Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Christian Matheson and Rob Marris

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Christian Matheson and Rob Marris

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Finance Bill

Debate between Christian Matheson and Rob Marris

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Government have been unable to drive forward the economy on any basis of productivity and are therefore relying on property price speculation, and that this would be a way to drive up property prices to cover up their failings in other parts of the economy?

[Rob Marris]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and if I can catch the Speaker’s eye on Third Reading I will be making points along those lines. The true state of our economy, driven by a housing bubble and household debt, is actually quite frightening. In terms of inheritance tax, new clause 9 simply asks the Government, after the Budget is in surplus, to look at the inheritance tax regime. Of course the Government could do it now, and I would welcome a commitment from the Minister, if he is able to make one, that the Government will do so, because the tax breaks in this Finance Bill will be about £940 million a year by 2020-21. That does not seem a wise use of revenue when it is coming in from some of the most well-to-do families—a small number of estates, as I said. It is not a good idea to be in one sense spending money in that way. I appreciate that it is not actually spending money because, technically, it is a case of simply not collecting it in taxes, but in everyday terms it is spending money, because so much of what we do in this House is to do with priorities, and so much of the prioritisation we decide on is predicated on how much money there is with which to do those things.

[Christian Matheson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot afford this measure in this Parliament, not least because it will cost, as the Budget Red Book tells us, about £2.5 billion in this Parliament?

[Rob Marris]

It is difficult to tell what we can afford as the Conservative party, in government since 2010, has consistently failed to meet financial targets for dealing with the deficit. The Opposition agree with the Government that the deficit needs to be tackled, but we disagree on the way in which it should be done. Forgoing £2.5 billion —if that is the exact figure, and I think my hon. Friend is probably right that it is of that order of magnitude—in a very regressive way is something that Labour Members would not countenance, but we need to look at the whole regime, hence the wording of new clause 9.

There will also be complications with the wording of the inheritance tax provisions. There is a feeling of unfairness among some as to the definitions—which I will not go through tonight—of a linear descendent. Many, if not all, Members will know from our own lives, advice surgeries and places we live that the definition of a family and those who are regarded by someone as being a member of their family are somewhat fluid in our society, and have become much more fluid in the last 50 years in terms of social recognition. For example, the Labour Government introduced civil partnership legislation, which I welcome—it is possible this Parliament will extend that to opposite-sex couples—and, commendably, in the last Parliament gay marriage was put on to the statute book. Those are concrete examples, dealt with by this House, of the fluidity and changing nature of family structures, but the provisions in this Bill rather lock in whether somebody is, or is not, regarded as a member of a family. Inheritance tax in this Bill is a bit of a problem, therefore, and I urge the Government to accept new clause 9 and amendment 89, which in a sense is a stand part motion.

I will now turn to value added tax, enforcement by deduction from accounts and the climate change levy—unless any Member wishes a quick run-around again on inheritance tax, but I suspect not.

Finance Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Christian Matheson and Rob Marris

Thursday 15th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Rob Marris]

It may be nice for the hon. Gentleman, but it will not be so nice for his great-grandchildren when they reap the havoc from climate change. That Audi emits 181 grams of CO₂ per kilometre. Under the new scheme, assuming it is still on sale in March 2017, the car will move up from band I to band J, yet those emissions will receive a discount, as it were, of £60; the current seven-year cumulative duty would be £1,700 but under the new scheme it will be £1,640. The change is not huge, but it is a 3.5% change in the wrong direction.

A petrol Infiniti Crossover, of the Nissan luxury brand, which as far as I know is not made in this country, produces an antisocial 265 grams of CO₂ per kilometre. It is currently in band M and liable for a seven-year duty of £4,130. Under the new regime, the charge will be £1,290 less, at £2,840—a 31% drop because of the interaction between the new vehicle excise duty regime and the £40,000 cost threshold, above which a different regime applies. That is a 31% drop in vehicle excise duty over a seven-year period for one of the most polluting light passenger vehicles currently on sale in the United Kingdom.

Now let us look at a Jaguar XF, which currently costs just under £50,000. It is now in band F because its CO₂ emissions are 144 grams per kilometre, and costs £1,015 over seven years in vehicle excise duty. Under the new regime, if a car costs less than £40,000, it will move up—up being less polluting—to band H and cost £1,040 over seven years, an increase of £25, or £3.57 a year, as my wonderful researcher, Imogen Watson, tells me. But as for the Jaguar XF, fine vehicle as it is, no doubt with an engine made in Wolverhampton, because its price tag is over £40,000—and remember: its CO₂ emissions are 144 grams per kilometre, which is still high, but nothing like the Infiniti’s 265 grams per kilometre—it will cost an extra £310 per year for the first five years, meaning that over seven years the duty will go up to a total of £2,730, an increase of £1,715 or 169%.

Now, I have nothing against the Infiniti—as far as I know I have never been in one—and Nissan is a fine manufacturer, but its luxury model emits 265 grams of CO₂ per kilometre, and yet there will be a 31% drop in duty for it over the seven-year cumulative period, whereas the Jaguar is much less polluting, at 144 grams per kilometre, but its duty will increase by just under 169%. That cannot be right.

I urge the Government to think again. They should think about the pulmonary diseases from which thousands of people are dying already. Much—not all, but much—of that illness is arising because of vehicles, including light passenger vehicles. The Government also need to think again about the mixture of bad gases, to put it in lay terms, used as the metric for calculating vehicle excise duty. I also urge them to think again about the CO₂ based regime they are proposing from 2017 onwards, because it cannot be that the successor to the greenest Government ever, which is a phrase that hon. Members have no doubt been waiting for me to utter, are moving in the wrong direction by jettisoning what has been—I will try to be dispassionate, although it was my Government who introduced it—a vehicle excise duty regime that has been extremely successful in lessening considerably the CO₂ emissions from the fleet of light passenger vehicles in the United Kingdom.

I take the Minister’s point that the way in which new clause 5 is worded means that the review would happen eight months after the new clause would come into effect if the Government do not withdraw clause 42, as I hope they will. If he were to say a little more about the Chancellor’s remarks regarding a review of the impact and effect of clause 42, something to which he adverted in his remarks, I might be reassured and so not wish to press new clause 5 to a Division at the appropriate time. I therefore hope for some reassurance from the Minister; although, capable as he is, he can only rely on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said in that regard. I urge Members to vote against clause 42 if the Government do not withdraw it, as it will be bad for the economy, bad for the environment and bad for our children.

[Christian Matheson]

I feel I ought to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his research. He seems to be doing an impressive job. I was also impressed by the recommendation he gave about Honest John in The Daily Telegraph—I might cancel my Saturday subscription to the Morning Star and take the Telegraph instead.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is entirely legitimate to build environmental considerations into the taxation system if we want to change people’s habits in order to protect the environment, and the clause gives the impression that the Government are once again rolling back from their pledge to be the greenest Government ever and falling into bad old ways.

There is a way out. Perhaps the Minister should take a pause on the clause, as my hon. Friend suggested, because so much of it is predicated on emissions standards that have been thrown into turmoil by one company, which was not a British company—I do not believe that a British company would partake in such skulduggery. We cannot be absolutely sure that emissions standards across the industry are as they should be, because manufacturers in certain areas have been telling us, shall we say, statements that lack 100% veracity.

It is not only that motorists have been hoodwinked. The Government have potentially lost revenue as a result of emissions figures being massaged, with lower figures given. What are the Minister’s intentions, either through the Bill or perhaps more appropriately through another mechanism, on claiming back any revenue lost as a result of the Volkswagen scandal? The state has lost revenue as a result, so taxpayers have been hoodwinked as well as individual motorists, and although the Bill might not be the right mechanism for this, there must be a role for the Government in chasing down such manufacturers. Perhaps the Minister should not push through new measures linked to emissions standards until he and his colleagues in the Department for Transport are sure that a fair taxation system can be based on those standards. The Minister may wish to heed my hon. Friend’s good advice.