Greener Road Transport Fuels

John Pugh Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir, as always. It is also a delight to see the Minister after his recent preferment.

The debate might not be as well titled as possible, and if it fails to run its course, I urge all and sundry not to feel the obligation simply to fill up the time. Primarily, I want to talk about how we move around in a more environmentally sustainable way.

A passage from “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” should be pinned up in the Department for Transport. It is the definition of a bypass or a new road, described as

“devices that allow some people to dash from point A to point B very fast while other people dash from point B to point A very fast. People living at…a point directly in between, are often given to wonder what’s so great about point A that so many people from point B are so keen to get there, and what’s so great about point B that so many people from point A are so keen to get there. They often wish that people would just once and for all work out where the hell they wanted to be.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

As all the main protagonists are here, we can resume.

[John Pugh]

I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales)will be joining us shortly, but I think we can be less concerned about the timing of the debate, thanks to that interruption, Mr Weir.

I was trying to make the point that the most environmentally sustainable thing to do is probably not to move around at all, but for most of us in the 21st century, the daily commute, the school run, the journey to work and so on, are likely to be part of our lives for some time to come. Everyone in the room is surely familiar with that, as they surely are, too, with the constant need to refuel the vehicles that they use.

Everyone with a conscience in these times, when they are standing in the forecourt, probably thinks of two things: they consider price, primarily, but they also think of pollution. The Government, reflecting voters’ views, think not only of pollution and price, but of one other thing: revenue. It has long been a Government axiom that they are prepared to sacrifice revenue to achieve an environmental effect, because we all recognise that individuals by themselves are unlikely to bring about major environmental change. A community problem has to be solved on a community basis.

The fundamental problem presented by our travelling—that is, apart from noise, disruption and the permanent possibility of accidental death—relates to air quality and emissions from vehicles. We can address that locally through things such as the congestion charge, which, in London, has been a great success in improving air quality, and in a small-scale way through pedestrianisation, but that does not, by itself, do anything about the cumulative national, international and global impacts of transport.

The obvious remedy—not the only obvious remedy, but certainly one of them—is to make fuel less polluting or to make less polluting fuels, and to persuade, or alternatively, to coerce drivers to use them. A number of alternatives are clamouring for our attention. This list is not complete, but I put down hydrogen, bioethanol, biofuels, biogas—anything beginning with “bio”—electricity and electric cars, liquefied petroleum gas and compressed natural gas. There are exotic alternatives, too: I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) runs his rather large car on chip fat, which is one of the more exotic possibilities. None of them, particularly chip fat, is wholly unproblematic.

I want to put the case for LPG, particularly, as the least problematic alternative and the most worthy of Government support. By support, I mean fiscal support, rather than support in the form of further research and so on. I do not think LPG, as a mode of propelling cars, needs any further research. It can obviously been made more efficient over time, but the technology is well understood and well implemented.

I would like briefly to deal with some other candidates and my reasons for sidelining them in this debate. I am sure that other colleagues will wish to do otherwise and will perhaps want to highlight them. On hydrogen briefly, I think that we have to put that aside. People talk of conspiracy theories about the influence of the oil industry; there have been a good number of stories going back decades about how any promising research into hydrogen propulsion has been sat on, bought up or, in some way, scotched by the oil industry. I do not know whether that is true, but even advocates of hydrogen as a fuel would probably acknowledge that it is not yet a mature, scalable technology. More research is needed, and I hope that the Government will engage with those who research in this field, even if they do not actively support it.

Biofuels are further down the track, but consideration of biofuels and their mandatory mixing with conventional fuels, or their use as a substitute for conventional fuels, leads us to a series of what appear to be complex debates. The obvious debate, held at length in the Daily Mail, is about whether they will add to transport costs. Another debate, particularly on the continent, is about whether they are compatible with all forms of engine development—I understand that the German car industry has reservations and has blocked progress at EU level. There are debates about whether they will threaten food security or raise food costs, and about whether they will have a detrimental effect on land use as land use changes.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman said that there is a debate about whether biofuels can affect food security. I quote the report from the Select Committee on International Development, which said that

“the FAO, the OECD and the World Bank”

all agree and that it is rare for so many organisations to agree on a fact such as that biofuels are a threat to food security.

[John Pugh]

This debate is swirling around the European community and effecting some progress, along the lines of putting a great amount of biofuel into ordinary fuel.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Just to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell), I think the United Nations has latterly described the use of wheat for petrol as a “crime against humanity”, which I think sums up where we are on that.

[John Pugh]

I think I might reserve the phrase “crime against humanity” for other things, but I recognise the impact. A number of third world charities believe that the net effect will further impoverish the third world and the areas that most need our help.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman rather skated over the issue of hydrogen-fuelled cars. I drove in such a car 10 years ago in Detroit. The technology is perfectly good. Does he agree that hydrogen suffers from exactly the same problem as biofuels, which is the source material, in that we must have land to grow source material from which to extract hydrogen?

[John Pugh]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands hydrogen propulsion a lot better than I do; I hope he makes a contribution. I am betraying my ignorance here. I am just providing a preamble to what I hope will be a successful plea in favour of greater and more effective use of LPG. I do not in any way counter or dismiss the value of what the hon. Gentleman said.

[David Mowat]

I think hydrogen technology works extremely well, but the issue is that hydrogen infrastructure does not exist anywhere. Some countries have tried to develop hydrogen infrastructure; Iceland is an example. The difficulty is that infrastructure exists for petrol cars but not for hydrogen. That is what will stop the use of hydrogen.

[John Pugh]

I am certainly surrounded by people who are far more learned than myself in the field, but I shall have the temerity to continue.

Even if the biofuels issue has moved on to the discussion of what are called second generation biofuels, where people talk about not using virgin land or crops but municipal waste and algae, technical questions about the reliability of supply remain, particularly if whole-scale, mandatory use in other fuels is considered an option. I am simply pointing out that there are problems, and I think hon. Members’ interventions have helped me to illustrate precisely that point.

In some ways, electric cars seem a perfect solution, until one considers the production costs, which are currently high. There are issues with the battery, such as its weight, life and endurance, and with how the electricity itself is produced; the electricity might not have been produced in a carbon-neutral way. There is also the issue of flexibility of use, which I think is well understood by anyone who considers the topic for a second or two: what happens when battery life is exhausted?

I recognise that electric motors can be made to become more efficient; that battery technology can be increased; and that we can have charging points across the country—in fact, grants are, I believe, available at the moment and points are appearing—but there is still some way to go. One of my constituents, who died over the weekend, had been progressing with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills some new development that would make electric motors a lot more efficient and batteries a lot more effective. Developments will be made in that field, but my best guess—this is borne out by conversations that I have had with the motor industry—is that despite Government investment and considerable Government enthusiasm, from some Ministers at any rate, electric cars will probably remain a niche market, extending only as the use of hybrids becomes more popular.

Even were electric cars to take off for the motorist, we will not see electric buses, unless we call them trams, and to be fair, the electric lorry is some way off. Lorries necessarily travel long distances, and the cost of that and the weight of carrying batteries to enable them to do that would probably be wholly prohibitive for quite some time to come.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest challenges to the roll-out of electric vehicles is addressing what is called range anxiety, where drivers are worried that they will, like the Duracell rabbit, run out of power in an unfortunate place?

[John Pugh]

Yes. I think that, to some extent, the worry is misplaced. I think the range is greater than people imagine, but that underlying anxiety makes it difficult to sell purely electric cars, as opposed to hybrid cars; it is a lot harder ask of the consumer. In any case, when it comes to value for the consumer, electric cars are head to head with the new generation of the ever more efficient and quieter diesels. Looking at what is happening with car market sales, one can see the result. However, even with lower emissions, more diesels clocking more miles in bigger cars, which is what we seem to be seeing at the moment, will not significantly reduce the nation’s carbon footprint in the long term.

In the short term, there is also the added complication of more particulates being released into the air, which could have some negative short-term effects on people’s health. Some particulates are carcinogenic, and certainly none of them are particularly good for people’s respiratory system. Some people say that air pollution at the moment, particularly from diesels, is as dangerous as passive smoking. That brings me to LPG and CNG.

LPG creates fewer emissions—15% less than petrol and 40% less than diesel. It has no production problems; we make LPG vehicles in this country. Sadly, they are mostly left-hand-drive and exported, but they are made in large numbers in this country. It is a mature technology. It is being scaled up throughout the continent, and we have in place a distribution network—something like 14,000 points minimum, with most of the major supermarkets providing an obvious port of call for people.

An LPG vehicle can be easily converted—at the flick of a switch—to a petrol vehicle without detriment to its engine or its performance. However, when we look at what is happening with LPG in this country, we see stagnation, with very limited production. Granted, there are some post-production adaptations, but even when we think about that, it is a Catch-22 situation.

I have looked into the issue. I own two old cars, both of them about 16 or 17 years old. Both have fairly large engines, are quite expensive and could benefit from being converted. However, the cost of conversion probably now exceeds the cost of purchasing both cars, so someone in that sort of situation is unlikely to do so. The real issue with an older car is that, having done the expensive conversion, can anyone guarantee that the car will not fail in some other respect?

Equally, if someone is thinking about converting a new car, which makes an awful lot of sense over the lifetime of the car, they will run into issues regarding the guarantee on the car and its servicing. The garage from where the car was bought may not be happy to deal with it once it has been converted. The guarantee and service issues are enough to deflect all but the most determined purchaser.

Either way, there is a problem. The solution is for us to produce and use more LPG vehicles, but we are going backwards here. If anyone looks at the second-hand LPG market, as I have, they will find second-hand Vectras and Astras, but those cars are about seven or eight years old—vintage—simply because cars of that sort are not being produced for the UK market anymore. However, Opel, which is virtually the same company, is producing the Opel Adam, a new LPG car, as a brand leader. We therefore have the phenomenon where, in an allegedly not-so-developed country such as Turkey, there is a 20% uptake of LPG, while in England, the figure is 0.5%.

If the situation is poor with cars, it is probably worse with freight, where the whole-life cost of lorries—lorries are surprisingly expensive—have to be factored in by hauliers. In terms of cost per mile, it would benefit an enormous number of hauliers to convert, as long as they can predict the cost over a period, but to do so, they must have some sort of guarantee that the financial environment that they are in will remain somewhat similar.

We can see how a change in the financial environment has made a difference. At one time in the north-west, quite a few LPG buses were running around—they were very clean indeed—but changes in the bus grant and the subsidy bus companies got on their diesel simply destroyed the network, and firms such as Arriva rapidly withdrew from providing them. Initially, I thought it was an issue of reliability and so on, but that turned out not to be the case.

That is the problem. We have a solution, a partial solution or an off-the-shelf solution, which we can implement now, but we are not making any headway, while the rest of Europe is. Why is that the case? Given that we have a solution—it is not the sole solution, and it may not be the long-term solution, but we can do something appreciable to reduce emissions—why has it not been implemented? I think that it is because the Government are not creating a sufficiently certain economic environment.

It is often said that two things in life are certain: death and taxes. The problem is that taxes to provide fiscal environmental incentives are not that certain. There is a differential between LPG and petrol, but it is agreed annually. When the Government are pressed by Members to do more, they respond with a formula—it is in the debate pack—that goes something like this:

“The Chancellor keeps…under review and takes into account all relevant fiscal and economic impacts when taking decisions.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 176W.]

On the face of it, that sounds rational, until we recognise that long-term investment requires at least medium-term predictability. My worry is that, without predictability, many green technologies are destined to tread water. That is not speculation; we just need to compare the UK with other parts of Europe and to look at what happens there. The empirical evidence is clear: where there is a more far-sighted, more determined fiscal climate, LPG and, I dare say, other forms of green transport expand.

I can understand the Treasury view—it is anal, it is perhaps sound accountancy and it is prudent—but it is self-evidently a lousy business strategy, and it simply has to be challenged. When I raised the issue during the passage of the Finance Bill, the Treasury Minister—he is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I am assured that he is going places—replied:

“I hope he will understand that the Government need to balance the provision of certainty with the ability to respond to economic and fiscal developments. We can provide a degree of certainty…but I hope he”—

that is me—

“will take into account that there needs to be a certain degree of fiscal flexibility.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 13 June 2013; c. 526-27.]

I appreciate that, but if there is such uncertainty, it prevents consumers, councils and businesses from thinking ahead and doing energy deals over many years. What is to prevent the Treasury from making a decision on the differential that contains caveats to protect against unpredictable, massive future volatility?

An agreement could be established that gives the Treasury some comfort and investors in LPG who would like to invest further some confidence that they will get some return on their investment. Is it not better to try to achieve that outcome than to have what we have at the moment, which is a fiscal incentive that, if the facts are to be believed, does not act as much of an incentive? If that incentive was working, I simply would not be here. There is no point in me or the Treasury acting in a wholly futile way. If the incentive does not do the job, we have to look at it again.

We need critical mass if LPG is to be the force it might be. Members can probably recall a time when diesels lacked critical mass. They were associated, particularly in the passenger car market, with clouds of black smoke, noisy, rattling engines and slow acceleration. The tipping point came when one neighbour could look at the shiny car in the other’s drive, discuss it with them and find that the car, which did not appear to be belching black smoke or rattling, was actually a diesel. As a result, diesels took off to a great extent in this country. The same can happen with LPG, but we still have some way to go.

In 2005, all the political parties talked about Mondeo man. I actually live next door to him, in so far as my neighbour has bought a P registration LPG Mondeo estate on eBay for a modest price. He swears by its reliability and economy, and he gets a huge mileage. He has found a rare pearl and an unusual buy, because there are not many cars like that.

For many people, it would be desirable to have a vehicle that is reliable, economical to run and environmentally less bad than a diesel, but that simply will not happen until two things come about. First, the Department for Transport needs to listen a bit harder to the industry, and I hope this new Minister has an open mind and will listen. However, he has a bigger task: to ensure the Treasury listens much harder to the Department for Transport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have told many potential investors in the industry that we cannot expect the Government to make winners. As at a roulette table, they will put their chips on lots of different numbers, but having made policy on, for example, the proportion of petrol that should come from bio-sources, they cannot change it when people are putting in hundreds of millions of pounds. By the way, those biofuels do not get a subsidy; all they need is a market that is understood and left to prosper. I agree with his point, but at some stage we must not so much pick winners, as set the environment for particular sectors of the market to thrive.

[John Pugh]

One place the Government cannot avoid interacting with the market in one way or another is the taxation regime, and they do so to an enormous extent. A lot of the price of petrol is tax. They cannot opt out.

[Ian Swales]

That is a good point. The Government have a key role, because they are never out of the market, due to the environment they set and the rules they put in place. They are players, whether they like it or not.

We need to look constantly at the science behind the issues and not simply listen to the last non-governmental organisation we spoke to. Sustainability needs to be looked at from cradle to grave, and there is a lot of devil in that detail, such as the materials used to make a car battery for an electric car. We need to police systems, because once we put rules in place, there are usually lots of people working on the best way to get round them and maximise their take. We need to ensure that we are not naive about the systems we put in place. We need big thinking.

One of my concerns is that we need five Ministers to respond to the debate: one from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills; one from the Department of Energy and Climate Change; one from the Treasury; one from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and one from the Department for Transport, who I am sure—no pressure—will speak for all the others. The issues typically cross those five Departments, a fact that I know the Government recognise. They have put a high-level team in place, but we need not just high-level thinking, but high-level action to ensure we get a consistent view, over, for example, the value of waste and where it is best used.

Finally, I congratulate the Minister on his new role. I am sure that, having listened to the debate, he is wondering whether he did the right thing in accepting the job. I hope he will give us the clarity we all seek.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Methane, or biogas, is CH₄, so for every molecule of carbon dioxide produced there are four molecules of water, so it is a big improvement over fossil fuels such as LPG.

[John Pugh]

I was not aware of the cooking oil development plant in Bootle, but I was once the leader of Sefton council, which covered Bootle. The major environmental issue that we had was the strange smell that used to permeate households in the area, and that was regarded in those days as an environmental hazard. This environment is a complicated thing to deal with.

[Mr Goodwill]

Indeed. We have a big chip factory in my constituency, which occasionally has the same effect. Used cooking oil offers carbon savings of around 80% compared with those produced by fossil fuel, and the latest data suggest that last year around a third of biofuels supplied in the UK came from used cooking oil. We are very much on the case of ensuring that used cooking oil is indeed used cooking oil, and the Department is currently monitoring the situation closely because of the allegations that have been flying around. Certainly, the UK should not be criticised in that regard.

There is still more to do to ensure the sustainability of biofuels. In particular, we are concerned about the impact of indirect land use change. Studies have demonstrated that, due to ILUC, some otherwise sustainably produced biofuels can end up causing greater carbon emissions than fossil fuels.