Motorcycling: Government Support

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) on securing the debate. We have heard a lot of enthusiasm from the bikers in this room; it is clearly something that they feel strongly about. I confess that I have never had the opportunity to ride a motorbike.

[Bill Wiggin]

We can put that right.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I have been invited to Motorcycle Live in December in Birmingham to have the opportunity to ride some of the new electric bikes, so I may decide to do that. Former Member Hazel Blears, who I think is 4 feet 10 inches—I am not tall, but she is considerably shorter than me—was a keen biker, which shows that it can be done. Perhaps I should take up the challenge.

I will flag up a number of issues. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire talked about road repairs and presented a rather rosy picture of the amount of funding. It is important for motorcyclists that we keep roads in a good condition, but the money has been cut. The Government promised £1.5 billion to repair damage on roads across the country in the financial year 2020-21, but that was cut to £1.125 billion in the following financial year. Pothole funding was due to be cut by an average 23%, and overall total spending on roads maintenance would drop by an average 22%.

We can compare that with the massive Government road-building programme. It is important that we should not just be looking at building new roads, but at making sure the roads we have are kept in good condition. The insurance industry has raised that point with me. The vast majority of the claims it pays out are caused not by driver error but by the condition of the roads.

As it stands, it will take 11 years and £11 billion to clear the backlog of potholes. On National Pothole Day in January this year, the Chancellor tweeted,

“enjoy #NationalPotholeDay before they’re all gone...”

He was boasting about how much money is going into addressing the problem, but we could be marking National Pothole Day for quite some time to come at the current rate. Perhaps we will get some good news about road repair funding tomorrow.

I agree with the hon. Member for North Herefordshire that safety is incredibly important. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) spoke about electric motorbikes, which I will come to a bit later. He also spoke about the smell of petrol and his colleague, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), mentioned the noise. Those things are part of the thrill, as motorcycle organisations have said to me. I totally get that, but when a cyclist is in that little space in front of the cars at the traffic lights, sometimes people on motorbikes do not act as responsibly as they could and are not aware that bike users are more vulnerable than them. For the cyclist, they have a bigger vehicle pushing in front of them, and the smell is not great. The sooner we can move to cleaner vehicles the better.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Member makes an important point. Once electric bikes become the fastest bikes, whether that is for motocross or as a track bike, that will become the pinnacle of the sport and that is where people will ultimately move. Encouraging tech design will create safety and environmental change.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

On the points made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), there is a really interesting discussion to be had. The modal shift is important. Why have we not moved to moped use in the way that, say, France or Italy has? It is not as commonplace in this country—perhaps it is the weather. There is an interesting debate about road space and how we use it. We are starting to see e-scooters on our roads, there are more people cycling and a lot of town planning wants priority bus lanes. All of that raises questions about who gets to use priority lanes, whether we have segregation, who is entitled to use the segregated lanes and what that means for cars—what road space is left for cars? I think we will be addressing those points more and more in the years to come.

Finally, I want to talk about the need to decarbonise—an issue that the industry has contacted me about. Support for the industry so far, in terms of decarbonisation, has been pretty limited. The plug-in motorcycle grant, which helps support the sale of low-emission bikes, is £1,500 at the moment—less than for cars. The funding is guaranteed only up to March 2023. I was going to ask the Minister whether the Government plan to keep the grant beyond that date or, as is the case with the car plug-in grant, to reduce it year on year, but as we have the Budget tomorrow, I suspect I know what her answer would be. Could she answer this question instead? In the transport decarbonisation plan, the Government promised an action plan for zero-emission light-powered vehicles by the end of the year. We have not seen any sign of that yet. Will it be published before the end of the year?

The 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles was announced back in November 2020. We are still waiting for the publication of the promised consultation on a 2035 ban on petrol motorbikes. There are also currently no Government targets for regulating the CO₂ produced by motorbikes, unlike for cars and vans. That raises a few questions. Why are the Government allowing polluting petrol motorbikes to be sold until 2035, when there is a 2030 date for petrol cars? Will the Minister give an update on when those consultations and so on will be published?

It is really important that the transition to zero-emission vehicles is smooth. I welcome the Government’s recent announcement that they will introduce a zero-emissions vehicle mandate, but there was no mention of motorcycle manufacturers in the summary, despite the 2035 commitment to banning new petrol motorbikes and the suggestion that plug-in grant support may end sooner than that, in 2023. Will the Minister explain whether the Government want to offer the same support to motorcycle manufacturers as they are to EV car manufacturers, through the electric car mandate, which will encourage them to make the shift to producing cleaner vehicles sooner? If not, why are motorcycle manufacturers being left out?

I will conclude on that point because I am keen to hear from the Minister. It has been good to hear people’s enthusiasm today. We certainly want motorcycles to continue on our roads, but they do need to move with the times. I hope the Minister will tell us more about how they can do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

I hear what Members are saying about proportionality, and I am sure that will be registered and acknowledged in forthcoming strategies.

The action plan will cover the innovation in urban logistics and personal mobility, while setting out the steps needed to build new opportunities for powered light vehicle industries. One such opportunity is reforming last mile deliveries, which has the potential to create healthier and more liveable places by removing toxic fumes from the most congested areas. We are committed to transforming the last mile into an efficient and sustainable delivery system, and we will work with industry, academia and other stakeholders to understand how innovation in the L-category sector can benefit the UK delivery market. That will include publishing a toolkit later this year to support local authorities in reducing carbon emissions from transport, recognising the important role that local areas will play.

I feel that the greatest impact will be achieved by committing to phase-out dates, just as we have done for polluting cars. That is why we have committed to consult this year on a phase-out date of 2035, or earlier if a faster transition appears feasible for the sale of new non-zero-emission-powered two and three-wheelers and other L-category vehicles. I recognise that the L-category sector encompasses a wide range of vehicle types and uses, so we will aim to find the most appropriate regulatory solution for each one—it will not be one size fits all. Any proposed phase-out dates for the sale of new non-zero-emission L-category vehicles will reflect both on what is needed to hit net zero by 2050, and on the technology currently available in the sector, but we will be ambitious.

It is right that Britain shows global leadership when it comes to L-category decarbonisation. By consulting on and deciding phase-out dates as soon as possible, we are clarifying the direction of travel for the L-category industry in the UK, giving vehicle manufacturers and consumers time to adapt.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Trudy Harrison]

I am afraid that I will not, simply because of time.

I am particularly proud of this country’s motorcycling heritage, which has been mentioned, and how we have pioneered the way for great motorcycle manufacturing. Our motorcycling legacy lives on and continues to evolve in the 21st century. One example is Project Triumph TE-1, which is leading the way in creating electric motorcycling capability. The project is supported and co-funded by the UK Government, and I am proud of Triumph and other British businesses for driving innovation and enhancing the credibility and profile of great British industry and design.

In conclusion, I am once again very grateful for the opportunity to speak positively about motorbikes, motorcyclists and the history and heritage of the industry. I look forward to the future, including the decarbonisation of that vital transport sector, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire for the opportunity to speak in this debate.

Draft Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) (Amendment) Order 2021 Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2021

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 General Committees

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Gary, and I welcome the Minister to her first SI Committee—although this is not our first outing together, as we have done a Westminster Hall debate.

As is now well known, the haulage sector is having a really difficult time; some of us will be joining the Road Haulage Association and lorry drivers outside Parliament today. It is National Lorry Week, and drivers want to talk to MPs about the difficulties that they are facing, many of which have already been well reported. It has to be said that the Government have not really helped, first by refusing to admit that there was a problem with HGV drivers, despite countless warnings from the industry—there is a shortage of at least 90,000—and then by tinkering around with measures wholly inadequate to deal with the scale of the crisis.

[The Chair]

Order. Are these points within the scope of the statutory instruments?

[Kerry McCarthy]

They are, Sir Gary; my very next sentence leads me wonderfully into the SI itself.

We have seen the inevitable U-turns on visas for overseas drivers and now the Government are admitting their failure to establish reliable contingency measures to avoid chaos at the border for both hauliers and local residents in Kent. I have spoken to many representatives of the Kent community about the impact of the situation on the ground.

Given the removal of the sunset clauses from Operation Brock’s emergency measures, what was a temporary measure is now in effect being made permanent or at least open-ended. I am glad that the requirement for a Kent access permit, which effectively created an internal border in Kent for hauliers, has now ended, but we have some concerns about the remaining provisions.

The unfortunate reality is that the long-running consequences of the Brexit deal have left us with a real risk of serious congestion and disruption on the roads around our ports and borders; the community in Kent particularly suffers from that. Given the need to mitigate the potential for chaos on our roads and, particularly, the ongoing pressures on UK supply chains, which I mentioned at the beginning, Labour will not oppose the measures, but nor will we give them our endorsement, as we have reservations about the effect of Operation Brock on local communities.

The Government have now had over 18 months to work out arrangements alternative to Operation Brock, which, as I said, was intended to be temporary, and to bring forward measures that have the consent and input of local communities. All we have seen is the permanent extension of what was intended to be a temporary arrangement. The measures are deeply unpopular locally and have cost the taxpayer a significant amount of money. The communities in Kent deserve assurances that their journeys and commutes will not be disrupted by gridlock and that their local roads will not become a permanent lorry park due to the Government’s failure to plan and ensure a smooth exit from the European Union.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady recall that there was considerable disruption at Calais while we were still a member of the European Union, due to the MyFerryLink industrial action and the activities of French fishermen? This is not something new since we left the European Union.

[Kerry McCarthy]

That was an incident—a particular situation that occurred. This is an ongoing thing that affects us every day. Anything that disrupts a supply chain and makes it more difficult for HGV drivers to get from A to B is obviously going to add to congestion and disruption on our roads and the impact on the local community.

One of the things contributing to the shortage of HGV drivers is the fact that we do not have the facilities that are found in European Union countries. If better facilities at the lorry parks were looked at as part of the measures, that would help to deal not just with the situation in Kent that we are discussing today, but with the wider issue.

[Mr Goodwill]

Will the hon. Lady also note that one of the other reasons for Operation Stack was the bad weather in the channel, which caused the suspension of ferry services, leaving us to rely solely on the tunnel? We are likely still to get bad weather in the channel, so it is not just a Brexit-related measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am not saying it is just a Brexit measure but, clearly, we are here today discussing these SIs because of what has happened in the last few years—primarily Brexit.

I would welcome clarification from the Minister on whether the Government are actively looking at alternative arrangements for Operation Brock, and whether its provisions are now intended to be permanent. As she said, the sunset clause has been removed from the legislation—does that mean it is now a fixture, or is that just to remove the need for us to keep coming back to renew the legislation?

Given the ongoing pressure on UK supply chains, it is vital that commercial flows in and out of the country face as little disruption as possible. The long-term solution is not a reliance on emergency provisions but something in place that ensures efficient operations at borders, close co-operation with the European Union and working with industry and local communities to identify ways to minimise the disruption.

[The Chair]

A couple of colleagues have caught my eye, who I know will speak very narrowly on these instruments.

Motor Insurance: Court Judgments

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Bardell, and to welcome the new Minister to her place. I assume this is her first appearance in a debate as Minister. It is a rather niche topic with which to start, but I look forward to doing battle with her on many future occasions.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on securing the debate. I thought she did a very good job of explaining the background to the Vnuk case and the consequences it will have. As she said, we have operated under the scheme set out in the Road Traffic Act for many decades. It is proportionate and it works. That is not to say that we should not revisit it from time to time to make sure that it does the job. As she says, at the moment the cost of uninsured drivers is being met by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. In my former life as a lawyer I was involved in quite a few personal injury cases, so I am very aware that the Motor Insurers’ Bureau has an important role to play in providing compensation when people have been involved in accidents involving uninsured drivers. I take the points that the right hon. Lady makes.

I will not do battle with the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) over his views on Brexit. I have been there before, and most of us are well aware of where he is coming from. It is important, as we seek to find a way through our independence from the European Union and review some of the legislation, that we stick to basic principles and promises made during the debates on the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 about not watering down workers’ rights and essential protections. Any measures that venture into that territory ought to be subject to proper scrutiny, and we must ensure that the balance is right.

On the hon. Gentleman’s comments about private Members’ Bills, it is great that none of the usual suspects objected to his Bill, which was No. 16 on the list, but on many occasions they have objected to very good Bills that should at least have been allowed to go into Committee. It should not depend on who a Member’s mates are and whether they behave themselves. I hope that at some point we reform Friday sittings, so that individual Members cannot sabotage good pieces of legislation in that way.

On the issue before us, the Transport Secretary has stated that steps to overturn the Vnuk decision will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity. I am not sure whether that means that the Government will allow time for the Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), or whether they intend to do it themselves. I share the concern voiced by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who asked whether to take such steps would be the best use of Government time, as there are so many other pressures on that time. I hope that we can hear more from the Minister on that.

More broadly, in the little time I have left, I simply say that I hope we can hear about other ways in which we can try to reduce insurance claims, and therefore the overall cost of motor insurance. I have been told by issuers that the vast majority of claims have nothing to do with accidents, but result from the condition of the roads. We have an £11 billion backlog for pothole repairs, which at current rates will take more than a decade to clear. Total spending on road maintenance is down by 22% this year because of cuts in Government funding. We also need to improve road safety. I know that new statistics are coming out on 30 September, but advance reports suggest that the upward trend in the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured has continued, which is very worrying.

Finally, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said, it is one thing to talk about whether people could afford the extra £50 a year on motor insurance premiums that would result from the Vnuk judgment, but we are in a situation where people are being hit by the end of furlough, the £20 cut to universal credit and the national insurance hike. We need to ensure that people who need to drive can afford their motor insurance and can afford to drive safely. We need to look at the whole picture in the round, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

While we are on the subject of uninsured vehicles, when can we expect to see regulations on e-scooters? There are so many of them—300,000 privately owned scooters are used on our streets, as well as the legitimate pilot schemes. When will the Government accept that the pilots have done their job and come forward with some regulations?

[Trudy Harrison]

I can speak with some experience on this issue, because my constituency has been a trial area. We are assessing the various trials and will be able to respond to the hon. Lady’s question in due course.

We understand the importance of the Bill for many Members, and we will watch its passage with keen interest. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Bristol East mention the support for cycling. I am delighted to say that during the pandemic we saw a 46% increase in cyclists. That has had a positive effect on my Department’s active travel aspirations.

If the Bill fails—I encourage all Members to ensure that does not happen—the Government will continue to explore bringing forward the necessary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

I again thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet for raising this topic of debate. Our commitment to remove Vnuk from GB law and to end the liabilities that impact on the insurance industry remains a priority for us.

Decarbonising Aviation

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Gary, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing what is a very important and timely debate, given that only a few weeks remain until the UK hosts COP26, where transport emissions will, of course, be a key item on the agenda. We have heard some excellent and informative speeches, including those by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who spoke out against the expansion of Heathrow. Other Members talked in more detail about proposals to decarbonise aviation and some of the obstacles in the way.

Given that it remains the largest contributor to UK emissions, decarbonising our transport sector must be a priority for the Government. Aviation is a key part of that and accounted for 7.3% of UK emissions in 2018. Sadly, we have seen the progress on decarbonisation of transport flatlining over recent years. Progress has been made in some areas, such as in decarbonising the energy sector, but it is disappointing that so little has been done and so little progress has been made on transport.

Aviation is one of the most difficult sectors to decarbonise, but as we have heard from hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), there are solutions. There are sustainable aviation fuels derived from waste; there are electric or hydrogen-powered planes for at least short-haul journeys in the foreseeable future; and there is airspace modernisation.

Ministers in Westminster Hall debates probably hate it when speeches finish early, so there is more time for them to answer. Normally, they can say, “Well, if only I had time to answer all these questions—”. I will ensure that the Minister has lots of time to answer what are quite a few questions from me and other Members.

Where are we on some of the things that are out there? For example, the EU is proposing to mandate the use of blended aviation fuel, and the UK is consulting on more ambitious proposals. Can the Minister update us on that?

On airspace modernisation, I know the Government have committed some funding to sponsors. When I took on the green transport brief, I was sceptical about technological solutions to aviation. I thought it was just a way of deflecting the conversation from managing or reducing demand. Having met lots of companies that are involved in this space, I now see that there is potential, although with the limitations that various Members have mentioned in terms of battery weight, hydrogen storage and the whole debate about carbon capture and storage. I have come to realise that there is more potential than I thought, albeit quite far into the future and not current enough to address the issues that we need to address today.

When I first had a conversation about airspace modernisation, I was fascinated at the extent to which straightening out air travel and avoiding a huge amount of banking, particularly above Heathrow, could make a difference. Can the Minister tell us where we are with that?

I would also like to hear the Minister address future funding for the Aerospace Technology Institute. People who are developing new technologies appreciate the funding that they have had, but will there be an ongoing source of funding? Will that be covered by the spending review? Moreover, a whole raft of airport infrastructure would be needed to support the use of hydrogen planes, so how would that be funded? That is my last question for now, although I will probably have more as I go on.

As I have said, a lot of these developments are for quite far into the future. There is potential for electric planes to be used for short-haul flights and for hydrogen-fuelled planes to be used for longer flights. I am not convinced that there is an answer for the longest haul flights as yet, but action needs to be taken now on emission reductions, and that means that difficult decisions have to be made on capacity and demand management.

The Labour party’s position on Heathrow is clear: the new runway would not meet our four tests on air quality, noise pollution, national economic benefit or our climate change obligations. That is where we stand on that.

I was pleased that we finally have the transport decarbonisation plan. I waited a long time for it and kept being told that it was due shortly. There is good stuff in it on electric vehicles and heavy goods vehicles, but it falls short on aviation. As the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) has said, there are so many consultations and, while it is important to consult, they can be a way of kicking things into the long grass when we need urgent action now.

The targets to achieve net zero emissions for domestic aviation by 2040 and for international aviation by 2050 are welcome, but as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) mentioned, they rely heavily on carbon offsetting. That is problematic for a number of reasons. Carbon capture and storage technology is by no means guaranteed to reach a point at which it can be relied on to offset a significant amount of emissions, particularly if other sectors also need to rely on offsetting. More natural carbon solutions such as tree planting do, of course, have a big role to play in offsetting emissions, but rapidly increasing rates of deforestation—whether from deliberate destruction, or from wildfires in many parts of the world—mean that we cannot rely on that either.

Back in July, I asked what proportion of carbon offsetting in aviation is expected to come from engineered carbon removal and storage, and what proportion is expected to come from natural carbon solutions. At the time, the Minister said that the Government did not know, so is he able to enlighten us further today? It is really worrying that the Government cannot come up with a response to that question, because even in its more optimistic scenarios the Climate Change Committee projects that over 20 metric tonnes of residual carbon emissions from aviation in 2050 will have to be offset elsewhere. That figure amounts to about half of the 40 metric tonnes of CO₂ attributed to aviation in 2019. With such a large proportion of emissions depending on offsetting, we need certainty about the pathway to achieving these targets, not vague projections and a reliance on technology that may not be ready in time.

I am concerned that this focus on offsetting stems from a refusal by Ministers to even contemplate demand management measures when it comes to aviation. We know that aviation has had an incredibly difficult year and a half due to the pandemic, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has said. That is partly due to a refusal by the Government to put forward a climate-conditional support package to get the sector back on its feet, as Labour has repeatedly demanded.

Once travel rates return to pre-pandemic levels, we have a responsibility to the planet to ensure that demand does not soar to unsustainable levels and undermine progress towards reaching net zero emissions, but the Government are simply ducking the decisions they need to make in this area. In its 2021 progress report, the Climate Change Committee recommended that the Government act to ensure there is no net expansion of UK airport capacity. However, just weeks ago, the Government refused to reassess the airports national policy statement, which would have provided an opportunity to do just that.

The CCC also recommended that the Government reform aviation taxes to ensure that aviation journeys are not cheaper than surface transport, as a few hon. Members have already mentioned. However, at the moment, the only open consultation on aviation taxes is advocating reducing air passenger duty on domestic flights, in contrast with the regular hikes in rail fares. That is clearly a ludicrous prospect in the middle of a climate emergency, and it is only made worse when we read the small print and see that this tax reduction would also apply to private jets. There can be absolutely no rationale for that. Any Government serious about decarbonising aviation and setting an example ahead of COP26 would immediately scrap those plans, and I would welcome it if the Minister could explain how on earth a tax cut for the most polluting form of transport can be compatible with a trajectory to net zero. We should be investing in rail instead.

The Government have also repeatedly refused to consider a frequent flier levy to address the fact that 70% of UK flights are taken by the wealthiest 15% of the population. That clearly needs to be addressed. Representations have also been made to me about whether zero air passenger duty on zero emission flights would be one way of stimulating that sector, but I know that that prospect is some way in the future.

With the COP26 climate conference just a few weeks away, it is time for Ministers to face the facts on aviation and stop relying on vague future predictions that will simply not deliver in the timescale we need them to. The climate crisis is worsening every day. Aviation has to play its part, and I hope that today the Minister will come up with answers—things that will start to make a difference now, not decades in the future.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister to leave three minutes for the mover of the motion to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Courts]

I will hopefully cover that as I go through. It depends which consultation we are talking about. On this issue, the consultation has closed and we will be giving responses shortly. I cannot give precise timescales, but I understand the need for urgency and of course we will move as quickly as we can.

The consultation outlines our approach to reach net zero carbon emissions—or jet zero, as we call it—by 2050, so that we maintain those huge benefits of air travel, and we have clear goals and solutions. There are five policy levers, which are perhaps better understood as three plus two. The first lever is to increase the efficiency of our existing aviation system. I suggest that hon. Members may wish to think about this in terms of timescale: what happens now, what can happen in the shorter term, and what can happen in the medium term.

On the efficiency of our existing aviation system and aircraft, the hon. Member for Angus will realise that, broadly, if we were to see an airliner fly over us today, it might look similar to one from 30 years ago but it would be twice as efficient—to use very approximate figures—because of carbon fibres and engine technology. Those aircraft efficiencies are happening already with the technology that we have. It is not enough, but it is helping.

The hon. Member for Bristol East is quite right to say that airspace can help cut emissions to ensure that fuel is not wasted. If we are more efficient about the way in which aircraft approach airports, that will obviously help. We passed the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 in the previous Session. The Civil Aviation Authority is currently reviewing the airspace modernisation strategy and is working to distribute the funds that we gave to further that process. That is the first part: aircraft and airspace.

The second part is about developing ambitious plans for a UK sustainable aviation fuel industry. I will come to that in a bit more detail in a moment. That is not the immediate progress, but the next stage. The third part is about accelerating the development of zero emission flight. That is the sort of thing that we see on the front of the more advanced, new airframe types—the futuristic things that we read about. Those are the first three parts, which go together—that is why I say there are three plus two. The fourth aspect is about developing carbon markets and greenhouse gas removal methods, while is the fifth is about how we influence consumers to make sustainable travel choices, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members.

Through the strategy, we will commit the UK aviation sector to reach net zero CO₂ emissions by 2050, but we want to go further. We have consulted on a UK domestic aviation target by 2040. We have also consulted on our ambitious proposals to reduce emissions from airport operations, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, and sought views on what additional measures might be required in order to achieve that. As I have said to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, the consultation has closed and we are considering that at the moment.

I want to update the House on the Jet Zero Council, which is the partnership between industry and senior leaders in aviation, aerospace, and academia that is driving the delivery of new technologies. It also involves the Royal Air Force, which joined recently, and I am very excited and encouraged about. I encourage all hon. Members to look at the excellent work that the Air Force is doing on net zero, particularly the leading work taking place at RAF Brize Norton in my constituency.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Are trade unions involved at any of the Jet Zero Council discussions?

[Robert Courts]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and I am grateful to her for it. I have a great deal of sympathy with people who ask for the membership of the Jet Zero Council. We have to have a finite number of people on the council, simply because it is a technical body and has to be able to produce results, but trade unions are involved in the sub-groups, which I will spend a moment talking about, particularly to put right some of the misunderstandings.[Official Report, 29 November 2021, Vol. 704, c. 8MC.]

In June, we had the successful third meeting of the Jet Zero Council. The hon. Member for Putney said that she was disappointed that it had not met. I know what she means, but I ask her to remember that it is a plenary body. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding; I hope I can put it right. At that stage, the Transport Secretary announced plans to formalise and broaden the zero emission flight delivery group, and to establish new sub-groups on ground infrastructure, regulation and commercialisation. I will come to the sub-groups in a moment.

Emma Gilthorpe, the Jet Zero Council chief executive officer, has established new governance arrangements and is really driving them forward. There are two key workstreams at present: sustainable aviation fuels and zero emissions flight. She has also been holding the momentum in between the council meetings because, as we all know, often the work takes place in between, rather than at, meetings, at which people report. If I can put right the misunderstanding that the hon. Member for Putney perhaps fell into inadvertently, the most recent meeting was the 29th meeting across the council’s delivery groups, sub-groups, steering group and plenary council. I hope that that helps and reassures the House about some of the things that we are doing.

I want to spend a few moments talking about sustainable aviation fuels, because they are so important. This is where I will come to the points made by the hon. Member for Bath. It is possible to drop fuels into existing aircraft types, and the synthetic fuels that she mentioned are a form of sustainable aviation fuel. That is part of the mix that is being considered. As I will explain in a moment, the Government are essentially providing the initial money to develop all of those things. I will give her another good example in a moment. This is the sort of thing that we often read about in the papers—turning waste into jet fuel, for example, which is one good example of what can be done with waste, although I accept that perhaps there will be a need for more than that.

The Prime Minister’s 10-point plan announced a package of exciting measures that are designed to introduce the production and use of sustainable aviation fuel. The £15 million “Green Fuels, Green Skies” competition aims to support innovative SAF production technologies at commercial scale, so that they can be produced in the UK and then reduce emissions in the UK. Eight projects have recently been shortlisted for funding. If hon. Members would care to look at the website—I think that the hon. Member for Bath will be particularly interested—they will see that the first project listed, which was in July, combines carbon dioxide captured from the atmosphere with water. It is direct air carbon capture and storage, which I think is what she was asking me about. That is one of the shortlisted projects. Essentially, the answer to her question, “Are synthetic fuels being considered as part of SAF?”, is that they are certainly part of the technological mix, and what we are doing is putting in the money to see them developed. I hope that answer assists her.

The £3 million for a SAF clearing house to build and further develop UK testing and certification expertise is a big part of this process as well. We have also finished consulting on proposals for a sustainable aviation fuels mandate to drive the development and uptake of SAF, which also provides greater support for the development of synthetic fuels, which the hon. Member talked about, as we look to maximise their development.

The consultation sets out a variety of potential SAF uptake scenarios, going up to 10% SAF by 2030 and 75% by 2050, but I am really keen to emphasise the point that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North made, which is that this is not fantasy stuff—it is happening right now, as we heard from him when he talked about the recent British Airways flight to his constituency.

I will try my best to respond to everyone’s points, Sir Gary; I am conscious that I may run out of time, as I want to leave some time for the hon. Member for Putney to respond to the debate.

Draft Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) and Biofuel (Labelling) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2021 General Committees

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It was the last Labour Government who introduced the RTFO, which helped to support the UK’s biofuel industry and lower emissions by introducing E5 fuel as an obligation for fuel suppliers, but obviously times have moved on, and the RTFO is in desperate need of reform. For example, I have just been talking to the maritime industry about how it can be reformed for that sector.

The Government have for a long time indicated their intention to move towards E10, so today should in theory be something to celebrate. However, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that what we have in front of us is only a minimum requirement on suppliers to move to 5.5%. The ambition is E10, but the obligation is much less; it is not really an E10 obligation. I really do not see why the Government are being so unambitious on this, particularly when the majority of responses to their own consultation called for greater ambition.

I know that the Government have claimed that they will review the policy in five years, but given that we have the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles coming in, now is the window to make real progress on the fossil fuels that are being used in cars, not in five years’ time, when hopefully many car owners will have made the transition to electric. That would be my question to the Minister: why leave it to suppliers to decide whether they will embrace the upper limit of 10% blended biofuels? Also, at what point does she see E5 petrol being phased out?

Does the Minister acknowledge that this will not work unless we have greater transparency in the supply of biofuels? She talked about supporting biofuel production in this country, and the use that various agricultural by-products could be put to, but we know that there will still be imports, and we have real concern about the source of many imported biofuels. Research from Transport and Environment has shown that nearly half of what was described as used cooking oil supplied to the UK last year came from China and Malaysia. Guarantees were not really in place that that oil was genuinely waste oil, and not products that were produced just for use in transportation or diverted away from other uses. We do not want to see that. We want to see waste products used.

We could be fuelling overseas deforestation through a demand for biofuels from supply chains that are not sufficiently transparent. Obviously, that would severely undermine any emissions savings from blending biofuels. There is no point in trying to move towards more sustainable petrol if we are contributing to destroying the Amazon rainforest in the process. I would therefore welcome clarification from the Minister on what plans the Government have to monitor that, to ensure that supply chains for imported biofuels are fully transparent and not linked to deforestation. That is not addressed in today’s legislation.

We need to move beyond a primary focus on biofuels when it comes to the RTFO. Many nations across Europe have taken the step of supporting the inclusion of renewable electricity in similar mechanisms, but the UK is yet to follow suit. I have not seen the transport decarbonisation plan yet. It is rather surprising, given that the statement is about to be made in the House, that when I went to the Vote Office earlier I was told that it would not be available until the Minister sits down. It seems odd to me that we can have a statement discussing a transport decarbonisation plan before people have been able to see it. Quite a lot of outside organisations seem to have obtained an advance copy, so it is a bit frustrating that MPs cannot. I hope that there is something in it on this issue.

The inclusion of renewable electricity in a reformed RTFO would bring many benefits, including securing sustainable funding streams for charge point operators. At the moment, low local authority take-up for Government grants for public charge points has shown the flaws in Department for Transport’s approach to expanding our charging network. The current system of incentives, with short-term support for charge points that offer little financial return, such as those in areas where they will not get much use and there is little chance of the operators being able to recoup money from users, is just not delivering the nationwide network of charge points that we need. They will be concentrated in the urban areas with high use. Reforms to the RTFO could be one way to address that, and I would welcome the Minister clarifying whether her Department is considering expanding the scope of the RTFO after today.

The Government need to be bolder and work to make the RTFO fit for the future. The shift to electric vehicles has to be considered as part of that. More urgently, it needs to be done in a way that ensures that any direct or indirect deforestation is stamped out in our supply chains. With those points in mind, Labour will abstain today on the basis that the SI does nothing to address concerns about overseas deforestation in imported biofuel supply chains, does not deliver on the much needed broader reform to the RTFO, and is deeply unambitious when it comes to the blending obligation on fuel suppliers.

Draft Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide emission performance standards (cars and vans) (amendment) (eu exit) regulations 2021

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 General Committees

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ali.

As we know, transport is the single largest contributor to UK emissions. That was the case before the pandemic and continues to be case even with the significant drop in journeys taken during lockdowns. We need to act, and I look forward to seeing, finally, the much delayed transport decarbonisation plan, which I gather will be published tomorrow, accompanied by a statement to the House.

Improving the CO₂ performance standards for cars and vans is an important part of keeping emissions from surface transport in check, and getting manufacturers to reduce the carbon footprint of their vehicles. Following our departure from the EU and the end of the transition period, we have now this legislation before us. Labour did not object when the EU emission performance standards were rolled over, and we will similarly support the SI today, as it merely extends those standards to Northern Ireland, which has previously abided by the relevant EU regulations.

I continue to have concerns, however, about the lack of ambition that accompanied the rolling over of the EU standards. The EU regulations saw manufacturers given CO₂ targets based on the average mass of their fleet compared with the average mass of the EU fleet, and that continues to be the case. However, the UK’s average vehicle weight is above the EU average, meaning that UK standards are now weaker than they would have been if the UK average weight had been used instead.

It is disappointing to note that, rather than embracing strengthened emission standards, the Government opted to retain the weaker formula, despite our changing political circumstances. The Government were fully aware of this issue because it was highlighted in responses to their consultation. As I understand it, they dismissed the alternative as “too challenging”. Unfortunately, that appears to be another instance of the Government shying away from more ambitious action, despite their failure to address transport emissions over the past decade. Those emissions fell only 1% between 2009 and 2019. Even with the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles, we are still facing nine years of new polluting vehicles making their way to UK roads—14 years if we include hybrids.

The Climate Change Committee recently highlighted how much could and should be done by the Government. In its annual progress report, it called for ambitious regulations on new car and van CO₂ intensities, requiring a 55% reduction by 2025 and a 97% reduction by 2030. That is the level of ambition that we need to deliver the green transport of the future, yet all we have today is a reiteration of the status quo that has failed to make a dent in our emissions. There is still time to change that, and I would welcome the Minister taking the opportunity to spell out now what will be done to increase UK ambitions on surface transport emissions.

Labour recognise the necessity of the regulations and agree that they should be extended to Northern Ireland, and we will give our support to today’s measure. However, we fully support the CCC and other environmental stakeholders in their desire to see much more from the Government to address emissions and pollution from cars and vans.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

As a driver of an electric vehicle, I have experienced the exact issues that the hon. Lady talks about. There are too many different membership cards, and people have to use too many different forms of payment and sign up to too many sites before they can even pay for the miles that they charge. We have a plan in place, which has included taking secondary legislation action that will require all chargers providing rapid charge to allow contactless payment, which I know the hon. Lady will appreciate.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As a fellow electric car driver, I cannot wait for those regulations to come forward.

As the Climate Change Committee made clear this morning, the Government are not delivering on the policies needed to meet their climate targets. As well as incentivising EV purchases and improving EV charging infrastructure, we need EVs to be built in Britain. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with the Business Secretary about Government support for EV manufacturing at the Ford Halewood plant, which is crucial if we are to secure the future viability of the site, and about saving jobs making vehicle components at the GKN plant in Birmingham?

[Grant Shapps]

The hon. Lady will know that the Government have pledged half a billion pounds towards creating factories to produce batteries, which is a very important part of the development of electric cars. I often hear people say that we are somehow falling behind. In fact, we had the second highest sales of electric vehicles in Europe in the first quarter of this year; one in seven cars sold now has plug-in. I cannot comment directly on the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has had about those specific plants, but I can tell the hon. Lady that discussions are ongoing in order to achieve the infrastructure delivery in this country, including the manufacturing base, which will continue to ensure that we lead Europe when it comes to electric car provision.

Road Connectivity: Teesside to Scotland

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) on securing the debate. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to so many of his colleagues’ passionate pleas for investment in their constituencies, so I do not intend to speak for too long.

It is incredibly important that we improve connectivity between the UK’s regions and nations. That should be absolutely at the heart of Government policy, whether in the south-west of England, where the seat I represent is, or in the north-east. I was slightly baffled by some of what the hon. Gentleman said about the 1951 county plan. I was not quite around in those days, but I am pretty sure that there was an election that year that was won by the Conservatives, and that in the 70 years since then, as much as I wish it were not so, the Conservatives have won far more elections than Labour—they were in Government for 46 years out of 70, by my rough calculations.

The things about which the hon. Gentleman spoke—investment in roads and rail, and he mentioned a local hospital and broadband—are by and large the responsibility of national Government. They are certainly reliant on central Government funding. I am not quite sure, then, why he is pointing the finger. Well, I am sure. I know why he is pointing the finger at a Labour-led council rather than the Government, but that does not reflect the true picture of why the area has not received the investment it needs.

I do not think it very helpful to dwell on that point. We should focus more on what we have in common than on what divides us, as my very sadly missed colleague Jo Cox would have said. We all have a desire to improve transport links to reduce congestion and to improve road safety, and I hope that we also share a commitment to environmental objectives. That is not to say that the Labour party would oppose all the road provisions, but we very much want to see them within the framework of tackling air pollution and reducing carbon emissions.

We had a debate in this room this morning on the much-awaited and long-delayed transport decarbonisation plan. I made the point that the Government are committed to that huge £27 billion-worth of spending on road infrastructure but the Transport Secretary ignored the advice of his civil servants to carry out an environmental impact assessment. It is not my role to take a view on what local projects are needed. That is for locally elected representatives, and I would not want them to do that in my patch. However, I hope that we measure things against the impact on the natural environment and overall contribution to getting to net zero, because that cannot be done just by a shift to electric vehicles. We have to discourage road travel and give people alternatives, whether that is investment in rail or buses, as has been mentioned, or other means.

There is also something to be said about spending on basic road maintenance, the budget for which has been slashed. There is now a £11 billion backlog for pothole repairs. Those sorts of things really matter to people in the villages that Members have talked about. [Interruption.] I thought the Minister was leaving—when I mentioned potholes, he put on his jacket and I thought he had had enough and was off. Those things really matter to local people, as well as flagship new bypasses.

On the A68, I am not familiar with that part of the world, although I did once go for a night out at Trimdon Colliery social club in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), so I may have travelled on that road. Needless to say, it was when the then local Member of Parliament was also the Prime Minister and I was a constituency member of Labour’s national policy forum. We had a night out and I remember that lots of pies were delivered, which, being vegan, I could not eat, and then we went down the chip shop. Phil Wilson, the former MP for Sedgefield, delights in saying that the shop still talks about these strange out-of-towners and southerners descending on Trimdon Colliery chip shop, asking what the chips were cooked in. But I digress. Actually, I looked at a map and noticed that Toft Hill is very close to Barnard Castle, which is the other interesting fact I have to share about the area.

On the issue of road safety, I spoke to my Teesside colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who said that the A68 is well known for the number of blind summits on route, and the statistics show that it is one of the most dangerous A roads in Britain, with an accident rate of 2.7 for every 1 million vehicles. I would welcome the Minster setting out what can be done to tackle that issue. People do not want to be stuck in the queues that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) spoke about, but road safety is absolutely imperative.

I will conclude by saying again that we all want to see investment and levelling up, no matter where we represent. The Government could do more, however, including by making rail affordable and creating the rail connectivity that we do not have. I am sure my former colleague Andrew Burnham in Greater Manchester bends Ministers’ ears very frequently—perhaps even more often than the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. We all want to see improvements, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Transport Decarbonisation Plan

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Ms Nokes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) on securing this important debate. She made an excellent speech and I agreed with almost everything that she said. I say “almost everything” in case there was something in it that I did not spot and will come to regret. Certainly on the key points, she was very much on the same page as the Labour Front Bench. One of the most important things that she said was that too often there are very ambitious end goals, but they are far into the future, and unless we have clear interim targets and ways of monitoring and scrutinising progress towards those targets, and a plan as to how we will get there, there is a danger that everything will get pushed into the long grass, as we have seen with the 25-year environment plan. As the Environment Bill goes through Parliament, there is a real concern that with a 25-year plan, how do we make sure that we do ambitious things in the next five years and not just put things off?

It was really interesting to hear the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), and also the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), talk about the progress that Scotland is making. There is a lot we can learn from that. The point was made about how many more EV charging points we need to get to where we need to be. I speak as an EV driver, and what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said resonated with me. I have learnt not to travel on a bank holiday because of queues at the service station. I cannot charge at home, so I rely on public charging points and have learnt to make trips in the wee small hours because I know I can get to the charging point then.

Also interesting was what the SNP spokesperson said about how this needs to be part of the planning system. Another speaker talked about new housing developments and how important it was to have charging points built in. This cannot be left to the market; it cannot be left to chance. It is something that we have to plan for.

I agree with what the hon. Members for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) said about the importance of electric buses, hydrogen, and the sourcing and manufacturing of batteries. These are real issues that we have to grapple with now. As has been said, decarbonising our transport sector is one of the most pressing challenges that we face as a nation, and we need more ambition and more action from this Government if we are to meet net zero. At the moment, whether it is the lack of a green recovery plan for our post-pandemic recovery or carbon budgets that will not be met through current policies, we are not seeing enough ambition or action from this Government. As the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, said, the rhetoric is great—we cannot disagree with that—but where is the road map? Instead, we have a Prime Minister who talks green but then flies to the G7 in Cornwall, where climate change is high on the agenda, in a private jet rather than taking the train. What kind of signal does that send to world leaders ahead of COP26?

As has been said, transport is now the largest contributor to UK emissions. There has been real progress in areas such as energy, but we have not seen similar progress on transport. There has been a decade of inaction by this Government. According to the Climate Change Committee, surface transport contributed 24% of UK emissions in 2019, with aviation accounting for 8% and shipping 3%. I am glad that the Government have now said that they will look at including international aviation and shipping emissions when measuring our carbon footprint and on the agenda for COP.

I am also glad that one speaker in this debate has withdrawn and the other speakers, if anything, came in under time, because there will be lots of time for the Minister to answer questions, and I have quite a lot of questions for her. Obviously, the first one is, “Where is the transport decarbonisation plan?” We expected it to be published last year, and then we were told throughout this year that it would be published in spring. This Sunday marks the start of the summer solstice, so unless the Minister has a very big surprise up her sleeve for us in a few minutes’ time, it looks like that is another missed deadline. The hon. Member for Rother Valley talked about his frustration at constantly being told, “Soon, soon, soon.” That is something that we have come to expect from this Government: “Soon, shortly, spring.” When are we going to see the plan? I hope that it is very soon. Could the Minister also say whether, when the plan is published, there will be an oral statement in the House to accompany it? I certainly hope that there will be, so that MPs have a chance to ask questions.

We know that we urgently need to get polluting vehicles off our roads, get more people into zero emission vehicles, and get people back on public transport once it is safe to do so. Importantly—we have not heard very much about this so far this morning—we need to get people to engage more in active travel, whether that is cycling on conventional bicycles, e-bikes or e-cargo bikes, or walking. All of that will improve air quality, help lower emissions, reduce congestion, and improve physical health. With all the focus on technological developments, sustainable fuels and so on, I hope that people-powered travel—active travel—will not be overlooked.

Unfortunately, what we have seen from the Government recently does not inspire confidence. Subsidies for EV plug-in grants have been slashed yet again, and although the Government have tried to say that that is because they want more people to benefit—that was the answer I got when I challenged the most recent cut—based on the figures we have seen from the Government, the overall pot for plug-in grants has reduced too. Leaving it to the market, as has been said by the hon. Member for Kensington and others, will not get us to where we need to be by 2030. Funding for public charging infrastructure has so far been piecemeal, to put it mildly. There are at least four different pots that councils can apply for, but lots of local councils have not had anything from the Government.

When I have asked the Government which local authorities have not had any public funding at all, I have not had an answer; what I have had is a list of councils that have had money, and I have tried to extrapolate from that how many have not. It is a very significant number. That might be because of a lack of political will on councils’ part: maybe they do not feel the need for public charging infrastructure, and assume that people can charge at home, or that it can be left to the market. It might be because they have not been successful in putting together bids, but there are really significant gaps, and that needs to be addressed. We need a strategy to ensure consistent coverage throughout the country.

We also need to deal with grid connection costs, because the private sector has told me that there is an expense to putting in public charging points, and it could take quite a long while to recoup the costs before ownership reaches critical mass. In rural areas or tourist destinations in particular, it would take a while to recoup those costs. The actual cost of connecting to the grid is the thing that really deters companies from doing so.

On funding for local councils, the £2 billion for active travel that was announced last year—in fact, it was announced several times last year—is being released far too slowly. We have had a couple of tranches but I understand that there will be no more money until the next spending review, so we have missed the crucial window to embed the positive behavioural change that we saw during the lockdowns, when people were wary of using public transport but were quite keen to take advantage of the reduced traffic on our roads to take up cycling.

I also challenge the Minister on the £27 billion that has been pledged to road building by this Government, and on the fact that the Transport Secretary overruled the advice of his own civil servants to conduct an environmental review of the policy. I hope that the transport decarbonisation plan sheds some light on how and if such carbon-intensive construction projects can be made compatible with our net zero emissions target.

[Alexander Stafford]

Tarmac is made of oil, so when making roads, we need to go back to offsetting some of our emissions because we will always need that oil. Does the hon. Lady think that should be part of the plan as well?

[Kerry McCarthy]

We need the environmental impact assessment from the Department so that we can assess the carbon footprint of road building, and look at whether more sustainable materials can be used and whether the extent of the road building programme proposed by the Government is compatible with reaching net zero, or whether other decisions need to be made.

We desperately need a comprehensive strategy to guide the Government’s approach. We do not want to see in this plan only platitudes and declarations of intent; we need clarity about how the Government intend to boost zero emission vehicle sales, speed up the transition to sustainable fuels, including for aviation and maritime, and encourage more people to use public transport, which we must ensure involves clean, greener vehicles.

We need a bold vision, linked to planning, housing and economic policy, on what role transport will play in the future, with post-pandemic adjustments to the way we live, move around, buy goods and access services—for example, the idea of the 15-minute city, which has been championed in Paris, and the role of the logistics sector. Many more people have resorted to online deliveries during the pandemic. I believe that pattern of behaviour will continue, so what is the strategy to keep heavy polluting vehicles out of urban centres wherever possible and rely on more sustainable forms of transport, whether electric vans, e-cargo bikes or other alternatives? The other day I visited Magway, a company that is looking at an underground delivery system, which it will be trialling in west London soon; that is really quite exciting stuff. Will we see ambition on that sort of thing in the plan?

I would welcome any insight from the Minister as to what concrete measures we can expect to see. Are the Government considering a zero emission vehicle mandate, as recommended by the Green Alliance and Policy Exchange, to ease the transition to 100% new zero emission vehicle sales by 2030? Are they considering a sustainable aviation fuel blending mandate to incentivise production and the adoption of stable fuels derived from waste? Will we finally see the timeframe for the production and roll-out of the 4,000 zero emission buses promised by the Government? How does the Government’s consultation on cutting air passenger duty for domestic flights square with all of this?

There is huge potential for jobs, and for the UK to lead the way in technological development. What we really want to hear from the Minister is a real strategy to get us there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments, but I have addressed them already with the roles that local authorities, the private sector and Government have to play. I also point him back to what I said about our delivery plan, which will, absolutely, set out how we intend to ensure that every resident of the United Kingdom, no matter where they live, has equal access to this electric and low emission revolution. We will continue to monitor the market, and where it is not delivering, it is right for central Government to step into those areas of market failure.

Members mentioned the experience of public charging. We have consulted recently on measures to improve that experience, including opening up public charge point data, improving reliability and streamlining the payment methods for drivers—they should not have to have multiple active apps and accounts on their phone. We want to increase pricing transparency. I have done a huge amount of work with charge point operators as part of that vital work. We also plan to lay legislation later this year.

We want people across the country to have the opportunity to move to being electric vehicle drivers.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Am I right in thinking that that would be legislation requiring charge point operators to meet certain reliability standards? Is that what the Minister is suggesting?

[Rachel Maclean]

Absolutely right, it is that. We already have those powers in legislation, and we intend to use them.

The vast majority of electric vehicle drivers choose to charge their cars at home overnight or, increasingly, at the workplace. We plan to support people to charge their cars at home, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington said. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government at the moment and we have consulted on plans to introduce a requirement for every new home to have a charge point, where there is an associated parking space. We will publish our response soon. We aim to lay regulations in Parliament in 2021—this year. That will make England the first country in the world to introduce mandatory charge points in new homes, again cementing our position as the global leader in the race to net zero.

My hon. Friend spoke about R&D, and we are world-leading in the automotive manufacturing sector. We have prioritised securing investment in battery cell gigafactories. That is key to anchoring the mass manufacture of electric vehicles in the UK, safeguarding green jobs and driving emissions to net zero by 2050. We must also create a circular economy for electric vehicle batteries to maximise the economic and environmental opportunities of the transition to zero emission vehicles. That is why we support innovation, infrastructure and a regulatory environment for the UK battery recycling industry. The £318 million Faraday battery challenge is about tackling those technical challenges of reusing and recycling battery components with the aim of making them 95% recyclable by 2035—up from 10% to 50% today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley mentioned many of the critical minerals. He will have to forgive me, that topic is not my direct brief, but I assure him that a lot of the work on the Faraday battery challenge is to address such critical challenges, of which Ministers are well aware.

We must also continue to support public transport as one of the most sustainable ways around. On rail, we are building on our Williams-Shapps plan for rail to decarbonise the rail network. We have already completed 700 miles of rail electrification in England and Wales, and we will continue to electrify more of the network in the years ahead. In the past year, there has been a meteoric rise in cycling and walking, and all of our policy development is aimed at embedding that shift. As I said, we are investing £2 billion to enable half of all travel in towns and cities to be cycled or walked by 2030.

Driverless Cars

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Westminster Hall

On resuming—

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) on securing this debate. He represents an area that I know pretty well, as my sister and her family live there, although they are in the old part—the railway town of Wolverton—but I have seen the robots whizzing around the streets. In fact, the first time I saw them, I thought they were speed cameras and got quite worried at the little things going along the pavement flashing at me as I was driving along the road. It is quite exciting.

It is right that the motion refers to the “potential merits” of driverless cars, and that note of hesitancy is probably about right at the moment. There is potential; driverless cars could mean safer, more efficient travel on the roads through better regulation of speed, less congestion and less risk of human error, which accounts for 90% of road traffic accidents. As has been said, the SMMT says that they could prevent 47,000 serious accidents over the next decade, and save 3,900 lives. It also said that they would open up new mobility opportunities for those with disabilities and the elderly, create 420,000 jobs and contribute £62 billion to the economy by 2030. That is all pretty exciting. I am probably not alone in finding it slightly hard to get my head around the idea of being in one of those cars and not being entirely in control, but I am very keen to test out the technology at some stage to see how it would work.

I want to be clear that Labour is generally supportive of the introduction of autonomous vehicles and of moving things ahead, but I echo what has been said by other hon. Members about ensuring safety. One of the key concerns is that there are different types of autonomous vehicles. As we have heard, the type that has been considered for introduction to UK roads in the immediate future—the automated lane keeping system vehicles—are not fully autonomous. The automation merely regulates the speed and direction of the vehicles, but still requires a driver to be attentive in order to perform emergency manoeuvres and lane switching.

I have spoken to various companies, including in the insurance world about this issue. We have to be clear what the driver’s responsibilities are, and how these things will affect drivers’ behaviour. If a driver feels that they are not responsible, I can imagine that they could take their eye off the ball as far as certain things are concerned. Will they be as vigilant as they should about the things that they should very much keep their eye on? If we do not get this right, the safety gains risk being outweighed by accidents involving drivers who have not operated the vehicle in the correct manner.

I am glad that the Government are considering the issues. One the mechanisms is the consultation on updating the highway code, although I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that; as I understand it, the proposed changes do not distinguish between different types of autonomous vehicles. I wonder whether that is the right approach. I would also welcome clarification on what measures will be taken to ensure that those who purchase or operate an ALKS vehicle are fully aware of driver responsibilities for that vehicle type. Indeed, what steps will be taken to make sure that any driver of any category of autonomous vehicle realises the extent of their responsibilities? That may be accidents and the insurance side of things, or just what is expected of them behaviour-wise. Would they, for example, have to take an additional driving course on top of the standard test? Will there come a point when the standard test is amended to take these things into account? Could there be a situation where somebody has not got the standard driving licence but is able to drive an autonomous vehicle because less responsibility is required from them?

It is disappointing that the Government have chosen not to wait until the findings of the Law Commission’s regulatory review into autonomous vehicles are released later this year. That will be crucial in determining responsibility when accidents occur, which we have discussed, and in advising on that regulatory framework. I understand the desire to open up this new market, but as the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) said, it is perhaps a bit early to race ahead. Forgive me—it is impossible to avoid puns about driving, in the same way that we suddenly start talking about being “on track” and “on board” and so on when we talk about rail.

Finally, I want to express my concern about how this fits in with the decarbonisation agenda. Obviously, we need to do much more to green our transport system. The switch to electric vehicles, and the ban on the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles from 2030 and of hybrids from 2035, are really important. As I understand it, autonomous vehicles could lead to emissions reductions by reducing congestion or because people go for an electric model, but they would not necessarily all be electric. Researchers at Imperial College London have highlighted concerns that automated vehicles could actually lead to an increase in global transport emissions if they are mostly fuelled by petrol and diesel, and if more people feel able to use them on the roads.

Although driverless cars are an exciting prospect and something to encourage, they are not the answer to the immediate need for better public transport, for investment in a comprehensive electric vehicle charging network, for making electric vehicles affordable for more people, and for encouraging people to use private vehicles less and to walk and cycle more. I know that the Government are considering all those issues. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on how those problems will be addressed, and reassurance that the Government are not speeding ahead without the necessary regulation and consensus on the policy area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Member for asking that. We intend to publish that plan shortly.

[Kerry McCarthy]

We were all led to believe that the plan would be published in the spring. When does the Minister think spring officially ends?

[Rachel Maclean]

That is one of those questions that I am not qualified to answer, but I assure the hon. Lady that we are committed to publishing the plan shortly.

I hope that I have set out the wide range of Government efforts to make the UK the best place in the world to develop and deploy self-driving vehicles safely. The coming years will prove crucial in securing the many benefits of self-driving vehicles for the UK—for our economy, for the environment and for safe and accessible travel for all citizens. I thank everybody for taking part in the debate.