UK Automotive Industry
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Redwood
I have said that the EU was keen to explore the synthetic fuel opportunity. In the meantime, it is not recommending the closure of traditional vehicle factories at pace. Indeed, the EU has recently required of its member states that they should not only speed up the roll-out of electrical charging points—which will clearly be needed if people are to buy more electric cars—but roll out the provision of hydrogen refuelling places, not synthetic fuels. It is probably easier to deal with synthetic fuels, because a good synthetic fuel that is liquid at normal temperatures can be used in the usual distribution system, using the sunk assets that already exist in the petrol and diesel system. Indeed, one of the ways to introduce synthetic fuels more easily would be to gradually increase the proportion of synthetic fuel mixed into traditional fuels, as we have with E10 petrol and as is being talked about for sustainable aviation fuels, where there are target percentages for the introduction of lower carbon ingredients in the fuels.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I am very much a supporter of synthetic fuels. I think they will have a role to play in the years moving forward. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what emissions synthetic fuels will emit from a combustion engine compared with the current fossil fuel equivalent?
John Redwood
That is to ask, “How long is a piece of string?” A variety of these fuels are being produced in trials in small quantities. They need to have all their characteristics explored, then people will decide which ones give the best green output for the lowest cost for scale-up.
The whole House needs to get better at carbon accounting. I hear from all sides that unless we go for battery cars, we will not meet our net zero targets. I am suggesting that there may be other ways of getting closer to net zero targets through other types of fuels. I also do not quite understand why so many people in the House think that getting people to buy electric battery cars today helps us with our net zero targets. Let us take the example of a well-off person who decides to replace their petrol or diesel car with an electric battery vehicle. They have enough money to be able to afford one—they are quite expensive—and they are also fortunate in that they have a driveway or personal garage and can pay to have a charger put in at home. They realise that they will always be able to get there and back for short and medium distances without having to rely on unpredictable and rather scarce public charging systems, so they are ready to go. When they get home and recharge their car on the first night, however, there is no extra renewable electricity to send to them. We use every bit of renewable electricity every day, whether or not the wind is blowing, because it is given priority so, when the car is plugged in overnight, a gas power station will probably have to up its output a little to supply the electricity. Far from helping us to meet our net zero target, that new electric car is probably increasing the amount of electricity that has to be generated from fossil fuels.
I have read a number of studies that attempt to get to the truth of how much of a contribution, or detriment, getting more people to switch to electric cars might make to reducing world CO2, and there are rather different answers because the calculations are very complicated. I am more persuaded by the people who do total-life-of-vehicle calculations. We need to recognise that more CO2 is generated in producing a typical electric car, including the battery, than in producing a petrol or diesel car. Mining all the metals and minerals needed for the battery and battery production is particularly intensive, and more CO2 could be produced to deal with the waste when the battery reaches the end of its useful life and needs to be replaced, which is an expensive and complicated task.
To beat running a petrol or diesel car for a bit longer, a person running an electric car would need to do a very high mileage and would need to make sure that every unit of electricity used to charge the vehicle is generated from zero-carbon sources. At the moment, it is very clear that none of these requirements has been met. Although I can understand why we need to encourage people to go on this journey to build up the fleet of electric cars, against the day when we generate more zero-carbon electricity, we must accept that, in the short term, it is probably bad news for the world’s CO2.
I am worried that we may be in danger of not achieving our main green objective, at the same time that we are spending a lot of money on a subsidy war with other countries that are similarly desperate to get battery production. I am also very worried that the UK, Europe and, to a lesser extent, the United States of America are so behind China in putting in battery manufacturing capability, and so behind China in doing deals with world suppliers of critical minerals and battery components, that it places us in a very vulnerable industrial position, which is why both the European Union and the United Kingdom are having difficulties ensuring enough value added in electric cars to meet our own criteria. That is a common and shared problem, and the solution is not easy because we need to leapfrog 10 years, or whatever, to get to the point at which we have control over the minerals, the raw materials and the production of batteries so we can meet those criteria.
I am also very worried about how customers are left out of most of these debates. They are taken for granted and, when they do not behave in quite the way that politicians would like, politicians invent taxes, subsidies and bans to say, “Well, we are going to make you choose a car you would not have chosen for yourself, because we do not think you are making the right choices.” I would rather live in a world in which the hugely talented motor industry, and all the skilled scientists and technologists who help it, work away at producing cars that are better, more affordable, safer, higher quality and meet our service requirements so that we willingly buy the electric or synthetic fuel alternative, rather than sticking to petrol or diesel vehicles. We are not there yet, as we can see. The proportion of people wanting to buy electric cars is still a minority, despite all the very aggressive advertising, promotion and political weight behind them. Part of that is affordability, part of it is range, part of it is the worry about refuelling and part of it is uncertainty about battery life and repair. There are many complicated decisions when trying to make such a big switch in product availability, and people have come to like their traditional petrol or diesel vehicle. They have the measure of those vehicles and think they provide a very good service. As a country, we should not get too far ahead of our electorates and consumers.
If we look at the fast growth of electric car sales, from a very low base, we will find that it is much more concentrated in the business fleet market than in the personal choice market, because companies feel under more of a moral imperative to buy into this idea, which I have just exposed as somewhat odd, that these are super-green vehicles, whereas individuals say, “But it is not affordable, it is not practical and it is not what I want.”
Gavin Newlands
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the reason why fleet purchases are now massively outstripping personal purchases is the tax incentives given to fleet purchases, whereas the incentives for private purchases have all but disappeared under this Government?
John Redwood
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and it is an additional reinforcement, but I think fleet buyers are also very conscious of the environmental requirements.
I stress that, for this to work, it has to be a popular revolution. Millions of people have to decide for themselves, having listened to the arguments and seen the products, that green products are better than the old products, and in some cases they very clearly are and people will rush out to buy them. If we are still in a world in which people are not of that view, we can subsidise, tax and lecture all we like, but people will not change their mind.
One of the ways in which businesses and people could get around any attempt by this Government or a future Government to ban all sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles in 2030, when the rest of the world is not doing so, is that people will set up businesses to import nearly new petrol and diesel cars from places that still sell them and make them, to sell them as second-hand cars on the UK market. I do not believe anyone is suggesting that we ban the sale of second-hand diesel and petrol cars, as that would immediately remove all the value from our cars, meaning that we are prisoners—we either run the car until it falls to pieces or we lose its value and are unable to make the changes we would normally make.
There will have to be a definition of what is a new car, and it will presumably have something to do with how long ago it was made and/or how many miles it has on the clock. Whatever the definition, there will then be a good opportunity for people to sell cars that are four months old, rather than three months old, or that have 3,000 miles on the clock instead of 500 delivery miles. There would be a nearly new market, but the cars would all be imports, because people here would try to obey the law.
I urge all politicians to remember that they cannot just lecture, ban, tax or subsidise people into doing things unless the product has an underlying merit that people can see. Can we please work with the industry to prove that underlying merit? And do not ban things in the meantime, because Britain will lose jobs and factories. We cannot save the electric vehicle until the electric vehicle saves itself.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who made a very interesting speech. He asked many of the right questions, and he even came up with one or two right answers. I disagree with many of his conclusions, but it was interesting none the less.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the electricity that will charge these batteries at home, in terms of renewables versus gas, etc. Obviously, in Scotland we will have a massive excess of renewable electricity in the coming years to power our electric vehicles, and we have a couple of large hydrogen schemes ready to go that will be powered by excess renewable electricity. This will add additional baseload to the grid in Scotland.
I did agree, however, with what the right hon. Gentleman said about a stick approach to consumers, as I do not want to see the Government produce a large stick. I made the point in an intervention that they have withdrawn many of the incentives to switch to electric vehicles. I prefer a much more balanced approach, where there is a carrot and a stick, particularly given that the price of EVs is still higher relatively than internal combustion engine cars. We want the switchover to electric cars and to our decarbonised future to be open to everyone, not just to people such as us in this Chamber, who can potentially afford it—I speak as an EV owner.
The Minister, like the Secretary of State today at the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders electrified event, which has been mentioned, was extremely bullish about the UK automotive industry, and recent announcements on the investments highlighted by the Minister and the Secretary of State earlier today are warmly welcomed. But right now they are a fig leaf to cover deeper issues—ones largely not caused by the sector itself. The UK automotive sector has a great many strings to its bow, but the challenges it faces are real and immediate. They include: the spectre of Brexit; slow and unresponsive UK Government policy, including the complete lack of an overall industry strategy, let alone a strategy for the sector; and an ongoing culture war within the Conservative party about the net zero agenda.
Of course, there is also the concerning pace of the Department for Transport’s EV charging infrastructure roll-out to consider, which highlights the contrast between Scotland’s rapid EV charging network and the shortcomings in England, particularly outside London. The disastrous decision to leave the European Union—one that was made for Scotland—has had profound consequences for many sectors, and the automotive industry is no exception. The intricate supply chains, just-in-time manufacturing processes and integrated regulatory frameworks that once underpinned our automotive sector have been disrupted, causing uncertainty and economic turbulence. Brexit has led to increased costs for manufacturers, who now face customs checks, tariffs, and regulatory divergence when exporting to our European neighbours. That has forced many manufacturers to reconsider their operations in the UK, leading to job losses and a loss of investment.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
It is dangerous to have this doom-mongering. Triumph Motorcycles in my constituency, for example, has seen its exports across the world, in emerging markets such as Asia and America, go from 40,000 to 70,000 in the past three years. Is that not exactly what we want to see from a bold UK, one that is looking outwards and expanding across the world? Triumph, right in my constituency, is a prime example of it.
Gavin Newlands
I am grateful for the intervention and, obviously, that is a triumph for Triumph, but it is very much the exception that proves the rule, as I am about to go on to state. I congratulate Triumph on its export success, but Brexit has caused immense damage to our automotive sector, with real-world consequences for workers and communities. Since Brexit, car production in the UK has plummeted from about 1.7 million in 2017 to just 840,000 in the 12 months leading up to July this year. Factories produced just 775,014 cars during 2022, the lowest figure since 1956.
Despite the much more positive recent news on investment, which has been mentioned, the new post-Brexit rules of origin that come into effect in January, which place tariffs of 10% on exports of electric cars between the UK and the EU if at least 45% of their value does not originate in the UK or EU, will be deeply damaging. The Minister mentioned Stellantis, the world’s fourth largest car manufacturer, which has recently warned that a commitment to make EVs in Britain is in jeopardy unless the Government renegotiate their Brexit deal with the EU to maintain existing trade rules until 2027. Mike Hawes, the chief executive of SMMT, speaking at the very same conference as the Secretary of State, echoed similar sentiments. Of course, the dogs on the street know that Brexit has been a disaster and they also now know that Labour owns this Brexit every bit as much as the Tory party. There is no mitigating, fixing or polishing Brexit, and the sad thing is that the Leader of the Opposition and the vast majority of those behind him also know that to be true.
To compound that issue, the UK Government’s approach to supporting both the industry and consumers during this period of upheaval has been less than ideal. We have witnessed unresponsive Government policy that lacks a comprehensive strategy for the sector’s future. The industry, a cornerstone of our economy, deserves a clear vision and targeted support to ensure its competitiveness and sustainability in a rapidly evolving global landscape. The ZEV—zero emission vehicle—mandate is a case in point, because on paper it is a good thing and it has cross-party support, save from some Conservative Members, but it has been bungled from start to finish. I say “finish”, but we still do not know the final details of the policy, and how it will be enacted or enforced, even though it is scheduled to kick in next year. Mike Hawes said this morning that
“until we see the regulations, we can’t plan, and if we cannot plan, we cannot deliver.”
Furthermore, the culture war within the Conservative party about the net zero agenda is sowing seeds of confusion and inaction. This morning, Mike Hawes had a message for the Conservatives, dressed up in a rhetorical reference they might understand:
“With respect, and I choose my words carefully—very carefully—where there is uncertainty may the Government bring certainty because on decarbonisation this industry is not for turning.”
We should all be united, not so much in quoting Margaret Thatcher—many in this Chamber might like me to do so, but it will not win me any votes—but in our efforts to combat climate change and achieve net zero emissions. We are instead witnessing political infighting that threatens to derail our progress. It is time for the Conservative party to put aside its internal divisions and focus on the pressing issue of climate change. One crucial aspect of that transition is the promotion of EVs.
The Scottish Government have taken decisive steps to support green transport, and we will continue to support the automotive industry to phase out the need for petrol and diesel cars by 2030. The most obvious example of this is on the charging infrastructure, particularly the rapid charging infrastructure, which I will come back to, but Scotland has also shone on incentives to drive switching from combustion engines to EVs. Over the past 10 years, Scottish Government grant funding has provided more than £165 million of interest-free loans to support the purchase of more than 6,100 vehicles, including my own—I have already declared that. If we look at that from a UK Government spending perspective, we see that that is the equivalent of £1.6 billion for 61,000 vehicles. The Scottish Government have provided nearly £5 million to support the installation of more than 16,000 home charge points across Scotland, which is the equivalent of nearly £50 million for 160,000 home chargers—that is over and above the Office for Zero Emission Vehicles grant funding from the UK Government. The Scottish Government have also provided the equivalent of more than £100 million to deliver 15,000 charge points to businesses.
Gavin Newlands
I suspect I know what the hon. Gentleman is going to say about Northern Ireland, but I will give way to him.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is setting out a good case for what the Scottish National party has done in Scotland, and it is much welcomed. In Northern Ireland, we have a real shortfall, because electric cars are being encouraged but there are not enough charging points. Has he taken into consideration the rural community, who depend upon their diesel cars in my area? It is not possible to have EV charging points in the rural community, where it is needed, just as it is in the urban areas.
Gavin Newlands
Praise for the SNP from the Democratic Unionist party might also not feature on my leaflets in the west of Scotland, as that might cause more problems than help. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point about rural chargers, as they are certainly part of the solution. Internal combustion engines and so on will clearly have to be part of the mix for some time to come for those in rural communities. That is where Scotland has taken a different approach over the past decade and more. Scotland has a comprehensive charging network, but the parts of it that are the most comprehensive are in the highlands, the Western Isles and Orkney—they are in the rural and island locations, where the private sector would not invest and so the Scottish Government invested to make sure that there was a charging infrastructure for the highlands and islands. However, I fully accept the general point he is making.
To come back to a point made in the speech by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, Orkney has the second highest rate of EV ownership in the UK, but that is hardly a surprise, as Orkney has the highest number of public EV chargers per capita in the UK outside London—this is four times the English rate outside of London. The lesson is clear: give drivers confidence in the charging network, combined with incentives, and people will switch to EVs. We still have a long way to go. In Norway, 20% of all cars on the road and 80% of all new cars are EVs. That is where we could be; in fact, that is where we should be.
Alexander Dennis Limited is a world leader in bus manufacturing and one of Scotland’s key manufacturers and exporters of high-quality products around the world. Just this year, its Enviro200AV electric fleet was used as the vehicle of choice for the autonomous bus service across the iconic Forth Road bridge. As diesel and petrol buses are phased out and replaced with zero emission vehicles—at least, that should be the plan—ADL is innovating with new electric battery technology that will ultimately benefit the environment and transport networks. However, that requires UK Government support and, so far, their record on buses leaves much to be desired.
There have been 558 zero emission buses ordered in Scotland through the Scottish Government’s ScotZEB and SULEBS—the Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund and Scottish ultra-low emission bus scheme—which is the equivalent of around 5,600 buses in England. Let us bear in mind that the previous Prime Minister’s target was 4,000 in England and that the vast majority of the zero emission buses ordered in Scotland are actually on the road. The figures equate to 10.1 buses per 100,000 people, compared with just 0.94 per 100,000 delivered through equivalent schemes in England, outside London. That is an extraordinary gulf in both ambition and delivery.
John Redwood
Does the hon. Gentleman have any thoughts on how the Government should go about replacing all the lost petrol and diesel taxes if electric vehicles take off?
Gavin Newlands
I am not sure I heard the right hon. Gentleman’s question correctly. Would he mind repeating it?
John Redwood
My point is that if we achieve a big switch to electric cars, the United Kingdom will lose a huge amount of petrol and diesel tax. How should we replace that lost tax revenue?
Gavin Newlands
That is a very astute intervention. I did not pick up that he said the word “tax”, so apologies for asking him to repeat the question. It is a fair point. I am a member of the Transport Committee and we worked on a report about that a while back. The elephant in the room is that we will have to look at something to replace the current form of taxation. The SNP does not have a policy on whether that is road pricing or whatever, but we have to have that conversation and we have to have it now. We all know that revenue at the Treasury is already an issue, and will become an ever-increasing issue every year, so we have to have that debate sooner rather than later. I rather suspect we will not hear much about it before the election, but after the election that debate will have to begin in earnest.
Of course, in an independent Scotland we would have control of the same fiscal and tax incentives that have encouraged those huge levels of electric vehicle uptake in countries such as Norway. The Department for Transport’s poor record on EV charging is a glaring obstacle on our path to decarbonisation. When compared to some of our European counterparts, the deficiencies in our charging network are stark. We must acknowledge that reliable and widespread EV charging infrastructure is essential to encourage the adoption of electric vehicles and reduce carbon emissions from the transport sector.
Scotland’s approach to rapid EV charging infrastructure is an example of what can be achieved. The SNP Scottish Government have made huge strides in expanding the EV charging infrastructure, with one hand tied behind their back. The network has grown from 55 charge points in 2013 to over 2,500 charge points in 2023. In fact, the latest figures, published in July by the DFT, show Scotland has 72.7 chargers per 100,000 people, which is around 40% more per head than English regions outside London, and 19.2 rapid chargers per head, which is nearly double London’s figure of 10.7.
The lack of rapid charging infrastructure in many English regions, and much of Northern Ireland, makes charging a postcode lottery and hampers the transition to EVs, leaving residents without reliable options for charging their cars That imbalance is not only detrimental to our environmental goals, but exacerbates regional disparities. One would think addressing those imbalances would be a priority for a Government who have been talking about levelling up for quite some time.
The challenges facing the industry are multifaceted and require immediate attention and action. Brexit’s disruptive influence, unresponsive Government policy and the internal strife within the Tory party are hindering our efforts to tackle climate change and transition to a sustainable future.
The Scottish Government have led the way on transport decarbonisation, from the EV incentives and charging infrastructure I have talked about and decarbonising our railways at twice the pace of the UK Government, to many times more electric buses per head, funded, bought and actually on the road, those 21 and under travelling free on those same buses, and the gulf—the chasm—in investment in active travel. We have shown what we can do despite the dead hand of Westminster, so just imagine what we can do when that hand is removed by independence.
Mark Pawsey
I agree wholeheartedly. It is great to see Wrightbus’s product on the streets in London.
Although important and significant, the sector has seen decline, particularly in the number of vehicles produced. We peaked at 1.5 million units in 2015; that dropped to 775,000. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is projecting 860,000 units this year and 1 million by 2028—still lower than the peak years, but we generally produce higher-value cars, which is a key point to remember. The challenge for us is to maintain our volumes as the sector undergoes massive change. That arises from the worldwide move to electrically powered vehicles as a consequence of the imperative to reduce CO2 emissions.
I still sit on the Business and Trade Committee. In October 2018, we produced a report on the sector, decarbonisation and the introduction of electric vehicles. I had to reread that report to remind myself that it was almost five years ago. We looked at the opportunities that would present themselves as we effected the transition from internal combustion engine-powered cars. Many of the issues that we considered five years ago are still relevant, but in other areas we have made progress. In August, almost four in 10 new cars that were sold in the UK had some form of electric power, with 20% being purely battery electric, 7.7% plug-in hybrids and 6.8% hybrid, in a market that grew by 24.4% over the previous years.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) spoke about the role of the consumer. Most car drivers know that electric vehicles are coming. Most people will know someone who drives one, or who speaks enthusiastically about it and is preparing for that change. Most people by now have already been driven in an electric vehicle and, often, that will be an electric London taxi, manufactured in my constituency. On that pathway, the London Electric Vehicle Company has a pioneering role in the sector. In many cases, the move to electric will be championed by the cabbie, because every cabbie who drives an electric vehicle will speak very highly of it, compared with the diesel alternative. However, there remain those who are not convinced by the need to decarbonise or to move to electric vehicles as the solution, and there will also be people who do not support the ambition to get to net zero by 2050.
Gavin Newlands
Does the hon. Member accept that there is another cohort of people, who are in fact the majority of our constituents, who may like to move to an electric vehicle, but simply cannot afford to do so?
Mark Pawsey
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I will make some remarks on that issue in just a second.
The view about the need to support our move to net zero, and the steps that we need to take, are very much mainstream. The environment is still a top issue, and a rising issue among people in the country more generally. It is in the top five when people are asked about issues facing the world. Climate change is consistently there above poverty, war and migration. Therefore, there is an increasing acceptance of the need for change, but the question is over the pace of change. Back in 2017, our date for ending the sale of conventional petrol and diesel-powered vehicles was 2040. In the BEIS Committee report, we called for all new cars and vans to be truly zero emission by 2032, bringing the target forward eight years. As a Member of Parliament with an interest in UK auto-manufacturing and close to businesses that were involved in it, at the time we prepared the report five years ago, I was concerned that bringing the target forward was too ambitious. I was really bothered that it would put our UK-based manufacturers at a disadvantage because I believed they would struggle to electrify the UK-manufactured heavier and larger cars. However, it soon became clear that manufacturers such as Jaguar Land Rover were willing to move faster, with Jaguar very soon to become an all-electric brand. We now have the date set at 2030.
Having set that date, and with the good news that we have had recently of BMW’s investment in the Mini plant at Oxford, and the manufacture of all electric products at Ellesmere Port, it is vital that the Government stick to the 2030 date. There are voices making the case for relaxation, but Ministers and the Government should stand firm because what industry needs is some certainty.
To take up the point of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), I accept that there is a case about the high cost of electric vehicles, compared with those powered by an internal combustion engine. In many cases, the new vehicle is something in the order of £10,000 more expensive on a like-for-like basis. Interestingly, many manufacturers— I have in mind Volkswagen—are bringing out new models, rather than electrifying the existing model range, to avoid a direct comparison. Of course, the higher purchase price can be offset by lower running costs. The electricity costs less than petrol or diesel where the price is inflated by the addition of fuel duty. There will be lower servicing costs on the electric vehicle as a consequence of their having fewer moving parts. However, I accept that, for some people, the higher cost is an obstacle.
As we have heard, some countries are further down the road in the manufacturing of EVs, with a range of new models ready to come into the UK. I have in mind China, which, according to many industry watchers, has up to 10 new brands to launch in the UK by the end of the decade. Although they will be less expensive than UK or European-produced products, they will not be as attractive to the consumer because they will not possess the brand and heritage, which is a big part of the value. UK manufacturers will have to take on this competition and, in many cases, that will mean, as they already are, focusing on higher-quality, more upmarket models. That means that, when we look at the performance in the UK, it will be as important to focus on revenue derived from sales as on units sold.
High Speed 2
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I hope the Minister has had time to calm down and perhaps take a breath after that astonishing performance. In attacking Labour on costs, he seems to be admitting what we all know, which is that phase 2 is an utter shambles—financially, operationally and politically. First, it was the north-east and Yorkshire that were let down by this Government on HS2. Now it seems to be the turn of the north-west, let alone Scotland and Wales. In a similar timeframe to that of HS2, Spain has managed to install 624 km of high speed rail for a fraction of the cost. This includes tunnels and bridges through far rougher terrain than that which HS2 passes through. Since June 2018, 233 kilometres of this track has come into operational use. What we have is a gold-plated commuter line of just 100 miles between two cities on the south of this island costing nearly £50 billion, while the rest of the country is expected to fight for scraps from the table. When Philip Hammond was Transport Secretary he gave commitments on HS2 infrastructure reaching Scotland, but that infrastructure is barely getting to the midlands. Can the Minister tell me in which decade HS2 infrastructure will actually get anywhere near Scotland? How does any further cancellation, postponement or watering down of HS2 commitments fit with the so-called levelling-up strategy and when will Wales receive its rightful share of Barnett consequentials?
Mr Holden
I thank the Member for his question. As he will know, this Government have delivered more than 1,200 miles of electrification—over 20 times the amount delivered in the 13 years of the last Labour Government. I would also say to him that, just last week, I met my third Scottish Transport Minister in 10 months and they did not mention HS2 at all.
Scunthorpe Station Ticket Office
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Huw Merriman
The aim is a redeployment aim, as I understand it from the train operator, but I take the point with regard to hours. My hon. Friend will be aware that I just set out the process. This is a consultation process. Ultimately, it falls back to the passenger groups, who represent passengers, to discuss these proposals with each train operator. If they are not satisfied that, for example, the accessibility requirements will be met, which has to be legally met, they will rescope those changes. If they are not agreed by the train operator and the passenger group feels it needs to be taken further, it will be for the Secretary of State to determine. Her point is well made; I will just leave it there, given this is a live consultation.
Train operators began the passenger consultations on 5 July. This is an industry-led process, with each train operator managing its own station-by-station consultation. I understand my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the impact of the changes on elderly and disabled passengers. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) made the same point. As part of the ticketing and settlement agreement process, train operators must set out the improvements or alternatives they propose to put in place to support the needs of passengers, and include that in the notice sent to the other operators and the passenger bodies, to which I just referred.
Each operator’s approach must take into consideration the potential impact on individuals with accessibility needs. I recognise that not everyone has access to a smart phone or the internet, and that some passengers will prefer to use cash or to speak to a member of staff. This week, I met with accessibility groups again, to hear their views directly and to encourage them to work with the train operators to help shape these ideas. I also met with the train operators this week, and reiterated the need to ensure proposals worked for every passenger.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
ScotRail looked at this, in terms of ticket office hours and whatnot, last year. After the consultation, it rowed back from the idea; it was going to close only three ticket offices and to reduce a lot of hours. The Minister said that each operator is looking at individual stations, but I am a little confused. I travel from Glasgow Central on a regular basis. Avanti has plans to close the Glasgow Central ticket office. Even a small percentage of those tickets—the queues go literally from the platform to outside the station—is quite a lot of tickets. The LNER has chosen not to close the Edinburgh Waverley ticket office. With broadly similar ratios in ticket sales, why is one closing and the other still open? What is the difference between them?
Huw Merriman
It is certainly the case that a number of stations are not part of the proposed closures. Just over 70 ticket offices will remain open. Another example is Manchester, where the ticket office at Manchester Piccadilly will not remain open, if these proposals are followed through, but Victoria and Oxford Road ticket offices will remain open. Given that the hon. Member is also the SNP shadow transport spokesperson, I will do him the honour of writing to him so I can set out in more detail exactly why one station has been chosen over another and the methodology. Indeed, perhaps I can put that in the Library for all to read.
As modern ticketing and payment methods are rolled out more widely, we will work with industry to ensure that everyone remains able to buy a ticket. Staff will be available to provide additional support to those who need and want it, including by helping passengers to use ticket machines and providing the type of assistance that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said occurs under the current system. In the event that suitable tickets cannot be purchased from the station of departure, passengers will not be expected to travel out of their way to buy a ticket, and will be able to buy en route or at their final destination.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
In answer to my written question, it was confirmed that active travel was down to just 1% of departmental spending last year—but that is positively lavish compared with 0.4% this year and 0.5% next year. The Scottish Government will spend £320 million—10% of their transport budget—which is greater than the active travel budget for the whole of England. Will the Minister urgently review active travel spend to ensure that the poorest, who rely more on walking and wheeling to get around, are not disproportionately impacted during this Tory cost of living crisis?
Jesse Norman
The fact of the matter is, through both covid and the Barnett formula, the Scottish Government have been funded at levels that vastly exceed those available in England. If one is a Herefordian, as I am, one looks with astonishment at the increased levels of spending north of the border and wishes that, in many ways, a similar rural landscape such as our own were supported as well as that.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Scots are used to getting a poor and unreliable cross-border rail service, but recently the cross-border air service provided by British Airways, particularly from Glasgow, has been awful. That said, we need to get on with decarbonising aviation, so when will we see the airspace modernisation process simplified and accelerated, not decelerated? When will the Government bring forward price stability plans for sustainable aviation fuels, which everyone bar the Treasury knows has to happen?
Mr Harper
On the hon. Member’s first point, the work on airspace modernisation is under way, as he knows. On his second point, this Government are leading the progress on sustainable aviation fuels worldwide. We published the new report, which set out some clear plans, and we published our response to it. We are taking that forward and we are at the leading edge of this work globally, setting the agenda, as I hope he would welcome.
Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) on securing this debate. We have heard from colleagues, and indeed a former colleague, on the Transport Committee. I agreed with much of what they said, but not necessarily the conclusions they drew.
We are two years on from the publication of the Williams review, and in that two years we have seen any prospect of high-speed rail serving north of Manchester removed completely. Even the remaining parts of HS2, when opened, will now terminate near Wormwood Scrubs rather than travel into central London to Euston. That is a boon for prison visiting, but hardly useful for connecting to the centre of the city, which was one of the original points of HS2.
Cities such as Leeds and Bradford have been kicked off the HS2 map and offered trams in return. Like Scotland, they will be stuck at the end of what, in high-speed rail terms, will be branch lines. Even the crown jewel in the review—the formation of GBR—has been kicked into the long grass, as if the Government here have an exhaustive and time-consuming legislative programme to get through in this place, and days were not collapsing early, which we frequently have.
Answers to my written questions published this week show that £64 million has been spent over the last two years on the GBR transition. If GBR is being mothballed until after the election—if there is a change of Government, we will be looking at long after that for any action—those costs will continue to accrue and we will be left with a bill into the hundreds of millions for an organisation that, essentially, or officially, does not exist.
The former Secretary of State intervened at the last minute to slap his name on the front of the report. Given that he is now firmly in the sidings and stuck with no route in sight, I wonder whether he regrets his burst of self-publicity, although I think we all know the answer to that. It has been left to his successors to pick up the pieces and make the case for the review and its recommendations, but No. 10 and the Chancellor are clearly not listening, because by their actions—and inaction—they are showing just how low down rail and transport more generally is on their list of priorities. I feel for the Minister because his Department is being targeted by the Treasury for swingeing cuts. The Williams review called for a 30-year strategy for the rail network, but that simply cannot happen when the Treasury sees transport as an easy target for cuts.
Williams ruled out public ownership and public control, yet as we have seen with ScotRail and the Caledonian Sleeper, the Scottish Government disagree. The UK Government insist that the private sector railway works efficiently, but it clearly does not. The review said:
“Simplification is more important than nationalisation”,
but while the rest of the UK continues to have passenger services under private operation, that simplification cannot happen. Those who receive the new passenger service contracts envisaged by Williams will still extract profit from the system, and the profit will still come from the public one way or another, whether it is from unregulated fares or direct via the DFT contracts. It is not simplification; it is just a tweaked continuation of the present system.
Scotland was the last part of the UK to see its railways privatised and the first to bring them back under full public control. We have heard many times in recent years that Scotland’s railway and the partnership between ScotRail and Network Rail in Scotland has provided much of the template for the GBR operation—if indeed it comes to pass. However, the semi-integration of track and train is despite Westminster, not because of it. Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government are, as per, trying to operate with one arm tied behind their back, with the operator being fully devolved but the track and infrastructure network still reserved.
What is needed now to complete the integration in Scotland is for Network Rail to be brought under the control of the Scottish Parliament, with a Government that are committed to rail in the long term, regardless of the mindset of the Treasury. That is in part being driven by the target to decarbonise Scotland’s railway by 2035—a target that we are well on the way to meeting, showing how a Scottish Government with control over services are marrying their policy objectives with that of the railway.
Thirty years after the Railways Act 1993, which began the privatisation of the system, we are still seeing the same mistakes repeated and the same political ideology standing in the way of a real plan for our rail network over the next 30 years. The truth is that, while Williams-Shapps may have offered the possibility of a sea change on the network down south, we are now likely to see its demise by a thousand cuts, with its core ideal delayed for who knows how many years.
To conclude, we have GBR on the back burner, possibly indefinitely; HS2 curtailed; the north of England bearing the brunt of cuts yet again; a Treasury on the warpath ahead of any election promises; and no end to the fragmentation and profit-driven structure that has demonstrably failed over the decades. It is time the Government went back to the drawing board, looked again at Williams’s integrated rail plan and their 13-year track record of cuts and more cuts to improvement programmes—cuts that never seem to affect Greater London to the same extent as they affect everywhere else—and started building a railway fit for the future, rather than patching up the work of the great engineers of the Victorian era who built our railways.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I associate those on the SNP Benches with the Secretary of State’s comments on the horrendous rail incident in India.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and I visited the Cromarty Firth, Aberdeen and Orkney to see the real progress in Scotland’s renewables and transport decarbonisation sectors, including the public charger roll-out, where Orkney has the highest number per capita in the UK—four times the English rate outside of London—and Scotland has twice as many rapid chargers per head. Surely that shows the fundamental role of Government in driving transport decarbonisation. The low numbers in England outside of London highlight the danger of leaving it to the market.
Jesse Norman
I do not accept the premise of that argument. We have discussed it in the Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) was right, because he highlighted the different technologies that can be used rapidly to extend charge points, including gullies and pop-up charge points. We are in the process of rapid expansion and change, and the House would expect that to continue. The amount of private sector investment that we have already triggered or will be triggering through the mandate once it is on the statute book will drive that process still faster.
Gavin Newlands
What the Minister says ignores the reality that the gap between Scotland and England on chargers is widening, rather than narrowing. What we have seen in Scotland is a party that believes in the power of Government to benefit transport. We have EV infrastructure outstripping England, a publicly owned rail service scrapping peak-time fares, many times more zero-emission buses ordered and on the road, and active travel spending increasing to more than £300 million while budgets here are butchered. Is it not time that the Government admitted that the Thatcherite deregulation model has failed completely and instead got to work helping the state to build a transport network fit for the 21st century?
Jesse Norman
I do not accept that at all. It is inevitable with a change of this magnitude that it will be essential for state interventions to trigger private investment. That will go in the first instance where it can trigger additional growth in the market. We use the LEVI fund and other mechanisms to ensure equity across the country.
Heathrow Airport Expansion
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing the debate and on putting across her constituents’ position against expansion so passionately, as many others have done. Looking at all the factors involved, it is a finely balanced decision. Many wrongly demonise those opposed to Heathrow expansion as anti-progress or the like. I understand the concerns and objections of those who feel that this is an expansion too far.
Fortunately, I can look at the expansion from a distance—literally. I am not involved in any difficult changes or the upheaval that will happen across a large swathe of the local community around Heathrow and across London. Equally, it is also madness to have umpteen aircraft circling the south-east of England waiting for a slot and burning fuel pointlessly due to a lack of capacity on the ground. Continuous ascent and descent is crucial to making CO2 savings that will eventually be fully realised by the implementation of airspace modernisation. Incidentally, that is another strand of transport decarbonisation on which, despite the excellent work of the Airspace Change Organising Group and NATS, the Government have shown no urgency whatsoever.
Clearly, covid had a huge impact. We can still see the impact on passenger numbers across the sector, not just at Heathrow. If—or, more likely, when—numbers bounce back to 2019 figures, 80 million passengers will use Heathrow annually and there will be nearly half a million aircraft movements.
At the moment, there is no extra capacity in the London area. The concept of Boris island as a way to increase capacity has sunk to the bottom of the deep blue sea—rather like his bridge to Northern Ireland. Whatever connectivity benefits HS2 might bring to central London have been postponed until who knows when, after the Government’s decision to delay work on the Euston leg. If any Heathrow expansion goes ahead, regional connectivity must be at the heart of plans for how to use the extra capacity and resource. It would be ludicrous if a new asset of national importance was dominated by intercontinental A380s, Dreamliners and a new terminal packed with lucrative first-class passengers, rather than being used to transform and turbo-boost connectivity to other parts of these isles, particularly in the light of the utter shambles of HS2.
At the moment, Loganair is forced to lease Heathrow slots from British Airways to provide connectivity with Scotland, rather than being able to access Heathrow on its own terms and in its own right. The two Members representing Dundee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), will be well aware of the issues involved in ensuring a viable long-term future for the air link between that city and London. Loganair now serves the Dundee-London route from Heathrow, following the switch from London City airport earlier this month. It has managed to keep the London route on track, and passenger numbers from Dundee are at their highest for years. It also provides Orkney and Shetland with connectivity, showing the value of Heathrow slots to airports in Scotland and across these isles.
Heathrow used to be a public asset that was owned by the public and responsible to the public. It is unlikely that it will return to public hands any time soon, but it still has a duty and an obligation to the public to provide a public service—a service for everyone in these isles. Of course, it would be far better to have direct links from Scotland—particularly Glasgow, considering that Glasgow airport is in my constituency—to the rest of Europe and the world, so that we can cut out the middle man in the south-east and travel straight to our destination, and indeed transport our high-value exports directly to the customer, rather than shipping them through London.
But in the meantime, while Scotland continues the process of achieving full self-government and full membership of the EU, Heathrow must act in the best interests of us all, and that means supporting connectivity to and from the rest of these isles to London. It would be ignoring reality to deny the expansion of Heathrow without appropriate countermeasures to move aviation towards a net zero state. Developing sustainable aviation fuels can mitigate the impact of air travel. It is disappointing, to say the least, that we lag so far behind the rest of the world in investing in SAFs and putting them at the heart of the UK aviation sector. I understand that the consultation on the SAF mandate is ongoing and is scheduled to end next month. After that will be months of cogitation by the UK Government. If we are lucky, there might be an outcome ahead of the next general election, although I would not bet the house on it. This should have been done years ago, when the UK could have had taken a lead in developing SAFs and pioneering the technology required to produce them.
Inverness airport, which is owned by the Scottish Government, has recently introduced SAFs for all customers at the facility. That will surely help to reduce its carbon footprint as it aims to become the first zero-emission aviation region by 2040, but we need a sea change across the sector if we are serious about cutting emissions and mitigating the undoubted impact that the Heathrow expansion will have. I hope that sea change happens sooner rather than later.
Jesse Norman
I do not have much time, but I think the Chamber knows that the funding per head and the sources of revenue that exist in London are vastly greater than in other parts of the country, and it is appropriate that that money should be properly invested alongside any other support that can be given.
We are not going to be distracted from this important topic. On a more constructive point, it is noticeable that the Opposition’s position on the issue of Heathrow expansion is not so very different from that of the Government. It is important to explore what the Government’s position is.
Hon. Members will recall that, in 2015, the independent Airports Commission’s final report concluded that a new north-west runway at Heathrow airport was the best solution to deliver the future additional airport capacity the country required. The Government considered the commission’s recommendation and announced in October 2016 that they agreed with the conclusions.
The Government then developed a draft airports national policy statement that provided the framework and criteria against which a development consent application would be judged. The draft statement was published for consultation in 2017 and scrutinised by the Transport Committee, before being laid before Parliament. In June 2018, the airports national policy statement was designated, following Parliament voting overwhelmingly in favour of the north-west runway proposal, by 415 votes to 119. That is an overwhelming majority in favour of the north-west runway proposal. Following its designation, the airports national policy statement was subject to a number of legal challenges, which have been heard in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The legal challenges concluded in December 2020, when the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the airports national policy statement is lawful.
Challenges against the statement, however, did not end there. The Planning Act 2008 requires the Secretary of State to review a national policy statement whenever they consider it appropriate to do so. Between 2019 and 2021, the Department received numerous requests from third parties to review it. When the Supreme Court determined that the airports national policy statement once again had legal effect, those review requests were considered. In September 2021, the then Secretary of State for Transport decided that it was not appropriate at that time to review the airports national policy statement. The Government said that the matter would be considered again after the jet zero strategy was published, and that the timing of re-consideration would need to have regard to the availability of long-term aviation demand forecasts.
The jet zero strategy was published in July last year and sets out the Government’s approach to achieving net zero aviation by 2050. The idea that the Government have not thought at length and in depth about this, and set out a strategy for achieving it, as was raised earlier in the debate, is nonsense. The jet zero strategy and its accompanying documents set that out. The strategy focuses on the rapid development of technologies in a way that maintains the benefits of air travel while maximising the opportunities that decarbonisation can bring to the UK. It creates a strategic framework for aviation decarbonisation.
It is clear that the Government continue to support airport growth where it is justified, and that expansion of any airport in England must meet our strict climate change obligations to be able to proceed. The Government’s approach to sustainable aviation growth is supported by analysis that shows that the country can achieve net zero emissions by 2050 without the need to intervene directly to limit aviation growth. The jet zero strategy set out a range of measures to meet net zero. I will touch on three of those.
First, we are supporting the development of new, zero-carbon emission aircraft technology through the Aerospace Technology Institute programme. An example of that is the announcement last week by Rolls-Royce that it has commenced the testing of its UltraFan technology, which will enable efficiency improvements in current and future aircraft and is 100% SAF compatible.
Secondly, this year the Government have conducted a call for evidence on implementation of a 2040 zero-emission airport operations target in England. My Department is currently considering responses and will publish a Government response shortly. Thirdly, the suggestion that this country is behind its international competitors on sustainable aviation fuels is entirely wrong. We have published a consultation on the SAF mandate, and that is currently available for discussion.
Jesse Norman
I have no time, I am afraid. I have to stop in half a minute in order to allow the hon. Member for Putney to wind up the debate. I wish I had more time, but I am afraid that interventions and other speeches have not allowed for it.
Turning quickly back to covid-19, Members will be aware that covid-19 drastically revised the use of air transport. Almost overnight, most of the country’s aircraft fleet was grounded. Thankfully, the UK is now on the way to recovery, but we have not yet returned to the demand before the pandemic, and uncertainty remains around the long-term impact that the pandemic has had on aviation demand. Further work therefore needs to be undertaken before any future forecasts can be developed.
I think I had better wind up there. I apologise, Ms Elliott, for having to truncate my speech owing to the pressure of time.
Autonomous Last-mile Delivery
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) on securing the debate. He comprehensively set out all the advantages of last-mile autonomous vehicles. He started by asking us to imagine a future 30 or 40 years down the line. I do not know about you, Mr Twigg, but with the current state of politics, particularly in this building, I struggle to look three or four weeks down the line, let alone 30 or 40 years, but I take his point. I am aware of Starship—I have been to a parliamentary reception for it—and I will come on to a sighting of its robots in the wild just last week. The hon. Member mentioned that they are good for reducing traffic and congestion, thereby improving air quality.
The hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak) brought up the fourth industrial revolution, which is most unlike him, but it was a pertinent point. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I call him the hon. Member for Westminster Hall East—is no longer in his place, but he was right to mention fears about the impact of automation on jobs, because we sometimes hear about that from the public. He also mentioned the issue of network signals and connections. Last week, as I travelled through much of rural Buckinghamshire, I was unable to check in for a flight for over an hour, owing to the signal in that part of the world.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) made an excellent point but also used the opportunity to make a nice political jibe about the local council, which I very much enjoyed. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who chairs the Transport Committee, of which I am a member, supported many of the points made by his colleague the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North in setting out the advantages of autonomous robots, but he also made a couple of good points linking them to the wider supply chain and the decarbonisation of the whole sector. He used them as a case in point, whereby the public were won over to the advantages of autonomous or smart tech, which is completely the opposite of the experience with smart motorways.
I referred to my trip—our trip, I should say, because the Chair is present—with the Transport Committee to Buckinghamshire to hear more about local issues with High Speed 2. It ended with a visit to Buckinghamshire Railway Centre to hear evidence from the Minister and HS2 Ltd, but the trip took me through Milton Keynes and past a couple of autonomous robots plying their trade on the streets by delivering shopping and drinks to households across a large part of Milton Keynes. It was somewhat of a change of scene to be surrounded, just hours later, by steam locomotives and carriages from railway history—artefacts from the past, when “autonomous delivery” meant letting the horse pull the cart by itself.
I have seen the Starship robots before, and they are impressive in action. They appear to be fairly popular with a lot of the residents of Milton Keynes. I can certainly see the appeal in being greeted with my messages and a song when I collect my purchase, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South said, although having had two young kids when I was elected, I draw the line at yet more “Baby Shark”. If the Minister could take the hon. Gentleman up on the suggestion to supply a new song, that would be fantastic.
The robots serve a purpose in Milton Keynes, but by definition their coverage is limited. They would not fare well delivering to the average three-storey tenement in Glasgow, for example, and it is hard to see how high-rise flats would be covered without a robotic finger for the lift. Starship itself told the Transport Committee fairly recently that the challenge of rolling out its service to more rural areas is big compared with the challenge of rolling it out in a modern, planned new town such as Milton Keynes.
There is also a real question of where exactly the machines themselves would fit into the legislative landscape. The operators of the Starship scheme admitted to the Committee that they were
“operating in a grey area”
at the moment. As with bikes and e-scooters, it is unclear whether it is legal for the robots to be on the pavements rather than the road. We are still grappling with the legal framework for electric scooters, and the mood music about a future transport Bill suggests that their regulation, or otherwise, will have to wait until after the general election.
If autonomous deliveries are to become the norm—that may or may not be the case—they will need a clear regulatory and legislative footing that ensures that they are subject to clear restrictions and licensing. The delay to the transport Bill gives the Government the opportunity to get ahead of the curve and to draft appropriately. We are still in the early stages of the technology’s deployment, and getting regulations on the statute book now will allow us to avoid the problems that we have with e-scooters. We are still waiting for e-scooters to be regulated, yet a million of the devices are out on streets and pavements. The continued lack of regulation means that, for example, most train companies will not allow them on board because of fears that the batteries are a fire risk. This is not a case of regulating just for the sake of it.
We also have to be wary of those peddling only good news and good outcomes from this technology. The potential for misuse must be balanced with the potential benefits of autonomous deliveries. It is not hard to foresee the same technology and hardware being used, whether by individuals or by bigger fish—potentially even state actors—to deliver goods that are a lot less legitimate than a carton of milk and half a dozen eggs. It is also not hard to imagine someone illegally accessing the network and operating system on which the vehicles rely and creating havoc.
The robots currently in operation might have a lower speed, but they still present potential obstacles for pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities or visual impairments. Given the limited geographic areas covered by Starship and the like, there may be little conflict now, but if Starship’s service expands and other operators follow in its wake in the same area, there may be fleets of competing robots trundling up and down pavements in towns and cities across the country.
I have painted a fairly negative picture. I view the technology positively, but regulation is required. With the best will, programming and AI in the world, it will become harder to marry up the needs of autonomous deliveries with the needs of pedestrians and pavement users. That is where regulation is required. The example of e-scooters shows the problems inherent in allowing a regulatory grey area to grow to a point where regulation is urgently required.
How we as a society use a product of scientific progress is up to us to determine. Just because a technology is there does not mean that it is a good idea. There is much to commend in the move to autonomous delivery at local level, given the efficiencies and reductions in the resources used to keep households going. Removing the need for shorter car and van deliveries, and therefore reducing road use, will help to reduce congestion, particularly in urban areas, and carbon emissions. There will inevitably be teething problems as services are rolled out—that is the nature of installing and operating something novel and untested in a real-world environment —but that should not clash with the need for regulation that reflects the balancing act required between innovation and the rights of others. Like with most technologies, it is at the times when it fails that autonomous delivery will need to be properly considered.
Although I would have wanted a transport Bill to be in the pipeline—it is not as if there is a lack of content for a transport Bill—the delay in its introduction means that the Government have a chance to do the in-depth work needed to create a regulatory framework that will work for autonomous deliveries, not just in the short term but further down the line. I hope that the Minister will take that message back to his colleagues and ensure that whenever the Bill drops, it can be taken forward with a package of measures that fully deals with autonomous deliveries.
Draft Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. My party will not be voting against the measures that the Government are bringing forward; in fact, we support them. However, as usual with my support for anything Conservative, there is a “but”, and it is in the form of a couple of queries for the Minister.
I have heard from industry that what is essentially 2 tonnes of extra payload for most HGVs would overload the rear axle. The Minister may be aware of that, so perhaps he can tell us what he plans to do about it. As it stands, some of what is proposed may be undeliverable for the industry.
Secondly, the regulations are limited to a number of vehicles and do not include 44-tonne HGVs, which currently make up a quarter of the UK fleet. Could the Minister tell us why the weight limit has not increased for the 44-tonne HGVs as well? That would give us a clue about the future direction, because an increase to 48 tonnes overall could potentially be accommodated.
That being said, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough mentioned, the road network will not be any easier to maintain with all these weight increases to HGVs. What will the Government do to make sure that councils have the money to ensure that local road networks are adequate? As I saw on the Transport Committee visit to Buckinghamshire, local roads have been badly impacted by HGVs related to High Speed 2.
Those are my three questions for the Minister. If he could address them, I would be grateful.
Buses: Funding
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
In principle, I welcome today’s announcement on fares by the Government. Anything that helps to make bus travel more attractive and drives modal shift is to be welcomed. [Interruption.] Just wait—there’s more!
In Scotland, we have taken a different approach, and extended free bus travel to include every Scottish resident under the age of 22. The feedback thus far is that we are seeing a big increase in travel among those groups, getting them in the habit of taking the bus and normalising public transport. However, when it comes to real investment and spending on bus infrastructure, I am afraid the DFT is still lagging well behind. Of the 3,500 buses farcically claimed by the UK Government as helping meet their target of 4,000 zero-emission buses for England outside London, nearly a fifth are funded by the Scottish Government, over whom the Minister has zero jurisdiction. He is using the success of the Scottish Government and others to cover for their own failure.
Incidentally, four weeks ago the Secretary of State promised the House that he place a letter in the Library setting out the details of the pledge and of delivery thus far, but we are yet to see that letter placed in the Library.
In Scotland, ScotZEB 2—the Scottish zero-emission bus challenge fund 2—was announced just this week, providing another £58 million to further enhance and improve bus services across the country, including in my own constituency. This will bring Scotland’s zero-emission bus fleet up to about the equivalent of 8,000 buses in England. In contrast, of the 1,342 buses in England outside London claimed as funded under the ZEBRA—zero-emission bus regional areas—scheme, only six are on the road. If I looked out of the window of my constituency office in Renfrew, in 15 minutes I would see more zero-emission buses passing by, serving passengers and contributing to the net zero transition, than are actually on the road through this Government’s ZEBRA scheme.
Will the Minister do the right thing, unlock the logjam in the ZEBRA scheme in England and at least try to catch up with its success in Scotland, and will he confirm that every penny spent as a result of this announcement will be subject to Barnett consequentials to allow the Scottish Government to continue their investment in our public transport network—investment that builds for an electric future?
Mr Holden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, and I will address some of his later ones. On the Barnett consequentials—just to start off with that—all this money has been found within the Department for Transport. We are cutting our cloth without asking for more cash from taxpayers, which is exactly what we need to be doing in this situation.
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman concentrated on talking about the ZEBRA scheme, which is not really the topic of today’s statement. It is interesting that he did not mention anything else because the Scottish national party is obviously not matching our £2 bus fare right across Scotland, which is quite a surprise. [Interruption.] Only people under the age of 22, the hon. Gentleman shouts at me, have free bus travel. People do not have that in Scotland; actually, it has no £2 fare cap at all. That is something we are delivering this year and will be continuing to deliver next year here in England.
In fact, one of the major bus operators spoke recently about the crisis of buses in Scotland due to the Scottish Government’s
“mix of ill-informed emotion and political dogma”,
while failing to help them meet the needs of reliant Scots—