Mr.
Leech: I recognise the Government’s concerns, but I
am not convinced that nation states will introduce this technology any
faster if we do not have some sort of legislation. Although I recognise
that there are serious problems with going down the legislative route,
if we do not do that, there is the danger that we will have competing
technologies that will not be compatible in the future.
I am concerned
that we have not said that road safety is the No. 1 priority. Of the
six priority areas, my view is that road safety should be first. The
danger of going down the legislative process is that scarce resources
will be directed at roads and networks, which are not necessarily our
priorities in terms of improving road safety. I recognise the
Government’s concerns and support their position, but a lot more
work needs to be done.
5.3
pm
Sir
Peter Soulsby: I share the hope that the
Government’s view will prevail in the Council of Ministers.
Systems are being adopted and developed in the UK that have enormous
potential to improve road safety. Equally important are those systems
that are being developed that will help to improve the existing road
network and reduce congestion, thereby avoiding the need to build new
roads. Those systems have enormous potential, and I would hate to see
anything put in the way of their development or adoption.
There are
arguments for the interoperability of systems across the boundaries of
nation states. At some stage, that may prevail and lead to an argument
for a legislative route, but I do not think that that time is now. At
this stage, the Government are right to resist the legislative route,
look at the potential of this rapidly developing field, and do their
best to ensure that those developments are not slowed down or dumbed
down.
5.4
pm
Mr.
Khan: We have had a good and constructive debate. In the
questions and contributions we have seen some of the challenges that we
face in negotiating a harmonised approach to the deployment of ITS that
best meets our transport needs. I will deal with a number of the
comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South was right to
say that we do not want to stifle innovation, adaptation and
development. He said that the interoperability of the various systems
was a challenge and that we need to reach agreement by co-ordination
and co-operation. If we cannot do that, we may need to revisit the
approach to the initiative. However, I am not saying that we will have
do
so. Let
me turn to the contribution of the hon. Member for Manchester,
Withington. Is road safety more of a priority than climate change? Is
congestion more of an issue than network management? Putting in place a
league table that prioritises the issues would not get us any further.
We need to find the best way of reaching agreement across Europe so
that we can put in place the best possible intelligent transport
system. I do not believe that the time is right for legislation because
co-ordination and co-operation between member states has not yet been
exhausted. I am keen to ensure that all member states can benefit from
best practice in the
UK. I
welcome the endorsement of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby
of my clout as a Minister in this Committee, in this House, in London
and in Europe. I agree that I have much more clout than any other
living person on the planet, and I will endeavour to go to as many
Transport Council meetings as I can so that I can exhibit my clout. I
say that with my Whip listening, and I hope that he will pass on those
comments the next time he has an audience with the Chief Whip and the
Prime Minister.
The hon.
Gentleman made a more serious point about
negotiation.
Mr.
Goodwill: Having sat in a lot of conciliation meetings, I
have always found that officials from other countries tend to defer to
a Minister no matter what
country they are from. Although I singled out the clout of this
particular Minister, I meant that any Minister in the Council will have
a lot more clout than an official no matter how well briefed that
official is because officials tend to be trained to a default position,
which is to defer to a Minister’s
opinion.
Mr.
Khan: That is a detour. The main point that the hon.
Gentleman was making was that I had lots of clout. The hon. Gentleman
raised some serious points, so I do not mean to be flippant. The UK
will lead negotiations in the Council working group. The Swedish
presidency suggested a meeting with myself and other Ministers, which
demonstrates the seriousness with which they take the matter. The fact
that I have said that I am keen to meet them demonstrates, I hope, our
seriousness. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the office of the
Minister brings with it certain influence, which we are keen to use as
much as we
can. As
for the hon. Gentleman’s question about eCall, I have to say
that I have been enlightened during the course of this Committee. I
have been advised that we need further evidence on the business case to
be able to support the introduction of eCall in the UK. We can
reconsider our position after reviewing the Commission’s impact
assessment, which I hope reassures him. He is right to raise the point
about people being diverted away from routes that are busy to routes
that are less busy but could become busy if everyone used that same
route. Satnav has that facility available, which is an example both of
innovation and of letting the genie out of the
bottle. We
have had a very good and constructive debate. The questions have been
enlightening. I hear what hon. Members have said and I can assure them
that those who negotiate at meetings when I am not there will read
Hansard and make sure that they take on board the issues that
have been
raised. Question
put and agreed to.
5.9
pm Committee
rose.
| 
