 Mae gworthiau ar gyfer y Sgolens cwladau interna?!aeth yn cymdeithasol gael eu cynhyrchu beth. Mae'r ffordd yw amgylchedd o'r next-index. A i ddebeth o eich eich cynhyrchu i'rndegon a'u ddechrau yng nghymiadau eich bwysig, y ddechrau Cymru, y ddechrau Autiglynydol, y ddiddorol eich eich ddechrau, ond mae'n ni'n ei gwerthoedd ar y cwmp, that Parliament has agreed this timetable. I appreciate that, Mr Mountain. I will allow the minister, after he is apologised to the chamber, to begin his contribution. As I was saying, the next item of business is a debate on motion 12834, in the name of Jim Fairlie on legislative consent motion, automated vehicles bill, UK legislation. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons, and I call on the minister to speak to and move the motion up to seven minutes, minister. First of all, my apologies, Presiding Officer. I misjudged what I was about to do, so my sincere apologies to yourself and to the chamber. Presiding Officer, thank you very much for this opportunity. This afternoon we are debating the motion on the United Kingdom Government's automated vehicles bill. The Scottish Government recognised the importance of autonomous vehicles and keeping pace with advances in technology in a fast-changing market. Self-driving vehicle technologies and services will not be successful in the UK without a regulatory framework that provides certainty for innovators and investors and gives constant for the public that the technologies are safe, secure, accessible, inclusive and work in the interests of society. This bill implements the recommendations of a four-year review of the regulation of automated vehicles carried out jointly by the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission. The bill sets out a new comprehensive regulatory, legislative and safety framework for the safety deployment of self-driving vehicles in Great Britain. A suite of implementing regulations will be developed by the UK Government and the Scottish Government will work closely with the UK Government stakeholders and safety groups throughout the development of those regulations. The cabinet secretary and I are welcoming the support that is necessary for the legislative framework. In the motion in law before this Parliament covers the clauses of the bill that are set out in the supplementary legislative consent memorandum fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or alter the executive competence of Scottish ministers. The Scottish Government has recommended consent to all the provisions that are outlined in the supplementary legislative consent memorandum other than clause 50, and the reasons for which I will explain later in this statement. UK ministers have requested to meet with the cabinet secretary in relation to the clause, but with the bill moving at pace through Westminster, it means that we need to present our views as a Government now. I will explain the clauses outlined in the supplementary LCM in turn. Clause 40 is the power to require reports from police and local authorities. That permits the Secretary of State to make regulations that will require Scottish ministers to provide reports on incidents that involve autonomous vehicles in Scotland. That is to ensure that the Secretary of State has the relevant information in order to decide whether enforcement action should be taken. The Scottish Government already shares information with the Department for Transport as this informs an annual publication on road casualties within Great Britain. Clause 46 to 51 established the legal liability of user-in-charge of an automated vehicle. Those clauses provide immunity from driver-related traffic offences for individuals operating a vehicle in automated mode. When the self-driving feature is engaged, the user-in-charge will not be responsible for the way in which the vehicle is driven. However, it must be ready to respond to a command to take back the operation of the vehicle. It will also retain responsibility for issues not linked to the way in which the vehicle is driven—example, appropriate car insurance, parking illegally and paying tolls and charges. The UK Government considers those clauses to be reserved because they relate to Road Traffic Act 1988, which is mostly reserved under the Scotland Act 1998 and concerned with the use of vehicles on roads. The UK Government acknowledges that those provisions will apply to devolved driving offences, but considers the impacts when devolved matters are incidental to this reserved matter. The Scottish Government considers that the UK Government has taken too broad a view of what is reserved. Any and all regulation of the use of conventional vehicles is not reserved. For example, traffic regulation under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is not reserved. Therefore, any and all regulation of the use of automatic vehicles is not a reserved matter. The Scottish Government's view is that determining the liability of any user-in-charge or any other person for devolved driving offences has a devolved purpose and sits within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government is content with the policy position of the user-in-charge immunity clauses on the basis that the Law Commission has undertaken extensive, multi-year expert-led review on the principle of those clauses, and they align with the recommendations of the joint report. However, the Scottish Government recommends withholding consent to clause 50, because it provides the Secretary of State with the power to change and or clarify how existing legislation, including acts of the Scottish Parliament, will apply to the user-in-charge of an automatic vehicle without a mechanism to consent or even consult the Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Parliament. I'll take your intervention now. Thank you, Minister, for taking the intervention. I think I heard him say earlier that UK Ministers had asked to meet about clause 50, so if I've heard him right, can you tell us when that meeting will take place? The Scottish Government doesn't have a date from the UK Government at this moment in time, so we're still waiting on that meeting being concluded. To go on from the point that I was making, I'll reiterate that without a mechanism to consent or even consult the Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Parliament, it may include devolved legislation in the criminal sphere in relation to driving offences, as well as, for example, legislation on matters such as low-emission zones, parking in bus lanes and bus lane contraventions. Despite the significant engagement between Scotland and the UK, we have been unsuccessful in reaching an acceptable position. However, I'd like to thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform and the net zero and engineering transport committees for considering the LCM setting out their views and recommendations specifically relating to clause 50. We hope that discussions with the UK ministers will be meaningful and agreement can be reached on clause 50 with respects to the devolution settlement. Clause 82 to 85, 87 to 90 and schedule 6 permits for automated passenger services and civil sanctions for infringing passenger permit schemes. The clauses 82 to 90, excluding 86, provides for new powers for Scottish ministers in relation to interim passenger permits for use of the automated vehicles within a private hire and taxi regulatory regime. Those powers reflect the devolved nature of the private hire and taxi licensing and are needed because the existing regulation is based on drivers being in vehicles when providing passenger services. New regulation is needed when vehicles no longer have drivers and this will allow relevant national authorities for Scotland and the Scottish Ministers to develop an appropriate regulatory regime. I welcome the collaborative engagement between Scottish Government and the UK Government on these clauses, specifically on clause 88, which was amended to ensure that Scottish ministers operate this regulation making power, where it relates to matters within their devolved competence with accountability to the Scottish Parliament. In conclusion, autonomous vehicles will be part of the transport system of the future and we need to ensure that its acknowledges are safe, secure, accessible, inclusive and work in the interests of society. That is why we will continue to engage with the UK Government on a wide range and a wide range of stakeholders as regulations are being developed. I welcome today's debate and ask members of the Parliament to vote for the motion lodged by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport. Thank you. Thank you. Can I just confirm, Mr Fairlie, that you have moved the motion? I'll move the motion. Thank you minister. I now call on Edward Mountain on behalf of the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee. Up to five minutes please. I'm pleased to speak as convener of the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee and draw the committee's attention to the committee's report on the Bill. The committee recognises the need for the Bill to provide regulation in relation to the innovative technology use, which may be expected to increase. It also recognises the Bill as the result of four years of careful work jointly by the Law Commission alongside other consultation and policy development. There was unfortunately a very limited time for the committee's scrutiny, but I would like to highlight the key points that did arise during our consideration. The committee's consideration principally related to clause 50 of the Bill. There is a dispute on this between the Scottish and UK Governments. The clause gives a power to the Secretary of State to clarify the application of legislation to the user in charge of an automotive vehicle. As I understand it, the dispute between the Government's centres on whether provision is reserved or resolved. As we've heard from the Minister, the Scottish Government's objection to this clause is that the power can be excised in devolved areas without the UK Government having to seek the consent of the Scottish Ministers and without having to consult them. The UK Government considers that a requirement to seek consent or to consult would be unnecessary as the provision relates to reserved matter. The committee is in no position to adjudicate disputes on the dividing line between devolved and reserved competence. However, we did note in our report our disappointment that both Governments could not reach a solution on this matter that satisfied everyone. It appears that there is little dispute in relation to the policy behind the Bill. It is therefore unfortunate that, even when this is the case, the Governments have been unable to reach agreement. As I've said, the committee cannot determine whether or not clause 50 does in fact relate to devolved matters. However, we do agree in principle with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee's recommendation that the Scottish Parliament should have an opportunity to effectively scrutinise the exercise of all legislative powers within the devolved competence. The committee explored the specific concerns that the Scottish Government has about the potential use of clause 50. Those concerns relate to the potential for a two-tier approach to driving offences being created. One set of rules apply to conventional vehicles and one set of rules to autonomous vehicles. The committee understands that the Scottish Government would have concerns that this could potentially complicate the law on road offences in a way that may have not been intended. I will take an intervention. I'm limited by what I can say, but yes. It was just to clarify the point that the member talks about the Scottish Government's concern about the order of question being raised about it being a two-tier system. That wasn't the point that the Scottish Government would have raised concerns. It's about the lack of legislative scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament. Edward Mountain? I'm sorry, Presiding Officer, but that is the very point. It's where the dividing line is, where scrutiny is needed and whether the UK Government and the Scottish Government agree in relation to autonomous vehicles. The potential, as I was going on to say, for unintended consequences was discussed in other contexts, for example in relation to accessibility and the impact on taxi services from an employment perspective. The committee is glad that consideration has been given to the potential for unintended consequences in what is a developing area. We would encourage constructive and effective engagement between both Governments to further minimise the risk of any conflict. Therefore, though there have been disagreements in relation to the drafting of the Bill, hopefully we will see an effective co-operation when it comes to the implementation to ensure that there is a fair and clear system for everyone. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I can assure the Chamber that I will take nothing like five minutes to deal with this matter so we may have an earlier decision time. Having heard the debate so far, it's clear that this is potentially a complex area of law. There's a whole range of issues to be considered. In relation to clause 50, I should say to the Minister that reading through the committee's excellent report, it did deal with this issue in some detail and there was evidence given to the committee that it could lead to a two-tier system and that was a concern raised during the meeting and by the Cabinet Secretary. I think the Minister is wrong to ignore that. I share the net zero committee's concern that it's not in a position to really properly say whether the Scottish Government or the UK Government is correct on the issue of clause 50. I would say in general that we've come across this issue time and time again where the Scottish Government and the UK Government disagree on whether something strays into the area of devolved competence. In my experience, committees of this Parliament only get to hear from the Scottish Government, and that is indeed the case in this case. I certainly will. It might be interesting to know that one of the reasons why it's so difficult for committees like the one on which I serve to hear a perspective from the UK Government is that not only do they refuse to turn up when invited but refuse to answer our letters. In this case, I'm not even sure that the UK Government was asked for its opinion. That gives parliamentarians here a problem, because we only have one side of the story. It may be that the Scottish Government is right, but unless we hear both sides of the story, how are we to judge? There, I think that my frustration is echoed in the report from the net zero committee. They're quite clearly not in a position to say who is right and who is wrong. They also call for further talks between both Governments. We've heard from the Minister today that UK Ministers have now reached out, maybe it's late in the day, but they have asked for a meeting. That meeting hasn't taken place yet. I would have said that meeting should have taken place much earlier. I'm not interested in who's fault it is. Both Governments ought to be working together to resolve those matters. In essence, I share the frustration of the committee convener, but, having said that, we will support the motion. I'm pleased to speak on behalf of Scottish Labour in this debate on the Automated Vehicle Bill. I am grateful for the work done by the two committees in consideration of the implications of this bill. The Automated Vehicle Bill was introduced by the UK Government last year and is intended to regulate the use of automated vehicles and to set the legal framework for the safe deployment of self-driving vehicles in Great Britain. There should be little argument that this legislation must come into place. The pace of technology greatly outstrips the pace of legislation, so it is welcome that the UK is recognising the development of automated vehicle technology and ensuring that we have the initial framework of regulation in place to govern that. I think that it is also important to note that this legislation does not in itself allow automation to happen. Progress in automated vehicle technology will happen with or without this legislation, so it is necessary that we have some form of regulation in place that sets the parameters of what is considered safe in this field. I am aware that the net zero energy and transport committee considers the Scottish Government's concerns over clause 50 in the legislation. The Scottish Government has objected to this, as according to the committee report, it gives the Secretary of State a regulation making power to clarify the application of other legislation to the user in charge of an automated vehicle. The Scottish Government's objection to this clause is that power can be exercised in devolved areas without the UK Government having to seek the consent of or consulting the Scottish ministers or Scottish Parliament. I know that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee also commented on this, noting the apparent contradiction between the statement and the DPM that the Scottish Parliament will be able to scrutinise the use of this power and the absence of any mechanisms in the bill that would enable such scrutiny. As a supporter of devolution, I believe that it is important that if legislative powers are being exercised within a devolved competence, the Scottish Government must have the opportunity to scrutinise this. I am disappointed that there has been no mechanism for this in the legislation and there has not been a resolution to this through co-operation between the UK and Scottish Governments. I would urge both Governments to work together to resolve this important issue no matter how small its application may be in reality. I also think that the subject of this legislation lends itself to greater discussion about the role of automation in the future of our economy. As I have said or stated already, this legislation does not allow vehicle automation to take place, it merely sets out a regulatory framework. If we are to see more automation of vehicles in the near future, as the introduction of this legislation seems to suggest by its necessity, it is crucial that we consider the impact of automation on workers employed in driving roles in other areas. While the discussion on a just transition for workers relates to industries impacted by net zero targets, it needs to be widened to include workers that will be impacted by the greater introduction of automation and what our plan is as a nation to protect livelihoods in the face of technology that will remove the need for workers in certain sectors. As we draw to a close in today's deliberations, I wish to thank members across the chamber for the contributions to the debate. I would like to reiterate that UK ministers have requested a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary to try to come to an agreement on Clause 50, which respects the devolution settlement. We welcome the UK Government's bill, which takes an important step in proactive approach to integrating cut-nails technology into our transportation landscape. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the extensive work carried out by the law commissions of England, Wales and the Scottish Law Commission concluding in a joint automated vehicle report. As such, the bill establishes a legal framework for the testing deployment of autonomous vehicles ensuring safety and accountability. We appreciate that the bill allows for companies to be held firmly accountable once vehicles are on the road, whilst at the same time protecting users from being unfairly held accountable. In addition, we recognise the need to share data, safeguarding privacy and security, and to investigate and learn from incidents. I take the point that Edward Mountain mentioned earlier on in terms of the time that it had to scrutinise the legislative consent memorandum, but the Scottish Government was actually only made aware of the bill being introduced in November 2023, and the Scottish Government was only given weeks by the UK Government to give consent with no meaningful engagement. Therefore, we needed time to consider the devolution position and hence the need for the two legislative consent memorandums. The automated vehicles are already available—to go to Alec Royleigh's point—and the Scottish Government recognises that autonomous vehicles will be part of the transport system in the future. That cannot be successful in the UK without a robust regulatory framework, one that we can force the development and deployment of these technologies, enhancing mobility options and driving economic growth. However, I very much take the point that you made about potentially people not being able to drive or not being able to have work if vehicles are self-autonomous. However, we hope that the legislative framework will pave the way for a future of self-driving vehicles, as always the devil will be in the detail as the secondary legislation is developed. We will continue to work collaboratively with the UK Government and key stakeholders in this sector. We must provide certainty for innovators and investors, as well as instill public confidence that the technologies are safe, secure, accessible, inclusive and work in the interests of all of society. There has been general consensus that those legislation should lead to safer roads. Something that we all want is to reduce the number of accidents, injuries and deaths on the roads. Therefore, we hope that this framework will lay the foundation for the safe deployment of self-driving vehicles in the UK. As we move forward, let us remain vigilant in addressing concerns regarding safety, privacy and accessibility and let us ensure that we embrace innovation. We do so with the wellbeing of our citizens at the forefront of our minds. In conclusion, as we note the importance of this bill, I once again ask members of the Parliament to support the motion lodged by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and in closing let us continue to collaborate, innovate and lead the way in shaping a future where we remain at the forefront of technological progress while upholding our values of safety, accountability and inclusivity. That concludes the debate on legislative consent motion, automated vehicles bill UK legislation. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 12865 on committee meeting times. I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motion. Question on this motion will be put at decision time and I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders that decision time be brought forward to now and I invite the minister to move the motion. I am happy to move it. The question is that decision time be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. There are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 12845.2 in the name of Megan Gallacher, which seeks to amend motion 12845 in the name of Angus Robertson, on Scotland's international culture strategy be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, so we will move to a vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system. Can I ask those who have voted earlier to please refresh their screens?