Oral Answers to Questions
Christian Matheson Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
This Government are investing at record levels in our rail network as part of the biggest rail modernisation programme for over a century to provide reliability and capacity. Passengers expect high-quality rail services, and we are committed to electrification where it delivers passenger benefits and value for money. We will also take advantage of state-of-the-art technology to improve services.
Christian Matheson
It strikes me that a lot of official capacity is currently being sucked out of the Department by preparations for a no-deal Brexit, and that is slowing up projects that should be pushing ahead. What progress is being made on plans for electrification of the Chester to Crewe and north Wales line or, if not electrification, on the procurement of the electro-diesel trains that are the next best option?
Andrew Jones
The work on Brexit is not in any way changing the delivery of service improvements across our rail network, and one has only to consider how much is happening across the network to prove that point. We are delivering a £50 million project to upgrade the north Wales railway, including a new signalling system, and rolling stock will be picked up as the franchise is renewed.
Oral Answers to Questions
Christian Matheson Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman
As my hon. Friend will be aware, we have invested heavily in the A303. We have been looking closely at the A358 corridor and upgrading the A30, so I will absolutely discuss further with him the particular road he has in mind.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The M56 is even more congested now than when I last raised the problem just a few months ago. When can we expect confirmation that it will be included for upgrade in the next road investment strategy?
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we are already investing quite heavily in junctions 6 to 8 on the M56. Decisions about the second stage of the road investment strategy will be announced next year.
National Policy Statement: Airports
Christian Matheson Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
The determination of time available is not a matter for the Chair. The right hon. Lady has expressed her own view in characteristically succinct terms, leaving us in no doubt as to her dissatisfaction. All I would say to her and to other Members, on whichever side of the argument, who feel similarly, is that I have a sense that there will be a great many more debates on this important matter, in which we will hear from the right hon. Lady and from others similarly aggrieved this evening. I hope that that is helpful to the right hon. Lady.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any indication from the Foreign Secretary whether he will be back in time for Foreign Office questions tomorrow?
Mr Speaker
Surprise, surprise, the right hon. Gentleman has not communicated with me today and I feel sure that he has other pressing matters on his agenda. I have received no notification that he will not be present and correct for Foreign Office questions, so I feel sure that he will be. I anticipate that the hon. Gentleman will look forward to those exchanges with eager anticipation and bated breath.
Oral Answers to Questions
Christian Matheson Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
First, there is no question but that we are very happy to have a meeting between Ministers and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). If his office gets in touch, we will sort that.
On my hon. Friend’s question, I would like to find out a bit more detail, because clearly we would like to ensure that that problem does not exist. If he provides a bit more detail to myself or my hon. Friend the rail Minister, we will get on to the case.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The recent court case that found the collection of tolls at the Mersey crossing unlawful has afforded Ministers an opportunity to pause and review the operation of those tolls, which are hated across my region. Will they take that opportunity and review the tolls?
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the road has been extraordinarily successful and is a great example of a piece of newly funded infrastructure. That issue is primarily for Halton Borough Council, but we are following the situation closely.
High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill
Christian Matheson ExcerptsTuesday 30th January 2018
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
I think that HS1 was operating before Labour came into government.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will make some progress.
It is right to say that we have seen a renaissance on our railways since privatisation, and that renaissance continued under the last Labour Government. Indeed, in their 13 years in government, they did not seek to change the franchising at all. They felt that that was the best way to operate the railways. We had the private sector and the public sector involved, and we saw our railways improve tremendously. If we get to a situation—I hope we do not—of the railways going back to a fully nationalised body, what happened in the ’60s and ’70s will happen again. Rail was always at the back of the queue for investment. Hospitals and education took priority; the railways were left without any priority whatsoever. There is no doubt in my mind that privatisation has led to the rejuvenation of the rail industry, and so much so that passenger numbers have increased from something like 700 million to some 1.6 billion, which speaks for itself.
I am pleased that the Bill has been introduced. David Higgins recommended that we should try to bring the investment and benefits of HS2 more quickly to the north. Should this Bill get its Second Reading today, it is worth remembering that we will see high-speed services to Crewe by 2027. In infrastructure terms, and given the necessary planning, that is not that far away, so I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on bringing the Bill forward.
I know that the Government are well aware of this, but I want to talk about the importance of continuing to develop skills in engineering. The National College for High Speed Rail, which is based in Doncaster and Birmingham, will enable people to get the engineering skills that are so important. All that follows on from the remarkable Crossrail project, which will start to open to the public later this year. We saw such skills in the television programmes covering its development across London.
This important Bill is about capacity. There are those who say that the Department for Transport and its Secretaries of State have changed their mind and that they talk about capacity more than speed, but the very first HS2 document that was published referred to capacity, too. The west coast main line is one of the busiest lines in Europe, if not the busiest. We need a massive injection of infrastructure, and this Bill is the answer
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely). If he will forgive me, I might disagree with him on one point. In my view—the figures are overwhelming—the investment in infrastructure in London and the south-east, although it perhaps does not extend entirely down to his patch, is around nine or 10 times as much as that in my area in the north-west and the north of England. Plenty of people will look at the HS2 expenditure and say it is about time that the north-west of England got some expenditure.
In principle, I am very much in favour of HS2—and HS3, HS4 and HS5. Infrastructure spending is good for the economy; it generates growth, it drives growth and connectivity, and it is a good thing for the whole country. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), however, I share the concern that what we might get is, to coin a railway phrase, the wrong type of HS2, on the basis that all we will have is a fast line linking London, Birmingham and Manchester, and no benefits will accrue to the surrounding areas. In terms of growth in this country, the cities are already overheating, whereas towns and counties—
Kevin Hollinrake
Does the hon. Gentleman therefore welcome the £300 million that has been set aside to connect HS2 with HS3—also known as Northern Powerhouse Rail—which will stretch from the west coast of the north to the east coast?
Christian Matheson
I will welcome it when it is built and when we actually have something going. HS3, or Northern Powerhouse Rail, is a slogan rather than a railway, and I look forward to its being a railway rather than a slogan. There is a real danger that the benefits that accrue will not do so for the whole country. This is a national project and the benefits that derive from it should be national, too.
In particular, I want to discuss the Crewe hub, which I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State refer to several times. We get lots of positive, warm words—if that praise is not too derogatory—about the importance that Ministers at the Department for Transport attach to the Crewe hub. However, time and again, after two years of pressing, we still have had no firm details about what format it will take or how it will integrate into the rest of the network.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), the shadow Secretary of State, talking about the need for HS2 to be integrated into the rest of the network. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) might have misunderstood, but that was very much my understanding, and that is exactly where the Crewe hub would come in. With the greatest respect to my good friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), Crewe does not have a large enough population to justify an HS2 station, but the lines and connectivity radiating from it as a central hub in that part of the north-west and the north midlands would provide the services and the weight of gravity to make the Crewe hub essential to HS2.
Michael Fabricant
What the hon. Gentleman says about Crewe is absolutely right, but does he understand my disappointment that there will be two separate stations in Birmingham and two separate stations in London, instead of it being integrated there as well? While the north is important, so are the midlands and the south.
Christian Matheson
I do understand the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment. Actually, I share some of it, and if he bears with me I will come on to that in a moment.
The lines that would radiate from Crewe would include the existing west coast main line, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) talked about, so Warrington, Wigan and south Lancashire would benefit, as would my constituency and hopefully, the north Wales line. Again, I say to Ministers that for the real benefits to accrue, the Chester and north Wales line would need to be electrified; I have not given up on that, even if they have.
The Crewe hub would mesh nicely with the Growth Track 360 proposals that leaders in Cheshire West and Chester and across the border in north Wales have put together to really try to mesh our railway offerings. I know that Ministers have seen those. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State was extremely helpful when I talked to him about my concerns. He took them to HS2 Ltd, which was asked about the benefits that somebody from Chester might gain. This is where I come back to the hon. Member for Lichfield. Apparently, under the current HS2 proposals, those benefits would include HS2 freeing up capacity on the west coast main line, so that more trains would be able to go through, between Chester and Lichfield, on that line. He talked about the potential, over time, for the west coast main line to wither on the vine, and I share that concern. Those of us who are not in London, Birmingham or Manchester may not get the full benefits, because we will be asked to take the benefits of the west coast main line instead. Much as those are benefits, that is not the high-speed line on offer.
I detect a certain disconnect—I ask Ministers to look carefully at this—between HS2 Ltd and its proposals and the plans from Network Rail and the Department for Transport for the development of the railways. HS2 Ltd has been tasked with building the HS2 line and some amorphous idea of a Crewe hub, but we are still not sure what or exactly where it is in Crewe or of the layout of Crewe station. The plans do not fit in with the broader sub-regional plans for the growth of the railways. All HS2 Ltd seems concerned with is the delivery of the new high-speed line. I urge Ministers to look carefully at ensuring that the proposals for HS2 and others, such as Growth Track 360, mesh together in the connected way that my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State talked about; otherwise we will not accrue the full benefits.
I welcome the Minister to her place, and I make this plea to her: I ask that she think carefully about how the Crewe hub can be given a reality that benefits not just the big cities but north Shropshire, south Lancashire, all of Cheshire, all the railway lines radiating from Crewe, and particularly—as far as I am concerned—the Chester and north Wales line. It has to mesh together. At some point, we have to stop kicking this particular can down the road and come out with firm and deliverable proposals for a Crewe hub that will share the benefits of HS2 that will not otherwise accrue.
Andrew Jones
My hon. Friend makes an insightful point. We had decades of decline when the rail industry was in public hands. The turnaround post-privatisation has been dramatic. Opposition Members take that for granted and suggest that nationalisation is a way forward, but they have forgotten the complete change we saw, with the focus on customers and growth, and how that has delivered and been a key part of the UK’s economic growth.
Christian Matheson
Will the hon. Gentleman not concede that that turnaround has taken place on the back of several hundred million pounds of public money being given to the train operators every year?
Andrew Jones
Well, the hon. Gentleman suggests that even more public money should go in, so I am not sure where his argument takes him, apart from round in a circle. We are seeing long-overdue public investment in the rail industry.
Tolls on the Mersey Crossings
Christian Matheson Excerpts(6 years, 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
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered tolls on the Mersey crossings.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. Although the motion is in my name, it is very much the result of a team effort, as demonstrated by the number of right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches today.
The issue of tolls on the new Mersey crossing has caused consternation across our sub-region and, for me, today’s debate centres on two pillars: deceit and inconsistency. In the mid to late-1950s, the Runcorn-Widnes crossing was a transporter bridge, the likes of which we now see only really in Middlesbrough, so when the new bridge was opened at the start of the 1960s it was a revolutionary leap forward in transport infrastructure. The Runcorn-Widnes bridge, the green bridge, the Silver Jubilee bridge—as it became after renovation in 1975—or even, simply, the bridge, grew as an essential artery for the sub-regional traffic, and it can be argued that the success of the area, from the growth of Liverpool airport to the industrial areas around Speke, Widnes and Runcorn and the new multimodal hub, has all been possible because of the crossing. But with its more than 80,000 vehicle movements per day, it was clear that the old bridge was beyond capacity and that, having been a source of growth in the past, it was in danger of becoming a brake on growth and development.
I say at the outset that I welcome the new crossing. The fact that we have a new bridge is not the issue. I also acknowledge that the tolls did not come as a surprise. How we pay for the new crossing has been a matter of debate since the project was first mooted, and that is where the inconsistency comes in. At this year’s Conservative party conference, the Secretary of State for Wales told the assembled masses, in relation to the removal of tolls on the Severn bridge:
“After 50 years—just think—no tolls, no booths, no charges and no long queues to get into Wales. This decision will immediately boost the economy of South Wales by over £100m a year. Equally important is that it brings the opportunity to bind the South West and Wales.”
He was right of course: infrastructure investment leads to economic growth and brings communities together.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a very good case. Was he concerned, as I was, to hear the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), yesterday dismiss the problem of the tolls for the bridges and the Mersey tunnels limiting economic growth in the region and attribute, I understand, to the Mayor of the city region views that he does not hold?
Christian Matheson
I was most perturbed to hear that, and perhaps the Transport Minister here today might pass the concerns of the assembled right hon. and hon. Members back to the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse. In relation to attributing views to the Mayor of the city region that he does not hold, I understand that the Mayor, Steve Rotherham, has today written to the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse, asking for a retraction. I hope that retraction will come as quickly as the Minister’s original comments.
In relation to the Severn bridge, I can well understand the argument that the costs of the bridge might have been paid off by the tolls received in preceding years, but the arguments made by the Secretary of State for Wales about economic growth and bringing communities together apply in this debate as well. Indeed, they seem to apply in Scotland, where the new Forth crossing is untolled, and in London, where many millions of pounds of Government money go simply into studying the feasibility of Crossrail 2. The same principle applies in the east of England, where plans for the A14 upgrade to be tolled around Huntingdon and Cambridge were scrapped in 2013. The planned toll was described as a “tax on East Anglia” by the local chamber of commerce. The principle applies everywhere, it seems, except to the Mersey crossing. Indeed, in contrast to the growth potential of infrastructure, the Freight Transport Association tells me that some of its members face an annual cost of £1.5 million in tolls from the new Mersey crossing, which will kill business, not boost it, and that is without the admin costs of keeping fleet lists registered and up to date for so many different toll schemes.
It was announced that most, but not all, residents of Halton Borough Council would get reduced tolls, which is understandable on the basis that it brings together two parts of that cross-river borough. But that brings me on to, if I may use the term, the question of deceit. Just days before the 2015 general election, on a campaign visit to the area, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, late of this parish, announced that free crossings would be extended to Warrington and to my borough of Cheshire West and Chester. In a tweet on 23 April 2015, Mr Osborne said:
“Confirm we’ll extend free bridge tolls to residents of Cheshire W & Chester + Warrington—a victory for”,
and he then named two local Conservative party candidates. That was naked political opportunism, but having said that he would extend the free scheme to neighbouring boroughs, he should have made good on the promise. To make such a clear political declaration and then reverse it after the election denigrates politics, denigrates elected politicians—because the public will not always see it for what it really is—and degrades confidence in our democracy.
I am told, although I cannot prove it for certain, that Mr Osborne took his own officials by surprise, at which point a solution had to be found to implement the promise he had so glibly made in the pursuit of cheap votes. It seems that the solution was to say that residents of the neighbouring councils would indeed benefit from reduced tolls, but that the councils would have to pay for it, which was not what was promised by Mr Osborne. And when we take into consideration that Cheshire West and Chester—I cannot speak for Warrington—had its budget cut by central Government by £57 million from 2015 and is barely able to deliver statutory services, we can understand why once again passing responsibility on to local government to deliver a central Government policy pledge without providing the requisite finance—a tactic we have seen several times from this Government—has engendered such cynicism from residents.
At no point has any Minister either apologised for the deceit or, indeed, recognised the wrongness of it, and that adds to people’s anger about being misled. Nor has Mr Osborne ever faced the required obloquy for his deceit. I am clear that the tolls must go, but I am also trying to find a practical way through the mess for my constituents who use the bridge daily, and the many others who work on the other side of the water who now have to pay upwards of £1,000 every year to get to work. This is a retrospective tax that is simply unfair.
My constituent Clive has proposed a solution to Ministers, which is that anyone who could demonstrate that on the day the tolls were announced they had a permanent job on the other side of the water would be eligible for reduced tolls. He also pointed out that the number would only ever diminish over time; it would never increase. Ministers have rejected the idea on the basis of the cost to the scheme, but they are happy for the public to bear the cost burden. Perhaps today the Minister might consider that option again for those residents who have suffered the double whammy of being told they were to get free tolls only for that to be withdrawn, and then being hit with an annual £1,000 charge just to get to work.
As my constituent Rob, a teacher, told me:
“Recently, I have registered for the Merseyflow sticker for my car so that I can cross the new multimodal bridge to get to my work in a school in St Helens. I am not resident in Halton and I am therefore ineligible for anything other than a sticker, which reduces each crossing from £2.00 to £1.80. Whilst I am grateful for this reduction, my annual bill for using the bridge will surpass £720. This does not include any times where I may have to make the crossing more than twice in a day (Open Evenings, Prom etc).”
The situation has been further compounded because the original bridge, now closed for renovation, will itself be tolled when it reopens. As my constituent Tim pointed out to me, the equivalent would be that when the M6 toll was opened, the original M6 would also have been tolled—a clearly ludicrous suggestion, but equivalent to what we have here.
Operational matters are also causing problems. Now, all four crossings on the Mersey are tolled. The first two are run by Mersey Tunnels and the second two by Merseyflow. I cannot for the life of me see why we should have to register twice with different organisations just to get across the Mersey from Chester. Ideally—the Minister might want to consider this—all the tolled roads in the UK would have one central tagging or registration scheme. To have two in such a short distance is daft. Organised bodies such as road haulage organisations and fleet operators will have to register all their fleets twice because of the two different schemes.
I am told that the signage on the new crossing is inadequate, both to notify drivers that the bridge is tolled and to inform them how to pay. I am also told that upwards of 50,000 instances of non-payment have taken place already, totalling £1 million, which, in only six weeks of the crossing being open, is a staggering amount, if true. It must surely indicate that something somewhere is going badly wrong.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I have raised the issue on behalf of my constituents in north Wales who feel that they do not have clarity on the signage and did not know that the tolls were there. I have had a letter back from Merseyflow, which says:
“I fully appreciate the points in reference to the new scheme which may have led people, particularly from outside of the area to be confused on the ways to pay.”
I have constituents who have paid the toll, who have been fined for not paying the toll and who were not clear, when the toll was introduced, that the toll was even there.
Christian Matheson
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point and leads me into the next part of my speech. I will quote Rachel from north Wales, who has seemingly had a similar experience to his constituents. She said:
“Two weeks ago I drove over to Walton for a long awaited hospital appointment. Not only is it a 120 mile round trip, it’s an area I don’t know at all so subsequently I was reliant 100% on my Google Maps. While crossing this new bridge I did see a brief sign that mentioned Mersey Flow, but as I was concentrating on the road in an unknown area I was paying more due care and attention to the road and not the sign about a method of payment, I just assumed that being a ‘Toll bridge’ there would be a booth at the other side. 3 days after this event I was told via friends that you had to pay online or I would receive a fine. I paid the £4 for both journeys. Today I received a fine like many other people, including one of my sisters after driving there at 1 am to collect my father from Liverpool airport”.
It is precisely the same experience as that of my right hon. Friend’s constituents. The issue does not just affect Halton and the surrounding boroughs, but is spreading its effects right across the sub-region and beyond into other areas.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Does it not seem extreme that within a month 50,000 have made the mistake? As my hon. Friend said, that is £1 million in fines.
Christian Matheson
It is an astonishing figure— 50,000 people in just six weeks. As I said, it surely demonstrates that something is badly wrong. There are two issues here: first, the toll system is obviously not clear enough; and secondly, it is not just drivers from the immediate Halton area who are affected. Indeed, it seems absurd that the only place that someone can pay in person is in Halton, as that is the area where people, because they live there, are least likely to need to pay. I am told by taxi drivers in Halton and surrounding boroughs that they are not considered as public transport, so cannot register for free crossings. Again, that seems ridiculous. Will the Minister clarify that, not least because so many of my constituents take taxis to Liverpool airport?
The introduction and implementation of the tolls has caused consternation in my constituency and across our sub-region. At a time when other bridges are having their tolls removed, we are having to pay. It is punitive and retrospective. In fact, it must be the first case in history of a crossing being built that has caused greater division than the divide it sought to bridge. Ministers must think again. We cannot allow an important and much-needed piece of infrastructure to cause more harm than good. In the medium to long term the tolls must go, as they have in other parts of the UK. If that is not to happen in the immediate future, will the Minister at least look at alternative arrangements for my constituents and others who are being clobbered by toll charges and fines?
HS2 Update
Christian Matheson Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
I cannot comment on the original individual conversations. I simply repeat the point I made earlier that my door and the Minister’s door will be open to any Member from any part of this House who is concerned that their constituents are not being treated properly as part of this project.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I welcome the focus of the statement on the Crewe hub and its importance to the wider area of Cheshire and the north-west, but may I press the Secretary of State on some details? In the statement, he talks about the importance of HS2 to the whole country, but he also talks about the Crewe hub requiring national and local government to work together, which suggests that we in Cheshire will have to make a contribution that other parts of the country will not. Since this is such an important part of the economic development plans of Cheshire, the wider north-west and the cross-border area, will he confirm that he will not be asking local authorities to contribute, because of the benefit the hub will bring to my area?
Chris Grayling
The Crewe station site has the potential to be much more than just a station. There is a big regeneration opportunity for Crewe around that site, and it goes far beyond the provision of rail access. Inevitably, that needs to be something we work with the local community and local authorities on. I am very excited about the potential for Crewe station: if we look at the redundant land, particularly to the west, we see huge capacity for a massive and really important redevelopment project for the whole town of Crewe.
Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Fifth sitting)
Christian Matheson Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Minister mentions the United Nations and pan-national efforts. Does he understand that he is giving the impression of doing everything other than working with the European Union?
Mr Hayes
I always hesitate to mention the European Union in anything other than pejorative terms, but that is a personal foible rather than a ministerial position. Of course, we will work with the European Union. We remain members of the EU until the point at which we depart. In any case, our work with European nations and neighbours is critical in this regard. Much of the work that I am describing is not driven or governed by the EU itself. Many of the bodies involved are international, such as the United Nations, and the vehicle manufacturers have a footprint that extends beyond nation states. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we will work with both the EU and other European countries, despite the foible that I was very honest to admit having.
Rob Marris
I rise to speak to amendment 15, particularly in respect of the National Grid. I remind the Committee of an exchange that I had with Marcus Stewart, National Grid’s head of energy insights, in our evidence session on Tuesday 14 March. His role, as he puts it,
“is looking out into the future to determine what the energy future will look like”.––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 17, Q30.]
I had an illuminating exchange with him, which appears in column 24 in Hansard, about the amount of electricity that would be required—the electricity demand—if there were 1 million electric vehicles on the road. I stand to be corrected, but there are currently about 40 million vehicles on the road, including commercial fleets.
Mr Stewart said that having 1 million electric vehicles on the road and charging them with a 7 kW charger, which is a fairly standard charger, would require 7 GW of electricity demand. Hon. Members may know what that looks like, but, fortunately for me, he explained it:
“Total UK demand today is about 50 or 55 GW.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 24, Q44.]
The demand of 7 GW that would be created by 1 million vehicles all charging at the same time is about one seventh of that—about 14%. He helpfully said that 7 GW of electricity generating capacity was roughly equivalent to
“two and a bit very large nuclear power stations.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 24, Q43.]
Let us imagine that in 20 or 25 years’ time we get to the situation where half the UK vehicle fleet—20 million vehicles—are electric. If they are on 7 kW chargers and if the technology has not markedly changed—I realise that that is a very big “if”—the electricity drawdown if they all charged at once would be 140 GW. Today we are producing only 55 GW, so that could not happen. These are back-of-an-envelope figures, but if those 20 million vehicles sought to charge evenly throughout the day, that would mean just under 1 million vehicles charging every hour—say 6 GW an hour, which is 11% of current electricity production. In round terms, that is equivalent to two large nuclear reactors—and that assumes charging evenly throughout the day, which is unlikely to happen. Conversely, if we were so foolish as to allow a system to develop that allowed everyone to charge at once, that would require 140 GW, which is equivalent to 45 very large nuclear reactors, which come in at about £20 billion each. Clearly that would be unsustainable.
We need regulation—made in consultation with the National Grid, as amendment 15 says—to spread demand more evenly through the day and in the night when there is likely to be less industrial use, and to deal with the electricity generating capacity that we are likely to need. Working with National Grid, the Government need to forecast the take-up of electric vehicles, so that we know when that additional electricity capacity is likely to be needed. I would like some assurance from the Minister—I am sure he will be able to give it to the Committee with his usual fluency and competence—that the Government are seized of that, which the amendment would enable them to be by mandating in statute that National Grid should be a consultee. To me it is a frightening prospect that either we fry because CO2 emissions carry on as we continue with carbon-powered vehicles, or we have blackouts because too many people are plugging in their electric cars which they bought as an alternative to frying the planet. Neither is a happy prospect but, to cut that Gordian knot, it would help if we had regulation to even out during day and night the demand for electricity from electric vehicle owners and operators. It would also help if the Government gave some indication of their discussions with National Grid on extra electricity generating capacity.
Christian Matheson
The nightmare scenario that my hon. Friend is talking about is entirely plausible. Does he accept that our baseload electricity requirement at the moment would be hugely increased, in particular at night when I suspect most people would charge? That would have consequences for the way in which we manage the electricity system in this country.
Rob Marris
My hon. Friend is right. I am not an expert but, intuitively, I recognise that solar power generation is likely to be less efficacious at night, although I appreciate that the wind blows at night and that, if we continue with nuclear reactors, they produce electricity all the time. That is why electricity is cheaper at night through Economy 7.
Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Sixth sitting)
Christian Matheson Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, not least because my attitude has always been to be tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that anybody would wish to shine a laser at a plane, save for mischief, devilment and malfeasance. A thief might claim financial improvement and recompense from stealing cash, but lasers are simply about damaging equipment and putting people in harm’s way. I have a lot of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman, but my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough made a good case about other offences on the statute book, so I will go with that.
I also want to speak in support of amendment 26. Clause 22(6) mentions when the aircraft
“first moves for the purposes of take-off”.
That sounds as though it means the beginning of take-off, rather than at the start of the runway. As my hon. Friend has said, that precludes taxiing and the aircraft being moved around an airfield or airport, when it might be being taken to a maintenance-hangar, for example, but is still moving along and in a dangerous position. I hope that the Government will take those suggestions on board.
I want to look at clause 22(1) and float a scenario for the Minister to consider. It is not a likely scenario, but as we know there are Mr Loopholes out there who might wish to exploit the law. If I am speeding along and a police officer directs a speed camera at me, there is a fair chance that the camera might be laser operated. The laser itself might not be in the visible spectrum, but the camera may be laser operated. Seeing a police officer shining a laser gun at me to check my speed—I would, of course, be within the speed limit, as always—might distract me and cause me to drive inappropriately or perhaps to crash the car. I hope that the Minister will consider the wording of subsections (1) and (2) and ensure that the measure does not provide scope for malfeasance in directing it at police officers doing their duty using laser equipment to assess the speed of a vehicle. The duty of such officers might be undermined by the wording of the clause.
Rob Marris
I take my hon. Friend’s point: it is a bit far-fetched, but far-fetched things do happen. When I annotated the Bill for myself, in clause 22(1)(a) after “he or she” I put “without good reason”. I think that would cover the kind of scenario my hon. Friend is talking about.
Christian Matheson
My hon. Friend is a parliamentary Mr Loophole, not in the sense that he exploits loopholes, but in that he spots them for the rest of us. It may sound like a far-fetched scenario, but the purpose of the Committee is to go through the Bill in detail and to establish scenarios that might happen. Perhaps the Minister will take up my hon. Friend’s suggestion. I am worried because I do not want our police, whose important job might involve using laser equipment, to be undermined.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I think we are all agreed. I support clause 22, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s comments about a possible loophole regarding the police.
I will quickly talk to amendments 25, 26 and 27, which are very sensible. Amendment 25 confirms that the offence is the intent or actual action of pointing a laser at a vehicle. That is important because we do not want the argument to get hung up on proving whether someone has dazzled somebody or caused a distraction. The offence should be the attempt to point a laser at somebody, and that should be made much clearer in the Bill. For that reason, I support the amendment.
Clause 22(2) states that a person has a defence if they show that they pointed a laser completely accidentally and without intent. The clause also includes a defence for somebody acting in a reasonable manner.
The amendments confirm the offence of pointing a laser at traffic control and, as we have heard, planes. Planes get moved about, not just on take-off but when they are taxiing around the runway. That is also sensible and I would like to hear the Minister’s response.
In Scotland, there have been 150 incidents in 18 months, with 24 at Glasgow airport in February alone. That shows how serious and prevalent the issue is, which is why I welcome the Government’s action in clause 22, but I think it would be strengthened by the amendments.
Mr Hayes
That is also a good point. I want to reflect on those semantics. It does not seem unreasonable to be absolutely clear about that. I need to speak to parliamentary draftsmen and others about it, because we need to get it right. I can see why hon. Members are raising the issue. It is not a matter of substance or policy, but one of the application of the detail of something that we all agree needs to be done.
Christian Matheson
I do not wish to detain the Committee much longer. In support of the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, my concern is that primary legislation trumps secondary legislation so, irrespective of what might be said in the Air Navigation Order, even if the language of the Bill is a bit woollier, that will take precedence. I am grateful for the Minister’s commitment to speak to his draftsmen.
Christian Matheson
Does my hon. Friend share my view that that might not be about prescribing for the industry what steps it needs to take, but about ensuring that all parts of Government are aware of what their role might be as the sector develops?
Richard Burden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are talking about joining the dots within Government to ensure that those three elements—the Minister got it right about where the three elements of Government crystallise—can be put to best effect. Part of that is legislative, whether that is primary legislation or the regulations that we have debated a great deal in Committee.
Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Fourth sitting)
Christian Matheson Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Baker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for extending my remarks with his question. The reason why I have included “however stored” is to distinguish software stored in volatile memory from software stored in non-volatile memory, such as a USB key, and to include the firmware used to start up the low-level devices. The term “software” as I have defined it from the “Oxford Dictionary of Computing” is all-encompassing; it includes everything in the computer system that is intangible rather than physical. To answer his question directly, that definition encompasses all the software in the system however it might arise, so it is the maximal definition.
If we go back to making the legislative definition work, what I propose in amendment 1 is to leave out “operating system” and insert “software”. Amendment 2 would delete “’s operating system”, because that phrase is otiose, as a colleague said earlier. Clause 4 would simply read “a failure to install software updates to the vehicle”. I am trying to make this maximal to ensure that the Bill is absolutely clear that all the software in the system must be untampered with and up to date.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
This is simply a question of clarification. Would the clause as the hon. Gentleman sees it include, for example, not just the vehicle but the software on the electronic key that will be used to engage the vehicle?
Mr Baker
That is a very good point, and I think that the Bill already deals with it. I shall try to find the right part of the Bill—it does not leap out at me instantly—but I think that it states that updates are as specified by the manufacturer. Perhaps a colleague might find that and intervene. The point is that all the software that should be up to date must be up to date, and it should be as specified by the manufacturer. As I said on Second Reading, I do not think that the House should tightly constrain what is necessary. Unless anyone wishes to correct me, there is only one software engineer on the Committee, and I am certainly seven years out of date. As legislators, we should seek not to constrain but simply to ensure that the legislation is drawn up so as to encompass the entire software system and ensure that the legislation meets its intended purpose.
I hope that the Government will accept amendments 1 to 8, if not today then on Report and having consulted the industry. I am very much aware that we did not take expert evidence on this issue, so I would understand if the Government wished to consult outside the Committee and return to the issue on Report. I should say that owing to a lamentable lack of attention to detail on my part, it would be necessary to table a duplicate of my amendment 4 to amend line 41 of clause 4, as my proposed manuscript amendment would have done. I draw that to the Government’s attention. If they want any assistance in preparing amendments for Report, I would be glad to help.