Electric Vehicles: Infrastructure

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Steve Brine

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Steve Brine]

Yes. In my constituency, as I am sure is the case in my hon. Friend’s constituency, charging at home is obviously the ideal, but there are lots of challenges to people being able to do that, because the three-point plug is not always the answer; a three-point plug can lead to a 30-hour charge. Of course, if someone does not have a nice secure driveway where they can park their Tesla and plug it in to charge overnight from the solar panels on their roof, it is difficult. That is all very tidy and ideal, but it is not the reality.

May I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that that is a kind of a theme of the debate? The ambition is great, but I worry about the practicalities of the roadmap to get there, and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) has expounded that very well.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

From our end of the country, we see things through the other end of the telescope. We have an enormous surplus of renewable energy generated in Orkney but no way to feed it into the grid because of grid constraints. Using the availability of that energy to charge cars and other electrical devices is a real opportunity for us. We have the ReFLEX project, which was born of that very opportunity. However, does this situation not tell us that we need to have a fundamentally different way of thinking about the grid and how we use energy, and a greater degree of decentralisation than we have ever had?

[Steve Brine]

Without question, and the right hon. Gentleman makes his point well. That is another reason for my wanting to have this debate. I am pleased to see so many colleagues here today, because I think the ambition was set out and some things were done, such as the grants that I talked about and the way in which they increased the number of sales, but I am not sure that enough thought has been given to the wider picture of how we make these electric vehicles available, how we charge them and how we find the energy sources to do that. In a massive constituency such as his, I can see why the scheme he talked about works and I would like to hear more about it, if he would tell me more; I am sure that he has already told the Minister about it.

The subject of production has been raised and I will say more about it. The Government have stated that they have plans to set out a legally binding annual target that manufacturers must meet in the form of a zero emissions vehicle mandate, or ZEV mandate; in saying that, I recognise that this debate has become even more nerdy than I had imagined.

The Department for Transport states that auto manufacturers will be required to produce a certain number of zero-emission cars and vans from 2024, and it launched a ZEV mandate consultation in 2022. Next year, which is 2024, that would equate to a 22% uptake for cars and an 8% uptake for vans; in 2030, it would equate to an 80% uptake for cars and a 52% uptake for vans; and both cars and vans would reach a 100% uptake in 2035. The mandate also details the arrangements for a tradeable element, which will allow manufacturers to buy credits to make up for any shortfalls in the required production of electrical vehicles.

However, we have not heard about any real progress since then. The consultation website states that the Government are still analysing the responses. As stated, the ZEV mandate is meant to be implemented by 2024, so we need further details of what will be required from manufacturers and what exactly the targets will be, because—dare I say it?—2024 is fast approaching. Can we have an update on that from the Minister?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Bill

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Steve Brine

Report stage
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I will speak to amendment 1, which has cross-party support, and amendments 2 to 7, which would remove the provisions in the Bill that affect the right to protest.

In passing, I point out that a number of other issues are in play today, and goodness only knows what such a debate must look like to those looking in from the outside, but that is the consequence of the inadequacy of the time that has been made available to us. I will therefore limit my remarks strictly to the amendments that stand in my name.

Essentially the objection that many of us have to the proposals is that, first, the Government have got the balance badly wrong, and, secondly, their language in trying to strike that balance is among the vaguest and most imprecise I have ever seen as either a legal practitioner or a parliamentarian.

To ban protest on the basis that it would be noisy or cause serious annoyance may appeal to many parents of teenagers up and down the country, but we have to do rather better when fundamental issues of free speech are in play. Many years ago, it was said—the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) may have heard the same thing—that in Scots law, a breach of the peace was almost anything that two cops did not quite like the look of. It seems to me that what the Government want to do here, in regulating not the conduct of a few drunks on the high street on a Saturday night but the fundamental right to protest, is to take the law back to that imprecise state of affairs. The risk is that that serves only to pit the police against the protesters. It will not be the Home Secretary who makes a decision about what is noisy and causes serious annoyance, but police officers, often those on the ground at the time. That risks undermining the fundamental principle of policing by consent, which has always underpinned the way in which we police protest and, indeed, all behaviour in this country.

I remain of the view that the provisions will be ineffective and have a chilling effect. I do not believe for one second that, if the Bill becomes law, Extinction Rebellion will look at it and say, “Oh well, we can’t possibly go out and protest on the streets of the capital. We’d maybe better just go home and email our Members of Parliament.” Although I have heard some in the House say that even that is seriously annoying sometimes. The Bill will not stop Extinction Rebellion protesting.

However, communities throughout the country who face a challenge to hospitals, schools, traffic management and so on will look at the Bill and think, “Actually, it’s not safe for us to use our voice and to protest against what is being done to our community.” For that reason, as in so many other cases, I believe that this is a fundamentally mistaken provision. The only amendments we can seek to introduce are those that would excise it from the Bill, where they should never have been in the first place.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Carmichael]

If the hon. Gentleman can intervene in nine seconds.

[Steve Brine]

I am listening to what the right hon. Gentleman says. He does not want Conservative Members to smear Opposition amendments, so in that spirit, I point out that the Bill does not ban protest. Is he not tempted by new clause 85, which my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) spoke about, and which provides for a code for the policing of protest?

House Business during the Pandemic

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Steve Brine

Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

Don’t take me there.

The principle—the important constitutional principle that is at stake here—is one of equality of all Members in this House. It is the subject of an excellent letter to the Leader of the House from a group of academics from University College London, headed up by Professor Meg Russell. She makes the point that not only did the Government win this return by a de facto exclusion of those who were most in need of the protection, but they have now put in place arrangements that have two tiers of Members. Not only does that affect us as Members, but it affects every single one of our constituents, because while there are constituencies and communities who are represented by people who are fit enough to be here, who have no underlying health condition and who have no one in their family whom they are required to protect, there are those represented by people who are not in that fortunate position and who do not have the option of physical attendance.

I commend the Government for at least restoring virtual participation by videolink, which we have seen operating again today, thankfully, but the position on Divisions is important because it runs right to the heart of this question of equality. If a Member has an underlying health condition and so is not able to attend, they are allowed to nominate a proxy; if, however, they are a carer for, or simply residing with, a person in that position, they are equally unable to attend here—I have heard no one challenge that—but they are not allowed a proxy vote. So the opportunity for such Members to express in the Division Lobby, either electronically or otherwise, the view that they may have expressed on a screen is not given to them, and that is wrong. The hybrid Parliament existed to maintain that equality of representation of all communities and all constituencies.

Last week at the Dispatch Box, the Leader of the House made two claims that merit some attention. First, he said that the abandonment of the hybrid Parliament was necessary in order for the Government to get their legislative programme through. He might not have noticed, but in the week before the Whit recess we managed to deal with both the Finance Bill and the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. In that regard, I remind him that the letter from the Constitution Unit at UCL observes that:

“there has been no barrier to bill committees meeting in socially distant form at Westminster since 21 April. Had the government wished to do so, the Commons could also have run hybrid or virtual bill committees, as is now happening in the House of Lords.”

Pause and consider that for a second: we in the elected Chamber are now lagging behind the House of Lords in terms of our use of the modern technology that is available to us. If we thought that the covid-19 conga was going to bring Parliament into disrepute, then goodness! We only knew the half of it.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is a jolly fellow and I am enjoying his speech, but some very serious issues are facing this country right now. We discussed this matter last week, and although I realise his party has form in not respecting election results they do not agree with, I, as someone who voted against the Government last week and to retain electronic voting, accept that we were not successful. We had this debate then, but here we are again, discussing ourselves. Should we not move on?

[Mr Carmichael]

It was my decision to make an application, but it was Mr Speaker’s decision to grant the application. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to question Mr Speaker’s judgment, he should perhaps make that clear. And the very best of luck to him. I see that he is not standing to correct the record in that regard.

The other point that the Leader of the House made last week was that, somehow or other, Members should be prepared to set an example. In this, there might be a bit more consistency than in other arguments. Let us remember that the ending of virtual proceedings ran contrary to the Government’s own advice that if someone could do their job from home, they should do so. Of course, the Government have form when it comes to disregarding that particular piece of advice.