Greener Road Transport Fuels

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

On resuming—

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. When do you want to call the Minister?

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

We finish at 4.22, so you can split the time among yourselves.

[Richard Burden]

I will not go on for the sake of it. This is the second debate of the day for the new Minister and me in Westminster Hall, so we are starting as we mean to go on. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing the debate. We have heard important contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) and the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) and we have had important interventions from the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer).

When he introduced the debate, the hon. Member for Southport quoted from “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” on getting from A to B. Given the importance of what we are talking about and the seriousness of the consequences if we do not effectively tackle climate change, I was put in mind of a different quote from that book:

“For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.”

On the challenge of climate change, that makes a very good point.

Cutting emissions and tackling greenhouse gases is not simply a question of tackling the transport end of the equation, but transport is obviously central to the issue. We are talking about transport still accounting for more than a fifth of the UK’s CO₂ emissions, with 97% of that coming from cars alone. That is why the European Council of Ministers debate on achieving the EU target of 40% was important. I understand that the time scale has now slipped. Originally, the proposal was for 2020, and, as a result of the latest decision, it is now 2024. I understand the UK voted for that longer time scale. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case when he sums up the debate?

In the UK, we have ambitious targets to reach 1.7 million electric vehicles by 2020 and to ensure that all vehicles are ultra-low emission by 2050. Today we are not debating whether the transport sector needs to change, but what reforms are needed. I have had the privilege of chairing the all-party motor group for several years. It is a position I will have to give up now that I am in my current role. However, I know that great work has been pioneered in this country by the Automotive Council, in conjunction with organisations such as the Office for Low Emission Vehicles.

The hon. Member for Redcar might be right that we need five Ministers in a debate such as this, although the thought scares me a little, but one of the great things about OLEV is that it has started to bring together cross-departmental working. We could learn from that in other sectors. The Automotive Council and OLEV have both been important in ensuring that the UK is doing all that it can to promote innovation, development and the take-up of low-carbon transport. I am particularly proud of the Automotive Council, which was an initiative of the Labour Government. I am pleased that the success achieved by the council has meant that it has been continued by the current Government.