National Lost Trawlermen’s Memorial Day

Neil Parish Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner]

I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on this issue over the past couple of years as shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He is right, of course, and we should extend the scheme further not just to those most at risk but across the industry and to all fishers, because these relatively cost-effective, inexpensive things can save lives.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this Adjournment debate. Further to what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, we can greatly improve the safety of our boats. There will always be risks at sea, but we can minimise those risks by introducing better safety and more up-to-date boats. I would like to see us invest even more in fishing and fishing boats so that we can see our fishermen safer at sea.

Income tax (charge)

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this Budget debate. It is also a great pleasure to speak after some very excellent maiden speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy), the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) and for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines).

I was particularly intrigued by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley who told us that his wife, Maureen, had said, “If you feel strongly about something get out and do it.” That is why he became an MP. His wife Maureen has much in common with my own wife, Sue. Whenever I complain about something, she will say, “You are a Member of Parliament, do something about it.” So I endeavour to do so immediately, as you can imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We plan to level up the whole country, and we are starting very well with this Budget. As we go north, let us also goes south, west and east. Let us do it all while we are at it. We have excellent new Members of Parliament on these Conservative Benches, plus those of us who have been here a little while, to help get this policy delivered, because it is right that we do that.

I welcome the Chancellor’s first Budget. He came into the hot seat and delivered an excellent Budget, but the coronavirus has meant that the six days from the time that he delivered the Budget to now is a long time, so I look forward to his statement this evening.

[Stephen Flynn]

It is my understanding that the Chancellor has just made an announcement in relation to support for businesses. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, when the Minister sums up, he should provide clarity in and around the terms of the loans that are being proposed for business. Although the overall sum is welcome, we do need some clarity on the loans.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Member has very much made his point, and I suspect that our Ministers and the Secretary of State have listened to what he said, and I suspect that there will be complete clarity from the Government, as I would expect nothing else.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)]

My hon. Friend knows me well.

[Neil Parish]

And, of course, I know the Chief Secretary very well.

I am encouraged by the tireless efforts of NHS staff, and I very much pay tribute to what the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) said: we need to thank medical staff throughout the NHS for all the excellent work that they are doing to tackle coronavirus because it is unprecedented, though we can make all sorts of predictions. We need to be out there and sort it out. That is why the Government have introduced clear measures that will help.

We are going to come under greater pressure over the coming weeks and months, so I welcome the £5 billion emergency response outlined in the Budget. The funding will ensure that the NHS will receive the support that it needs. Even with that large sum of money, we will probably need to keep it under review. I welcome, too, the Government’s commitment to support local councils—the £500 million hardship fund will help local authorities to protect the most vulnerable members of our community. The Government, however, must ensure that that funding is readily available and distributed quickly. We must cut bureaucracy to ensure that individuals and businesses get the support that they need. Very often, we are laudable in this place—Governments of all colours always want to take action—but we must make sure that we take action quickly.

Many local businesses have contacted me rightly to express concern about how covid-19 will affect them. Government measures to suspend business rates and refund sick-pay payments for smaller firms are welcome, but the Government need to be ready to provide more emergency payments to support those businesses. My fear, especially for smaller and, indeed, all types of businesses, is that if they cannot pay their bills the knock-on effect on all other businesses and employees will be huge. This is unprecedented, and we need to take action.

The scientific knowledge and understanding of the virus are constantly changing. We need to ensure that the Government have the flexibility to adapt as the situation unfolds. Across Devon, we have seen an outpouring of offers of support for all those affected. I wish all charities and organisations well across the country, especially in my constituency, so that they come together and keep communities together, because we will very much need to do so through this very, very challenging time. As many Members have said in the House, it is probably the most challenging time that anyone has experienced in living memory, especially because the virus has the potential to lay the whole economy low.

In the Budget, we predicted that the economy would grow by 1.1% this year. It will be interesting to see the effect of coronavirus on that. I would say to the Opposition, who will naturally pour a little doubt on the economy, that in both the coalition and Conservative Governments we have turned the country round with the hard work of the British people. We have turned the economy round, so that we can go forward and spend this money on infrastructure in particular. At the moment, interest rates are low, and we have the ability, according to the Chancellor, to take up loans over 15 years, so we can set reasonably low interest rates for them, all being well, over that period. We need to upgrade our rail and road infrastructure, and deliver broadband across the country, and now is the time to do it. I have said in three or four elections that I am going to deliver broadband to the whole constituency, but I think my constituents are still waiting. I do not want to have to go to them in another election and say about the promise of broadband, “It’s coming—it’s still definitely coming!” Seriously, we have to make sure that we deliver that, as the issue has a huge effect on our economy and businesses as well as on our ability to deliver good business opportunities in the countryside. With the right broadband infrastructure and a very good broadband connection, many businesses can be run anywhere in the countryside.

Naturally, I am delighted that the Chancellor maintained the availability of red diesel for farmers in particular, but also for commercial ferries and fishing boats. It is absolutely vital that we maintain that at this particular moment. Agriculture has seen one of the wettest, if not the wettest, winter of all time, and there are huge challenges. That brings me neatly to the doubling of the money for flood defences to £5.2 billion over the next five years. We have to work out what we are going to do about flood protection. The Environment Agency needs to be absolutely clear about what it is and is not going to defend. We may have long periods of dry weather, but when we have rain it comes quickly and we get a lot of flooding. I look forward to putting the money to good use, but we must be clear about where we are going to spend it.

I am happy to see that £2.5 billion will be made available to fix potholes. Perhaps not at the moment, given the coronavirus, but in normal times, believe it or not, one gets as many letters about potholes as anything else. There are as many roads in Devon as in the whole of Belgium, so imagine the number of potholes. One or two constituents have lost wheels and various other parts of their cars going over them, so it becomes a major issue.

I was very keen to see the money for the A303 and the tunnel under Stonehenge. If my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) were here, he would be delighted. Edward du Cann talked about the A303 in 1958, and it has still not been dualled. We now have the opportunity to build the tunnel and the rest of the dualling from Andover right the way down to Ilminster. I would then like the last piece from Ilminster to Honiton to be done, but I will wait for that to happen. We must get the diggers actually digging the road and delivering. It is important that not only do we put these roads and rail in our Budgets but that we actually deliver them. That is what people want.

I welcome the £1.5 billion in capital spending on further education colleges. There are FE colleges in Axminster, Honiton, Cullompton and Tiverton, and they provide a very good education, including for those who left school young and perhaps did not know exactly what they wanted to do with their lives. They go to further education colleges later in life and do good things for themselves, their families and the country.

[Jonathan Gullis]

On further education, does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important that we continue with level 2 courses? They may be at a lower level, but for the people my hon. Friend is describing they are an access route to higher level apprenticeships further on.

[Neil Parish]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more on level 2 schemes. Going back to nursing and all those types of occupations, it is so necessary and there is a pool of people out there who will be wanting to do that work, so long as they can build their skills and so long as we have the necessary education there. I very much welcome that suggestion, but again we have to deliver it to our colleges.

I also very much welcome the £500 million over the next few years for electric vehicles and charging infra- structure, because we will need many more electric cars. I do not think building roads and bypasses is wrong for air quality and air pollution. Actually, Mr Speaker— Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg your pardon; I have elevated you—I think that when we build a bypass or a dual carriageway and we stop that congestion, we lower the pollution that comes from our vehicles. It is therefore not only good for getting people through. Looking at the A303 and the motorways into the west country—it is a very big holiday area and very good for the economy—it is good for air quality if we can keep those cars moving. If we can make sure that in the future the majority of cars and eventually all cars are electric, then we solve many problems. We would also still have a great ability to have the family car, which I think so many people want.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Can I remind my hon. Friend that I think hydrogen cars will be making a big entry into the market very shortly? I am waiting for the hydrogen car, so I do not have to plug it in every night.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend may have to wait a little while for the hydrogen car. I think that there will be some hydrogen cars, but what there will be many more of before that are hydrogen lorries. There is no doubt that the one vehicle where we have a problem is the lorry. It needs huge power for towing loads and the diesel engine, whether we like it or not, has that capability. We actually need a hydrogen lorry, rather than an electric lorry, because at the moment an electric lorry would have to carry most of the weight that it can carry in batteries in order to deliver the power. I can therefore see hydrogen lorries being very effective in the long term.

[Stephen Flynn]

On that topic, I invite the hon. Gentleman to Aberdeen, where we have hydrogen lorries, hydrogen cars and hydrogen refuelling stations.

[Neil Parish]

Putting my hat on as the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and having done a lot in previous inquiries on air quality, I should come and see exactly what Aberdeen is doing, because hydrogen has huge capabilities.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Forgive my ignorance, but does a hydrogen-propelled vehicle work on the same principle generally as the internal combustion engine, in that there is an explosion that creates a vacuum that turns a crank?

[Neil Parish]

I do not have the detail to give an exact answer to my right hon. Friend, but I do know that hydrogen is mainly produced from water with electricity, so the actual fuel itself is so much cleaner and so much less polluting. I cannot give him all the details of exactly how the engine itself runs, but it uses a clean fuel and gives that support.

Overall, I believe that this Budget is very good for the future of this country and the people of this country. I look forward, as I have said, to the statement later this evening from the Chancellor, because I think that the thing that is worrying all our populations and all our constituents at the moment is coronavirus. We need to get through this. We need people to have enough income to pay their rent or their mortgage and keep their families running, as well as their businesses, so that we do not have a knock-on effect of business failure bringing other businesses down with it. I look forward to the statement, and I very much welcome this Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. One of the difficulties with the announcement last night was that it was not brought forward with a package of remediation or mitigation. I think that has come today, and clarity of that is very welcome.

We are going to need to pump hundreds of billions of pounds—not the odd billion, £5 billion or £10 billion—into the economy. I think the Chancellor has announced today £330 billion-worth of loans for the business sector, which is absolutely right, with £25,000 for businesses that are not insured for losses from business interruption, plus business rates holidays and three-month mortgage holidays, which is also absolutely right. If we talk about this in terms of hundreds of billions of pounds, the natural question is: where are we going to get that money from? This is a time when we have to set aside the fiscal rules. We will be paying for this anyway, in lost jobs and businesses, redundancy payments and reductions in tax receipts, if we do not put a huge fiscal stimulus into the system right now, so I welcome the measures from the Chancellor.

We need a few things in addition. We saw in 2008 that banks did not support businesses through that financial crisis—there is no doubt about it; in fact, quite the opposite. We need a commitment from the banks, UK Finance and the Treasury that they will continue to cash-flow businesses for as much as they need until they get through this period. To make sure that they do that, we should introduce emergency legislation to bring SME loans and financing commercial loans within the regulatory perimeter. That would mean that banks would have to have the oversight of the Financial Conduct Authority, and indeed of Members in this place, if they did not do the right thing through that period.

[Neil Parish]

We need to urge the banks to make sure that they offer commercial loans at very competitive rates. We do not want to see the banks trying to profit from the misery for all the businesses out there.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I absolutely agree with that, and we must have oversight of that. We also have to make sure that all banks are included in these emergency loan schemes, such as business interruption loans. At the moment, some of the major banks, such as OakNorth, are not in that scheme, because they are not overseen by the British Business Bank. We need to see a widening of the scope of the scheme. We need to do a lot more for micro-businesses, the self-employed and sole traders. I have not seen a lot of support for those people at the moment.

The big thing I want to say is about how the support is provided. The £330 billion of support is great, but businesses will never again see the income lost, so in my view support cannot purely be through loans. We have combine loans—soft loans, interest-free loans or whatever—with putting grants into these businesses, otherwise we are just kicking the can down the road. We cannot simply say that businesses will have to pay, which is what we are saying if they are loans. We are going to have to go further, and that will put up the national debt by a significant degree: £100 billion, £200 billion or probably £300 billion. I am sure we will get the Opposition’s support for that. We have to see businesses through this time, because we will pay for it whatever happens.

I really welcome the measures from the Chancellor so far, and there are great measures again today. We must get through this. We have to give businesses confidence and to say to consumers: “You won’t lose your job. You won’t lose your business. We will get you through this.” That is what we have to say, and that way we will avoid the worst possible side of recession, we will save jobs and we will save businesses. It is the right thing to say, and I am absolutely confident that the Chancellor will do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman to a large extent, and we need more companies to be investing in, and based in, the UK. It is important to have UK companies, but I am also proud when companies from around the world invest in the UK. That is something we should be pleased about.

Let me return to infrastructure projects and the need to have the right skills and supply of materials. In 2014, funding was provided for six schemes on the A47 from Lowestoft through Norfolk to Peterborough. Six years later, five of those schemes have yet to see any work starting on the ground. We must ensure that planning and legal frameworks are fit for purpose. The third crossing project in Lowestoft will bring about great positive change to the town. It is an oven-ready scheme—we are ready to go, yet we still await a planning decision that should have been made more than three months ago.

I wish to highlight three aspects of levelling up. First, coastal communities have been left behind in recent decades, but they have so much to offer to UK plc. In Lowestoft, there is a compelling case for investment in the port, which occupies a strategic location. It lies in close proximity to one of the UK’s most productive fishing grounds, from which, as we leave the EU, we have a great opportunity to land more fish and to revive the local industry.

[Neil Parish]

There is a huge opportunity as we leave the European Union; we will gain much more fish for our fishermen. We must ensure that we not only land those fish but process them. We also need a great marketing ploy across the country to encourage people to eat many more different types of fish, so we do not have to export quite as much and we eat more of our own fish.

[Peter Aldous]

My hon. Friend is spot on. To make the most of this opportunity, we need to invest in infra- structure—in port infrastructure, markets and processing factories. That would be so much help to coastal communities that have been left behind.

In Lowestoft, we are close to the main cluster of offshore wind farms in UK coastal waters. We are also an area of the southern North sea UK continental shelf, which has an important role to play in the transition to the low-carbon economy, and where there will be an enormous amount of work in the decommissioning of gas and oil facilities over the next decade.

The Budget places much emphasis on free ports. It is good news that the Government recognise the important role that ports play, but it is vital that free ports add to the UK’s trade, making our ports more attractive than their international competitors, rather than diverting business from one UK port to another.

Coastal communities along the East Anglian coast face a significant challenge from coastal erosion and storm surges. The sea does not just damage homes and businesses; ultimately, it destroys them. The Lowestoft flood defence scheme will remove that threat. At present, it is only part funded, so it is good news that the Budget recognises the threat of coastal erosion, provides an additional £5.2 billion for flood defences and includes an undertaking to carry out a review of the Green Book.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who spoke passionately about coastal communities. My beautiful constituency of Milton Keynes North is not famously coastal, although we apparently have more miles of shoreline than Jersey; the definition of shoreline is stretched somewhat to include the many beautiful lakes that Milton Keynes has.

[Neil Parish]

Milton Keynes may not have much coastline, but it does have a lot of people. My hon. Friend could promote the great fish we catch all around our coast. I urge him to go out and feed his constituents with our great British fish.

[Ben Everitt]

That is an excellent point and it is well made. The nutrition of the people of Milton Keynes is well served by the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

We find ourselves in a strange situation in this Budget debate. It is almost as if the rules have changed. As I stand to speak, we are digesting the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has launched a £330 billion fiscal bazooka at the coronavirus to support our businesses, many of which are in my beautiful constituency. In that context, it feels odd to be talking about last week’s Budget. It was going to be the levelling-up Budget. It was going to be the got-Brexit-done Budget. It was going to be the Budget of infrastructure. Of course, it was the first-swing-at-corona Budget. As we look at it now, it was last week’s Budget. These are indeed strange times. However, I am sure that many Members on the Conservative Benches, and possibly some others, were struck by the optimism, hope and positive spirit of the Budget. It was enthusiastic about our future. While we deal with the sheer scale of the coronavirus outbreak, we should take some joy from the fact that this is a Government who are looking forward beyond the coronavirus and into a world where we have levelled up and we will have a more equal, more productive and more aspirant, tolerant society. It is a Budget of hope and positivity.

Community Transport

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and I suspect I will hear from many more hon. Members who want to talk about their local providers.

On reading through the many comments on the Committee’s online forum from community transport groups, drivers, users young and old, their families and even a tea shop and bed and breakfast in the Yorkshire Dales, it is clear just how important those services are to people’s daily lives. It is noticeable how many people referred to them as a lifeline. I recommend that everyone looks at #WithoutCT on Twitter to see the range of socially valuable activities that would simply not be possible for some without a local community transport operator.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for the report and for what the Transport Committee is doing on it. Community transport is important, especially in more rural areas, and especially to enable our elderly to get to hospitals all over the place. We have to try to provide some direct help with fuel costs or insurance—something that will keep those community groups going. They often cannot afford to run commercially, but they can do such a good job with some support. They do so all across my constituency, as I am sure they do across hers.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Gentleman is right that those services are invaluable. It might be a regular trip to the shops, a lift to a social or sports club, or a visit to the doctor or hospital, as he just said. It could even be something that we would all strongly advocate: a lift to the polling station on election day.

Community transport encompasses a broad range of services, whether that is lift-giving by volunteer car drivers, dial-a-ride minibuses for people with disabilities or other mobility problems, or community bus routes that would not otherwise exist because they are not commercially viable. I have seen the importance of Nottingham community transport in my area, and I am sure that we all have wonderful examples that showcase how local community transport operators serve our constituencies. That is why we support and highly value community transport, and why we want and need more of it, not less. We must not take it for granted.

A vibrant, not-for-profit community-based system is becoming increasingly important to complement existing commercial bus and taxi services, and to plug gaps in provision that are growing in many places because of pressure on local authority budgets. Last summer, however, the community transport sector faced an existential crisis. The Department proposed an about-turn in relation to not-for-profit operator licensing arrangements that could have serious, perhaps catastrophic, implications. Grave concerns were expressed by the sector, and by hon. Members across the House, which is why the Transport Committee became involved. I am proud that it was the first issue we considered after I was elected as Chair.

We heard evidence from all sides, including from the commercial operators who claim that there is unfairness in the current system, from hundreds of community organisations that feel under threat, and from the public bodies whose job it is to oversee the licensing and regulation of both sectors: the Department for Transport, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and traffic commissioners. Our report was published in December and the Government responded in February, alongside the launch of their consultation on proposed changes.

My anxiety is that despite the work of our Committee and others to expose the dangers of the Department’s approach, the Government have not yet started to listen fully or engage properly with those legitimate concerns. A potential crisis has not yet been averted.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Neil Parish Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I happily give way to my former Parliamentary Private Secretary.

[Neil Parish]

I pay tribute to the great job that my right hon. Friend did as Transport Minister and in his many other ministerial roles.

It is very much the charging points—their accessibility and the ability to charge vehicles quite quickly—that will really encourage people to have electric vehicles. At the moment, only about 1% or 2% of vehicles are electric. We really need the infrastructure if we want that figure to be 25% or 30%. Until we get the infrastructure right, we will not necessarily get everybody to sign up to having an electric car. We have to be absolutely certain to get the infrastructure right.

[Mr Hayes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been not only a student, but a mentor to me as my PPS and as my great friend. He is right, as he often is on this subject. It is right that we build an infrastructure that is accessible. It also needs to be affordable and recognisable. The arguments that have prevailed so far have focused on those points—that the infrastructure must be easily recognised by anyone who wants to charge their vehicle.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

The traffic commissioners are acting speedily and effectively and as a unified group on this issue. I expect the consultation to continue to give—through the proposed exemptions and workarounds that we have been looking at—further comfort to the sector.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

2. What progress he has made on rail improvements in Devon and the south-west.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)]

We are investing more than £400 million in the rail network in the south-west. This includes a fleet of brand-new trains for services to Devon and Cornwall, which will enter service later this year, transforming journeys for passengers. We are continuing to work with Network Rail and the Peninsula Rail Task Force to explore the potential for longer-term improvements in the south-west.

[Neil Parish]

I welcome the Minister to his new job. The Waterloo to Exeter line serves Axminster and Honiton and the southern part of my constituency. It is a great rail line and it needs a second loop in order to get more trains into Exeter and then back up to London. Could the Minister give me details of what is happening with that?

[Joseph Johnson]

The Devon Metro proposals for enhanced rail services in the Exeter area include aspirations for additional local services between Axminster and Exeter. This is being progressed as a local scheme by Devon County Council, and we will continue to provide assistance as it develops its proposals.

Rail Links: South-west England

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Luke Pollard]

More new stations in our region can only be a good thing. Continued investment in repairing and renewing existing stations, such as the efforts being undertaken at Plymouth, is also much appreciated. The peninsula rail taskforce produced a fine set of reports. One year since hon. Members who are here today presented it to Ministers, there has still been no formal response. In answer to a written question that I tabled on 20 July, the Minister confirmed that the DFT would not formally respond to the PRTF’s report at all. That is disappointing, and I encourage the Minister to look at it again. It is a fine piece of work, setting out what signals, track, curves and junctions need upgrading to achieve quicker and more resilient journeys. It is a costed plan of some £9 billion in total, with £2.5 billion of immediate asks.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that much more could be done to the track to get the trains faster. I want to get faster trains to Plymouth, but I also want to make sure they stop at Tiverton Parkway on the way. I very much back what my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) said about a station in Cullompton as well as Wellington, and we must not forget the southern line from Waterloo to Exeter, which a great deal more could be done with.

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point well.

In the general election, I was pleased that my party leader was so persuaded by the case for rail investment in the south-west that he backed spending £2.5 billion on the following immediate asks in the PRTF report: track straightening, signal upgrades, speed improvements and resilience at Dawlish in preparation for the Dawlish avoiding line. I fear I am getting a similar reputation to the Leader of the Opposition for liking trains. If Labour can do that, will the Minister look at spending that is as yet unallocated in control period 6 for funding the PRTF projects?

The Secretary of State recently announced £48 billion of maintenance and repair funding, with investment in infrastructure to follow in the so-called SoFA—statement of funds available—documents. My ask, which I am sure is that of other Members, is for the far south-west to gain its fair share of that funding. I do not believe voters or Members would accept or support yet more money going to other regions without the far south-west getting our fair share. I am sure that the irony is not lost on the Minister or members of his party present today that a plan put together largely by Tory councils and backed by Tory MPs is not yet being backed by a Conservative Government but is backed by the Labour Opposition. I am sure the Minister and all those with an eye on the region’s many marginal seats would like to address that.

We need a railway we can be proud of, and the autumn Budget is the Government’s chance to give us exactly that. Our rail travel should take two hours 15 minutes to London, not three and a half. We need to ensure we are investing in reducing the journey times at every opportunity. The PRTF’s “Speed to the West” study has identified an opportunity in the autumn Budget to allocate £30 million of new money and shave three minutes off the journey between Plymouth and Exeter. To complete the work, £600,000 is required for Network Rail to finalise the technical details and re-model the track plans. The work itself would cost £25 million to £30 million. That is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, because according to the chair of the PRTF, those tracks will not be repaired again for another 60 to 70 years. I encourage the Minister to support us in making the case to the Treasury and his own Department to spend that money.

I would like to take a moment to look at what transport infrastructure means for the wider south-west region as a whole. Last Friday at the Exeter Chiefs ground I joined Members and businesses from across the region for the south-west growth summit, where I made a pledge to back the south-west, as a number of Members did. The biggest single boost that could be delivered to our region’s economic performance is investment in our train line. The Minister and I are both big fans of modal shift—moving people from their cars on to trains. At present it is faster to drive between Plymouth and Exeter than it is to take a train. Will he help us to make modal shift possible, so that we can reverse those statistics?

Politics has changed, and new approaches are needed. Other regions of our country have seen the way that Opposition and Government MPs can join together to champion transport schemes in their region. I hope that that can be done in the far south-west. As a region, we need to be stronger, bolder and more relentless in delivering transport schemes and more passionate with Government to make sure we get the funding we deserve. If we continue to suffer from poor transport links, we risk losing jobs and missing the chance to protect and grow the economy in the south-west.

I would be grateful if the Minister could address in his concluding remarks the request for a pilot of using Network Rail’s mobile masts in Devon and Cornwall for train mobile signal, £30 million for a speed upgrade on the Devon banks and a proper response to the PRTF report. All three asks are in his hands. Our region awaits his decision, and I hope it is a good one.

Diesel Vehicle Scrappage Scheme

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered a diesel vehicle scrappage scheme.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I also have great pleasure in leading this debate. The good attendance shows the strength of feeling for implementing a diesel vehicle scrappage scheme and tackling air pollution problems. In my speech, I shall touch on why we need a scrappage scheme, outline how such a scheme would complement the Government’s new air quality plan, and suggest how systems could be designed and targeted at the dirtiest diesel engines.

Why do we need a diesel vehicle scrappage scheme? I think that everyone here knows how we got to this point. The previous Government said that diesel cars should attract less vehicle tax than petrol equivalents because of their better carbon dioxide performance, and the present Government carried on in very much the same vein.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that, because there is a narrative that this was a perverse act by the previous Government. Can he confirm that in fact it was supported by all the other parties at the time—as he has rightly conceded, the policy was continued by the present Government—because CO₂ reduction was seen as the overriding imperative?

[Neil Parish]

Heaven forbid that I should say the last Government were perverse. It was the acquired wisdom of the day that we should reduce CO₂, and diesel produced more per litre than petrol, so encouraging diesel was the obvious way to go. There were some rumblings at the time, if I remember rightly, but I have to accept that we did not change the policy when we came to power. Of course, we have now seen the new science and seen the light, and therefore need to take action on particulates and on nitrogen oxides in particular.

[Mr Spellar]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for intervening again, but he says that we have seen the evidence. Can he tell us the breakdown of emissions of particulates and NOx from various modes of transport, whether buses, trucks or private vehicles, and particularly as compared with other sources? I will mention a number of them—

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman has started his speech already. The figure I can give him is that in the hotspots in our inner cities, some 60% of the nitric oxide comes from transport. It is quite difficult to break that down and say how much comes from buses, taxes, lorries, delivery vans and cars, but there is no doubt that tackling the private car, particularly in those spots, will help to make a real difference in reducing NOx emissions. Transport is a particular issue, as is the older diesel engine. We cannot ignore what is going on; we need to take action.

Motorists were encouraged to switch to diesel through changes to the vehicle taxation system. We now know that that was a policy mistake. The uptake of diesel cars rocketed. The proportion of diesel vehicles on British roads increased from 20% in 2005 to 37.8% in 2015. That was a deliberate Government policy. Between 2005 and 2015, we did see cleaner diesel vehicles, but naturally they still give off particulates and NOx.

In turn, the number of extra diesel vehicles has caused a host of air quality problems. Diesel engines emit a higher level of nitrogen oxides. Those gases cause or worsen health conditions such as asthma and bronchitis and even increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes. They are linked to tens of thousands of premature deaths in Britain every year.

As a result, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which I chair, branded poor air quality a “public health emergency” in our recent report to the Government. Four in 10 local authorities breached legal nitrogen dioxide limits last year. That shocking statistic shows the scale of the problem.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that many diesel vehicles give off six to eight times or even more nitrogen oxide compared with petrol equivalents, but in that context does he agree that although it is commendable that Governments have focused on carbon reduction targets, and that may be the driver behind this policy, good environmental policy is also about looking at the other pollutant effects of cars and particularly diesel, and that the push towards electric cars may well be an important part of the long-term solution?

[Neil Parish]

I very much agree, because I think that any scrappage scheme must be very much linked to electric vehicles and certainly hybrid vehicles. I see little point in converting people from diesel back to petrol, especially if we use taxpayers’ money to do that.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I support everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying. He knows that today I am publishing my Clean Air Bill, which deals with wider mapping to provide infrastructure for electric and hydrogen, more powers for local authorities and a broader fiscal strategy to confront the escalating number of people dying because of diesel emissions. Will he lend that Bill his support—I know he has put his name to it—today?

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman’s Bill is a good idea, because we all have to work together on air quality to lengthen the lives of many of our constituents and certainly of many people in the hotspots. That is where electric vehicles, the charging points, taxis, buses and all those things come in. We need to look at hydrogen cars; we need to look at a whole range of vehicles, and perhaps sometimes we need to take people out of vehicles altogether. Norman Tebbit’s “On your bike” may have a whole new meaning. If people go to work on a bike, that is good for the environment as well as for getting to work.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

rose—

[Neil Parish]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Select Committee.

[David Simpson]

I thank our esteemed Chairman of the EFRA Committee for giving way. Let us say that a diesel vehicle scrappage scheme is implemented. Does he envisage that it will be rolled out across the whole United Kingdom, or will it be left to the devolved nations to sort it out themselves?

[Neil Parish]

That is probably a decision for my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Government. We have such an esteemed Minister here this morning. As I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary at one stage, I especially know what an esteemed Minister he is and I expect to hear some very good and detailed policy from him in our debate this morning, so I look forward to his response. I suspect that it will be down to the devolved nations to roll out such a scheme, but I also suspect that devolved nations will be looking for a little cash to do that.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that many drivers of diesel cars will feel that they were encouraged to buy those cars, but now they face the prospect of local authorities seeking to fleece them for taxes in order to raise money to plug their own funding gaps, and that they will feel that that is deeply unfair?

[Neil Parish]

Yes. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The idea behind the scrappage scheme is that it will not only help with air quality but provide some recompense for people, in that those who were moved towards diesel will get a carrot as well as a stick. A stick, in the form of a £12.50 charge, will be applied here in London in 2019. I do not necessarily disagree with it, but a poorer family, who may not be able to afford another car, do need some help. A scheme such as the one under discussion is part of the balance that must be struck. As I said, people were encouraged down the route of diesel. We also have to get over a certain amount of scepticism among the public. They will be saying, “For years you were saying, ‘Drive diesels.’ Now you say, ‘Don’t drive diesels; drive hybrids and electric cars.’” That is absolutely right, but we have to explain exactly why we are going down that route, and a scrappage scheme would help to ease the pain.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way one last time?

[Neil Parish]

I certainly will to my hon. Friend.

[Andrew Selous]

My hon. Friend is being unbelievably generous to us, and we must not carry on trespassing on his generosity. So far he has not mentioned gas. Like him I am a huge fan of electric vehicles, but does he accept that for heavy goods vehicles, refuse collection vehicles and so on, gas-powered vehicles could provide an important interim stepping stone, given that at the moment electric cannot shift that weight of vehicle in an economic fashion?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The conversion to gas can reduce the particulates back to about 60% to 70% of what they were previously, so a big gain is to be had there. I also understand that most lorries would have to carry their full capacity load weight in batteries in order to drive themselves, so at the moment the electric lorry is not an option. We will probably build towards some hybrids in the future. We also have to look at taxis; we want electric taxis, but for those that cannot become electric in the first instance we should perhaps convert them to gas and then to electric. It is the same with delivery vans and other vehicles. Part of our lifestyle these days is that we order a lot online and find a lot of vans going round. This is about a whole combination of those things.

[Mr Spellar]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Parish]

As long as the right hon. Gentleman makes it brief, please.

[Mr Spellar]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. The one thing that has been absent from his wide exposition over a range of transport issues is any actual costings of the changes he proposes. Has his Committee actually done any of that?

[Neil Parish]

I actually converted one of my own vehicles to gas. Usually, converting a vehicle is something like between £1,500 and £2,000, so it is not ridiculous money to convert to gas. All the bus companies and taxi firms will do all the costings and will know firmly how much it is. As I said, a certain amount of help is therefore needed to help the commercial sector to convert to the new world. Otherwise they will not do it because of the economics.

The Government have twice lost in court over their failure to tackle poor air quality. In November, the High Court forced the Government to come up with a new, better air quality plan. The draft will be published imminently—by 24 April at the latest—so we may hear something on that matter from the Minister this morning. Already, from this October, pre-2006 diesels and petrol vehicles will face a £10 charge when they enter London at peak periods. It is expected that diesel drivers will be hit hard. Separately, the Budget Red Book stated that the Government would consider appropriate tax treatment for diesel vehicles ahead of the 2017 Budget. Diesel owners who bought their vehicles in good faith are expected to be hit with higher bills.

Of course, I understand the need for tough action. These new measures are the stick to reduce diesel vehicle numbers, but what about the carrot? Where are the incentives to encourage drivers to move away from diesel? The Prime Minister recently said,

“I’m very conscious of the fact that past governments have encouraged people to buy diesel cars and we need to take that into account”.

That is where the case for a targeted diesel scrappage scheme comes in; it perfectly complements the Government’s clean air zone plans.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being extremely generous with his time. Given that most of the concentration of nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide and particulates is in urban areas, does he think that in any scrappage scheme a priority should be given to people living in urban areas? It seems slightly generous and pointless to support people who own diesels in the middle of North Yorkshire, say.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. Yes, priority does need to be given to the inner city, because that is where we are particularly trying to improve the quality—in the hotspots of poor air quality. There is perhaps also a need to help beyond the inner city, because—this is the point I have been making—people bought their diesels in good faith. Certainly, there should be a targeted approach. One of the problems with the previous scrappage scheme was that it was to boost car sales at that time—it is a lovely position for middle England to decide, “Let’s change our car.” In some ways, there may be a need to target partly by income as well. If we are not careful, a lot of the people who we most want to trade in their older diesels may be those who can least afford a new car. That is perhaps beyond my pay grade, but it is not beyond the pay grade of the Minister, who will reply in a minute.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

Almost nothing is.

[Neil Parish]

Good; I look forward to the Minister’s words of wisdom. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) raises an interesting point—it is the hotspots in particular that we need to sort.

Road transport still counted for 34% of the UK’s NOx emissions in 2015, and the rate of reduction from the sector has slowed down because of the increased contribution from diesel vehicles. Turning to the Government’s plans, I was therefore disappointed that a scrappage scheme was not announced at the Budget. Of course, we are a little hopeful that something may be announced very soon. The Transport Secretary stated on “The Andrew Marr Show” in February that the Government were considering a scrappage scheme, but there have been no further announcements. I know that there are concerns about the costs of any scheme, and that is why it should be targeted and proportionate. It can be a key weapon in the Government’s armoury in tackling air pollution problems.

What is more, a scrappage scheme is very popular with the public. A recent survey of over 20,000 AA members showed that seven in 10 backed the policy, rising to three quarters among young people. A separate survey published by the think-tank Bright Blue just two weeks ago showed that 67% of Conservatives backed a scrappage scheme. Ministers, this is a policy with significant public support, especially as we move, dare I say it, towards a general election—that was not in my speech.

What would a scrappage scheme look like? First, it would mean replacement by ultra-low emission vehicles. Any potential scrappage scheme should have a stringent condition on the replacement vehicle. It should mandate users to swap their vehicles for an ultra-low emission vehicle or other forms of transport.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing the debate. He is outlining some of the things that he hopes will happen. At the weekend we saw some publicity regarding the explosion in credit for purchasing new and recently second-hand cars. Does he agree that the last thing we want to see is a further explosion of credit on the back of an issue that has resulted from the expansion of diesel cars over the past 20 years?

[Neil Parish]

That is always the problem. Naturally, in order to buy a new car, people often need credit. I suppose the argument is that if a certain amount of support is available for a new vehicle, people will not need to borrow quite as much credit to get that vehicle. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but we have to balance that with the fact that we need to improve air quality dramatically. That is why a scheme should perhaps be particularly targeted towards our inner city.

What I was talking about could include a public transport ticket, a car club membership, a rail season ticket or cleaner transport such as a new bicycle. A scrappage scheme may not necessarily be just about people changing their cars. I could do with a new bicycle to come in from Battersea every morning—it would be ideal. The scheme would work in a similar way to the pollution reduction voucher scheme operating in southern California. The whole idea of this morning’s debate is to think slightly outside the box. The scheme also has a potential to provide a substantial boost to the UK’s emerging electric vehicle market.

Secondly, the scheme would be means-tested. I do not want a scrappage scheme becoming a subsidy entirely for the middle classes. Households should not just be able to trade in multiple diesels for a cash subsidy. Instead, the Government should consider targeting a scrappage scheme at poorer households or those earning less than 60% of the median UK household income in particular.

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend is kind to give way again. I congratulate him—as I should have done earlier—on securing this important debate. As he has outlined, one of the challenges is making sure that the incentives support lower-income families. Does he agree that we will need to learn lessons from past incentives that failed to do so, such as the green deal, if we are to make the scheme effective and help people in the poorer parts of our cities?

[Neil Parish]

I am sure that the Government, especially the Treasury, will be looking at this issue particularly closely, first because the best use of taxpayers’ cash is to target those who most need it and secondly because it may be possible to widen the scrappage scheme while ensuring that those on lower incomes receive the most support. There are ways of tailoring the scrappage scheme to do exactly what we want, which is to get older diesels out and to help those, particularly those on lower incomes, who cannot otherwise afford to do so.

[Geraint Davies]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s generosity in giving way. Does he accept that there is a strong case that the motor manufacturers, not just the taxpayer and the consumer, should make a major contribution towards the cost of such a scheme? Volkswagen has had to pay billions of dollars in the United States because of its cheat devices; we know that emissions on the road were at five or six times their supposed laboratory levels, and a lot of cars in France, Germany and elsewhere have been withdrawn for a refit. Is there not a strong case that the Government should go to the manufacturers for a contribution towards the scheme?

[Neil Parish]

I know that the Minister has had some strong discussions with Volkswagen. It is not just Volkswagen; car manuals often give a figure for miles per gallon and then a true figure that is about two-thirds of the ideal figure. They will say that the car does 60 mpg when it really does 45 mpg or 40 mpg, so there has been a certain amount of deception there. I also think that companies such as Volkswagen could buy themselves some public esteem by helping to support a scheme for moving towards electric vehicles. Not only should the Government talk to Volkswagen and other vehicle manufacturers; it would be good for those companies, which have manufactured so many diesels, to say, “We can help to convert people away from diesel.” The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

[Andrew Selous]

Further to the point about Volkswagen, does my hon. Friend agree that there has also been a loss of tax revenue and that the Government should seek to get it back from Volkswagen and others? We taxed these vehicles believing that they were much lower-emission than they really were.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. It is not just that people have paid less tax because they and the Government believed that their vehicle was emitting less. Those people were also sold vehicles that did not achieve the emissions levels that the manufacturer said they did, which raises the question of whether not only the Government but the individual motorists who bought those cars are entitled to some compensation. I suspect that some cases will end up in the courts, and it will be interesting to see what the courts have to say about them.

The Government should particularly consider targeting a scrappage scheme at poorer households and those that earn less than 60% of the median UK household income. They could taper support, with lower-income households entitled to a higher level of support for exchanging their vehicles.

My third proposal for a new scrappage scheme is that it should be targeted. I would limit it to the 5.6 million diesel cars on British roads that were registered before 2005, which are on Euro standards 1, 2, 3 and 4 and have higher NOx levels of at least 0.25 mg per km. This would complement current clean air zone plans to charge vehicles of Euro 4 standard and below, as well as the London T-Charge that will begin this October. A scrappage scheme would give diesel owners the chance to replace their older, dirtier vehicles before clean air zone charging is implemented, which is quite important.

Another option would be to geographically target the scheme at this country’s pollution hotspots. The think tank IPPR—the Institute for Public Policy Research—has estimated that there are around 900,000 Euro 4 or older diesel vehicles in the 16 top pollution hotspots in the country. By creating a targeted scrappage scheme, the Government could help to remove more than half the dirtiest vehicles from the worst polluting hotspots.

My fourth proposal relates to funding. The previous scrappage scheme in 2009 was targeted at cars that were more than 10 years old. A vehicle could be scrapped in exchange for a £2,000 discount—£1,000 from the Government and £1,000 from car manufacturers. I propose that a new scrappage scheme could follow a similar model. Funding should also be capped and time-limited, like the last scheme, which set deadlines of February 2010 or £400 million, whichever was achieved first. If the Government earmarked £500 million for the scheme, that could take nearly 10% of the 5 million dirtiest diesel vehicles off our roads. Evidence from the previous scheme shows that it was generally the oldest and therefore more polluting cars that were being replaced. Moreover, past schemes have generally brought forward investment decisions.

I know that Ministers have baulked at the costs of a scrappage scheme, but they should not be put off. It need not be an open-ended funding commitment. A targeted scheme capped at £500 million would be a real tonic to get dirty diesels off the road quickly. Even better, they would be replaced with ultra-low emission vehicles or a clean transport option. The Government still have vast air quality problems and the last thing we want is for them to end up having to pay fines. It would be better to go forward with something positive.

I will finish with two thoughts. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has called air quality her Department’s top priority. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has said that electric vehicles are at the heart of the Government’s new industrial strategy. I cannot think of a policy that would better target both of those aims. A targeted, means-tested scrappage scheme in which diesel vehicles could be swapped for an ultra-low emission vehicle or a cleaner transport option should be a key weapon in the Government’s armoury for tackling air pollution. It would be the perfect complement to the new clean air zones strategy. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and other colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

I am not entirely sure I follow that. I will break it down into two areas. One is about infrastructure cost. Whatever contributions have been made by the Toyota car company, for example, in creating a very successful hybrid vehicle, that does not alter the fact that people will need an infrastructure to charge up those vehicles. Although the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, who introduced this debate, may well be able to plug in his vehicle on his country estate, he may have noticed that in urban areas such as mine there is very tight terraced housing and a lot of high-rise flats—and an increasing number, by the way, of apartments in our urban areas. I would be interested if he could tell us how people will be able to charge their vehicles, what the infrastructure cost will be and what Treasury contribution will be required. A decision may have to be made, but at the very least people need to know what the overall cost will be.

[Neil Parish]

If I could just put the right hon. Gentleman right, I do not have a “country estate”; I have a farm. There is a little bit of a difference, and I was also a working farmer before I got here. Let me make that abundantly clear.

To be serious, the Government are already rolling out an infrastructure for charging points; we also want the fast charging points, so that people can charge up their cars quickly. As far as gas is concerned, there is an infrastructure out there already. A lot of garages supply liquid gas. There are probably not as many as we might need, but there is quite an infrastructure for gas out there already, so that does not need to be reinvented.

[Mr Spellar]

I think the hon. Gentleman is underplaying the position. I acknowledge the fact that he is a farmer—which is why I threw it in the way I did—but I would ask whether he and his neighbours use red diesel. There was no mention in his contribution as to whether the enormous discount on red diesel should be included in our considerations. Again, I note that there was no figure—no estimate—for how much all of this will cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

That is absolutely right, and I thank my hon. Friend for that. I suspect that the transmission capacity, particularly locally, will be affected in the same way. Equally, we have to look at the availability of petrol if we remove a great chunk of the diesel market, which may or may not also happen in the rest of Europe. What discussions has the Minister had with his European counterparts? The duty levied on diesel there is considerably lower, which is why they have much lower diesel prices in the EU. Reference was made to the European Commission putting the UK Government on notice and our Supreme Court responding to that, but it is interesting to note that the European Commission also mentioned a whole number of other countries, including Germany, France, Spain and Italy. Is there any common factor among those countries, apart from them being the major industrial countries of the EU? I therefore find it rather strange that we are looking at a major upheaval that does not seem to be mirrored by our European counterparts without getting proper figures in an impact assessment, and at a time when we are considering the uncertainties of Brexit. Apart from one or two towns and cities in one or two countries, there seems to be no similar reaction from other countries.

Equally, there seems to be no consideration as to whether, as was rightly said earlier, we could actually have alternative fuels for many heavy goods vehicles. There is a reason why, across the whole world, goods vehicles are overwhelmingly diesel. It has to do with torque, traction and so on, and that applies to many builders’ vehicles, which are for lifting and generate power to do that. That would not be possible with an electric vehicle—certainly not with the current state of technology.

Electric vehicles may have some minor advantage when sitting in traffic, but many of those arguing for this proposal should perhaps be looking at better traffic management. With a number of cities, and particularly London, quite a bit of the congestion has been aided and abetted by the construction of cycle lanes. Boris Johnson’s cycle lanes have generated congestion in central London, as taxi drivers and others will all attest, so we need to be looking at how we can deal with the problem in its various segments. With petroleum, it is true that we can keep cracking the oil in different stages and get more petroleum out, but that adds considerably to the cost—I will come to the cost to the individual in one second, after I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee.

[Neil Parish]

I am finding the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution very interesting, because he is going into great detail on all the problems we have, but he is then saying that bicycles are causing problems. Surely people on bicycles are not emitting any emissions at all, other than breathing in and out as they are riding along. It is no good coming out with a whole list of things that are wrong with the proposal. I would like to see a bit of a more positive approach to the whole argument.

[Mr Spellar]

As the hon. Gentleman rides in on his bike from Battersea, he may notice that the bridges across the Thames are always much more congested than they used to be. That is because there is much less road space because of the introduction of cycle lanes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

I thank everyone for their contributions and the Minister very much for his reply. We need a scrappage scheme along with public transport and everything that we have discussed this morning. We need to reduce the amount of pollution in order to get better quality air in our cities and throughout the nation. A diesel scrappage scheme is very much part of that.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill

Neil Parish Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Carry-over motion: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Indeed, we do need that infrastructure. As I have said, I am excited about what JLR is doing in the field of electric vehicles. The Government car service is already a customer of the company, but I look forward to it also becoming an early customer of those electric vehicles as they are manufactured and sold. The company has specifically said that it needs infrastructure improvements to help it with those developments and its ambitions for electric vehicle manufacturing in the United Kingdom. I assure the House that it will receive that support. The autumn statement provided extra funding for electric charging points. This Bill provides for much greater transparency of data, making it much easier for those who own and drive electric vehicles to identify the locations of the best charging points. That is part of a strategy that will, in my view, drive forward substantially the sales of those vehicles in this country.

We should not, however, be entirely technologically biased. We will also take further steps to encourage the development of hydrogen vehicles in the United Kingdom and, of course, we provide tax incentives for hybrid vehicles. We must drive for a higher quality of vehicle in this country when it comes to the propensity to pollute, and we must provide the right support for that market to emerge. However, we must allow the technologies to win those battles themselves, rather than have the Government winning them for them.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

This is not only about electric vehicles and almost zero emissions. There is an interim stage: in some places, we could convert lorries and diesel vans to liquid petroleum gas to get those NOx levels down in the hot spots quicker than if we tried to convert everything to electricity straight away.

[Chris Grayling]

Indeed. I know that my hon. Friend has been determined to push that argument, and rightly so, because that technology could make a difference to emissions. I absolutely support those who seek to transition vehicles to LPG, but the Government should not focus on one particular technology. We need to create the right environment for all technologies to compete to deliver the cleanest possible vehicles for the future, which is in all our interests.

I will talk about electric vehicles before turning to autonomous vehicles. The Bill creates the right environment for those markets to develop. We have a clear goal that by 2050 nearly all cars and vans should be emission-free, but we want to accelerate that transition. That will happen partly through giving financial help, through grants and the tax system, to motorists choosing a cleaner vehicle, and we are also supporting local authorities that provide incentives through free and cheap parking to those who move down the road towards acquiring a cleaner vehicle.

We have also helped develop a network of more than 11,000 public charge points in the UK; as I have said, significant funding is in place to allow more of them to be developed. We want the uptake in electric cars to continue, whether they be hydrogen fuel cell or battery powered, and for them to break into the mass market. The Bill introduces a number of new powers that will help make that possible. In particular, it enables common technical standards and better interoperability, and it will ensure that consumers have reliable information on the location and availability of charge points. We will also be able to accelerate the roll-out of electric vehicle infrastructure at key locations, such as motorway service areas and large fuel retailers, and make charge points ready for the needs of the marketplace.

Of course, we will then see further technological developments with hydrogen and, I suspect, and as my hon. Friend says, more developments on the LPG front. The Bill will create more of the necessary powers to drive forward the ambition of getting a much cleaner fleet of vehicles on our roads.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak on the Second Reading of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill and to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). As the Minister said, the hon. Gentleman gave a very thoughtful speech about the way forward, which saw a great number of interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat).

Before dealing with clauses 8 to 15 on the electric vehicle charging points, I want to raise some more general issues. It is good to see the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), in his place, and I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) who commented on what a wonderful team of Ministers we have. When this particular Minister came before the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, he dealt with issues of air quality. Although the Bill will not in itself solve all the problems relating to air quality, many parts of it could help. What we need to do is to target these electric vehicles very much in our inner cities and our hotspots where there are high levels of NOx emissions.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

On the particular point about air quality, I understand the need for it to be improved in cities, but does my hon. Friend believe that with electric vehicles, which will need the electricity to be produced somewhere, we might end up moving the problem of the pollution of energy production to the rural parts of our country?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point, to which I have given much thought. I think that in the real world we have to accept that the highest levels of pollution that prove to be most detrimental to people’s health are mainly in inner-city areas. The electricity will have to be produced somewhere, and unless it is going to be done entirely through green technology—we will move towards that in the longer term—it will cause some pollution. We have to accept that to reduce inner-city NOx levels, there might need to be a little bit of pollution across the country. We cannot allow individuals to suffer from the high levels of nitrogen oxide that are currently in the inner cities. I have to accept that there will be some pollution somewhere else; otherwise, we will not be able to reduce the levels of pollution in our inner cities.

This is why charging points for electric vehicles are so important. It is not just this Bill that is relevant, because there may be something in the Chancellor’s speech later this week. If we are to have any sort of scrappage scheme through which people could convert to electric vehicles, we need to try to target it towards our inner cities in particular, because the need to reduce pollution is at its greatest there. We can use hybrid vehicles and other types to bring us to the cities; when we are in the inner city, we will need not only electric cars but electric taxis, and we shall need to convert many of our lorries perhaps to liquid petroleum gas or something that will reduce the current levels of NOx.

Unless we do something really serious to deal with pollution in the inner city, the Government are going to be in the dock and DEFRA will sit in the dock. It is possible to reduce a little of the nitric oxide that comes from farming, but it is not so easy to cure the problem in the inner city. That has to be done mainly through transport measures and perhaps by local government.

I had better move on to the Bill’s clauses, Mr Deputy Speaker; otherwise, you will get agitated with me for going beyond what the Bill contains. I shall speak mainly to clauses 8 to 15, which deal with electric vehicle charging. I shall outline the benefits of electric vehicles in the specific clauses in order to incentivise their use. Electric vehicles are on the verge of a massive expansion in the UK, and the potential benefits are enormous, as many Members have said this evening. However, the figure for new registrations in this country is less than 2%. The figure in Norway is some 25%, so we have a little way to go, although I am sure that, in the safe hands of the Minister, it will happen overnight.

Electric vehicles mean better air quality. Toxic gases from combustion engines are linked to more than 40,000 deaths in the UK, and road transport is responsible for about 80% of nitric oxide in our inner-city hotspots. A move away from combustion engines and towards electric vehicles would cut levels of nitric oxide in the air, and would reduce the number of early deaths. British motorists currently face some of the highest fuel prices in Europe, but an electric vehicle that achieves 3 miles per kWh can cost about 4p per mile. Ultimately, that really will encourage people to buy electric cars. The AA has estimated that they are about five times cheaper to run than the average petrol car. The Chancellor may miss a little bit of fuel tax, but I think that, in terms of air quality, this is a step in the right direction. Transport produces higher carbon emissions than any other UK sector, including power generation. Moving vehicles from carbon to electric will help the UK to slash its carbon emissions further, especially as renewable energy is rapidly rising in the UK.

How can we boost electric vehicles? Although the market has grown rapidly in recent years, ultra-low emission vehicles still account for only 1.2% of new car registrations in Britain. The Government’s own research shows that one in five Britons has considered buying an electric vehicle, but the biggest barrier to uptake is the lack of availability of charging points and the lack of knowledge of where to find them. I am glad that the Bill seeks to deal with those problems.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the lack of availability of charging points, but may I also ask him to join me in urging the Minister to start this project at home, on the parliamentary estate? We have only two charging points, which means that those of us who have plug-in electric cars often have to compete for a space, or cannot find one.

[Neil Parish]

That is a very good point. We should lead by example in the House, and if more of us have electric cars, we shall need more electric charging points. I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to my hon. Friend’s point—

[Mr Hayes]

rose—

[Neil Parish]

And I see that he is just about to do so.

[Mr Hayes]

I think that is an excellent point, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I know you will think so too. We will get on to it straight away. I will ask my officials—indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am asking them now, through you—to bring me some reports, as a matter of urgency, on how we can do something about the matter.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It will probably be done overnight.

[Neil Parish]

I am sure that it will, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have every faith in the Minister. Speaking as his former Parliamentary Private Secretary, I am absolutely certain that he can achieve this—probably through his PPS. No, I must not say that; I was only being facetious.

Charging points are necessary, but we must also ensure that fast charging points are available. We do not want to leave our cars charging for a long time; they need to be charged reasonably quickly.

Clause 9 gives the Government power to require operators to provide an appropriate uniform method of accessing public charging points. People need to know that their vehicles fit the chargers. I hope that the Government will take that opportunity. There are currently myriad charging structures, memberships and prices. Clear and uniform charging structures, so that the public can plan their bills and do not feel ripped off, will boost electric vehicle take-up. Clause 10 makes it a requirement for large fuel retailers to install electric charging points. That is a common-sense change, which we have been calling for since last year. We will never boost electric car numbers to diesel or petrol levels until we have parity in refuelling infrastructure. Are there enough incentives for large garages to provide charging points when they like to sell us petrol or diesel?

Clause 11 is particularly important. It requires public information on the availability of public charging points. We need a public awareness campaign on exactly where the electric charging points are. The public need to have confidence that if they buy an electric car, they will have charging points in the vicinity. This is absolutely fundamental.

Clause 12 sets the minimum standards for charging points, including the ability to transmit data to the user, energy efficiency requirements, and the ability for data to be accessed remotely. It is a good start, but I would like the clause to go further: I would like to see minimum charging speeds as a requirement for new charging points. We need more rapid DC charging points that can charge a car to 80% capacity in 30 minutes. I am sure that the Minister is more than capable of that. This will help EVs to properly compete with petrol and diesel vehicles. I hope the Minister will consider this change, because until we can charge our EVs quickly, we will not be able to cover the distances, and that is partly what stops people getting electric vehicles. I also say to the Minister that ULEVs currently make up only 6.3% of the Government car service fleet, so the Government must get their own house in order.

The Government have the laudable aim that every new car in the UK should be an ULEV in the next 25 years. The Business Secretary says that he wants Britain to be the world leader in EVs; this is a big step in the right direction. We should be bold with our electric charging infrastructure and give the public the confidence to buy an electric car. The tangible benefits are within our grasp, and I look forward to backing this Bill in the Aye Lobby this evening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

It is important to appreciate, as I know the hon. Gentleman does, that this is not a matter of some high-flown theory about what might happen in many centuries’ time; it is about the wellbeing of people now in our cities and elsewhere. The direct relationship between air quality and health is well established. Pollutants are affecting the quality of life—more than that, they are affecting the health and wellbeing of our people. The issue is about the defence and promotion of the common good, which, as he and the whole House know, is always central to my heart.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I urge Ministers and the Government to do something about older diesel cars, either through taxation or a scrappage scheme. We can get electric vehicles in, but we also need to take diesels out, especially in our inner cities, with their hotspots of pollution. Unless we tackle that issue, we will not get the levels down.

[Mr Hayes]

Just this morning, I was with no fewer than 16 motor manufacturers looking at low-emission vehicles. It is vital that we promote electric cars. As you will know, Mr Speaker, this week we have published our Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, which deals with the electric car charging infrastructure, among many other things. One can deal with this by sanction and penalty or through encouragement, incentive and a change of mind. I prefer to look on the positive side of these things.

Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing the debate, on keeping a spotlight very much on air quality and on bringing in ultra low emission vehicles.

We have to remember that, in hotspots in this city and throughout the country, 80% of the nitric oxide that turns into nitric dioxide is produced by transport. We really have to deal with that. At issue is private cars, and we have to put in place the right systems of grants and encouragement for the public to buy. For example, charging points must be not only available, but very fast, so people do not have to wait all day for their car to charge up if they are going long distances.

I agree with the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) that lorries will be difficult to turn electric. Delivery vans, taxis and buses can reduce their emissions dramatically, not just through electricity but other fuels. Unless we target such high areas of pollution, we will not be doing enough for air quality. The lives of thousands of people out there in our inner cities are being shortened by air quality.

Yes, electric vehicles carry great incentives now—we are talking about 4p a mile in running costs—and I congratulate the Government on the initiatives in place, but only 1% of vehicles are electric and ultra low emission, while in Norway the figure is 25%. The key now is to ensure that people have alternative vehicles, not only purely electric ones, but hybrid vehicles, which allow drivers to use petrol or diesel over long distances and the batteries when they get to the inner cities. That could perhaps also be done with hybrid lorries, so that lorries’ engines charge on the journey into London and they are able to make deliveries in central London using their electric motors.

We must stop these vehicles—from taxis to buses and delivery vans. Given our lifestyles, we all like to order our shopping online with a click from Tesco, Sainsbury’s or wherever, but all that has to be delivered by a van, which again means emissions in our inner cities. We must tackle the issue head-on, and tackle the hotspots in particular, by incentivising people to ensure that we take diesel polluters out of our city centres, and I am confident that the Minister can do that.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister has been asked a large number of questions. I would like to give him as much time as possible to respond, so will the Front-Bench spokesmen also be very tight with their time? I call Alan Brown.