been

dropped from the Bill. Looking round the chamber, I see on all sides and

in all parts of the members with a laser-like approach to the way they

address legislation. At and it won't have escaped anyone's noticed that

this is a cutdown version of what we considered earlier in the year and

we have chosen to focus on the core elements of the previous Bill which

enjoyed a second reading and the committee stage, ie those dealing

with autonomous vehicles. But there is concern about the use of lasers.

And it is something I have discussed was shadow ministers, too. I and

attempt to do more as we are by the way with respect to drones, which

fly above are hell heads in this chamber, at least as a metaphor. I

hope only as a metaphor, by the way. So, yes, we are determined to do

with those issues and we will talk about that to a greater extent and

in more detail in the coming weeks and months. I thank my right

honourable friend or giving way. He is of course right, drones and

automated vehicles are going to make a huge difference in the logistics

industry. All too often government framework has blogged like behind

technology. The government is putting in place a framework that

puts in place certainty for the industry that once that innovation.

I agree 100% with that. I give way. Thank you. My right and of a friend

is right to put safety at the heart of his speech. One of the issues

around safety is that unfortunately even with autonomous vehicles there

will still be the occasional accident. One of the advantages it

is that when dad is an accident it will be shared across an entire

network so we won't individually how to learn by our mistakes we will

learn collectively. However, when a decision is made by zero on must

there does need to be a way that can be challenged so putting back into

the algorithm would be useful. The aim of the Bill is to instigate

further developments that can happen. I'll explain in a moment

when I get onto the main thrust of my contribution, we focus mainly on

insurance because it is essential, we were told by the insurance market

themselves, to establish absolutely the clarity and certainty of the

framework that would allow the development of a summary is of

insurance products. So the Bill essentially goes about setting out

that framework. Those again who recalled the previous discussions

about this and who have studied the record will know that the insurance

industry are welcome our endeavours in that respect. It would tie the

House in Julie if I read from Hansard. Tie the House on Julie.

Insurance products will develop to rest any doubts that may have

previously prevailed. Thank you Minister. On this point of insurance

cover what discussions has the had with the insurance industry about

the likely cost of premiums. Would he expect premiums to fall? We spoke

a bit during the earlier considerations of the previous Bill.

What happened, we introduced the Bill, we had a separate reading, and

as part of that we took evidence from the insurance industry. This

Bill is very similar to the the previous Bill. And in those

sessions, the industry debated battered bit. My guess is that

initially as the marketplace develops, as the new products

emerge, the prices will be much as they are now. But as the record

becomes established, and calculations that insurers make

about the likelihood of claims is affected by the greater sect safety

of autonomous vehicles, it may be that prices fall. Now that is up to

ensure owners insurers and it's not up to the government to stipulate

with all predict. But it does seem to me that following the

intervention, if the safety of autonomous vehicles means less

accidents, the insurers will know that and as they know it, the

ability to insure a vehicle will grow and the price for doing so will

fall. But that is as I say a matter for the future but not now. It is

very at the site that we are discussing this Bill on the day that

the petite charge has come into London, the toxic charge, which will

take the cost of over ?20 for people coming into London with in cars over

a certain age and it brings to mind that there are incentives for people

to buy electric cars that on the statue do but as it were.

I just wondered what representations he had made to the Treasury so we

can make sure the take-up of electric vehicles expand more

rapidly? In the end, these are matters for

the mayor and he must come to his own judgment about them. My own view

is that it should be called the K charge, or the M charge for the

mayor's try so people know white is being levied and I worry about the

impact it will have on as well of drivers and families. I do take the

view that we need to strike a balance between being ambitious in

respect of clean air and we have set out our plans for that and I was

involved in helping to draw up those plans and on the other hand,

disadvantaging many people who own older diesel and perhaps petrol

vehicles who will be affected by this charge. It is not progressive,

after all, to say everyone, regardless of their circumstances

and regardless of who they are and what they are doing and where they

are working, should pay the charge so I have some doubts about it but

it is in the end a matter for the mayor and he will have to be

answerable for his own K charge. Let me move on to the substance of what

we are trying to do today. In practice, we have long since moved

beyond the question of if road transport will be electrified. It is

now irrefutable that that will occur. The question is when, not

weather and at what pace. For many manufacturers in the UK, the answer

to that question is frankly, now. For Nissan, it means the second

generation of its bestselling Leaf, capable of around 200 emission field

-- emission free miles without charges, being built in Sunderland,

and for B, it means the electric mini, built in Oxford 40,019 of the

Jaguar Land Rover it means the introduction of the world's first

premium electric sport utility vehicle, coming next year, with

every single Jaguar Land Rover vehicle electrified from 2020. Just

those examples alone show that British made electric vehicles are

increasingly competitive around the world. If we are to keep that

leading edge into the next decade, with the UK's charging

infrastructure -- we need the UK's charging infrastructure to keep

improving. There are three... I will happily give way. I'm grateful to

the Minister for giving way. I bought a Nissan Leaf last month and

I was very struck by the fact that to have your own charging point, you

need off street parking. Obviously, that is not possible for anyone who

has a flat or a terraced house so will ministers please consider in

all new housing development changing the planning rules to require

charging points to be put into new roads, as well as at railway

stations and in all publicly owned car parks as in France? It is my

habit, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be influenced by members of this house

during the course of debates. That may sound unconventional. But I

actually take the contributions that members make in these kind of

debates extremely seriously. I think that's a very good point and I will

be happy to have discussions with my colleagues in DC LG. There are

issues about the inconsistent provision of an street charging.

That is partly due to planning and partly due to the fact some local

authorities are more willing to install charging points than others.

But that is a discretionary matter for planners at the moment. It seems

to me to be entirely appropriate to consider some of the things she has

suggested so I more than happy to have those discussions. I will

happily give way. So while he is in this open-minded frame, can he also

then look, not simply at the lack of provision on the street but on the

unreliability of the network as it stands at the moment? If here's

regularly driven in an electric car, he may well, like so many of us,

have had the experience of coming to a motorway service station, finding

that the charger is not working, there being no 24-hour help which if

you have got down to 0% battery, is a very significant problem, or the

myriad at the moment of different companies who provide, all of which,

many of which are not interoperable and don't allow access when you

first arrive. This is something that a government which is going to frame

the market could easily intervene and make better. That is... I don't

know if the honourable gentleman had early sight of my speech, and if he

did, he is a remarkable person, even more remarkable than I regarded him

as being previously. But I was about to come on to the principal reasons

that people site for not buying electric cars. Of course, they

include the upfront cost. That will come down as volume grows, of

course, and the government come as he will know, already contributes a

considerable amount of money, we will speak more about it later,

towards offsetting some of the cost. The second is battery reliability

and the doubts people have about the technology that drives electric

vehicles. And the third is the charging infrastructure, as he

describes, which is precisely why this Bill addresses that point. It

is vitally important we put in place a charging infrastructure which is

widely available, which is consistent and which works. He

describes the circumstance where someone who might otherwise why an

electric vehicle will be put off from doing so because they are not

confident that the infrastructure is as good as it should be. That is

precisely why the government is addressing that matter in this Bill

and we have got the chance to debate that tonight and beyond through the

Bill's consideration. I will give way once more to buy honourable

friend, then make a little progress if I may. I thought while he was

talking about the commitment the government is making Kucera, perhaps

you would like to remind house about the ?246 million being in battery

research through the Faraday Challenge which is actually a

serious investment in solving some of those challenges and can reassure

people we are serious about this? It is an extreme you well made point

which I won't amplify except to say that the honourable gentleman is

right that each of the three objections given are likely to be

dealt with in one way or another over time. Some will be dealt with

by the industry concerned. Some will be dealt with by changing market

circumstances and some will be dealt with by the sagacious and pertinent

behaviour of government and it is both the sagacity and pertinent is

that I will continue my short, some will say all too short, introduction

of the Gabi. Some may not, actually! -- of the Bill. I prefer to side

with those that will so let me continue. We certainly need to

improve the UK's charging structure. To ensure that we remain at the

forefront of these developments into the future. Now, you know and we

began to debate it briefly tonight, the government has set a goal that

by 2050, nearly all cars and vans should be emission free at the tail

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

disappointed the honourable member for Brighton is not here because I

was going to say this is not about a preoccupation with some high-flown

theory about what the climate might look like in hundreds of years. It

is about clean air now. It is about the air our children are breathing

in cities. It is about the particular to material that affect

human health day in, day out. That is why it is imperative we take

action and we are determined to do so. I'm not prepared to have my

sons, who are in the gallery tonight, breathing air that is less

clean than it ought to be. I want the same for them as I want for

every other young person, to live in a cleaner world with fresher air,

that is better for their health and their futures. I'll give way. That's

very kind and I welcome his words. Can he confirm in terms of the

priorities for the charging infrastructure, that the focus is on

shopping centres and places that people can actually leave their cars

for a considerable amount of time and not just petrol stations, where

they want to nip in and out? Obviously, if there's a limited

amount of resource, it is in the interests of the oil companies do

have the charging at the petrol stations, to put people off but

where you need them is where people are going shopping and at services

on the motorways and that to be the top priority. It is a well made

point and one which we export to some extent when we previously

considered these matters. -- we explored. It is importantly charging

infrastructure is spread. It is a risk and one that has been

highlighted by members from across the house, actually, in all parties,

I remember the members of the SNP that served on our Bill committee

last time around made the point, amongst others, there is risk that

charging infrastructure becomes focused on major routes and in urban

and suburban areas and the smaller roads and the row parts of our

kingdom might be under provided. That is not acceptable and we will

look at ways of addressing that. The Bill is born of a determination to

increase the number of charging points. It does, as he suggests, at

the moment, talk of major route retailers but I am prepared to look

at other ideas, for how we can cede more charging points more widely. --

how we can have more charging points more widely. I'm not going to give

way because I want to make a little progress and then I will give way

more liberally although I hate to use that word except as a

pejorative, as time goes on. So we are not alone in recognising the

benefits of electric vehicles. Many major car producing countries are

looking beyond conventional petrol and diesel technology, that is why

we want to accelerate the transition and bring the benefits of electric

vehicles to drivers, the public and the environment as soon as possible.

We are giving financial help to motorists choosing clean vehicle

through grants and the tax system, as I mentioned. We are supporting

local authorities, providing centres like free parking and congestion

charge exemption is, and through the bill, we want to make it easier and

more convenient to recharge electric vehicles. The government has already

helped the development of a network of about 11,500 public charging

points in the UK. Significant funding is already in place to

develop many more. But in the years ahead, we want electric cars, be

they hybrid fuel cell technology or battery-powered, to break into the

mass market. This Bill in Cuba -- include several new powers to help

make this a reality which will establish common technical standards

and greater interoperability. They will increase consumer information

on the location of available charge point and accelerate the roll-out of

electric vehicle infrastructure at key locations, as I said, like

motorway service areas and large fuel stations. But we will look at

other measures because I do think it is important that we ensure that the

charging points are not concentrated in the way the honourable gentleman

and others have described they might become. There is a rapid Charger

already at nearly all motorway service areas but I'm mindful of

what was said about making sure that they are working efficiently and we

will look at that as well as a result of his contribution. I'm

going to give way briefly to the honourable lady and then again,

press on a little. I'm grateful to the minute -- to the minister

because I understand you try to make progress. On the specific point

about charges that motorway service stations, can we also look at in

terms of the network, the availability of the different types

of not just connectors but providers, so you have a variety?

That is a very good point and I mentioned a few seconds ago,

interoperability. I think often with new technology, there is a tendency

for a series of parallel systems to develop. We know that, don't we,

from the development of the microchip, of the information

technology industry of which I was part. And so I think greater

interoperability, greater standardisation overtime, actually,

and certainly charge points having a similar look and feel is very

important indeed. I think at the moment, we are not quite in that

place but we can be and I think we need to be and I will come back... I

can see the shadow Secretary of State smiling because he thinks I'm

going to talk about the haze hook ups and I will come to that. I read

his mind, Madam Deputy Speaker. We must know each other too well. I'm

going to come to that shortly. I will give way one more time because

I think there was some astounding. No, there isn't! My honourable

friend. -- someone standing. While he is looking at one of the most

important thing is, the infrastructure for charging electric

vehicles, will he also bear in mind the rule all areas of our country?

Their access to the grid is going to be limited and it will be

exacerbated by a rapid roll-out of electric cars. Would he look at

encouraging solar car ports and canopies to help address those rural

grid issues at the same time as he is looking at the charging points

for motorway service stations, coffee shops, retail outlets, etc? I

think that is very significant and rural communities always being left

behind and it could be ahead of the curve if he looks at incentivising

solar carports and canopies. The honourable lady makes a bold case on

behalf of rural places, given that I've present places like Southern St

James, many of which are glorious, that can only be described as

essentially rural, I represent one of the most rural constituencies in

the country. She could hardly expect neglect the interests of those that

live there and we will do our utmost to ensure that they are not

disadvantaged by the changes that are part of this Bill or indeed any

of the things tangential to it. More charge points across our

kingdom. I have talked about the common technical standards I we must

go further. There are already charging points at virtually all

motorway service areas and just last week Shell chose the UK to roll out

its forecourt rapid charges which will be have the first ten

operational early next year. So we may not need the Bill to, if

industry continues at this pace. I thank the Minister for giving way. I

wanted to raise the point of technical standards. In my

constituency we have a small business which is doing successful

work of retrofitting delivery vans, where the old diddly diesel injury

has reached the end of its life and are being fitted with battery packs.

To retrofitting is an important part of how we improve the existing fleet

of vehicles and she will know that some of the money that is being

invested in vehicles is about changing the existing fleet. So she

is right about that. I thought of Disraeli as she rose, as am sure she

did, too. This Disraeli said man is not a creature of circumstances.

What we do in the future about these things is in our hands, in the hands

of government and parliament, we can create the kind of future that we

want and in bracing this technology ensure that is harnessed to the best

effect. Not all technical Lloyd technological change is virtuous.

You mustn't assume that ten of technological change is efficacious.

It has no moral aspect. It is up for us to decide how the best outcome

can be achieved through the technological changes that we are

considering tonight and that can be done across the House by people of

goodwill. Now, we need to also think about what workplaces can do. I want

to help workplaces provide charging facilities for fleets and cars and I

want to make sure that charging is flexible to meet the demands of the

grid and make the running of vehicles as easy as possible and get

them on the roads as quickly as possible and in that way the

government will be... I just want to make this point because this is

going to be an exciting part of my speech. It may not be evident, but

it may it will be it in a moment. We will be seeking the views of the

public of the charging infrastructure. I promise previously

a public consultation, indeed a competition to develop a aid

charging infrastructure that is instantly recognisable. It seems to

me to be right that when you drive down the street you should be able

to spot an electrical charging spoiler, rather like you can spot a

pillar box. Although I leave this for others to decide. If my name

were associated with such a thing! The Secretary of State has suggested

that and I will take as a proposal. We'll have to make a decision about

the name, something alliterative and something memorable. But we need to

think about getting consistency about charging points, we need to

know where a charging point is. We have allergic vehicle charging

points but if unless you know where they are and are familiar where they

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

He may remember that at this point in his speech last time this Bill

was in the House I pointed out to him that there were only two

charging points in the House of Commons car park, for those of us

who have electric cars and he undertook to rectify that situation.

After his speech I was met by somebody from the House authorities

who said those points would work coming but they are still not there

and I wonder whether he will be willing to give them a further kick

so we can have charges in the car park. I didn't want to rush ahead

and not give the honourable gentleman the chance to make that

point. It does seem to me important that we do set an example and lead

by example. And it does therefore be fit the House I think that we

correct the necessary infrastructure in the way that he describes. He's

done a great service to the House in raising the matter in the wake way

that he has. So let's have a bid for more charging places in other places

perhaps. I'm grateful. Can I ask whether he has had any further

thoughts on the data log of automated vehicles, how long such

information ought to be kept for and who should have access to it. Quite

clearly we are all expecting that insurance companies will have the

right to act access the data log and also the police because even if

there has been no accident, the vehicle might have been involved in

a crime, but will others be able to seek and have access to this data

log such as employer who was to say what an employee has been up to join

a day or perhaps an ambitious divorce lawyer who was a whether an

adulterous activity has taken place or whether Bickle is gone that

afternoon. Just before the Minister and so is that unnecessary long

intervention, I would like to draw to attention to the House at the

Minister has already come to the end of this preliminary remarks and he

is now in the body of his speech. Which is necessary to be lengthy

because he is educating averse as well as entertaining as. He will

very soon be approaching the finale. Minister. The honourable gentleman

attempts made to move into salacious matters, which I will work at to

pull sub but he is right. He raised this matter in committee. In the

first bid to macro Bill. He's right that we need to look at these

matters. Information is a powerful tool and the collection and storage

of information is something about which this House takes a very

serious view. So I think here's right to explore it and we will do

that in committee and I don't know if he was volunteering to be on it,

but that is more for the office rather than for me. But it does seem

to be important that we consider information in this debate and we

will discuss that further. Now, as we have said, again it is almost as

if you have foresight of my speech, I am well into the main part of my

speech and will be rapidly moving to a conclusion. In essence, the rise

of electric vehicles, other technologies have profound

implications for how we use our cars. Can you imagine, a parent

could not have envisaged the idea of sat now or, or even cruise control.

It would have seemed like science fiction just a generation ago. But

this is not science fiction it, it is science fact. And they merely

mark the way to a much more significant change, the combination

of technologies that we enjoy in our lifetime and certainly in children's

will change motoring profoundly. We expect automated cars to appear from

the 20 and they are present an enormous opportunities for the UK,

providing jobs and transforming lives and improving load safety. In

2016, to human error was responsible for a very significant portion of

accidents. Automatic cars -- automated castle rapidly change

that. Accidents, as I described, will need an insurance framework

that is fit for purpose. Currently, they may not be covered for

collisions from automatic failure, because in the UK only the driver is

insured. Taking companies to court is timely and expensive than

undermines our insurance system. Not tackling the system, undermines the

system. We have consulted widely as the House will know and having

worked closely with colleagues and the industry and the insurance

sector, the government is creating new compulsory framework that covers

a motorist when they are driving and when they hand over control to the

vehicle. We will ensure that consumers are provided with

insurance as they are now and are quickly offered compensation. We'll

make sure that... Not only will this make it easier for consumers, over

time it will also reduce premiums. David Williams, chief commercial

underwriter at ABTA, one of the UK's largest insurers, as well as making

roads safer, he expects Read juiced premiums to follow. - barrack

reduced premiums. We have had many productive debates in this chamber

and in committee in the last sessions of the technology in

aviation Bill, so with this in mind we have made amendments. There was a

considered debate as I said earlier. Members raised issues around

software and we have addressed those. And those who study these

matters closely know that how we should improve legislation and they

will see from what is published now that we have done that. There was an

issue to about how we find an automated vehicle and we have

listened and clarified the debtor nation of what an automated vehicle

is. So far the scrutiny has resulted in improvements. What we bring

before the House now is a better product than we want the one we

brought before you the first time round, though that was I think

important and welcomed by the House and industry. We can't be

prescriptive, that might inhibit their very in inevitable unless we

want to encourage. We want to strike the right balance between

establishing the right certainties, and full that a number of rural

constituencies, and I don't want big to dictatorial about what that

future might be like. Has the government considered that the

automation might be able to make moral decisions, so if a car was

hurtling down a road and it might go into some children or into a lorry,

will the software build to say only the driver will die all the

children? Is able to make moral decisions? The developer Kurt

developers are looking at hundreds of thousands of scenarios in getting

the software capable of getting all the variables that drivers might

encounter is exactly the process which those who are developing those

products are now engaged in. So it is complex and it is challenging.

But frankly, it is going to happen. But the honourable gentleman is

right, doing at as well, in fact doing better than a driver in

control of a vehicle would do and then making that vehicle sofa is

what this is all about. -- baking that vehicle safer.

In those circumstances where a computer is making a moral decision,

it could be a single child on the road or whether to career into a

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

the least dangerous option, what comfort is that the parents? These

are major issues which we need to have some answers to before we allow

these vehicles with these kind of capabilities on the roads. That is

the very point I was making earlier about how much we want autonomous

vehicles to emulate human behaviour and how much we want them not to.

Now that is a fine balance but it is not a balance we can strike through

legislation debated in this house. It will need to be considered

further down the line but it's not the business of this Bill to do so.

The honourable gentleman is absolutely right to raise it because

it is about whether we can get vehicles that we can be sure about,

confident in, and then are going to be purchased on the basis that

people enjoy that kind of certainty. I'm glad he's raised the issue. It

is not what is before us but it is not unreasonable to put it on the

table are something we need to debate. Let me move to my

conclusion. I spoke about a desire to be a global leader in automated

vehicles, both in their production and in their use. We all in this

house have experienced the benefits that could access to transport can

bring and I think we can continue to debate these issues in that spirit.

As I said earlier, perhaps what moves me most is that for some

people, good access to transport is not yet possible. For those who are

elderly, with disabilities, for those who cannot drive, the

transport system can be tough, potentially leaving them unable to

enjoy the opportunities which come easier to others. This government

strongly believe that we should act to improve that situation. If

autonomous vehicles make a significant difference to those

currently disadvantaged by their inability to access transport

easily, then they will have done an immense service to our country. We

published our draft transport accessibility action plan with

proposals to improve the transport access of people with disabilities

and a key part of that will be exploring the opportunities new

technology offers to make travelling easier for those people. It may be

awhile before vehicles can fully drive themselves but when this

happens, it has potential to be transformational, improving lives,

bringing opportunities, enabling a transport system that works for

everyone. Taken together, these two measures will ensure the UK is at

the forefront of the most profound change for road transport in over a

century. In the spirit of opportunity that enabled my father

to provide a good life for his wife and family, we will be driven by the

common good. That means cleaner vehicles, ease of travel and safer

roads. Good governments know when to step forward and when to step aside

to allow others imagine, innovate and improve how we live. Ours is an

ambitious plan, to support the invention, development and

manufacture of new vehicle technologies, building skills,

building jobs here in the UK, a transport system that works for

everyone, now and in the future, means believing in a new generation

of cars available to all, who can benefit from the chance to travel.

Our glorious past was made by those with the confidence to dare to

dream. The will to make dreams come true, the means to craft, to create

a future filled with wonder because when our reach extends beyond our

grasp, we can do our best, we can be out best. That is the prospect

before us. Now let us reach out to that future. I commend this Bill to

the house. The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Oh,

not Mr McDonnell, R, Sir! Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker, can I start by

putting on record my sincere thanks to the right honourable member for

South Holland and the deep things. I don't say that entirely for the

benefit of his family in the gallery. It is true that the

Minister is always cooperative with the opposition and his collegiate

approach is very much welcomed by this side. We share his objective of

making this the best possible piece of legislation as it passes through

the house. We would have liked more time from the first reading until

today, which would have allowed members time to properly scrutinise

the bill before coming to the house. It is true that this in some has

already been rehearsed in the feet up bill but the reality is, we have

new members since the election and they would and should have been

given more opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. I accept this is not the

right honourable gentleman's doing but rather another symbol, Madam

Deputy Speaker, of the weakness of his government in pushing their

non-contentious legislation to the fore. We are broadly supportive of

the Bill, although there are, however, some concerns about the

impact of some parts of the Bill. We shall press the government on those

issues and table appropriate amendments in committee. We

recognise that this is a crucially important Bill and one which we wish

to support. Part one of the Bill deals with automated vehicles and

insurance, ultralow emissions and autonomous vehicles are going to

play an important role in our country's transport in the years to

come so it is right the government are seeking to address some of the

issues relating to autonomous vehicles. Last year, I think I'm

right in saying, the UK automotive industry added some 18.9 billion in

value to the UK economy. It supported 169,000 people directly in

manufacturing and some 814,000 across the industry and throughout

the supply chain. Forecasters have estimated the overall benefits of

you believe the and autonomous vehicles are in the region of wristy

1 billion a year, creating an additional 320,000 jobs. In light of

Brexit, Madam Deputy Speaker, supporting this industry will be

vital for the future of our economy. The uptake of these vehicles will

play an important role in tackling the air quality crisis which

reportedly leads to 50,000 premature deaths each year as well as hundreds

of thousands of cases of respiratory illness, which is choking many of

the towns and cities and which the government have failed properly to

address. Labour in government would do better and I think it is fair to

mention that we do do better in government. That can be seen from

the mayor of London's announcement on toxic vehicle charges today. Such

vehicles will also be vital to the UK's meeting of its climate change

objectives for which the government currently lack a clear plan. It is

vital that we introduced the legislation that is needed to

facilitate and encourage investment, innovation and the uptake of

vehicles of this kind but if that is to be possible, a definition of

autonomous vehicles will be necessary. At present, there is no

clear distinction between advanced driver assistance systems and fully

automated driving technology in UK policy standards and legislation.

The Bill requires the Secretary of State to prepare, keep up-to-date

and publish a list of all motor vehicles to be used on roads in

Great Britain that are deemed to be capable of safely driving themselves

without having to be monitored by an individual. For some or part of the

journey and the definition of an automated vehicle will be a vehicle

that is included in a list drawn up by the Secretary of State. We are

concerned this gives the Secretary of State the individual power to

define what is and what isn't an automated vehicle. There is clearly

a need for collaboration between the government, manufacturers, insurers

and consumers to develop a viable and practical system of

classification to identify when a vehicle is deemed to be automated or

autonomous. The dividing lines between automated and autonomous

vehicles are not always completely clear. The government must give more

detail of the plans to classify vehicles as automated and consult

widely on the definition and criteria for adding to the list of

AVs in the Bill. We will be pressing the government in committee for that

to be subject to secondary legislation, resolving the issue of

how automated vehicles can be insured is essential as well if they

are to become a feature on our roads. Consequently, we support the

government's action to ensure that vehicles' insurance policies

facilitate that in the future. We are however concerned about the

potential cost of policyholders -- to policyholders, and the contention

of a liability between manufacturers and insurers. It is imperative that

in the event of a technological failure in an AV, it is easy for the

consumers to establish quickly where liability rests and are able to make

a claim as appropriate. At present, insurance law in the UK is driver

centric. Drivers must have insurance in order to provide compensation for

third parties for personal injury or property damage. The government's

intention to emphasise that if there is an insurance event, the

compensation route for the individual remains within the motor

insurance framework rather than through a product liability

framework of a manufacturer. I will give way. On this issue about the

insurance policy and who has liability, in the event where a

human driven vehicle is in a collision with a vehicle that is

being driven by its computer technology... Oh, yes! Does the

insurance companies seem, given that 95% of accidents are due to

Jumeirah, that the computer is right and the human is wrong and therefore

is at fault? Computer says no! Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a

salient point but as I understand it, the fully automated vehicle

would rest with the manufacturer. But as I say, Madam Deputy

Speaker... The honourable member is making a very good series of points

but why does he assume that the error would rest with the

manufacturer and not perhaps the software designer or perhaps the

programmer or even the ethicist who informed it? He is right to correct

me, actually, the claim is with the insurer. But this is, as members

have pointed out, not entirely clear and the Association of British

insurers has expressed concerns that existing insurance practices would

need to be significantly changed to deal routinely with road traffic

accidents involving automated vehicles. The government

acknowledges Distin the impact assessment for the Bill and said

this might result in increased administrative and procedural for

insurers, although the Bill does enable insurers to claim from the

Manufacturers where the vehicle is in automated mode and beamed at

fault for an incident. The government acknowledged that there

could be significant teething problems with this system,

particularly with early disagreements between the parties

about the liability. I hope that clears up the points made by the

honourable gentleman. As such, it is difficult to estimate how different

insurance premiums will be when automated vehicles are fully

functional on the road. The roll-out and the proliferation of autonomous

vehicles should produce significant safety benefits, with driver error

being either significantly reduced or eliminated completely. While that

should consequently reduce premiums, a great deal of work will be

necessary as we prepare for this new environment to better assess whether

that will in fact be the case. If there are increased procedural and

administrative costs for insurers, there could be higher premiums. If

that is the case, there would be a severe impact on the uptake of AVs

in the UK, making the government's action is self-defeating. We believe

the government must review at regular intervals how the insurance

for AVs is working so Labour will be pressing for a review day on the

face of the Bill. He makes some extreme important points and forgive

me for interrupting him again but on the very point of insurance, the

honourable member behind him made a very good point that human error is

the greatest cause of accidents these days and therefore, the

arrival of driverless vehicles would likely, one can't be 100% sure of

anything but likely reduce the number of accidents and therefore

reduce the amount of insurance required and therefore indeed reduce

insurance premiums. Would this not in some ways liberate the driver in

many ways rather than hamper them? I agree with the honourable gentleman,

I think I made that point in my remarks. Let me now move, Mr Deputy

Speaker, to the second part of the Bill relating to electric vehicles,

charging and infrastructure. I just wanted to ask whether he felt there

was any risk at all of any intervention to the software by

someone malicious, even terrorists, to make some of these automated

device is dangerous? It is a point of know of through my

discussions with the minister that the Government are considering and

taking very seriously. Mr Deputy Speaker, I should declare at this

point that I'm the very proud owner of an entirely electric vehicle.

It's a little tiny Renault. I like to think it's the tesler for the

mini, not the few. They are key to reducing air pollution and meeting

the UK's climate change objectives, as well as presenting economic

opportunities. The uptake of electric and hybrid and

alternatively fuelled vehicles is under way and increasing. Yet, we

note the Government is 1.5 million short of their 1.6 million target

for 2020. So, it is imperative that action is taken to encourage their

uptake. Of course I give way. Most grateful to him for giving way.

Isn't currently the problem with some of these smaller electric

vehicle the range they have. Doubt his vehicle would get him from here

to Hull without stopping for a recharge. As battery technology

progresses, that is a difficulty which hopefully will disappear. The

Right Honourable gentleman represents a constituency very close

to my own. He's absolutely right. I think the range on the vehicle that

I own currently in London is about 50 miles. It would take me several

days I think to get to Westminster. But the technology is improving

constantly. I am right to say the Nissan Leaf t range for the current

model is about 90 miles but about to be 235 miles which would suit me

very well it is about 230 miles from my home address to Westminster. I

give way to the minister. Partly as a result of the overchairs of North

West Hampshire partly to alleviate any fears the honourable gentleman

might have, Mr Deputy Speaker, from next summer, when we begin the

refurbishment of the underground car park at the House of Commons we will

put in place 80 new electric charging points.

Well, I am sure the house will be very pleased to hear the minister

say. That this section of the bill on charging and infrastructure is

largely about enabling secondary legislation and will not have

significant impacts in the short time F the UK intends to be a global

leader, we agree that we need to take broader action sooner rather

than later. Given the importance of future proving, the legislation for

work in this area, the oppositioning are nices the need to use --

opposition recognises the need to use secondary legislation and to

consult widely throughout the process. We will seek assurances and

a review on how the provisions of the bill fit within a broader

strategy for reducing harmful vehicle emissions and switching to

LEVs and EVIs for uptake vehicles need to be practical which means

putting in place the necessary infrastructure. On this issue of

infrastructure my honourable friend is absolutely right. This is

essential. What thought has he given to what we need to do to prevent the

situation we have with broadband, where we have very good coverage in

some places and not spots in other places? Because that situation has

really disadvantaged some areas. My right is absolutely right. It is a

point that my honourable friend and I have discussed on this. And I come

to that in my remarks a little later. I don't want to interrupt him

too often. Given the point the honourable lady has made and the

points he's making too, he will want to know last week we announced a

further ?4.5 million toll make charging points available for those

without off-street parking because we are determined to make sure this

facility is spread as widely as possible.

I thank the minister for. That there are currently nearly 12,000 charging

points for vehicles in the UK. At present there are multiple

operators, each with their own plug, software, customer charges, billing

systems and payment methods. There are also unevenly distributed, which

is a point made by my honourable friend. There are more charging

points available in the Orkney islands than in Blackpool, Grimsby

and my own fair city of Hull combined. Although I had an

opportunity of speaking briefly with the chief executive of my local

authority area today. He assures me there are currently 32 charging

points in Hull. But in the not too distant future we expect there to be

70. It's welcome, therefore, that this bill seeks to increase the

number of charging point facilities and to address their harmonisation

and standardisation. The bill will allow the Government to require

co-operation and sharing of facilities and information from

operators allowing the Government to allow operaibility regardless of

what specific EVB a person may have. Clause 11 gives the power to have

requirements for operators to provide information about charging

points such as location, operating hours, cost and inter-operability.

These are very welcome. It is right this legislation should be put in

place. It will not be enough on its own to encourage the uptake of

electric vehicles. The Governments slashed the grants for electric

vehicles and plug the cut in grants for EVs and for home charging. In

May last year, the grant for purchasing an electric vehicle was

cut from ?5,000 to ?4,500 and the grant for hybrids cut from ?5,000 to

?2,500. The scheme was grant for hybrids cut from ?5,000 to

?2,500. The scheme further issues not addressed by the bill, which the

Government must get right. They must ensure that the grade is capable of

meeting the additional demands that electric vehicles will bring. I

heard what the minister said in his remarks thant. That must be planned

for, and closely monitored, as electric vehicle use becomes more

common. The Government must also develop a strategied to tackle the

skills gap. Without training the necessary personnel, we as a nation

will not be able to support the growth of this new generation of

vehicles and could miss out on the benefits it presents. On

infrastructure more broadly, Mr Deputy Speaker... Of course... The

second time it has been raised and I think rightly so. I am very happy to

agree now to initiate discussions during the passage of this bill with

the department responsible for developing apprenticeships for

education and other departments, so that we can address, begin to

address at least the skills. He's right to raise it.

I am very grateful for the minister's intervention. Will my

friend give way, please? On this point of skills, as I said, I bought

a Nissan Leaf. One thing that really struck me was the men in the garage

were not good at explaining how it worked. And I think, out of the 20

people they employed, only one really understood it. So, the sales

force also has to understand how these things work. Absolutely. She's

absolutely right. There must be proper training for sales personnel

as well. Mr Deputy Speaker on infrastructure more broadly the

Government must ensure that regulatory divergence does not

develop teen the UK and EU as a result of Brexit. This is a really

important issue, I think. We must absolutely ensure that regulation

and standards are maintained after Brexit. This is essential if the UK

is to be the vehicle manufacturer's location of choice for development,

testing and deployment of automated and electric vehicles. However if

the Government continues to mess up Brexit, any positives this bill

brings, in terms of encouraging the automated and low emission vehicles

industry will be completely negated. He'll be aware that companies like

Volvo are getting rid of petrol Andesle production, focussing on

France and Germany, who will bring about the stopping of diesel and

petrol vehicles, 2030, as opposed to 2040 and the infrastructure is

moving faster. Would he agree we really do need to go at least at the

pace of our European counterparts in providing the range of I from

structure needed to encourage the public sector to get a move --

private sector to get a move on in Britain? He is absolutely right. We

will table amendments at the committee stage. But it's fair to

say that we, the opposition, are very broadly supportive of this

bill. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Can I suggest that we

start an introduction of say 12 minutes.

Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the opposition front bench

spokesman, particularly as he's supporting this bill as I am. Can I

say to my Right Honourable friend I really do welcome the introduction

of this bill and as I said in one of my interventions it is rather

timely. Just to the front bench opposition spokesman as he was

talking about the official ranges or the ranges of various cars, I

thought it would be interesting for him to know that when I was reading

green car, I saw that the new Renault Zoe ZE40 has an official

range of 250 miles. And it seems to me that almost on a weekly basis we

are seeing new vehicles coming on to the market with that range extended,

which of course is so important for those people we electric vehicles

that are worried about range and suffer from range anxiety, which I

gath sister a new form of anxiety that we can all suffer from if we

get an electric car. Can I just say, it is a great pleasure to be taking

part in a transport debate where I am not discussing HS2.

This will come as a bit of a shock to some of my fans. But I have to

say that I am more than excited about electric vehicles and

automated vehicles to a degree that I am not excited about HS2. But Mr

Deputy Speaker, enough of HS2, apart to suggest perhaps the track could

be used to run automated vehicles along rather than the antiquated

technology that we appear to be ordering at the Department for

Transport. So often legislation and Governments are behind the curb when

it comes to technology and scientist. I remember in the 90s we

were discussing the human Human Genome Project to a greater degree

and the regulations were far behind the science and technology at that

time. So, unlike the opposition front bench spokesman I don't think

this bill could be introduced soon enough and put through its stages

soon enough. It is one of the foundations of this new technology.

We are behind countries such as Norway, where in fact more than 5%

of the passenger cars that have been sold now are plug ins. And so the

legislation covering the insurance position on automated vehicles and

electric vehicle charging is setting the framework for some of the most

significant advance that I think we have seen since the internal

combustion engine which itself made an appearance and in fact halted the

progress of electric vehicles the first time around. I don't know how

many people appreciate that electric vehicles are far from being new.

Wider public ownership is new. The first practical electric car was

built in London in 1884 by Thomas Parker. Now I have seen a picture of

this and it looks like a pram on wheels. I wouldn't recommend it to

anybody. It is interesting that electric vehicles did come into use

commercially, particularly in a small fleet of 12 cabs used in New

York as far back as 1897. So, what was interesting was the advent of

the internal combustion engine which had the advantages of a longer range

and quicker refuelling and the rapid development of the infrastructure

for petrol vehicles meant that electric vehicles, forget the pun -

a back seat. I think there is a lesson in the death of the electric

vehicle the first time around and the introduction of the rapid

charging infrastructure, if you like, for petrol vehicles, meant

that we may progress. I'll give way briefly.

Is she aware that following World War II, when previously all British

cities had electric tram systems, the oil industry and the motorcar

industry conspired to get them ripped out as part of the Marshall

plan and we should be aware of the oil industry in terms of our bid to

get electrification and clean air? I will leave the honourable gentleman

to make his own point but I am particularly excited about the

progress of electric vehicles because of my concern about the

environment and speakers and interventions have talked about air

quality but there is no doubt about it, the Paris climate talks started

to exert that downward pressure on CO2 emissions that I think will

inevitably result in the phasing out of fossil fuels. Indeed, I have been

talking to the renewable energy Association, which is the UK's

largest trade association for renewable energy and clean

technology and it has produced an excellent forward view which

estimates that the move towards electric vehicles will be even more

rapid than that which is currently anticipated by government. I will

give way. My right honourable friend is making a fine speech about energy

purity and clean air. Would she not be as excited as I am that so much

tiny technologies coming along in this vein, largely due to the

dirtiness of so many Chinese cities and air pollution? Will she

therefore also welcomed the amount of invention that is coming not

through government but through the free market and through the

technology that it is spurring? I agree entirely with my honourable

friend and I will refer to the international scene a bit later in

my speech. In fact, the renewable energy is initiation estimates that

most new car sales will be electric welder for the 2040 diesel and

petrol sales ban and they also further estimate that 75% of new

cars and light commercial vehicle sales will be all electric, or

plug-in hybrid, by 2030. I think that goes to show that the EV market

is going to be set to be one of the most exciting in modern times but of

course as people have been referring to, there are several barriers. They

range from public policy and the cost and range of vehicles to the

current lack of infrastructure and the availability of low carbon

energy. Currently, the UK's EV and energy storage markets directly

employ over 16,000 people and I think that is going to grow

significantly, particularly if our public policy supports growth for

example, off grid flexibility, strengthening our building codes and

even workplace regulation. And in addition to the domestic growth, we

also have the possible at your post Brexit manufacturing and export

opportunities which are potentially very significant. -- the

possibilities of post Brexit Manufacturing. To exploit those

opportunities, we need a robust domestic market which in turn

depends on a reliable, available, affordable low-carbon electric

vehicle charging network and the network has certainly got a long way

to go. I had a look in Chesham and Amersham because I thought, well,

they are pretty go-ahead places, they are going to be early adopters

of new technology and I was really disappointed at the electric

charging map I looked at. I had one point in great Missenden, one in

little Chalfont, one in Chalfont Saint Peter. Whereas Chesham was

ahead of the game, it had two. What is interesting for me is that Little

Chalfont's point is that the London underground car park so I hope the

minister in summing up may say something about encouraging

organisations such as London Underground and transport for London

to invest in far more charging points at their car parking facility

throughout the south-east. As I said earlier, I think international

progress is going to be rapid and my honourable friend mentioned China. I

think it is worth taking a few minutes just to look at what is

happening internationally in more detail. In the UK, the government

has confirmed they will ban the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles

without a battery element by 2040. France has actually done the same.

The Netherlands has confirmed its plan to ensure all new vehicles are

emission free by 2030. That really is an effective ban on the sale of

new diesels and petrol vehicles. Germany is considering banning new

petrol and diesel cars by 2030. That certainly would require the

upgrading of the country's entire manufacturing processes and supply

chain by then. China is considering a ban similar to the one being

introduced in the UK but it is yet to announce a timeline and I think

that will be very significant but moving on to another country with a

vast population, India, it has announced it wants all new car sales

to be electric by 2030. An interesting by-product is of course

what will be needed for manufacturing of the batteries?

Volkswagen estimates that 40 geiger factories for manufacturing

batteries are going to be needed globally. -- giga factories. I think

there is some believe that there is a scope for a number of these

factories to be located in the UK and those would create new

manufacturing jobs and inward investment if domestic markets are

created for those battery products. I hope the Minister in his summing

up will look at what possibilities there are of encouraging that kind

of investment in our Manufacturing in the UK. Now I want to turn

specifically to the Bill because I have welcomed it and there is no

doubt that the national roll-out of a strategic smart and effective

charging infrastructure is a critical component to developing

this electric car market. The move to powers to require service area

operators to operate a minimum level of EV charging is welcome, both on

motorways and trunk roads. Whilst there is already some provision of

charging on the majority of major motorways and trunk roads by one

dominant operator, there is a need for more competition and to make the

access easier to break down the perceived barriers to the uptake of

EVs. The applicability of this too large fuel retailers, where not part

of a trunk road, service area or motorway service area, may not be as

valuable because of something which is known as the dwell time at such

sites, which is less desirable to the motorist. EV drivers typically

stop for a short break, commensurate with the time required to get a

significant charge and there may be a need in areas where a customer may

rely on public rapid charging instead of the classic overnight

charging at home or work. In this case, the charging will most likely

be combined with another amenity and therefore, it is most essential that

government considers retail sites, coffee shops, and all places where

there can be some associated activity to the charging of a

vehicle. I think also in light of the alternative fuels infrastructure

directive, we are starting to prescribe a common standard on what

the future of EV charging should look like. But we also need to allow

roaming, just as we have roaming for phones, we need roaming so that

vehicle operators can use other people's equipment and I would like

to know what the government is doing to encourage operators' hardware, to

make it possible to cross the barriers of a contract with a single

user. I also think that the point that has been made, that the various

ways of accessing these points, whether it is through the account,

card or smartphone, is confusing and unnecessary and I think we need to

look at standardising that. The requirement for these charge points,

especially those at home and in workplaces and for those to be

smart, I think, is essential, because it will allow electric

vehicles to become part of the developing, decentralised grid. We

need to be able to use those vehicles to not only take part out

of the network and out of the grid but to put them back into the grid

at certain times. And I hope that massively distributed part of our

grid infrastructure will be -- will become a reality with EV Raw so I

hope the Minister will say something about that and I've already

mentioned for rural areas, the solar carports and canopies which I think

are essential to make sure that rural areas are not disadvantaged.

But turning the bill itself, I wondered whether there was any

opportunity for amendment? I would just like to make a couple of

suggestions, Mr Deputy Speaker, before I sit down. I think the

government could consider going further so we can regulate all new

houses with driveways or a capacity on site for EV charging and housing

element, to have the three phase electricity supply that will be

necessary for effective charging of electric vehicles. I also think that

we should make sure that we regulate so the minimum power supply levels

that are included in building codes for all new homes, offices, shopping

centres, public buildings and other areas where parking is available to

the public will ensure that whilst we only have a small number of EV

charge stations at present, those retail sites can rapidly expand as

the demand grows. I also think we should regulate so that all new

workplaces should have EV charging facilities or a provision to install

charge points. I have to say, lastly, I think those people that

have electric vehicles should be identified. In Norway, they have

identifying letters on their license plates. They have EDL and a capacity

to go to and 99,999 vehicles. I think they are up to about 69,000 at

the moment. I hope people can be rewarded for turning to electric.

This is indeed an exciting technology, the future, and I'm glad

our government is grasping it by the horns. Alan Brown. Thank you, Mr

debit is bigger. In this place quite often, you get a feeling of deja vu

and tonight is another of those times where there is a feeling of

deja vu, there's a feeling we have been here before and some of the

comments have already been heard before. I must warn members of the

house, if any of them have actually paid attention to the speeches I

have made an electric vehicle before, you're going to get another

feeling of deja vu. Merited, that. Anyway, on that deja vu, that is

because clearly, this Bill is part of the vehicle technology and

aviation Bill previously, and it also means it is testament to the

folly of calling a general election before. The general election not

only was a waste of money, it is shown in fact we root -- we are

revisiting the legislation which effectively already went through

committee stage, we are redoing work that was done before and it is

taxpayers money. -- costing taxpayers money. I will give way if

the member wants to make an intervention. The honourable member

is making the point that the general election is a waste of money, I

can't possibly agree, we have 13 Conservative MPs in Scotland which

is a great success on its own. No, no, I think... I need to help a

little, just sit down, Mr Brown, just to say, I'm not quite sure

where a debate on the number of MPs in Scotland has any relation to

electric vehicles. Alan Browne. Stop enticing him! Thank you, Mr Deputy

Speaker, before I move on, again proof of where this government is

that because the position they have put themselves in, the bill before

was already split into and we have had the atoll bill which is a too

close bill and now we have got this and I'm surprised the government has

not split this the i to pretend they have a bigger legislative programme

in the next two years. -- this the i 2%. That said, despite what me is

seen as churlish comments, I welcome what is in this Bill so it is a

welcome step forward even with that feeling of deja vu. The minister set

out and it is clear that there is a wider desire to get to the stage

where we increase the use or get to the place where we can usefully

autonomous cars. That is going to increase road safety because it has

been touched on that generally, accidents are the cause of human

behaviour, driving when tired, people being distracted and there

are other causes of accidents. Clearly, autonomous vehicles take

away the human risk factors. Therefore, changing the insurance

regulations so that insurance is not dependent on driver regulation, as

is the case at the moment, is clearly welcome and it is enabling

the process from the government so I welcome that part of bill for that

reason. The minister earlier on and said it is hoped that autonomous

vehicles will lead to reduced insurance premiums but conversely,

we need to make sure that increased procedural and administrative costs

for insurers don't actually lead to higher premiums. If that is the

case, a risk that it will impact on the uptake of autonomous vehicles so

I would ask that the government reviews the procedure going forward

in terms of reviewing the cost of insurance premiums and if there is a

negative impact on the uptake of autonomous vehicles. Mr Deputy

Speaker, it is really important that Scotland is not left behind in this

process. When it comes to the take-up of autonomous vehicles,

Scotland needs to be included. What better country would there be to

trial the use of autonomous vehicles on narrow country roads than

Scotland? Indeed, in Scotland, we have got country roads that are

still single-track roads with passing places, so right now,

drivers need to make a decision, sometimes you have a stand-off where

drivers are looking at each other and wondering which one is going to

reverse all the way back to the passing place? Autonomous vehicles

could actually improve that and make these narrow rural roads saved but

equally trials need to be held to see other vehicles cope with such

situations. -- narrow rural roads safer. I also welcome the UK

Government's commitment with the industrial strategy to look at an

autonomous vehicle hub and touching on what I said about trials in

Scotland, I would ask that the UK Government looks at and discusses

with colleagues in Scottish Government opportunities to find a

suitable hub in Scotland as well. To be a global leader it needs

greater financial commitment. Needs collaboration and the Government

needs to think how it will play out in a post Brexit world. If I move on

to part two of the bill which relates to the infrastructure

necessary for electric vehicles, again, this is required and overdue,

if further progress is to be made towards decarbonised transport. The

there is a commitment they will be none carbon by 2040. The Scottish

Government has a more ambitious target, 2032.

We hear of a future electric charging can be part of this. So,

therefore, the UK Government needs to be doing some strategic planning

and long-term planning towards that. It needs to be wider policies that

link together to be able to implement this and make it happen.

If pollution contributes to 40,000 premature deaths a year, so we

really have to decar nonise much quicker. That is why I am asking the

Government to think of more ambitious targets. 23% of carbon

dioxide emissions, contributor, I repeat decar nonisation is

important. As we plan for ultra low emission vehicles, an inacceptive to

get this cars off the road. It cannot be left to car manufacturers

to operate diesel scrappage schemes. The UK Government policy years ago

that actually incense teased people to buy diesel cars and run these on

the road. I suggest it is a UK Government responsibility to incense

tease scrappage -- insensitise people to use electric vehicles. In

terms of road transport, as we need to consider the use of the second

engines that drive the refridgerationup its in HGV lorries.

These pollute more heavily than engines. I welcome the fact the

Government is consulting on the use of red diesel in these

refridgeration units. More Government action will be required.

So this bill does provide some limited interventions. It will help

towards the uptake of electric or ultra low emission vehicles. Much

more is required going forward. The bill does provide or make provision

for providing better clarity regards information and charging points. It

will be needed to improve consumer confidence, as has been outlined.

Not just the range, a concern of consumers, but they, or users, but

they need to know where to charge their vehicles. Now also for me it

makes sense to have continuity of the charging points and access to

these, which is required to build consumer confidence in terms of