7 min read12 min

The 300 Yutong buses were sending data back to its manufacturers in China. The company insisted this flow was necessary to “optimise” their performance.

But Norway’s transport authorities moved to prevent access to data being sent to China. They also said they had mitigated any possibility of a ‘kill switch’ that could be activated by the manufacturer crippling the fleet from afar.

The incident brought into sharp relief the challenges the Chinese-dominated market in electric vehicles are posing western policymakers – made all the more acute with the advent of self-driving cars.

China dominates the global EV market, with its home-grown company BYD overtaking Tesla as the world’s largest electric carmaker last year. Amid reports that Chinese self-driving taxis could be trialled in the UK as soon as this year, MPs and peers from across the political spectrum are urging caution.

The BBC reported in December that Uber and Lyft had unveiled partnerships with Chinese tech giant Baidu to pilot these taxis in London, which Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander called a “vote of confidence in our plans for self-driving vehicles”.

But Alex Sobel, Labour MP for Leeds Central and Headingley, tells The House he is worried these partnerships – and others with Chinese firms – could open the door to major data vulnerabilities. Under Chinese law, companies operating within its national borders are required to hand over any data requested by the authorities in Beijing.

“I am concerned that people’s personal information potentially can be shared with the Chinese state and used for a variety of purposes, if you are particularly concerned for certain communities – for instance, from Hong Kong, from Tibet, Uyghurs, or Chinese who have a dissenting view from the Chinese government,” Sobel says.

Chinese activists defying their government don’t only face persecution at home. Beijing conducts an extensive campaign of transnational repression against dissidents and critics – such as posting bounties against high-profile Hong Kong democracy campaigners who fled to safety in the West.

“Transnational repression is becoming increasingly sophisticated,” Sobel says. “And I’m not just saying that about China or other countries as well, but other countries don’t have as much reach and penetration to the UK as China.”

Sobel adds that while he believes there should be a kill switch in any AI-powered devices as a failsafe mechanism, such switches should be in control of the country’s government in which the technology is operating.

“If the Chinese state decided, for whatever reason, they want to act in a hostile way towards the UK and kill all of these off at a point in time when there’s a deep penetration in the UK, obviously that would have a massive effect.”

North Durham Labour MP Luke Akehurst is another with concerns. He posed a written question to the Transport Secretary in January, asking her to assess the risk “that electric buses operating in the UK could be remotely rendered inoperable via their internet-connected systems by hostile state actors”.

Dr Alessandro Arduino, an affiliate lecturer at King’s College London, tells The House that robo-taxis and other self-driving vehicles offer a “revealing case study” in how new technology can sit on a fine line between fresh innovation and national security dangers.

He notes that these cars generate reams of data as they drive – from location information to citizen movement and urban layout. “Such data is invaluable not only for training artificial intelligence systems but also for forecasting and strategic analysis,” he says. “China’s own policy framework is explicit in treating data and AI as matters of state sovereignty and national security, and I do believe that context matters.”

Such a dramatic threat as a kill switch would not be the first order concern, he adds, saying that the most urgent consideration is whether operating companies can keep their data secure from malicious actors.

A Transport for London (TfL) spokesperson says: “Safety is our top priority, and we are interested in learning more about technologies that could potentially help deliver safety benefits for all road users.

“TfL recognises the challenge of legislating in response to changes in automated vehicle technology in a timely manner to ensure benefits are delivered and risks are mitigated.”

It is not the first time the use of Chinese tech in Britain’s infrastructure has faced fierce opposition over national security fears. In 2020, the government halted the use of Huawei equipment in Britain’s 5G network and ordered that existing tech be removed by the end of 2027.

But it comes at a time when Downing Street is seeking a reset in relations with China after a frosty few years. In January, the controversial Chinese new ‘mega-embassy’ in London was granted planning permission – despite repeated concerns over its proximity to crucial fibre-optic cables and potential for heightened espionage.

Keir Starmer has also now become the first British prime minister to visit Beijing in eight years, travelling along with a cohort of business leaders in a drive to reap the vaunted benefits of dealing with the world’s second-largest economy.

The Prime Minister’s visit saw the announcement of plans to allow British citizens visa-free travel to China and the lifting of sanctions on MPs who had blasted Beijing’s repression of Uyghur Muslims.

Former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith MP, a persistent China ‘hawk’, says he would like to see a pilot of self-driving taxis in the UK blocked if it uses Chinese technology. “They all basically data-harvest those who use them. It goes all the way down the line.”

Chinese companies such as Baidu have also long been criticised for their role in online censorship in the country, where the government maintains fiercely tight control over the information space.

Sam Goodman of China Strategic Risks Institute tells The House: “Given the integral role Baidu plays in internet censorship in China, and its legal requirement to share users’ data with China’s Ministry of State Security, it is hard to see how it can be trusted with the data security and personal safety of the British public.”

As AI technology, including that used in self-driving vehicles, continues to advance at breakneck pace, governments across the world have been left scrambling to find a policy answer on how best to regulate the sector and mitigate its risks without suffocating innovation.

Professor James Davenport of the University of Bath tells The House that lawmakers face grappling with both the novelty and broad range of AI technologies as they figure out effective regulation. “For example,” he explains, “the EU AI Act will impose the same requirements on self-driving taxis as on chatbots offering psychiatric advice. The alternative would be an enormous mass of detailed legislation and incredible turf wars.”

Liberal Democrat MP Wera Hobhouse, who was refused entry to Hong Kong last year, says the proposed pilot “fits a worrying pattern of the government growing far too cosy with Beijing”. Hobhouse is among the voices who believe the pilot should not go ahead until the government can categorically prove there would be no risk posed to national security or public safety.

She tells The House: “From approving a Chinese super-embassy in London to pushing ahead with closer economic ties despite repeated security warnings, the government are sending the wrong signal: that trade is being prioritised over security, human rights and the safety of those who have fled repression to build new lives in the UK.”

A government spokesperson tells The House: “Safety is central to our plans for automated-vehicle pilots. All proposed deployments will be subjected to rigorous safety and cyber-security assessments.”

Baidu did not respond to a request for comment. It has previously denied allegations of links to the Chinese state and military. An Uber spokesperson said: “No matter which country an AV partner is from, we only work with them if they can both meet Uber’s own high standards and fully comply with all applicable laws on safety, security, and privacy.” Lyft did not reply to requests for comment. 

It’s been a long, grey, wet old winter, but thankfully it’s nearly over.

The sun has already started to peek out from behind the clouds in a meaningful way, which suddenly makes me feel like I’ve actually never had any problems in my entire life.

It’s the perfect time for a joyful spring refresh in your home. So, whether you’re in the mood to drag your bedroom into the new season after what feels like years of grim darkness, or you just want to brighten things up in your safe haven, here are some of the very best boudoir buys to bring the joy back.

Zack Polanski’s party achieved a seismic victory in Gorton and Denton (Alamy)

3 min read24 min

Green Party candidate Hannah Spencer received 14,980 votes, equivalent to 40 per cent of the vote. 

Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin came second, receiving 10,578 votes (28 per cent), while Labour’s Angeliki Stogia received just 9,364 votes (25 per cent).

The result is a major blow to Keir Starmer, with Labour having held the Greater Manchester seat for more than a century and returned a 13,000 majority just 18 months ago in the 2024 general election, winning 50 per cent of the vote.

The Prime Minister’s leadership is likely to come under renewed pressure as a result.

It could also be a sign of things to come for the government in May when elections are held in Wales, Scotland and at councils across England.

For the Greens, it is a stunning outcome, with Zack Polanski’s party growing its vote share in Gorton and Denton by nearly 28 per cent.

The contest was triggered when Andrew Gwynne resigned as Labour MP for Gorton and Denton in January on health grounds.

Speaking in the early hours of Friday morning, the Green Party’s Spencer said: “There is an appetite here for change, and there are people across this constituency and much further beyond who are rejecting the old political parties and who are coming together to fight for something better, but who are doing it positively and in a really hopeful way.”

Spencer, who is a plumber and leads the Greens on Trafford Council, said the results “have shown that we don’t have to accept being turned against each other. We can demand better without hating each other”.

The result, the Greens’ first by-election victory, means that the party now has five MPs in Westminster. 

It also further demonstrates the threat posed to Labour’s left flank by Polanski’s party. The Greens have surged in national opinion polls since the London Assembly Mayor became leader in September.

Polanski said that the result showed that “voting Green is the way to defeat Reform”. 

“If we see a swing like this at the next general election, there will be a tidal wave of new Green MPs,” he added.

While Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham had hoped to stand for Labour in the seat and return to Westminster as an MP, he was blocked from running by senior Labour figures.

Despite the move, PoliticsHome reported earlier this month that Labour was relying on the mayor to help hold the seat.

Mike Salem is a UK Country Associate for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), focusing on economy, technology, and lifestyle.

Running up to the local elections, many candidates will promise to tackle local issues, while incumbents highlight their ability to maintain services despite rising demand and shrinking budgets. But an often overlooked problem lies deeper: the fundamental disconnect between local and national governments.

When Westminster legislates, it considers political priorities, manifesto pledges, and often Whitehall-centric perspectives. Take the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, currently in its Report Stage in the Lords. The Bill aims to ban cigarette (as well as a nicotine alternative, heated tobacco) sales to anyone born from 2009 and place heavy restrictions on vaping and other nicotine alternatives, such as flavours of vapes and nicotine pouches. While the intention may be public health, the real-world consequences on local authorities are significant.

Existing UK tobacco policy already makes smoking extremely expensive. A legal pack of cigarettes costs on average £16.60, compared with around £6.60 in much of Europe, a £10 difference. This is largely due to the UK’s tobacco duty “escalator,” which rises each year by inflation (RPI) plus an extra percentage point. Tobacco duty accounts for roughly 80 per cent of a pack’s retail price.

Bans like the 10-pack restriction under the European Tobacco Product Directive in 2016 pushed consumers to buy 20-packs instead. The unintended consequence? Illegal cigarette sales skyrocketed. Enforcement bodies and trading standards report that most UK residents live within minutes of illicit tobacco sources. Between 2021 and 2024, legal cigarette sales fell by 45.5 per cent, increasing pressure on locally funded Trading Standards services.

The proposed generational ban will only add to this burden, extending enforcement responsibilities to adults who previously could purchase legally.

The disposable vape ban, which came into effect on June 1st last year, provides a similar example. Many retailers continued selling existing stock at discounted rates rather than discarding it. Some were unaware of the ban entirely. The definition of “reusable” vapes was circumvented, allowing stronger battery devices to be sold at disposable prices, ironically creating more environmental harm than before.

Trading Standards officers have had to navigate this complex new regime, spending valuable time training staff and interpreting the legislation. Further restrictions on vape flavours, display, packaging, promotion, and other nicotine products such as heated tobacco and nicotine pouches will add more enforcement responsibilities, all without corresponding increases in local resources.

These examples illustrate how central government legislation puts immense pressure on local authorities. High streets are dying because legal options become expensive, illegal markets flourish, and small businesses struggle to survive. When illegal markets thrive, it also leads to increased criminal activities, with more dangerous streets which will now require more policy, and the cycle of financial doom multiplies. Business rates, set by central government, have been rising, yet councils only retain 50 per cent of the revenue in England, despite being its collectors. Local councils end up enforcing policies and collecting taxes while bearing the operational costs.

As you consider your vote in the forthcoming local elections, think about which councillors will stand up for your community and advocate for local authority interests in the face of overwhelming central legislation. Central government may legislate extensively, but it is local councils that bear the consequences. Ensuring they are equipped and supported is essential for healthy high streets, functional enforcement services, and practical local governance.

A prospective councillor who might promise you more from Westminster will end up hurting your pockets.