Emissions and Vehicle Type Approval

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to appear under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and her Committee on its excellent report. Her speech set out lucidly the problems that have been uncovered.

Clearly the actions of the company in this matter are utterly reprehensible and have seriously undermined confidence in a company that was previously a byword for reliability. In particular, the actions of Mr Willis before the Committee will have done nothing for Volkswagen’s future reputation in the UK and probably further afield. Nobody would argue with the Government’s response to the report when it states:

“The Government strongly agrees with the Committee that the actions of Volkswagen were completely unacceptable and is also concerned by Volkswagen’s more recent statements that underplay the severity of its cheating.”

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) alluded to the fact that in Canada and the United States the company has come up with money and compensated consumers. He also mentioned the loss of tax revenue and perhaps vehicle excise duty, but I suggest that the impact on the public purse has been much wider. Because emissions have been much higher than we were led to believe, there will have been an impact on public health. Addressing that impact will have been funded by the taxpayer throughout the United Kingdom. Volkswagen’s actions have put people’s health in danger and caused greater Government expenditure, and the Government should take that into account in dealing with the matter. The same situation will apply in many countries throughout Europe that have a public health service.

The emissions scandal also feeds into the current debate about the future of diesel vehicles and their impact on air quality in our cities. Clearly, in order to have a rational debate on the matter, we need confidence in the data about the level, as well as the impact, of emissions. The actions of the company have destroyed much of the confidence about the levels of emissions that have actually been generated. Strangely enough, I received an email this week on that very subject from a constituent, Neil, who has a diesel vehicle:

“For the past two decades I have driven a diesel car, on the advice that this type of fuel was the best environmental choice. I am now in the position of being considered the demon of the roads owing to the pollution—particulates and nitrogen oxide—released by these cars. This is due to the car companies’ fraudulent use of pollution cheating systems… I would like to be sure that I will not be the one who ends up footing the bill to change my polluting diesel. Are there any UK schemes being planned to help people like me, who are victims of this scam?”

Perhaps the Minister might care to elucidate. That email illustrates that ordinary people who have tried to do the right thing and get vehicles that are less polluting have ended up with vehicles that appear to be even greater polluters than the petrol cars they drove before. That undermines public confidence and our efforts to reduce our emissions and clean up our air. Volkswagen cannot escape responsibility for what it has done.

I note that the Government response to the report states:

“We found no evidence that other manufacturers we tested were using a cycle recognition device like Volkswagen.”

That may be so, but it has become apparent since the Volkswagen scandal broke that many manufacturers have been using devices to similarly reduce or hide the true emissions of their vehicles. For example, The Guardian reported last year on concerns about Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Mazda and Mitsubishi, and the American magazine Road and Track reported on concerns about some of the same companies, as well as Opel, several American manufacturers, Fiat, PSA and Renault. It also reported that a class action had been instigated in the US against Mercedes-Benz. The scandal may go much wider than just Volkswagen. We have no idea what impact it has had on consumers in the UK or on air quality in many of our major cities.

All of that shows that we face a very large-scale and widespread problem with the data claimed by motor manufacturers, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside alluded to. Owners of diesel vehicles have been put in an impossible position. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on whether the Department has looked at the wider issue and at manufacturers other than Volkswagen to ascertain the true extent of the problem. It seems to me that tackling Volkswagen is a start, but unless we get to the heart of the problem, find out how large it is and tackle it with all manufacturers, we will face an ongoing and serious problem for consumers and public health.

The Committee’s report and the hon. Lady’s speech have rightly drawn attention to the difference in the approach taken by Volkswagen in the US and Europe. Again, few would dispute recommendation 3:

“Volkswagen’s treatment of customers in Europe compared to its treatment of customers in the US is deeply unfair.”

The Competition and Markets Authority was alluded to, but the Government response makes the point that the CMA has no powers to intervene, as the vehicles concerned are mostly vehicles sold prior to the CMA getting appropriate powers. Given that all this apparently goes back to 2006, that is a heck of a number of vehicles on our roads that are affected.

The Government now talk of joint action with prosecutors across Europe. Can the Minister say whether that will continue? Obviously we are in the process of negotiating withdrawal from the European Union. Will that have an impact on any such action? I suspect that this is not going to be sorted in the next few months, so it may well have an impact in the future. Comment has also been made on the possibility of action under the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

[Andrew Selous]

Is there a reason why the United Kingdom and European legal systems should necessarily be so much slower than the American and Canadian ones? Drivers in those two countries have already received compensation. If that can happen in north America—somewhere that takes jurisprudence extremely seriously—surely it can happen in the United Kingdom and Europe in the same type of timescale?

[Mike Weir]

I see absolutely no reason why it cannot. Obviously the American consumer organisations are slightly different from our own and seem to be better at getting things into court and sorted out much more quickly than is the case under our system, but that should not be the case. Volkswagen, which clearly reacted quickly to the problem it had in the United States—presumably because of the damage to its reputation and market share in the US—should have done the same in Europe. That prompts the question as to why Volkswagen thought that it did not need to do that in Europe.

It is imperative that the UK, along with other European jurisdictions, takes action to show that they are not immune from what is happening in the United States. We must put consumer rights at the heart of this, as well as taxpayers’ rights, because the taxpayer faces a huge and ongoing bill, probably for many decades, due to what has happened over the last few years.

I was commenting earlier about the possibility of action under the Sale of Goods Act 1979. I was a solicitor before I came to this place—some years ago now, admittedly—and that is not an easy route for individuals to take. The Government note they are not privy to the terms of the contracts between individual owners and the company, but many individual owners will have contracts with the third parties who sold them the cars and will not generally have contracts directly with the company, although some may, depending on the type of contract.

However, the most problematic area is simply the impracticability of any individual car owner taking on a massive multinational such as Volkswagen in the civil courts. Such actions are not cheap at the best of times and when such a huge technical issue is involved, the costs are likely to escalate quickly. Also, whatever the sum that an individual may be claiming, there is an incentive for the multinational company to fight the case, because it is not dealing with just one such case but potentially thousands of such cases. There would be a real David and Goliath battle, and it is difficult to see how any individual would have any chance of success.

[Mrs Ellman]

The hon. Gentleman is making some very pertinent and interesting points. The change in Volkswagen’s attitude towards the Committee, from the first time they appeared before us to the last time, two months ago, was dramatic. Initially, they were full of apologies, but on the last occasion they said they had done nothing wrong. I can only feel that that is because they believe that they have got away with this and will not be challenged. Does he agree that that makes it even more important that the Department for Transport considers its powers to challenge, so that individuals are not left isolated and vulnerable?

[Mike Weir]

I was just about to make that very point. It is not within the power of the individual to take on these companies. It seemed clear to me from Mr Willis’s attitude when he last appeared before the Committee that Volkswagen would try to defend its actions, if it says it has done nothing wrong, which would leave the individual consumer in an impossible position. It will only be by Governments—not only in the UK but in other European nations—acting together and going after the company, and making certain that there is a compensation scheme akin to the one that has existed in the United States and Canada, to compensate ordinary victims of this scandal in the United Kingdom.

This is not an isolated case; there are other scandals in the motor industry. For example, there is the Vauxhall Zafira, which kept bursting into flames. The motor industry is an important industry in many parts of the United Kingdom and it may well become even more important as things progress. However, it must get its house in order, because if these scandals continue, there will be a great loss of confidence in many of these vehicles among ordinary consumers. I would ask the Minister to consider that and also to say whether he has discussed with other European jurisdictions the possibility of a joint and multilateral approach to getting a consumer compensation scheme to cover the European Union, or at least several countries together.

Network Rail

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

Let me first congratulate my right hon. Friend on his well-deserved inclusion in the recent honours list. I am looking forward to receiving the invitations to tender for the franchise and the results of the franchise competition for the Greater Anglia line. I think we need improvements on that line so that Ipswich and Norwich can be reached in 60 and 90 minutes. As my right hon. Friend well knows, the inclusion of new rolling stock will score very highly on the franchises that are currently being tendered.

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I note the change in the structure of Network Rail announced by the right hon. Gentleman today. Given that Network Rail still plays a part in Scotland’s rail network, will he consult Scottish Ministers before implementing those changes? Most of the changes in railways refer only to England, and I have no real comment on them, but when HS2 was announced, it was said that it would not be extended to Scotland because of the increased journey times through the rest of the network. Will he assure us that none of the changes will jeopardise journey times to Scotland?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I spoke to Keith Brown last night to outline what I anticipated saying this morning, and I shall meet him again on Monday, when we will discuss a number of these issues. On HS2, as soon as it starts to operate, I believe Scotland will benefit. Anyone travelling on the Javelin train from St Pancras down to areas in Kent that are not served completely by the high-speed line will get the advantage of using that line. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s questions.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Mike Weir Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is right: having a successful shale gas industry is an important part of supporting our renewables industry.

New clause 2 proposes specific changes to the Scotland Act 1998. Although I understand the intention, the Bill is not the right vehicle to make those amendments. The new devolution settlement should be debated as a whole package in the next Parliament. Last Thursday, the Government published their Command Paper, “Scotland in the United Kingdom: An enduring settlement”, which sets out that draft clause 31 will devolve to Scottish Ministers the regime for licensing exploration and extraction of oil and gas, and transfer to the Scottish Parliament legislative competence for the licensing of onshore oil and gas exploration and extraction. Responsibility for mineral access rights for underground onshore extraction of oil and gas in Scotland will also be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

I assure hon. Members that those matters will be fully addressed through the broader process of reviewing the devolution settlement, to which all three major parties are committed. Whoever forms the next Government will take forward the draft legislation for further Scottish devolution. I announced in Committee the Government’s intention to table an amendment to remove Scotland from the scope of the provisions concerning the right to use deep-level land. We have now tabled amendments that will achieve that.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I note what the Minister says, and obviously I am keen that the powers be transferred as soon as possible, but does she not acknowledge that, as I and the Scottish Government have said on numerous occasions, there is a gap? Scotland has planning and environmental powers, but will not, if the Government do as she is saying they will, get powers on licences for some time yet. Will the Government give a guarantee that no more licences will be granted in the meantime? What is the position of licences already granted? Would it not be more sensible to support new clause 9, so that there is a moratorium until the Scottish Parliament can make a full decision on these matters?

[Amber Rudd]

I feel that the Government new clause deals with the specific issues that are relevant to the Infrastructure Bill. I understand—we all do—that many other measures may need to be debated, but the time for that will be after the next Government are in place, when there will be a fuller debate on proper devolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Weir]

Having heard the honeyed tones in which the Minister opened the debate for the Government, I feel a bit guilty about having to say that I still have severe reservations about parts of the Bill.

Not all the Bill applies to Scotland, but the main part of it that does is on energy. It is a great shame, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, that we had so little time to debate those issues today. We had serious concerns about some of them, but we were not given the opportunity to debate them fully. However, that is the way it goes.

On Second Reading, I referred to two issues with fracking in Scotland: drilling under people’s homes without consent and the complexities in Scots law in relation to that. I am pleased that the Government have moved on those issues. I welcome the Government amendments removing Scotland, but I remain concerned that they have not taken the obvious action of moving licensing powers from the UK Parliament to the Scottish Government.

All powers relating to fracking lie with the Scottish Government, apart from the crucial power of licensing. The UK Government say that they intend to move those powers under the Smith commission proposals after the next general election, but with the best will in the world the process of getting that Bill through both Houses will take some time, and it will be some considerable time before the powers are with the Scottish Parliament.

[Tom Greatrex]

Given what the hon. Gentleman has said and new clause 2 on licensing, does he agree, as I suggested earlier to the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, that it would be sensible for the Government to stop the 14th licensing round in Scotland so that any new licenses may be granted after the powers have been devolved, and a Scottish Government of whatever complexion can make those decisions?

[Mr Weir]

That is one of the few things on which the hon. Gentleman and I agree. I made that exact point earlier. My concern is that, currently, there are a few existing licences, but not many. The Department of Energy and Climate Change could grant licences between the current time and when the powers are devolved. That leaves us in a dangerous situation. All powers should be in one place. I am disappointed that the Government have not done that.

That was one of the reasons why Scottish National party members supported the moratorium on fracking. I have severe doubts about fracking, but we wanted that moratorium to ensure that work can be done before the Scottish Parliament has the opportunity to consider it in great detail.

In Scotland over the weekend, the Labour party was telling us that it was very keen on a moratorium, and that it was going to stop fracking. Labour Members came down here today and abstained on that proposal. We are told that Labour’s new clause 19 will stop fracking in the UK. Frankly, it will do no such thing, as the Minister rightly said. Nowhere does new clause 19 mention a moratorium. As far as I can see, it does not even apply to Scotland. Unlike Government new clause 15, which had a consequential amendment to ensure it applied to Scotland, new clause 19 had no such consequential amendment. The new clause therefore does not apply to Scotland at all.

Interestingly, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield said that the Minister had hinted that she might change the Bill in the Lords. She was a lot clearer than that. She said definitely that the provision on the depth of the drilling would be changed in the Lords. There is no moratorium, and new clause 19 does not apply to Scotland and is likely to be changed in the Lords in any event. We have not got very far with the Bill.

I remain concerned. I accept that the Bill has improved, but on fracking I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to think again in the Lords about the transfer of powers. Transferring them now will close the potential difficulty, put all the powers together and allow the Scottish Parliament to take decisions in line with the wishes of the Scottish people.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Mike Weir Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burden]

My hon. Friend is right that the most effective place for planning needs to be the place where these regulations operate.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I understand what he says about tighter regulation, which is welcome. However, the Smith commission has recommended devolution of these powers to Scotland. Planning already rests with the Scottish Government, whose attitude has perhaps been different from that of planners south of the border. Would it not make sense, before fracking is fully established, for all the powers to rest in the same place so that this can be looked at properly?

[Richard Burden]

I must say that I am a little confused by the hon. Gentleman’s point. As I understand it, the current situation, even without this Bill, is that shale gas extraction can happen in Scotland only with the approval of the Government in Holyrood. I also understand—perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—that the Scottish Government, despite having an effective veto over any development in Scotland, actually voted against a shale gas moratorium earlier this year. He is right that the Smith commission has recommended the devolution of mineral access rights and the licensing process to Scotland. If this goes as far as Committee, I am sure that the issue will be explored there.

Labour is committed to the decarbonisation of the power sector by 2030 and to reducing our carbon emissions in line with the Climate Change Act 2008.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

This Bill covers a wide range of topics, some of which do not affect Scotland, but those that relate to energy most certainly do, and it is those areas on which I shall concentrate my remarks.

Part 4 of the Bill opens with provisions relating to community energy. By and large, we support the efforts to allow communities or community groups to buy a stake in renewable energy facilities in or close offshore to their communities.

I hope that those provisions will lead to more communities taking a stake in such important facilities—indeed, some community organisations are already making efforts to raise funds to invest in local renewable energy—and to greater involvement and acceptance of renewable generation. Should the Bill succeed, I hope it will lead to alternative visions of how we deal with off-gas grid properties, which are so often left out of the thinking on energy costs and energy efficiency.

I also hope that more community involvement will encourage energy companies to consider the wider interests of the community when proposing new developments, such as encouraging economic regeneration by supporting other businesses or by looking at ways in which they can help to deliver better broadband services to allow businesses to prosper.

I also note that amendments are proposed to the Petroleum Act 1998 that are designed to implement the recommendations of the Wood review to maximise offshore oil and gas extraction. I would disagree strongly with the Minister on what should be done with oil and gas revenue, but we are inclined to support the relevant parts of the Bill because both the Scottish Government and the UK Government strongly endorsed the Wood review.

Unfortunately, there are other aspects of the Bill with which we do not agree. New clauses were introduced in the other place relating to the process of hydraulic fracking. I have raised my concerns and asked specific questions on this matter at least twice in this House but have yet to have a clear answer, so I will try again—third time lucky, but I am not holding my breath.

In his introduction to the debate the Minister said that oil and gas was a reserved matter. That is true, but, unfortunately, the clauses on fracking cut across Scottish land law as well, which is very much a devolved matter. Given that the Smith commission proposed the devolution of those proposals to Scotland, it strikes me that now is the right time to do that. We should get all these provisions in one place while fracking is still at a very early stage. If we do not do that, it will be much more difficult to deal with it at a later stage. I should make it clear at the outset that I do not support fracking. Although we have heard much about its potential, I note that even in Denton, Texas, the very home of fracking, a recent referendum voted to end it. Other states in the US are turning against it because of environmental concerns. We should take note of such concerns, because if there are concerns about the impact of fracking in the wide open spaces of the American west, how many more would there be in densely populated islands such as these?

I wish to concentrate today on some specific questions relating to the process of fracking. Although development is at an early stage in Scotland, it is already causing a great deal of public concern. A large area of central Scotland, stretching through to my own constituency in Angus, has been identified as having potential for shale gas extraction. Much of the power over such developments lies with the Westminster Government rather than the Scottish Parliament. Westminster has the power to grant licences under the Petroleum Act to search for and develop shale gas, while local authorities and the Scottish Parliament have powers in respect of planning, which clearly give them some powers to restrict fracking. In his opening statement, the shadow Minister made the point that the Scottish Government have not introduced a moratorium. My understanding is that it is very difficult to do that, because planning is initially carried out at local authority level, and any such moratorium or attempt to put in standard conditions would lead to judicial review and endless litigation. It would be much simpler if all the powers relating to fracking were in one place. In that instance, the Scottish Government could take action by refusing the licences.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he agrees with the Smith commission’s proposals, as I do. Does he accept that the Scottish Government could, if they wished, issue planning guidance that would prevent fracking, as they have in relation to nuclear power?

[Mr Weir]

My simple answer is no. If the hon. Lady had listened, she would have heard me say that nuclear is completely different. Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 gave the powers directly to Scottish Ministers, so the situation is not the same.

The UK Government seem determined to have fracking. The changes proposed by the Bill remove the right of landowners to object to fracking under their properties. It has been reported that the UK Government are funding the British Geological Survey to carry out investigative boreholes to demonstrate the viability of fracking. Will the Minister confirm whether that is true?

Interestingly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed in his autumn statement last week to give, in effect, a sovereign wealth fund for fracking to north-east England. I note that, for many years, he refused even to consider such a thing for Scotland’s oil and gas. That has not gone unnoticed in Scotland.

As well as giving the right to grant licences to persons seeking to explore for shale oil, the Petroleum Act provides, in section 7:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 shall apply (in England and Wales and Scotland) for the purpose of enabling a person holding a licence under this Part of this Act to acquire such ancillary rights as may be required for the exercise of the rights granted by the licence.”

The 1966 Act includes the right to

“enter upon land and to sink boreholes in the land for the purpose of searching for and getting petroleum”

and to use the land for such specific purposes as erecting buildings and laying pipes, and ancillary rights. The right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) made the point that there is no right to enter on to land—there is no such right in the Bill, but there is in the 1966 Act. The definition of petroleum in the Petroleum Act includes natural gas. There is a right in other regulations under which people can enter on to land. The ancillary rights laid down cover such rights as lowering the surface, the conveyance of gas or oil, and the right to occupy the surface of the property, among other things.

That illustrates the confusion and difficulty resulting from planning law, the Bill and the 1998 Act. Those are extensive rights for the licence holder. Rightly, under the 1966 Act, those ancillary rights need to be set out by a court if agreement cannot be reached with the landowner. That right is being taken away by the Bill. No longer would that disagreement have to go before a court—those doing the fracking will have an automatic right to frack.

I am not clear where planning law is involved in fracking. If someone has a UK Government lease to seek shale gas in a specific part of Angus, would they be entitled to go on to ground to do so even if the landowner objected? Do those rights override planning permission, or would people still need planning permission from the local authority? If so, where does the landowner stand? Is his only right to object to the planning permission?

There is a further difficulty. In any event, the planning process could cover only the area in which there is infrastructure for boring, but it will be very difficult to be sure where or how far any drilling into adjoining land will go until such time as the operation gets under way. Planning permission will not cover that. At most, it will cover the infrastructure for starting the bore. What happens once the hole is bored? What happens when the bore follows the gas deposits? No one knows where it will go once it has started. That is the difficulty.

The Scottish Government have powers over planning in Scotland and have taken a much more cautious approach to fracking than the UK Government have taken. They have called in the application from Dart Energy in Falkirk, and have introduced changes in planning guidelines for unconventional oil and gas. Another Member has made the point that the Scottish Government have confirmed that, for the first time, the concept of buffer zones should be applied to all proposals. They have asked for the additional requirement to prepare risk assessments to ensure a transparent and evidence-based approach for assessing the acceptability of proposed buffer zones. They have made it explicit that buffer zones will be assessed by the planning authority and statutory consultees, with a strong expectation that planning permission will be refused if they are unacceptable. They have ensured that operators are up front about their plans, and that communities are consulted on all unconventional gas developments, including close involvement in the risk assessment process. As an Opposition Member said, the Scottish Government require a fresh planning application and public consultation if permission had not been sought for hydraulic fracturing but developers subsequently intended to undertake the process. As the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) has said, the Scottish Government have also convened an expert scientific panel to review the scientific evidence on fracking.

I believe that all powers relating to fracking, and indeed everything else, should be moved from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament. The Smith commission recommended that powers over onshore oil and gas should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. The political parties in Scotland agree on that, at least. It would be right and proper if all aspects, including planning and licensing, were dealt with in Scotland. That would reflect the views of the communities of Scotland where fracking might take place.

As I have said, fracking is at an early stage. Now is the time to transfer those powers. If we do not transfer the powers now, and if we wait until a Bill is prepared in the next Parliament after a general election, the transfer of the powers will, with the best will in the world, be at least a year down the line. A lot can happen in fracking in a year. We have the opportunity to have a proper look and ensure we do it right from the beginning, rather than transfer the powers in the middle of the process when it could be too late to stop some of those developments.

Electric Vehicles (Vulnerable Road Users)

Mike Weir Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am pleased to appear under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) on securing this important and timely debate.

Let me start by declaring an interest. Guide Dogs runs a centre at Forfar, in my constituency, and it is very popular and well supported locally. Trainee guide dogs are a common sight around the boroughs of Angus, and many of the centre’s supporters have asked me to make their views known today. However, I must confess that I also drive a hybrid car—one of the vehicles concerns have been raised about.

As others have said, hybrid and especially electric vehicles were pretty much a niche market until recently, but they are clearly beginning to take off, with many major car makers bringing out models. On my way into Parliament, I noted that Nissan has many posters around Westminster tube station, including a prominent one for the Leaf electric car—the hon. Lady will be pleased to see that. Anyone who has switched on a TV recently cannot have avoided the massive advertising campaigns BMW and Audi have mounted for new electric and hybrid vehicles. Charging stations are now appearing in our cities and particularly at motorway service stations, which is a sure sign that the industry expects a sizeable take-up of such vehicles in the relatively near future.

Guide Dogs is therefore right to raise concerns, and it is a good time to look at this issue, as it is still developing. What has happened is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. For environmental reasons, we all want to see the greater take-up of these vehicles, but we now find that they may pose a serious danger for the blind or partially sighted. Guide Dogs cites a statistic showing that quiet hybrid and electric vehicles are 25% more likely than conventional vehicles to be involved in a collision with a pedestrian because pedestrians might not hear them coming. Although the debate is about the blind and partially sighted, other groups—particularly the elderly, youngsters and cyclists—are also affected.

The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) mentioned pedestrian crossings, but the danger may, paradoxically, be greater on roads in less busy areas where pedestrian crossings have no audible signals. In the centre of London, people would cross the road only at a pedestrian crossing—at least if they had any sense—and most crossings have audible signals. In relatively quiet areas—in small villages or towns such as those in my constituency—there may not even be a pedestrian crossing. Not only may someone who has to cross the road not hear an electric vehicle coming, but there will be nothing to tell the driver someone may be on the road.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a well-informed and comprehensive speech. I came to the debate because I was encouraged to do so by two constituents, who very much share his concerns and those that were expressed earlier. Given the, happily, increasing number of hearing dogs, does he agree that the problem we are discussing goes beyond the important group he mentioned—blind people with guide dogs? People with hearing dogs are also puzzled by what is happening.

[Mr Weir]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Members have pointed to other groups that are affected. Clearly, Guide Dogs has been leading on this issue for its constituency of blind and partially sighted people, and it has made much of the running, but he is right that the problem is much wider.

I took part in a previous Guide Dogs campaign, on the issue of shared streets. At that point, the organisation was concerned by moves in many areas to remove defined kerbs and to allow the intermingling of vehicles and pedestrians, the idea being that each would be more aware of the other and take more care. As part of that campaign, Guide Dogs took me to a shared street, put a very effective blindfold on me and asked me to cross the street. The only thing that would give any indication of the presence of a vehicle was noise. It was a terrifying experience, although I knew it was temporary, and I could take off my blindfold at the end. There were also people there to make sure no one ran me over, although if they had been from the opposition, they might not have done so. The point, however, is that a blind or partially sighted person in a shared street might not even know they had gone on to the road, let alone hear a vehicle coming. That is a very dangerous situation.

It would be terrifying for someone who could not see vehicles to know that they might also be unable to hear some vehicles; effectively, they would have no way of knowing whether those vehicles were on the road, and they would take a major risk crossing any road, but that is what blind and partially sighted people may face every day. There is also a greater onus on drivers of hybrid and electric vehicles to take care and to ensure they see any people on the road. There is an issue for such drivers, as well as for people crossing the road.

Guide Dogs suggests that the way to deal with the problem would be to fit vehicles with an acoustic vehicle alerting system, which ensures that all vehicles are audibly detectable. That has been done in the USA and Japan, it has been investigated by a UN commission. That is an eminently sensible precaution, and if it is implemented now, it will ensure that the vast majority of these vehicles are fitted with devices as they come on the market, just as the industry takes off.

The one thing that has been put against doing that is the cost to motor manufacturers and the concern that it might impact on their productivity and their ability to produce vehicles. The hon. Lady cited a cost of about £20, which does not seem particularly high, given the cost of the vehicles. I should remind the Minister and others that we have not been slow in the past in insisting on safety precautions for those in vehicles. Seat belts are the perfect example, and air bags are another example. Both add to a vehicle’s cost, but they have been introduced because of the need to ensure the safety of people in vehicles. Is it not right, when we develop new vehicles, that we also look at the safety of people crossing the road when these vehicles are about, given that the large section of the population with disabilities may not be able to hear them coming? It seems a small price to pay to ensure that those fellow citizens are safe when they cross the road. Will the Minister seriously consider how to ensure that not only those who travel in a car, but other people on the roads, can be safer?

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.

Rail Franchising

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I know the hon. Gentleman was unable to attend my meeting with First Great Western because of other engagements. I am very keen to improve services, particularly in his part of the country. I am going there in a little while to look at those services first hand, and I will certainly pass on the representations he has made when I have discussions with First Great Western—and Network Rail, as both are involved.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Can the Secretary of State give a cast-iron guarantee that any east coast main line franchisee will at the very least be obliged to retain the existing level of service north of Edinburgh through my constituency to Aberdeen?

[Mr McLoughlin]

That is something I need to talk to the Scottish Government about.

West Coast Rail Franchise

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I had a meeting just the other day with some disabled people. They sang the praises of Virgin Trains as providing some of the best services to disabled people. I was pleased to be able to pass that message on to Sir Richard Branson when I met him yesterday.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State said that the Brown report would look at the lessons learned for future rail franchises. Perhaps the biggest lesson is that the whole system is a shambles, but given that the report is due shortly, what process does he have in place for taking account of its lessons in the negotiations with Virgin for the franchise in the immediate future?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The truth is that what both Governments have recognised about franchising is that it has brought massive passenger growth on the railways and the railways have flourished since franchising has taken place. The hon. Gentleman asks me to say what implications the Brown report will have for franchising. I think I had better wait till I receive it before I answer.

Cycling

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

Order. There is obviously a lot of interest in the debate, so I would encourage hon. Members to make brief speeches and shorter interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman makes excellent points and he is right that we need to consider a compendium of solutions to the problem.

On training, my constituent points out that it will help if we train young people,

“to redress the years and lost generations where cycling has been side-lined.”

He adds:

“Not only does it benefit the children now with greater independence, less obesity and much greater road awareness but will also mean that the next generation of learner drivers should have a greater understanding of road etiquette and the place of cyclists.”

Incidentally, he feels that that should be extended to

“include funded cycle training for adults and greater cycle awareness within the instruction given to drivers in general and professional drivers in particular”.

Mr Bolton says that wider implementation of a 20 mph speed limit would not only make things safer and more pleasant for cyclists and pedestrians, particularly in residential areas, but reduce the differential between the time taken for journeys made by car or by bike, thus

“making journeys by bicycle that bit more enticing.”

He supports appointing cycling commissioners. I suggest that we might consider the appointment of voluntary local champions in that regard, in these times of local funding austerity.

Bob Norton, the chair of the Congleton cycling club, raises two innovative points. He suggests that in most of the EU, national legislation adopts the position that the less vulnerable road user causing harm is deemed to be responsible or culpable, unless evidence is produced to show the contrary. Secondly, he says that the UK should legislate for a minimum passing distance, along the lines of those in force in other European countries.

Other residents, Nick Harwood and Paul Fradley, point out that the poor state of road maintenance is a serious concern, as other hon. Members have mentioned. Often

“a cyclist may have to move out from a line close to the left hand edge of the thoroughfare into the path of fast moving cars, lorries and vans.”

They comment that

“secure bike storage at railway stations and in town centres could all work together to enable more people to leave the car at home”.

My constituent David Ball supports the campaign to raise driver awareness of the vulnerability of cyclists, and reminds us that, whereas some people say that cyclists do not pay road tax, neither do cycles emit CO₂, or damage roads, as cars do.

Finally, I want to quote from the letter I received from Keith Austin, whose son was killed when he was hit from behind by an HGV. He is disappointed—to say the least—to find that the CPS

“have ensured that the driver is to be sentenced in a magistrates court, not the Crown Court”.

He writes that

“it does seem to highlight the unwillingness of the…CPS to bring adequate prosecution against drivers who kill cyclists. Perhaps you can use something from my letter in the debate in Parliament, if you are called.”

Mr Austin writes that Karl, who was a very well-known racing cyclist and had competed for 35 years all over England, was very safety conscious on the roads, and on the day he died was wearing bright clothing. He adds:

“he had attached to the rear of his bike a very small but super-efficient “Exposure Flare” rear light. This emits a very bright pulsating red light, which on a wide, straight road such as the A50 should have been visible for hundreds of yards. A fellow competitor on that evening saw Karl’s bright light and had Karl not been killed later was going to ask him where he could buy one, as it was so powerful.”

Just a few days ago, a report was published in which the head of the Scotland Yard’s road death investigation unit, Detective Chief Inspector Oldham, stated that motorists who cause death on the roads should face stiffer penalties. Mr Austin says that he is now left with the fact that his son’s case will be dealt with in a magistrates court, rather than in a Crown court with a judge presiding. He will be dealt with in a court where petty criminals are dealt with. He says:

“Is killing a man through carelessness on a par with minor offences? Under similar circumstances”—

that is, killing a man—

“where no vehicle was involved, would that qualify for a magistrates court?...To lose a child under any circumstances is utterly devastating. But to have that death…treated in such a…trivialising manner, just deepens the wounds further. My wife and I have suffered all this before, in 1986, when our only daughter was killed in a car crash; her killer charged with ‘driving without due care and attention’ and fined about £200.”

With great grace, however, Mr Austin says that he is not vengeful towards the HGV driver, who himself has to live with the consequences of the incident. He ends his letter to me by saying:

“Whatever sentence he would have faced would be as nothing compared to ours”,

even if the case had been dealt with in a Crown court. Is Mr Austin’s letter alone not sufficient reason for us all to consider the issue of road safety for the benefit of everyone: cyclists, pedestrians and drivers?

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

As a result of the number of Members who wish to speak in this debate, I am, with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, imposing a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of seven minutes. The rules are exactly as they are in the House. Each of the first two interventions accepted stop the clock and gives the Member who gives way an extra minute, and I appeal for short interventions.

Unlike in the main Chamber, the mechanisms here do not yet enable the Member speaking to see a countdown clock in the displays around the room. To assist Members, I will cause a bell to be rung when a Member has one minute left.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I welcome this debate and the increased attention to the need for action to make cycling a real choice and to make it more convenient and therefore more attractive, and, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, more enjoyable.

As other hon. Members have said, The Times campaign has done a great job in massively raising the profile of cycling. I also place on the record my appreciation of the work done by Cyclox, the cycling organisation in my constituency, and by Sustrans, British Cycling and CTC.

As other hon. Members have said, action on the threats to cycling is crucial for the health and environmental benefits that it brings and to cut the carnage of serious accidents and deaths. In Oxford last October, Joanna Braithwaite, who worked as personal assistant to the rector of St Aldate’s church in my constituency, was killed cycling to the church. She was knocked down by a cement mixer lorry. There have been other deaths, too, in Oxford in recent years, usually involving lorries turning—each one an horrific, avoidable tragedy.

I strongly support the call for sensors, truck turning alarms, mirrors, safety bars and HGV training to cut the risk to people cycling. The shadow Secretary of State’s proposal to pay for this by hypothecating income from the proposed HGV road-charging scheme is good and I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government will consider that positively.

More generally, funding measures to improve conditions for cycling cost little in comparison with the costs of making and maintaining roads. Switching a small proportion of the Highway Agency budget to provide cycle ways, as The Times campaign rightly proposes—

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

Order. I am told that there may be two Divisions in the House. I suggest we suspend the sitting for 20 minutes.

High-speed Rail

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I appeal to the Secretary of State to look at the House so that we can all hear her answers.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

We welcome the commitment to HS2 and note what the Secretary of State said about the impact on Scotland, but will she now widen the remit of HS2 to allow immediate planning for extension further north and link-up with development in Scotland, rather than waiting the several years that it will take the hybrid Bills to go through this place?

[Justine Greening]

It is fair to say that our focus must be on making sure that the Y network and, in particular at this point, phase 1 of that network happens. I am happy to discuss with the Scottish Government their proposals and ideas for how we broaden that network further in the future.