14:20 Andy McDonald (Labour)

I note the Government’s interest in buses. I have been banging on about buses for years, and it was good to see the BBC devote attention to buses in another documentary last night, but can I gently try to persuade the Secretary of State to look carefully at Labour’s proposals to bring back and expand routes, increase ridership, decarbonise the fleet and provide free travel for all under the age of 25 within a re-regulated bus network that is wholly integrated with other modes? Were he to do that, he would come to the inevitable conclusion that the only way to achieve all that was within a public transport system that was genuinely public in ownership and control.

When the coronavirus crisis is eventually over—we all hope and pray that will be sooner rather than later—we will still face the climate crisis, and sadly, this Budget does little to address it. Greenpeace commented that

“the Chancellor has completely missed the opportunity to address the climate emergency... he’s driving in the opposite direction.”

“This Budget contains a massive road-building programme which completely destroys any pretence of UK government leadership ahead of this year’s crucial climate summit.

The UK is way off track to meet its own climate change targets and is further still from meeting its commitments under the Paris climate agreement. This failure is being driven by a rising trend in emissions caused largely by increased traffic growth, which has left transport as the UK’s single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and the worst-performing sector when it comes to reducing carbon emissions. This failure is the result of deliberate Government policy encouraging traffic growth through an ever-expanding multibillion-pound programme of road building.

This Budget is destined to make the problem worse by pledging over £27 billion for new road building, which will increase car use, worsen congestion and increase air pollution and climate emissions, with little benefit for the economy and at the expense of concreting over large areas of the country. A huge part of the problem is that public transport fares have risen at more than twice the rate of wages since 2010 while fuel duty has remained frozen, meaning the cost of public transport has risen above the cost of motoring, discouraging more sustainable transport and worsening congestion and pollution. Yet the fuel duty freeze continues and there are no measures to reduce the cost of public transport, compounding the failure of recent years.

The contrast between what will be spent on new road building alone and what is pledged for cycling and walking and for public transport illustrates the Government’s priorities, with the investment in roads five times that in sustainable transport. The funding for local transport that the Government announced with significant fanfare simply will not cut it. Labour pledged £6.5 billion over the same period to reverse more than 3,000 bus route cuts in England and to invest in new services. It could cost around £3 billion to reverse the cuts made to bus services alone, yet the £5 billion pledged in the Budget is meant to fund bus services, build new cycle lanes and purchase around 4,000 zero-emission buses. This fund has been over-promised and will not deliver the investment in local transport needed to address the climate crisis and support local economies.

On electric vehicles, it is good that the Chancellor decided to continue the grants. It would have been highly damaging for the plug-in car grant to be scrapped, as subsidies for EVs are required until the up-front cost of EVs reaches price parity with internal combustion engine vehicles. But it should be pointed out that the grants had previously been cut from £5,000 to £3,500—a move condemned by industry. If the UK is to reduce transport emissions in line with climate targets, the cuts to grants should be reversed. By contrast, Labour had pledged to introduce 2.5 million interest-free loans, worth an additional £1,500, for the purchase of EVs so as to allow low-income households, those living in rural areas, and independent contractors and small and medium-sized enterprises to save on new electric cars.

Again, the £500 million investment in EV charging infrastructure is better than nothing, but £400 million of this fund is a reannouncement from the 2017 autumn Budget. This money should have already been invested and should have been supplemented by a further announcement in this Budget so as to provide an adequate charging network. By contrast, to jump-start the transition to electric cars and tackle the climate emergency, Labour pledged to invest £3.6 billion in a mammoth expansion of the UK’s EV charging network. A rapid roll-out of charging stations would eliminate concerns over driving range and lack of electric car charging infrastructure by providing enough electrical charge points for 21.5 million electric cars—65% of the UK’s fleet—by 2030.

On the greatest crisis facing humanity, the climate crisis, this Budget is going in the wrong direction. On the most immediate crisis facing us, the coronavirus, the Budget fails to provide the country and its workers with the safety and security they require. On the Budget’s central promise to level up the country, it is an abject failure, failing to reverse the austerity cuts of the past decade and to invest in infrastructure across the country. The coronavirus pandemic is a dreadful and most immediate crisis, but one day it will be behind us. When we are past this, the same problems of social and regional inequalities and the climate crisis will still be there. I worry that, on the evidence of this Budget, the Government do not have the vision or the ambition to tackle them. When we are through this, we should take the opportunity to reset our economy, so that it works for our people, as it always should.

[Source]

15:15 Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)

Blyth is, of course, the main town, which gives its name to the constituency. My family have farmed the land there for generations, and Blyth is part of my DNA. It is a town steeped in history, but one that is dynamic and forward looking. It was a submarine port during both world wars; the place where the world’s first purpose-built aircraft carrier, the Ark Royal, was launched in 1915; and, not forgetting, the home of Blyth Spartans football club. I am so proud to wear their tie today. Built on coalmining and shipbuilding, Blyth is now at the forefront of developing renewable energy technologies. The port of Blyth will continue to play an important role in trade after Brexit.

[Source]

16:01 Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)

Another transport project that was supposed to level up connectivity between the regions and nations is the third runway at Heathrow. However, the UK Government lost in the court because they did not allow for aviation emissions to be aligned with the Paris agreement. They will now turn round and say that it does not matter because it is private investment, and it is up to Heathrow to sort it out. Well, it is not up to Heathrow to sort it out; it is up to the UK Government to do that, because climate change is their responsibility. They should follow the Scottish Government’s lead, and include aviation emissions in their net zero target. Moreover, if they are clear about levelling up, where are the public service obligations to protect the extra slots if the Heathrow third runway goes ahead? That is another vital aspect of connectivity.

The Government have a big job to do if they are to hit their net zero carbon target by 2050. It will mean further strategic infrastructure investment, which will need to be done correctly to achieve this levelling up. That means investment in energy infrastructure. Again, we await the Government’s White Paper. When will it come, and when will we have a coherent energy policy that makes energy efficiency measures part of a national infrastructure project? The National Infrastructure Commission has long called for that, as has the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. The Scottish Government have led the way, spending four times as much as the UK Government per capita.

We need proposals for carbon capture and strategy—the current Budget proposals are too vague—and we need to end the nuclear obsession. It is completely illogical to pay £92.50 per MWh for Hinkley for 35 years, compared to just £40 per MWh for offshore wind and a 15-year concession. We need to invest in renewable energy.

[Source]

16:27 Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat)

Turning to the Budget response to the climate emergency, the Budget should have been an opportunity for Government to match their rhetoric on tackling the climate emergency with real action—now, more than ever, as Parliament voted to commit to a net zero target and as the UK is hosting COP26 later this year. The UK should show leadership on tackling the climate emergency, but the Budget falls short in many ways. While there were encouraging announcements on electric vehicles and charging points, they were negated by the Government’s continued support for road building and petrol and diesel vehicles. The fuel duty freeze in the past 10 years has not resulted in an increase in people taking public transport but in an increase in cars on the road and fewer people using public transport. That should not be the direction pursued by a Government who are genuinely committed to taking all petrol and diesel vehicles off the road in 12 years’ time.

Where are the plans for the complete electrification of rail travel? The electrification of the line to Bath has been halted. When will it be completed? Most worryingly, there was no mention of any Government plan to tackle the UK’s greatest source of carbon emissions—our homes. The challenge is twofold: first, to ensure that any home that is a new build is fit for a net zero future and, secondly, to upgrade our current housing stock to make it energy-efficient.

There is no real ambition on that—the Government have only committed to require the future homes standard from 2025. They should legislate now, so that the thousands of new homes that will be built over the next five years will be net zero straightaway. The greater challenge is to retrofit the current housing stock so that it is energy efficient. That will be challenging and expensive, but is crucial, both in reducing the emissions from our houses and for alleviating fuel poverty. It is therefore frustrating that there was no mention of any action on that in the Budget. It is not enough simply to hope that people will upgrade their home’s energy efficiency. People living in homes with the worst energy efficiency ratings are often the poorest and most vulnerable in society.

The Government, who cancelled the Liberal Democrat green new deal scheme without a replacement, need to take the climate emergency seriously, and replace words with action. That means ensuring that we have just measures so that the burden of the net zero transition does not fall on those who can least afford it. The Chancellor should use the Government’s new-found affection for spending to provide support for upgrading all houses and building to energy efficiency grade C or higher. Rather than building roads, we should invest a lot more in public transport.

The coronavirus crisis is uppermost in our minds, but it has not simply replaced the climate crisis, which continues to be the most pressing issue of our generation. Not responding adequately will result in catastrophic cost to human life. The Government must step up.

[Source]

16:38 Ruth Jones (Labour)

The background to this Budget is a climate emergency, a global pandemic and a Tory Government who have finally found the magic money tree after a long 10-year love affair with austerity. Four Chancellors, three Prime Ministers and a decade of under-investment have forced the Government to launch a levelling up agenda. I think it is less about levelling up and more about making up for lost time and the wrong decisions. From my weekly surgeries and talking to people right across Newport West, I know that our social security system has lost its way. We need to rebuild it from the principles on which it was founded: supporting people rather than policing them, and alleviating poverty rather than forcing people into it. The first missed opportunity of this Budget was to scrap universal credit once and for all. It has caused severe hardship for many people because of the major flaws in its design and the way it has been rolled out.

[Source]

16:49 Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)

In that consensual vein, I am pleased to add my congratulations to the Chancellor on his presentation of the Budget at this very difficult time. His speech was upbeat. It was positive. It was almost convincing. He sounded as if he believed the Budget he was delivering was as good as the circumstances, which were certainly very difficult, would allow. The circumstances have certainly changed, and changed markedly for the worse. However, as reflection on the Budget itself has shown, it was not as good as it sounded. It was not as good as it could have been and it was not as good as it should have been. For example, COP26 is taking place in Glasgow later this year, we hope—coronavirus permitting—but his Budget did nothing to deliver net zero by 2050. Going into the Budget, we heard repeatedly about this promise of levelling up for people and for places across these islands, but on both fronts the Budget failed to deliver.

[Source]

17:01 Rachel Hopkins (Labour)

Similar disappointment is replicated in the Government’s much anticipated and much needed transport infrastructure investment plan. We have a climate emergency and emergencies require urgent action, so public transport must be at the heart of the climate strategy. Instead of investing in a sustainable integrated public transport system, however, the Government announced a £27 billion investment in roadbuilding and a fuel duty freeze. That is more than the investment for all other modes of transport combined. This is ill-thought-through policy- making, when we consider that over 60% of the UK’s rail routes have yet to be electrified and that many train stations, such as Luton station, are in desperate need of remediation.

Bringing transport into public ownership is not radical. We have German, Italian and Dutch state-owned companies running our railways and buses, and the profits are used to subsidise European transport. By pursuing a publicly owned, integrated transport system, we could ensure that every penny invested is focused on improving the standard of the service and working to tackle the climate emergency.

[Source]

17:23 Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)

We could also realise the huge potential for improved cycle and pedestrian routes, especially alongside the Trent and Mersey canal to Stoke station, and pave the way for improved bus services. We hope that that would be through the excellent superbus pilot, which I know my colleagues from north Staffordshire have been anxiously bidding on in order to secure it, especially for Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke. To parrot the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South again, we have seen 1 million fewer passengers on our buses in the past 12 months and 5.4 million fewer over the past decade. That is a shocking thing to hear and it is certainly not going to help us to reach our net zero target, so that superbus pilot, with the transforming cities fund, would fundamentally revolutionise public transport across Stoke-on-Trent.

[Source]

17:35 Janet Daby (Labour)

We are behind our European friends. I am sorry to say that we are not leading the way on this—not under this Government—and nor are we leading the way on the climate crisis. Out of the G7 countries, the UK’s health spending per person is the second lowest, behind France and Germany. We do not want to be a country that is behind others; we want to be a country at the forefront—at the cutting edge. Our current position is a consequence of a decade of NHS underfunding, wrapped around the auspices of austerity.

[Source]

18:09 Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)

It is right to increase public spending in this way, although it is not without risk. It is right because as we leave the EU, we need the economy to be firing on all cylinders, not spluttering along in third gear. Our productivity remains stubbornly low, and in many places our infrastructure is crumbling. We have a host of challenges to address, such as climate change and promoting the green economy, the crisis on the high street, and the urgent need to improve social mobility, so that young people, wherever they live and whatever their circumstances, have the opportunity to realise their full potential. Added to that cocktail, we must now support people and businesses to get through the enormous challenge of coronavirus.

[Source]

18:37 Peter Dowd (Labour)

The Budget was disappointing in relation to climate action. The environmental justice commission set up by the Institute for Public Policy Research said that £33 billion of green investment was needed a year to get to the Government’s weak target of net zero emissions by 2050. But there is £27 billion for road building, although nothing for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. We have heard excuses over the years that they inherited a poor economy, but they have been in power for 10 years and the responsibility for the poor performance of our economy in the past 10 years lies squarely at the Government’s door. They did not believe that public investment could boost the economy. In a speech in 2009, George Osborne said that

[Source]

18:49 Steve Barclay (Conservative)

The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) gave an excellent speech about her commitment to her constituency and highlighted issues such as housing, railway electrification, bus routes and the climate emergency. It is clear from the range of contributions from new Members that they will all contribute considerably to the House in the weeks and months ahead.

(2) In section 136 (car with a CO2 emissions figure: post- September 1999 registration)—

“(2B) For the purpose of determining the car’s CO2 emissions figure in a case where the car is first registered on or after 6 April 2020, ignore any values specified in the EC certificate of conformity or UK approval certificate that are not WLTP (worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedures) values.”

(3) In section 137 (car with a CO2 emissions figure: bi-fuel cars)—

“(2B) For the purpose of determining the car’s CO2 emissions figure in a case where the car is first registered on or after 6 April 2020, ignore any values specified in the EC certificate of conformity or UK approval certificate that are not WLTP (worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedures) values.”

(4) In section 139 (car with a CO2 emissions figure)—

(a) if a CO2 emissions figure is not a whole number, round it down to the nearest whole number, and

(2) In section 139 (car with a CO2 emissions figure: the appropriate percentage)—

(a) in the table in subsection (1), in the second column of the entry for a car with a CO2 emissions figure of 0, for “2%” substitute “0%”, and (b) in subsection (7) before paragraph (a) insert—

“139A Section 139: recently registered car with CO2 emissions figure

(4) In section 140 (car without a CO2 emissions figure: the appropriate percentage) in subsection (3)(a) for “2%” substitute “0%”.

“CO2 emissions figure

“CO2 emissions figure

42. Vehicle excise duty (applicable CO2 emissions figure)

(1) In Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (annual rates of duty) in paragraph 1GA(5) (meaning of “the applicable CO2 emissions figure”)—

(c) for the purpose of determining the applicable CO2 emissions figure of a vehicle first registered on or after 1 April 2020, ignore any values specified in an EU certificate of conformity or UK approval certificate that are not WLTP (worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedures) values”.

(2) In paragraph 25 of Schedule 2 (exempt vehicles: light passenger vehicles with low CO2 emissions) omit sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) (no exemption if vehicle price exceeds £40,000 etc).

49. Rates of climate change levy from April 2020

(1) Paragraph 42 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2000 (climate change levy: amount payable by way of levy) is amended as follows.

(4) In consequence of the amendment made by paragraph (3) of this Resolution, in the Notes to paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Climate Change Levy (General) Regulations 2001, for the definition of “r” substitute—

50. Rates of climate change levy (future years)

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year amending the rates of climate change levy.

53. Greenhouse gas emissions trading schemes

That provision may be made for the imposition of charges by the allocation, in return for payment, of allowances under paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Climate Change Act 2008.

[Source]