 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 10471 in the name of Ivan McKee on driverless cars bringing transformative change to Scotland. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I have to ask members to press the request to speak buttons down because we haven't got that by the aid of technology yet. You still have to use your finger. I call on Ivan McKee to open the debate. Mr McKee, please. I am delighted to be leading this debate this afternoon. It is not often that we get the opportunity to start with a largely black piece of paper and shape our own future if we choose to. The issue of automation is something that we are all well aware of. We understand that it is coming perhaps faster than we think and will offer some opportunities. There are many threats, in particular to existing jobs. In general terms, the challenge can seem daunting and difficult to grasp. By focusing on one technology, as we are doing this afternoon, we can explore specific challenges and opportunities and map out a path forward. With detailed actions and milestones to make sure that we take advantage of this new technology, it does not take advantage of us. Let us be clear that this debate is not about whether we think that autonomous vehicles are a good idea or a bad idea. If they are coming and all levedon says that they are and faster than we think, our job is to find ways to mitigate their downsides and exploit the opportunities that they present for all of society. Throughout history, disruptive transformations and transport technology have driven significant economic development. From the digging of the canal infrastructure in the 1790s, the roll-out of the railways in the 1840s, the rise of the automobile in the early 1900s, the expansion of commercial air traffic from the 1950s onwards and the adoption of the internet from the 1990s while transporting information rather than goods and people is the latest transport revolution to drive economic growth. We are due another disruptive transformation and we need to be prepared. Let us imagine for a moment what the average personal transport experience within near future will look like. You might own a car or you might have a contract with a car lease or a car share company, either to part share or pay as you go. If you own a car, you might send it out to work to generate income from you when you are at work. You will use an app on your mobile device to order up a vehicle as needed. The total number of vehicles on the road is much lower than today, but each car does a lot more miles. The number of vehicles available for hire, however, is 10 or 20 times what exists today. In most areas, you do not have to wait more than two or three minutes for a car to turn up at your door. You might order several vehicles, one to take you to work, one for your spouse and a third to take the children directly to school, no more school run. Without the need for driver interface vehicles, cars look nothing like they do today. A comfortable pod-type design, you sit in the back, like the back of a Hackney-Cabra limo, perhaps working or relaxing. The vehicle knows what radio station or music you like to listen to, your email is available in the in-car terminal or a favourite TV show or film. Travel time becomes hugely more productive because the car is connected to all other vehicles on the road that knows the fastest way to work avoiding traffic. Today's traffic management systems, expensive infrastructure, designed to manage drivers' erratic behaviour, are far simpler. The impact of autonomous vehicles will affect not just our relationship with mine's best friend, his or her car, but go far beyond our personal transport experience. 97 per cent of a car's time is spent parked. Self-drive will transform our cities, enabling higher housing density. Garages and multi-storey car parks can become spare rooms and blocks of flats. Driveways and parking lots become gardens and parks. Lines of parked cars are replaced by cycle lanes. Ironically, self-drive will give us more space and scope to promote active travel solutions. On energy, today's concerns about sufficient charging points for electric vehicles and how to manage peak demand will be much simpler. Self-drive vehicles will take them to charging warehouses and optimally top up their batteries to help smooth demand to meet supply. Infrastructure spend will be revolutionised. Interconnected autonomous vehicles without erratic drivers behind the wheel will use road space much more efficiently. The same amount of traffic will flow smoothly along a single lane as it clogs up our three-lane highways. We can see that that event of self-drive will affect all sectors. Indeed, it is only a matter of time until somebody writes a country in western song where the guy's truck leaves him as well. In the area of inequality, the impacts could be significant and to our advantage if we grab the initiative now. Rather than let others exploit the technology first, people with disabilities, including sight loss, will be able to access personal transport on the same basis as everyone else. Those who are growing old and frail need not worry about losing access to their vehicles. Without the cost of the driver, the cost of private hire will come tumbling down, providing affordable connectivity to those on low incomes and peripheral housing schemes. Let us not forget the more than 1 million road deaths annually, 94 per cent caused by driver error. We vote to those to move forward towards as vastly safer technology as soon as possible. Scotland was at the very forefront of the first two of the transport revolutions that I mentioned earlier. Our canals enabled raw materials to move to population centres and ports, and our railways enabled movement of manufactured goods to market. The economic boost from both of those innovations generated wealth, but it is notwithstanding that it is an equal distribution to some extent that we are still living off today. The innovators behind the last two transport revolutions came from these islands. Frank Whittle, inventor of the jet engine, and Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the web, but sadly we failed to take the lead and exploit those 20th century technologies, as we had done in the early centuries. We must not miss the boat this time round. In winding up, I say how glad I am that so many are taking part in this debate, one of the things I look forward to over the next 40 minutes or so is hearing members' raised impacts and opportunities that had not occurred to me. I would like to press the minister to consider taking forward some specific actions. My ask would be that some government resource is applied to this technology, not just to maintain a watching beef on autonomous vehicles developments elsewhere, but to work proactively with local government, think tanks, private sector and others in Scotland, to identify at-risk sectors and businesses and work proactively with them to identify business transition plans supported by necessary investments, to identify business opportunities and careers of the future, and I say that the Government's innovations unit has challenged to come with a list of 100 such new careers, perhaps on a competition to raise awareness and spark entrepreneurial innovation. To quantify those impacts and to bring forward specific actions with a view to putting Scotland in the driving seat, the self-driving seat on this technology, to understand how our tax and social security systems will deal with this new world. At some point, sooner rather than later, a moonshot statement setting out publicly a determination for Scotland to be the first country in the world to create a 100 per cent self-drive city would be very welcome indeed. Opportunities like this come along every half century or so. They can utterly transform our wealth and wellbeing, but only if we move proactively and quickly, let's not miss the boat. Thank you, Mr McKee. I call Kenneth Gibson to be followed by Jamie Greene. I wish to first congratulate my colleague Ivan McKee in securing time to debate this fascinating topic. Just a few short years ago, this debate would have been relegated to sci-fi fan circles and online message boards, now driverless vehicles and the wider topic of artificial intelligence are among the key issues being discussed in our universities, the private sector, our justice systems and political institutions. Rapidly accelerating artificial intelligence and robotics research has already transformed our world and our transport network is not immune to its advance. It is even suggested that, last year, Scotland's future forum programme launch that by 2030 driving will be a pursuit of leisure alone and all professional drivers will be redundant. That undoubtedly raises questions about the direct impact of the technology on Scottish jobs, particularly the tens of thousands of people in Scotland who are licensed HGV or taxi drivers, or to transport people goods and even take away food. Part of our preparation for the driverless revolution must be to ensure that the profits gained are not simply absorbed by car companies and technology giants, but channel back into the economy to drive investment and generate employment. A driverless transport network could be good news for those who currently find driving inaccessible—the young, elderly—people with mobility issues or disabilities who rent them on driving and understand quite a number of MSPs who do not have a driving licence. Communication between automated cars could also create a network that optimises traffic flow and eases congestion, meaning that we will be free to perform other tasks while travelling and get from A to B more quickly. Safety may also improve once human error is removed from the equation, even if many of us may still have doubts about putting our lives in the hands of a machine, myself included. Of course, automated vehicles will not only lead to a revolution in our transport network but also in our commercial and residential spaces, as Ivan McKee mentioned. Just as the arrival of cars created huge demographic shifts and preceded the construction of motorways to connect our cities and parking spaces to facilitate community lifestyles, a fleet of driverless vehicles could dramatically reshape urban planning. A report by engineering consultants, who firm WSP, suggested that autonomous vehicles could free up 15 to 20 per cent of the UK's developable land, throwing up boundless opportunities for new homes, workplaces and green space, which is why I'm surprised that the greens are not here to participate in this debate. High-end cars are already programmed with over 100 million lines of computer code, which will increase exponentially with the arrival of driverless cars. That leads to interesting and unexpected questions about the practical and moral implications of the technology. How, for example, are we to programme cars with an understanding of moral philosophy? If an autonomous car is on a crowded motorway and knows it is about to crash, how will it decide which other cars to collide with? That is more than an imagining of the old ethical puzzle known as the trolley problem, whereby a runaway trolley barrels down railway tracks. A head of five people tied up and able to move, the trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off next to a lever. If you pull a lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, there is one person tied on the sidetrack. You have two options. Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. Pull a lever diverting the trolley on to the sidetrack where it will kill one person. Which is the ethical choice? Of course, there could be many variables as to who the people are. The choice is difficult to how we are a machine fair. Most of us are excited about this new technology and the opportunities that it presents, or we are afraid of its consequences for our economy and the fabric of society itself. However, the proactive approach, I believe that Scotland, can help to shape the development of automation. By investing in education and encouraging technological innovation, we can strengthen our talent base and guarantee that Scottish design and excellence are at the forefront of technological advances. We must also protect low-paid, low-skilled workers from being swept aside by the inevitable influx of automated labour. What sets us as mortals apart from machines or creativity, our ability to design innovative solutions to problems? To weigh up risks and take a leap of faith when we believe in our vision. Only by harnessing what makes us unique and making the right choices before the dawn of this technology can we lead the way instead of being left behind. This debate will not be the beginning and end of the Scottish Parliament's discussion on the topic of automation, but rather the start of a series and long-term consideration of the opportunities and challenges that it presents. Thank you very much, Mr Gibson. I apologise to the chamber if my voice gives up halfway through the events of this week that are taking their toll on my larynx. Where is Miles Briggs when you need him? Indeed. Driveless cars. I am really fascinated by the utopia picture that Ivan McKee is painting. It sounds wonderful. The idea will sit in the back of our cars as they talk to us, as they take us where we want to go, while we listen to our favourite radio show—in my case, it is The Archers—or sit there and catch up with our standard responses and signing motions. It sounds like a great idea. It would free up so much of my time as I spend so many hours of my life on the M8. However, technology like this, the minister, is welcome to intervene and tell me how wonderful the trains are. As a solution to your driving on the M8, can I suggest that public transport is a good way forward for the trains, for example? Mr Greene. I commend the minister's endeavours. The problem is that—and it is a problem—with the type of jobs that we have, and, like many other people, getting from point A to B to C to D in the way that we do it may not always be easily possible by public transport. That is a genuine concern. That is probably an argument for another day in how we get people out of cars altogether. However, the idea that this is a thing of the future—it really is not true—is actually a thing of today. I have been in a Tesla car. If you have not done it before, do try it. It is fascinating. It is a fascinating and wonderful experience. Those cars already can drive themselves. They have the technology and ability to do it in terms of the engineering of the cars, but they do not have the software to do it. The reason they do not have the software to do it is because the legislation dictates that the cars cannot self-drive. The cars can, in many cases, already self-drive, and in some countries they do. Part of the debate today should be looking at both the positive and the negative, and not to be negative, but to look at the consequences of that. There will be implications of having more driveless cars on our roads. Some positive ones, for example the environmental aspects, as has been outlined. The majority of those cars will be hybrid or electric, which is positive. They are safe and environmentally friendly. We should welcome those changes, but we should also be wary of the potential downsides of the technology. One of the great things that I noticed when I lived in London for a period was the fact that many of the terraced houses had converted all their front gardens into driveways. The reason that people did that is because there simply was not enough parking, and that led to a decline in the bee population of London. The idea that we could reverse those trends and get more green spaces is great. I would like to touch on the economic and industrial points of this. It is absolutely inevitable that driveless cars and driveless vehicles will lead to a decline in paid driving jobs, I believe. That does have an effect. There is an argument that people will adapt, the workforce will adapt and they will do other things with their time. Before we had cars, we had horses and carriages to travel. The introduction of cars did not lead to the horses finding new jobs. It led to a decline in horse employment, probably that some might think that that is a blessing, at least the horses themselves. It creates an interesting dilemma. What do we do with people who currently drive for a living? So many people in this country do, whether they are taxi drivers, hauliers etc, delivery drivers. What other opportunities and careers—yes, for sure. Members pointed about horses, but we really have to think about the people who looked after the horses, of which there were many, many tens or hundreds of thousands in those days who obviously found new jobs, servicing cars. Mr Greene. That is exactly my point, but they had to retrain to be able to do that. So what we should be thinking about today is what do we have to train the workforce of today to do tomorrow, when they are no longer able to or no longer want to drive cars? What are those new careers? Where are the opportunities? What infrastructure should we be putting in place to ensure that they have the right skills to do that? We should also consider, and I hope in the debate that someone will talk about, what happens when it goes wrong, if it goes wrong. What are the consequences on liability and culpability? What are the consequences on insurance and how we pay for that? What are the consequences on our roads and how we invest in infrastructure in our roads? I do hope that driverless cars are able to avoid potholes, especially the ones in North Ayrshire. David Stewart, to be followed by Ash Denham. I congratulate Ivan McKee for securing the debate today and thank him for his interesting and stimulating speech, which I certainly learned a lot from a particular light as a reference to the country in western song. I don't know whether we could say, I lost my heart to a driverless Ford Mustang, but maybe not. Over the past eight years, I have, perhaps I shouldn't give up my day job, but for the past eight years, I have championed the cause of road safety, not just across the hands and islands, but across Scotland as a whole. As members may know, I became involved in this issue in 2010, when two teenagers were tragically killed in a road collision in Inverness. As part of that work, I set up the North Scotland Driver Awareness Scheme, which had over 25 initiatives on road safety involving the driving licence scheme, for example. Anything that makes roads safer is something that I am very interested in, so I would like to compliment Ivan McKee for having the debate and for all the speakers that we have had already today. It leads me to debate today if they are safe and if they step in the right direction. There is absolutely no doubt that fully autonomous self-driving vehicles are on their way. There are some concerns that many of us may confuse assisted driving technologies with automated driverless vehicles, so assisted driving technologies could include the use of cruise control, lane control, automatic braking, collision avoiding systems and so on. The key is that the systems are designed to help the driver. Where do I stand in this debate? Obviously, the jury is still out, but with cars becoming more and more sophisticated and the driver becomes imported more and more by driving technology, it is only a matter of time, in my view, before we will see fully automated cars. As Ivan McKee himself said, the facts speak for themselves. 90 per cent of road collisions are caused by driver behaviour and driver error, so clearly this shows that human beings are not totally up to the job. It is certainly a big step to go completely to automated cars. Many would argue that we need better education and more and more driver assistance via technology. In the debate so far, we have not looked at the possibility of hackers breaking into the automated systems of automating cars and making the cars do things that it should not. Has the industry looked at this particular issue? I believe that they are starting to look at this to some extent, and some voices in the pro-automated cars side of the debate point out that humans cause road collisions, so surely it is safer to drive on technology? Is it safer to handle a total control of a vehicle? To determine whether automated vehicles are safer in humans, researchers clearly need to establish a non-collision rate for both human drivers and those emerging driver vehicles. I am for all or any action that improves road safety. I am excited by the possibility of eventually being seen fully automated vehicles. We have to pass stringent testing for that, but I think that driver assistance systems are here for years to come, and yes, improved systems are good. Let me give you an example. With Volvo cars, they can detect a possible collision be that with a vehicle or pedestrian and make the car brake and stop. We have cars that alert us when we are out of a lane and intelligent braking systems and cruise control. All are a positive addition to making roads safer for all. In reality, the time for a person jumping into the rear seat of a vehicle and reading a newspaper, while the vehicle drives off in its own, is a long way off, in my opinion, with much work to do in safety. However, with our improved and increased high-tech support systems, when we are moving in that direction, and in the near-distant future, I believe that we will see automated vehicles in a road. It is my belief that they will be in with a system of automation similar to the tram, in which they will run separately to other road vehicles along a set route and between two points. For example, I have the transport minister in front of me, and I would make a plea for anautomated vehicle pilot between Inverness City and Inverness Airport. In conclusion, the chief exec of Telsa cars said, and I quote, "...what it gets tricky is that the urban environment is around 30 to 40 miles an hour. Right now it's fairly easy to deal with things that are both 5 to 10 miles an hour because we can do that with ultrasonics. We just make sure it doesn't hit anything, but it gets more complicated as you go to a higher speed." In conclusion, in the immediate future, we will all benefit from partial autonomous technology such as lane-changing systems. Fully autonomous technology is still a distance away in these isolations and testing in autonomous cities, such as the one that was developed by the University of Michigan. As President John FF Kennedy said, "...changes the law of life, and those who look only to the past or present, are certain to miss the future." I call Ash Denham to be followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston. I would also like to add my congratulations to others on Ivan McKee securing this very interesting debate this afternoon. The recent development of autonomous vehicles represents something of our transport revolution and not just for those of us who had to take their driving test four times. Ivan is right to acknowledge that now is the time to be considering the impacts that they will have on our society. Others have drawn attention to the benefits that they offer—things such as reduced carbon emissions, less congestion and fewer road accidents. However, there could also be potential negative consequences in a couple of speakers who have made note of those. Those improvements in technology can and probably will have an impact on jobs. We need to make sure that the benefits also of the types of technology are spread across many different providers and accru to society rather than just being concentrated into the hands of only a few companies. We will need to take account of those issues as we also look towards the future and the many possible advantages. What stood out for me on this subject when I was looking into this is the way in which autonomous and self-driving cars will allow us to radically transform the cities that we live in. As someone who represents a city, I think that that is a very exciting potential opportunity. While automated vehicles will rewrite the rules of transport, they will also offer us the opportunity to reclaim the environment that surrounds us and shape our cities for tomorrow. Cities today are often dominated by cars, by overbearing traffic, congestion sometimes and expansive multi-storey car parks. The future of these autonomous vehicles reimagines private car ownership. Vehicle pods, as I have mentioned, are capable of carrying several people at once, less of a personal car and more of a robo taxi. Summons using our phones, transport in the future would centre around the shared journeys. By 2035, it is predicted that 80 per cent of people will use robo taxis and that urban car ownership will have fallen by 70 per cent. Much of the meaningful impact of alternative vehicles relies on promoting the shared use aspect, reducing the number of cars on the roads, which has got to be a good thing. What does that mean potentially for our cities? The opportunity to reclaim that space that is currently used for traffic lanes, for car parks and for on-road parking, which would be a huge benefit in my constituency of Edinburgh eastern. Cities that use only autonomous vehicles would need 90 per cent less parking. By reclaiming almost all of the 15 to 30 per cent of space used for car parks and cities, we open up possibilities for innovative development in urban areas. No longer would we need to choose between necessary housing or, on the other hand, community spaces, but we could offer both creative housing and sports facilities, art projects, public squares and spaces. In doing so, we can create cities and public areas that prioritise the people that live in them and not their cars. We can create city spaces and centres that are characterised by extended pedestrian areas, designated cycle lanes and green parks. In Brooklyn and New York, the introduction of protected cycle lanes increased the number of cyclists three times over and reduced speeding and crash injuries to road users by 60 per cent. In Copenhagen, four times as many people now cycle as they do drive. By encouraging those alternative uses for car space, we are able to create healthier, greener towns and cities. That, for me, is of particular interest and the prospect of future technological advances being used in that way to regenerate our communities and improve quality of life for all of us. Thank you very much. I call Jamie Halcro Johnston to be followed by Tom Arthur. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I congratulate Ivan McKeon on securing this debate today, which has verged between something from tomorrow's world and the Jetsons, but it's quite clear that this is going to be a real development for the future and one very important one. There has been significant deal of discussion on connected and autonomous vehicles in recent years. There are a number of systems that have been demonstrated already with varying levels of automation. I welcome the action taken by the UK Government in investigating the future benefits and equipping the UK for regulatory change that such vehicles may involve. The Department of Transport obviously has a key role here, but many of the future benefits have been championed by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. As the Secretary of State, Greg Clark, has highlighted, the UK industrial strategy will be an excuse to the prime key driver of innovation into new technology like this across the country, and its featuring in the industrial strategy white paper was very welcome. Greg Clark has set out a key ambition to make the UK the best place in the world to develop CAV technology going forward. Indeed, some of the elements of these innovations are already emerging on assisted technologies in today's vehicle, as has been mentioned, advanced road-breaking and lane-changing assistance spring to mind. In that role, they are preventing accidents and lowering the harm that can come. We have a proud record here with Britain's roads amongst the safest in the world. Much has changed over the past decade since car ownership became commonplace. There will be much on our roads that will change in the future, and Ivan McKee is right that we should plan early to make changes for new technology. There are clearly many areas here where the Scottish and UK Governments can work together, making progress on preparing for the future and sharing information to ensure that regulatory frameworks are in place to enable development and progress. I welcome the answer that the Minister Holmes gave to my colleague Jamie Greene in 2016, indicating that Transport Scotland was already working closely with the Department for Transport and the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles. From the perspective of my region, the Highlands and Islands, there is enormous potential here, too. In rural areas, driverless cars would be a positive development, helping to connect up remote communities, lowering costs and making travel easier. The economic and social benefits could be significant and touch all parts of our local economy. The House of Old Science and Technology Select Committee cautioned that there was too great political focus on driverless cars when the benefits of autonomous vehicles were most likely to appear first in other sectors, such as marine and agriculture. I am aware that those sectors have been considered by colleagues around the chamber, but it is worth emphasising their importance in a region like mine. We have a significant reliance on agriculture, particularly, and new technology can have a major impact on efficiency. It would, of course, be short-sighted to overlook the significant barriers that remain to the mass roll-out of driverless vehicles at this stage. As a result, I caution against too many glances into crystal balls today. The technology aspect is only one consideration among many. How our society and market forces respond to those vehicles will be interesting. Emergent technology is often accompanied by concerns, and there is a little more unnerving than passing over your entire safety to the hands of an automated system. Surveys have shown a reluctance amongst many, especially in older generations of this loss of control on our roads. Gains may also be different from what we expected. It has been readily observed that a number of benefits of automated vehicles only become apparent when a critical math, or indeed all, vehicles are automated. We can envisage far more precise and efficient movement on our roads, but those vehicles will, at least initially, still have to cope with humour and error and behaviour. For some years now, we have seen a move away from road transport, yet increases in road travel may again be a feature of our future transport planning. How our roads, town centres and businesses adapt to that will need a real response from the Scottish Government at an early stage. I call Tom Arthur to be followed by Alex Rowley. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by congratulating Ivan McKee on securing this debate. I also want to welcome the tone that Ivan McKee took, which I thought was very positive and energetic. Sometimes it is easy in Parliament and I imagine in Government in dealing with the day-to-day business to almost become managerial and having to deal with it in front of you, but it is a role that we have to be setting a vision and agenda for the future. I recognise the comments that Jamie Halcro Johnston made, suggesting that it is somewhere between tomorrow's world and the Jetsons. Ivan McKee's motion makes reference to 2030. That is only 12 years hence. If we think 12 years ago how many of us were using Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms, who would have predicted the disruptive impact that Netflix has had, not just on how we consume digital content, but on how digital content is generated. The issue of automation is about the way in which vehicles would be piloted by computers as opposed to people. Automation has been with the automobile industry for a long time. Automation of the manufacturing of automobiles has been a significant part of that. That is something that I can relate to. My constituency of Renfisher South is home to Linwood, which is synonymous with a carplant, which is being closed down because it was deemed to be economically inefficient. All the huge unemployment and issues that followed for that. The concerns about disruption and the impact on existing jobs are very serious concerns that we must take carefully. It is important that we do not react in an alarmist fashion, but we must take cognisance of these concerns. I would make key suggestions about horizon scanning and looking forward to making sure that we are preparing and looking for opportunities to reskill and retraining are very important indeed. One of the things that I want to touch on is some of the wider economic opportunities that this revolution will be, because it will necessitate the use of existing technologies, the adaptions of existing technologies and the potential development of new technologies. One such example is LIDAR, the light detection and ranging sensors, which are essential and fundamental for the way in which many driverless cars work. They use a much more efficient and faster version of sonar, but they use light pulses to map surroundings. What has been occurring lately is that there has been such demand for LIDAR, but producers of these devices have been struggling to keep up, and there have been six months delays. What has resulted in a lot of start-ups potentially going to disrupt that market by moving to more solid state technologies. Scotland, of course, has had a very strong sector in lasers and sensors, and I would always be keen to look at ways in which our own economy can benefit from the actual manufacturing of these devices, as the First Minister has stated, not just to be a consumer of the products of the future, but to be actively developing and engaging with them. There are real economic opportunities there, but there are also economic threats that are alluded to already. What are the threats posed to the haulage industry, public transport, bus drivers, taxi drivers, delivery drivers, and how that interacts with the gig economy? That speaks to broader issues about how we design a social security system or taxation system, certainly. Jamie Greene I think that the member is making some very interesting points about the types of things that we use cars for. Does it accept that there is a move not necessarily to drive less vehicles through this, but to drones? In that market, it could potentially replace some of that driving per se? Mr Alton Absolutely. I think that that is an excellent point. We have seen some of the work that Amazon is already doing pioneering that. Again, we cannot just look at this in isolation. There was one other point that I just wanted to pick up before closing. There is a very interesting point that I have been made, which is the flip side. We look at the gig economy as ultimately being a threat, but one of the ideas that I have put forward was the idea of where you can see your driverless vehicle as an asset to be monetised by using it and letting it out. Again, that raises issues about how we regulate that particular market. It was very important, and our colleagues have echoed this remark as well, that we have to make sure that the benefits that come from driverless vehicles and increased automation are enjoyed by all and not just simply by the companies that are at the moment at the cutting edge and putting them forward, and that all society can benefit from this, including the wider social benefits as well. Thank you. Before I call the next speaker, due to the number of members remaining who wish to speak the rate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. Can I now invite Mr McKee to move a motion without notice? The question is that the debate will be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I now call Alex Rowley to be followed by Emma Harper. Mr Rowley, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When I first read Ivan McKee's motion, I was struck by the number of areas listed as likely to be impacted by this new technology as it moves from the pages of science fiction straight into being part of our daily lives. Just on Tuesday, I saw on the BBC that the self-flying air taxi has been unveiled in New Zealand. What is abundantly clear is that the future envisaged by writers and filmmakers is fast becoming a reality, and it is the responsibility of Governments all around the world to recognise the impacts, both good and bad, that this future holds. This type of innovation and the pace of change currently attracts a large amount of media attention as well as public debate, but the implications of this technology go far beyond changing the way we move goods and people either locally or around the world. Just as has always been the case, when the world has witnessed massive technological change, there will be a wide range of impact as societies and economies across the globe learn to respond and adapt. It is difficult to fully imagine all the potential consequences. However, we must anticipate that the change that is coming and learn how best to work with that change. Crucially, as the motion states, we must make sure that the benefits of the changing technology are available to all. By understanding the direction of change, we can anticipate any negative consequences, try to mitigate them and, at the same time, work with the positive consequences to deliver the best outcome for society as a whole. There are benefits for individuals. Will Hutton, the chair of the innovation centre, have optimistically pointed out that roads will be able to carry more traffic and be safer, your car will deliver you to your home or place of work and then park itself without you, road accidents will plummet, energy efficiency will be transformed, insurance rates, even the need for insurance will plunge. However, Mr Hutton also highlights the risks. All sorts of jobs involving maintaining conventional cars will disappear. The cars themselves will be made by robots and automated car factories. The new jobs will be in the design and marketing of the cars and in writing the computer software that will allow them to navigate their journeys, along with the apps for our mobile phones that will help us to use them better. Automation is a very real concern and possibly one of the biggest issues facing us as a society as we move forward through the 21st century, as technological advancements continue to expand and, as has always been the case, workers can result and suffer as a result. At the dawn of the industrial revolution, workers' rights were virtually non-existent. It was through the hard work of the trade union and labour movement that safer and better working conditions were won. The world that we live in today owes a great deal to those who fought for it from within that movement. It must be the case that we work to ensure that technological advancements are to the benefits of all that workers are not left on the sideline. We know the direction that technology is moving, so we must ensure that we plan accordingly. That means developing skilled workforce and skilled workers now, from an early age, able to work in the world of tomorrow. I thank you very much, Mr Rowley. I call Emma Harper to follow by Finlay Carson. Mr Carson will be the last speaker in the open debate. Ms Harper, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to also add my congratulations to Ivan McKee for securing this debate. As an MSP who is in rural south Scotland region, I spend a lot of time in my car on the A75, A76 and A77 and other roads driving to visit rural farms and businesses. I know that the minister already has those roads on his radar already. I welcome Ivan McKee's description of the ability to perhaps make my journeys much more productive with technology assisting, making my journey maybe more than just about driving from A to B. Although technological developments behind the driverless car revolution are fascinating, the implications for our society are perhaps even more interesting. First of all, it might be counterintuitive to see that some of the studies show that driverless cars are actually safer. Some people would think that that was not the case, but it might result in fewer people being killed in road accidents every year, and our streets might be clearer too. Many experts predict that car ownership will become a rare phenomenon. Instead of people who will drive higher cars or transport might be delivered by a service from companies who own fleets of driverless vehicles. Because the cars will be electric, they will help us to dramatically cut carbon emissions. As a former member of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, I welcome the reduction in carbon emissions. As a registered nurse, I am interested in how driverless cars can be revolutionary for healthcare. Experts predict that health-related sensors installed in vehicles could detect various medical and health-related conditions. As soon as the passenger enters the vehicle, they can pick up their vital signs, for instance. When an emergency vehicle situation develops, an ambulance response time could be dramatically improved. In addition, like any other vehicle on the road, ambulances face obstacles, including other drivers who do not obey the law when they see or hear an emergency vehicle coming. Self-driving automated vehicles, controlled by an integrated system, might open a path to allow an ambulance through. There is also potential—absolutely, thank you. Jamie Greene I apologise, but it seems like I am intervening a lot. It is a very fascinating subject. There are lots of areas that we can probe. I have always been fascinated by the concept that cars do not have automatic breathalysers, for example. Automatic breathalysers would then make it unable to drive or operate a car or even start a car if it detects signs of alcohol in the driver's breath, for example. I wonder if you have any views on that. Ms Harper If it was a driverless car, there would not need to be a breathalyser in it. I am not sure that you understand your intervention, because there are cars that are available that actually make people blow in to a breathalyser that allows them to either turn the ignition on or off. For us here today, we are talking about cars that are driverless, so I would not imagine that that technology would need to be required in that. I would like to bring it back to the actual debate about driverless cars. When we are talking about the automatic vehicles that are controlled by the integrated system, we want to make sure that the engagement of the people in the driving or in the actual situation can manage to focus on health and support healthcare. My other example was about people getting dialysis. Monday, Wednesday and Friday, they could be picked up from their home, transported from their home to their hospital for their dialysis appointments. The health aspects of the technology could be really quite good in helping elderly drivers to keep outside and engaging, for instance, with people with dementia who can continue to go about their daily routines with the support of a driverless vehicle. As we age, our ability to react quickly while driving can deteriorate, which can have an enormous impact on people's lives. There was one study done in America that showed that when people's driver's licence were taken away from them, they were more likely to experience depression, so having the ability to have access to continued open spaces might support better care for people. The legislative and regulatory frameworks on autonomous vehicles are reserved to the UK Government, but I am pleased that the minister has indicated support and encouragement for research, testing and development. For me, I think that this is an exciting time to look forward. I think that I would love to see engagement from the Scottish Government to be proactive on this. Again, I welcome Ivan McKee's debate. Can I just stop you there? I have been letting it slip through, but we need full names in here. I know that it is quite chummy today, but it is not as chummy as that, please. I would like to thank Ivan McKee for bringing this debate to the chamber today. I am pleased that there was a parking space left for me to contribute to this important subject. The only issue is that there is so much—four or five minutes—is nothing light enough time to cover all the exciting possibilities. I believe that driverless cars are absolutely the future and are definitely just around the next bend in the road. Indeed, I believe that we are accelerating in terms of how we are progressing. Jamie Halcro Johnston and other members have mentioned that it is not just about the technologies that are legal and the social aspect of it, but I was going to concentrate on where we are now. Many bog standard family cars already are controlled to a great extent with the technology within them, technology that could almost drive themselves right now. We have sat-nav, for example, that is so incredibly accurate, allowing for pinpoint accuracy on where your cars are placed on the road. We have got lane sensing radar, as we have heard, adjusting the steering wheels of cars with minimal input from the driver. We have got cruise control, which can speed up and slow down a car with no manual intervention, and anyone with cruise control will no doubt have relied on the max speed option to make sure that you do not exceed the 30mph or the average speed zone. We already have cars that can park themselves. However, in Edinburgh, it may be more useful if our cars could actually find a parking space, but I believe that technology is not very far away either. Automatic collision avoidance means that cars never need to collide with anything against something that we have in a lot of top-of-the-range models, so we already have these technologies. All we need to do now is to join them up, and we have fully autonomous cars. As the party spokesman for the digital economy, I can see that technology has extremely wide-reaching benefits for all our communities, rural and urban. The new car technology is constantly evolving, as is how we use big data. In the very near future, if it is not already happening in some of our cities, we will have the data of our journeys stored and anonymously used in computer modelling systems to control air quality and cut congestion in our urban areas. Furthermore, if we are looking to cut down in the number of vehicles on a road, then that is the perfect opportunity to look at driverless HGVs. Travelling in automated convoys, braking and accelerating together and controlled by a driver and a lead vehicle is a fantastic way to cut out congestion and emissions on our heavy goods vehicles. Using roads during the night and early morning rather than clogging up our major routes at peak times. There are issues surrounding lorry convoys, but they are not insurmountable. As more vehicles become autonomous, once again with computers they will be able to manage traffic to minimise travel times and reduce delays. Living in a rural area having access to a car is pretty much a prerequisite for staying there, particularly with the poor or non-existent public transport links in some of those communities. Automated cars could revolutionise rural life and take away what we see just now with regard to social isolation. However, it is not just a rural area that will benefit our major cities such as Edmund and Glasgow that could save up to £45 million a year by reducing the amount of road crashes, according to a report by engineering company Parsons Brinconhoff. You cannot put a price on the value of saving a life, but £45 million on reducing accidents sounds like not too bad a place to start. The Chancellor Philip Hammond said in last year's budget that he wanted to see driverless cars on our roads by 2021. That might seem ambitious, but from what I have already said, I do not think that it is. Rolling out driverless cars could be one of the most ambitious things that Scotland has ever done. With Scotland knowing around the world for being a nation of innovators, this could be another feather in our caps as having led the driverless car revolution. I had a number of car manufacturing companies based in my constituency in Galloway, which are, unfortunately, long gone, but we might see those coming back. I share and agree very much with Ivan McKee's ambitions, but the plans are progressing at a very rapid rate. It is important that we are having this debate today and explore all the ways in which Scotland can benefit from this transformational change. I join with others in thanking Ivan McKee for bringing this motion to the chamber. It is incredibly interesting, insightful and energetic debate by all involved. A lot of food for thought for all of us, I suspect, but I want to give some reassurance that some of that thought absolutely is going in from a governmental level, both from a Scottish Government and we are working very closely with the UK Government on this, and I will touch upon that in a second. It is interesting that I have a number of transport meetings with a number of stakeholders. Ivan McKee is absolutely right that whether you are in favour of the idea of autonomous vehicles or connected in autonomous vehicles or whether you are opposed to it, it is coming. Everybody understands that it is coming, but there are still some doubters and some of those challenges that exist potentially with autonomous vehicles and automated vehicles are something that I want to try to touch upon and try to see how we can perhaps dispel some of the misconceptions that exist, but also reassure people with some of the doubts that they have. I think that one of the strongest arguments, perhaps, for if you do not believe that autonomous cars are advantageous, one of the strongest arguments, perhaps, is Ivan McKee's opening statement that it can banish the school run. I think that all of us would agree that that is not a bad thing. In terms of the opportunities that we brought by connected and automated vehicles, fewer crashes on our road, a number of statistics were used, ranging from 85 per cent of all reported UK road incidents, factoring in human error, right the way through to 95 per cent. Either way, whatever statistic you use, you can agree that the vast majority of those accidents are down to human error. So, as Finlay Carson rightly said, you cannot put a price on, of course, one life being saved, but certainly, of course, this could potentially be a huge, huge advantage. Freedom for travel for those who currently find it difficult to travel, Finlay Carson and Emma Harper mentioned this, particularly in a rural context, as has a couple of other members. Perhaps when we think about those with mobility issues as well, there is an advantage potentially there as well. More efficient road networks that are safer, smoother and swifter for Finlay Carson, in his remarks, mentioned HGV platooning. I think that that is a good example. A void stop-start congestion, that, of course, reduces the environmental impact of driving. Jobs was mentioned by a lot of people, a question around whether I have a negative effect or a positive effect. I will come to some of the stats and the figures later on in my contribution, but I certainly believe that the creation of new jobs and technology and the automotive sectors building, as many members have said, on Scotland's already strong reputation for innovation and scientific excellence is another advantage. We are absolutely right to always be ambitious for Scotland. However, it is worth saying that this transformation is in its infancy. It is likely that initial products will probably be cost prohibitive to the majority. Markets will adapt. Just how quickly, obviously, remains to be seen. I do have some skepticism about some of the timeframes surrounding this, but, as many members here have said, it is better that Scotland is in the automated driving sphere or whatever pun you wish to use ahead of the curve, as opposed to lagging behind, as the First Minister set out on her programme for government. She wants Scotland to be the innovator and the producers of innovation, not, of course, just the consumers of it. According to research commissioned by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, connected in autonomous vehicles can bring wider economic benefits. Many have asked around the jobs that could potentially come as a result of this transformational transport revolution. It is estimated by their research that £51 billion per year by 2030 potentially, so that is creating more than 320,000 jobs. Again, I might want to take that with a little pinch of salt, but, certainly, even if half of those benefits have been realised, we are talking about billions of pounds into the UK economy and hundreds of thousands of jobs being created. On where we are as a Government, we are very much open for business for trials and connected in autonomous vehicles. The Scottish Government is very clean to explore that with the UK Government. We are already having those discussions with the Centre for Connected in Autonomous Vehicles, CCAV, Scottish Enterprise and many others, in ways in which we can facilitate some of those trials, demonstration projects and pilots. In Scotland, a number of members have already given suggestions of where they are and their constituencies or regions of those trials might take place. In all seriousness, they should continue to filter those ideas to us. On how we can take this forward, I think that I would be key laid down a couple of challenges for Government in relation to how we might take this forward. Although we are doing a fair bit of work, particularly with stakeholders, one of the things that I have committed to do is that we will be holding a connected in autonomous vehicle demonstration summit in 2018. That will showcase international developments, explore with the transport industry now how Scotland can best position itself to realise the benefits. Proactively, we will be seeking in that summit the opportunity to support a trial, such as, perhaps, even with the freight and logistics sectors. I will ensure that every member who has spoken in this debate has given information about that summit and that if they are able to attend, of course, we would be delighted to have them. Mr Greene, obviously, that is a very great interest to you. It is of interest to everyone, I hope. Your Government is just presiding over the building, and there is quite a substantial piece of infrastructure investment in the MA, Ameson 4 and Ameson 3. Are those motorways, as they are currently capable of accommodating driverless vehicles such as the ones that Finlay Carson did? What element of planning went into that particular subject when those were being designed and built? I have a way to go in that, if I am honest. If you look at the programme for government and the First Minister's statement about making the A9, which we are drilling, of course, the first electric highway, perhaps for future infrastructure projects, we have to be looking at the first autonomous highway. I think that there is more work to be done on that, frankly. We are, of course, bringing forward intelligent transport systems. We have one across the forth, of course, but we are trying to see where else we can roll that out. Just because it has not been part of the initial, perhaps, design of infrastructure projects, it is not to mean that it cannot be bolted on afterwards. I think that we have a way to go in that, and I think that that is a good point to raise. My last time is very, very short. I just want to give members reassurance on the legal and legislative framework around that. We are, of course, having conversations around that. What I would say to members to give them that reassurance is that Transport Scotland is working with the Scottish Law Commission. It is progressing at the moment. A joint three-year review alongside the Law Commissions of England and Wales of the driving laws and preparation of self-driving vehicles aims to deliver that by 2021. A modern, robust package of reforms promoting automated vehicles and their use as part of public transport networks and on-demand passenger services. The Law Commission will be working closely with the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles and developing its policy proposals. As I say, we are very much a part of that. Let me conclude by thanking Ivan McKee for securing this motion. Let me ensure that members are given an invitation to the summit that takes place later this year. However, I certainly believe, as we have said at the beginning, that every member has reassured that Scotland is well placed to take advantage of this technological revolution. I hope that we just get on with it. I thank members for the contribution. It is a very interesting and wide-ranging debate. That is the debate concluded. I suspend this meeting until 2.30 pm.