Climate Change

Debate between Justin Madders and Barry Gardiner

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will attempt to be moderate and not twirl.

The net zero transition is now a fundamental part of our economy, generating about £105 billion in value and, as we have heard, employing over 1 million people. Importantly, it is not focused in one part of the country, but spread all across the UK. Growth in the sector is expanding, with 400,000 jobs expected to be created by 2030. Given that productivity in the net zero sector is one and a half times the average for the UK, the potential is there for all to see.

As we head towards the future, we need to have in mind the protection of existing jobs. The order sets the carbon budget for 12 years’ time, but there is an area where I think the Government are letting the perfect become the enemy of the good: the zero emission vehicle mandate. This country has a long history of building cars that should rightly be regarded as some of the best in the world. We have a strong manufacturing base for electric vehicles—including at the Vauxhall Motors plant in Ellesmere Port, which has embraced the transition to net zero by becoming an all-electric plant—but the market demand for electric vehicles has not developed as quickly as anticipated. As of May, the market share for electric vehicles was only 26%, which is a long way short of the 33% required this year in the ZEV mandate.

The Climate Change Committee predicted that the market share for new electric vehicles would reach 55% by next year. Market share is going to need to double within a year for that prediction to come true, which is simply not going to happen. Its prediction that the proportion of electric cars and vans will reach around 95% of new sales by 2030 is not born out by experience to date, and needs revising down in light of the evidence.

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend is making a good point. Does he accept that the way that the previous Government changed the dates for the ZEV mandate may have had something to do with people’s confidence in being able to support an electric vehicle?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, because there are a whole range of factors, which I will come to, in why people are not purchasing the vehicles. The industry is still keen to have a clear signal on where we are heading, but the speed and steepness of the incline is too much for it to bear.

We cannot ignore the fact that the figure of 26% relies heavily on subsidies from Government, which are pushing sales to about twice their natural level. I am afraid that there is deep concern among manufacturers about that. To fill the gap between demand and what domestic manufacturers are producing, the industry is already having to buy credits, in the order of hundreds of millions of pounds a year, which is clearly not sustainable. Meanwhile, importing manufacturers, including from China, can exceed ZEV thresholds here and sell their unused credits on to domestic manufacturers. That means that foreign manufacturers of EVs from China are not only taking ever-increasing shares of the market but profiting from exceeding ZEV thresholds.

To be clear, this is not an argument about having no ZEV mandate. It is important that we tackle the climate crisis and put an end to internal combustion engines, but what bigger fillip could there be to the climate sceptics than UK factories closing down because of a rigid approach to net zero—an approach that sees millions of pounds go to overseas competitors whose manufacturing is often far more carbon intensive than ours?

The ZEV mandate must be adapted to take account of the real-world market conditions, and the escalator must be changed to reflect them. It is clear that for many consumers, even with generous discounts, the cost of a new EV is out of reach. We need to be aware of limitations caused by cost, range anxiety and charging infrastructure. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) that we can do more in that area.

As a number of Members have said in this debate, we need to take people with us; we are clearly not bringing them to where we need them to be in order to hit the target. I welcome the Chancellor saying that the review of the mandate will be brought forward to this year, but that needs to start now, and we need to get the right answers within a few months.

On the subject of well-meaning policies that could actually be counterproductive, I raise a red flag about the proposed introduction of the deposit return scheme, scheduled for later next year. Most households already recycle their materials through kerbside collections. The participation rates for kerbside recycling are high: it works and it provides a revenue stream to councils. If we are changing that, the public will undoubtedly ask what problem we are trying to fix.

The practical reality of the scheme for many people will be a minor inconvenience that they are happy to participate in, but for parents, carers, disabled people, elderly residents and those without easy access to large supermarkets, it could be a significant nuisance. People with complex lives will simply not do it at all. Once again, there is a well-meaning policy here that risks alienating people and damaging our road to net zero, which, on this side of the House at least, we all want to get to.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Justin Madders and Barry Gardiner

Report stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour—I am getting all my neighbours in tonight. She makes a brilliant point: the proposal exacerbates regional inequalities through an unfair tax and is certainly not a plan to fix social care. Hon. Members should look at what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West has said about what needs to be done to tackle the social care crisis in this country; it is an awful lot more than putting in place a cap that benefits only some people in certain parts of the country.

Not only will the proposal not stop people having to sell their home to pay for their costs, but it will bake in unfairness for a generation. It does nothing for working adults with long-term care needs, who seem to have been completely missed out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said. It is not what was promised, but hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. Let us listen to the experts. Age UK says:

“The change the Government has announced makes the overall scheme a lot less helpful to older people with modest assets than anyone had expected. It waters down Sir Andrew Dilnot’s original proposal to save the Government some money, but at the cost of protecting the finances of older home owners…This feels like completely the wrong policy choice and we are extremely disappointed that the Government has made it”.

The King’s Fund says of people with more modest assets that,

“the Prime Minister’s promise that no one need sell their house to pay for care…doesn’t seem to apply to them.”

Instead, it will only “benefit wealthier people”.

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend referenced the Prime Minister’s statement that nobody would have to sell their house to pay for social care. I know that my hon. Friend would never seek to call the Prime Minister a liar in this Chamber, but does he wonder, as many hon. Members do, why the Bill appears to be turning the Prime Minister’s words into a lie?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—I think. What I can say here and what I might say outside are not the same, and I do have to finish my speech, so I will leave it there. I am sure that the public will make up their own minds about the veracity or otherwise of comments made by the Prime Minister.

Sir Andrew Dilnot said that the proposals will create a north-south divide, that those with assets of £106,000 will be hardest hit and that anyone with assets under £186,000 will be worse off than under his proposals. According to the Health Foundation, assuming care costs of about £500 a week, those with assets of £150,000 will take a year and a half longer to reach the cap than they would have under the Dilnot proposals, those with assets of £125,000 will take four and a half years longer, and those with assets of under £106,000 will never reach the care cap. Contrary to what the Minister has said, people with assets of £106,000 or less will not benefit from the proposal at all.