Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and John Pugh

2nd reading: House of Commons & Carry-over motion: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Pugh]

We invented the train some time ago; there are trains available, even in Lancashire. My fundamental point is that electric vehicles are probably a less flexible technology than either the internal combustion engine or the hydrogen fuel cell, and the technology is wholly inapplicable in the case of heavy goods vehicles, in which they surely do not have much of a place. Even if I am wrong about that, there are some legislative problems if we anticipate a silent city of electric vehicles moving about at pace and the hazards that that may present for pedestrian safety.

What would prevent drivers of ordinary cars from bullying autonomous vehicles in the knowledge that they must give way? They might cut out at junctions, as I believe they already intend to do. What responsibility does a driver or owner have when he initiates a journey? He may be tempted to plan a journey much longer or more hazardous—for example, at night—than he previously might have done, or more frequently than if he had to drive himself. Would he have to nominate a co-pilot, and what would be the safety protocols there? Can the roads cope with possible additional vehicle use? People have anticipated elderly people who had given up using their cars returning to them, and the use of cars by disabled people becoming far more common.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I fear the hon. Gentleman sounds as though he would have argued, when the lightbulb was invented, that candle makers would be put out of business. I hear a lot of negatives, some of which I accept are entirely valid concerns, but can he enlighten us as to the Liberal Democrats’ vision for this new, innovative technology, on which we cannot be left behind?

[John Pugh]

I am presenting my personal observations. The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that there are problems and I am simply alluding to them.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and John Pugh

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Pugh]

I shall be brief, Sir David.

I wish to speak to new clause 56, which Members who survey it will acknowledge is a modest and rational proposal. The Smith commission was minded to make abortion a devolved matter, and the new clause would align the Bill with that intention. It would allow a similar level of devolution to that in Northern Ireland and give the Scottish Parliament the same rights as it has with regard to euthanasia and nearly every other health matter.

There are two reasons for the new clause, one negative and one positive. The positive reason is that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish politicians have proved themselves eminently capable of debating thorny, complex and controversial moral topics without acrimony, maturely, lucidly and in an evidence-based way. That was shown in the recent Scottish Parliament debate on euthanasia. We acknowledge that a Scottish life is worth no more and no less than any other life, but regulating how and when life is terminated in Scotland can justifiably be done in the Scottish Parliament by Scottish authority. It is regulated differently by all nations in Europe.

I rebut entirely the allegation that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) made that a decision might not be taken in the light of robust medical evidence. The Scottish Parliament would certainly take such evidence into account, but that allegation illustrated the negative reason for the new clause. Debates in this place on any change in abortion regulation, however minor, become polarised horribly and quickly. If abortion is mentioned, up go the barricades to defend the right to life or the right to choose. On no other issue is there such a dialogue of the deaf in this Chamber, with the slightest concession to one side being seen as enabling the wholesale destruction of the other. We witnessed the recent debate on gender discrimination in abortion, during which there was total agreement throughout the Chamber but total stalemate at the end of the day.

The situation is certainly complicated by the fact that Members have wider agendas. That does not particularly help, because people suspect ulterior motives, but to be fair, it is normal in any debate and should not hamper or inhibit the discussion of issues such as gender discrimination in abortion, the advice given to people seeking an abortion or time limits on abortion. It should not, but it evidently and repeatedly does. The House is normally left defending the Abortion Act 1967—with all its weakness, which are acknowledged even by some of its major proponents—as though it were holy writ.

I am charitable enough to think that Scotland, despite its Calvinist past, is not quite so fundamentalist in that respect. Whatever its current values, in the light of the best available evidence it could cope with something a little more sophisticated than our tribal deliberations here, which are laden with history and suspicion. It could frame regulation that, although it would not satisfy every conscience, would at least suit the times and fit the facts. I would sincerely welcome the views of the Government and the Scottish nationalists on the new clause, and I would welcome the Scottish dimension.

[Stewart McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Scottish Members of Parliament have been sent a joint statement by the trade union community in Scotland and several third sector and women’s groups in Scotland, urging us to vote against amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). It is well known that those Members are from the pro-life side of the debate, and the concern of those organisations is not entirely illegitimate. In fact, it is perhaps understandable.

Those Members are right that the Scottish Parliament can handle the abortion debate. I would argue that any hope of curtailing a woman’s right to choose—I accept that hon. Members have not expressly said that they want to do that—would be misplaced, but our Parliament can handle the matter just as it has handled assisted suicide, equal marriage and section 28. I wish to draw on those examples of how our Parliament has matured into the national forum that it is today.

During the debate on section 28 in the early days of the Scottish Parliament, there was a huge noise against its scrapping from the forces of social conservatism. We can compare that with the national debate on the equal marriage legislation. It would be uncharitable of me not to mention that one of the finest speeches on that legislation came from the Scottish Conservative leader in that Parliament. We are not a nation of social conservatives. I understand the concerns of the organisations that have released the joint statement, but we in Scotland have proven that we understand the weight of arguments and can handle them in a sensitive fashion.

It has been suggested that my hon. Friends in the Scottish National party and I will be choosing between nationalism and feminism tonight. I find that a false choice; indeed, I find it an offensive statement. It is a reductionist analysis and a crass comment. I want the power in question to come to Scotland not just because I want all powers to come to Scotland but because I want to improve and protect a woman’s right to choose and to access quality healthcare. I believe we can do that, and I want to make progress at the earliest opportunity. That is my motivation, as it will be for many other Members of the House. Progress was never made without taking control and arguing—not always helpfully—on tough and important issues. This is indeed a tough and important issue, but we must make progress on it. No one knows how hard that can be more than women, and as a gay man I find myself having considerable sympathy with that.