Greener Road Transport Fuels

Debate between Mike Weir and John Pugh

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[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.

Liverpool Care Pathway

Debate between Mike Weir and John Pugh

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[John Pugh]

That in part is the dilemma. I know that the saying is “No treatment about me, without me”, but there are certain circumstances that we will all be aware of where the patient is dying and the clinician is in an acute moral dilemma over whether to inform them that that is the case—that there is no hope and that they will be given purely palliative treatment. I am fairly confident that a good number of people will die in our hospitals for years to come, despite the Liverpool care pathway or any other guidelines that we put in place, who will, until the moment of their decease, expect recovery.

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

We have just under 12 minutes left and two speakers to go. I ask that they bear that in mind.

UK Software Industry

Debate between Mike Weir and John Pugh

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that interventions should be brief.

[Dr Pugh]

I am not sure that the causal chain is as emphatic and clear-cut as the hon. Lady represents it, but later I shall come to the business of a level playing field.

It could be argued, could it not, that the indicators for what the industry offers and its potential are so good that the case for state investment is almost being undermined? If it is that good and there is that much potential, why would the Government be needed? Why should venture capital not be there; why would it not be there? I suppose there are some answers to those questions. It could be argued that this country’s financial sector is notoriously short term, which indeed it is. It is somewhat tax averse, and we have seen plenty evidence of companies preferring to go to places where the tax burden is less. The companies are certainly not patriotic and if they have scope elsewhere in places such as Canada, they might well decide that they want to place their funds there.

There are other strong arguments against the state getting too heavily involved in managing the industry. One is that the IT industry is notoriously volatile and unpredictable. One only has to look at the giants of the past that have crashed in the night—the IBMs, the Lotus Notes and the strange fall and rise of the Mac. One need only consider what would have happened had they put their money into floppy disc manufacture a few years ago, or into CD-ROM manufacture in the past five years. When someone puts money into the software industry or the IT industry more generally, they do so at an appreciable risk.

It cannot be in the long-term interest of the nation—of all nations—to base national taxation, for any sector, on the lowest common denominator of international taxation. Although the video games industry has said a lot about Canada, I would like to see what is happening in other areas where the software industry is also thriving and is competitive with Canada. I shall not rehearse the arguments that we could have about state aid and protectionism. I do not understand, however—the Minister can help me here—the argument presented by the Chancellor for not giving tax relief to the video games industry. He said that it could not be well targeted. I do not grasp that, and some evidence in the notes that have been provided makes it less than clear what is being said, meant or agreed by the Treasury.