The world is being changed by two simultaneous revolutions. The green revolution is a hugely ambitious global government inspired project driven by international treaty, laws, targets, bans and subsidies. The digital revolution is a bottom up consumer revolution, driven by huge demand for smart phones, computer pads, online retail, downloaded entertainment, social media, business computing power and robotic assistance. The digital revolution shows what is possible when you have the consumer on your side. The Green revolution is stumbling to find the products and services that people will willingly buy as it seeks to harness sufficient private capital and spending power to add to the large sums of public and  business money green transition currently relies on.

 

Mc Kinsey  in their study reckoned the world would need to spend $275 trillion in the years to 2050 to get to net zero. That is almost three times current annual world income and output. The sum is so large because a full green transition requires the end of most fossil fuel energy, the radical change of electricity generation, and  the massive extension of electricity grids and cable systems. It means  the switch over of most vehicles, planes, and ships to low or no carbon alternatives, the change of people’s diet from meat to vegetable based food, big change in the way people heat their homes and cook, and the transformation of factories that currently rely on gas, coal and oil for their power. There is  no way governments can afford all or most of this. It needs most homeowners to find the money to rip out the gas boiler or replace the solid fuel fire, to change their car or  van and to find diets, holidays and entertainments that are light on the CO2.

 

So far world business has not found the Beetle or Mini of the battery car revolution to fill the parking lots of the average family. They have not produced the smartphone or ipad of the home heating world that flies off the shelves and replaces fossil fuel heaters. Governments are proceeding by trying to force or persuade people to buy products they do not want to buy, or by banning or taxing products they like until they give them up. This causes friction with many voters, and can lead to parties in government losing elections by being too bossy about green issues. The Dutch government fell in a general election when many electors thought it had gone too far in trying to rid Dutch farms of livestock for a meat diet. The French have rioted over higher fossil fuel taxes.  Candidate Trump in the US is polling well on a platform of rejecting the net zero imperatives and turning to extracting larger quantities of cheap domestic oil and gas to stimulate industry and help home consumers. President Biden has carried on offering more drilling licences against the wishes of Green Democrats for fear of losing votes.

 

Governments treading the road to net zero are urging or nudging people to buy electric cars. Recent figures show falling sales in Europe. Tesla, the pioneer of expensive electric vehicles for the richer consumer has been forced into layoffs and scaled back production. It is cutting prices to try to widen its appeal. Many people find battery electric cars are too expensive to buy. Many are worried about the lack of range on some  battery cars.  Many are also concerned about the lack of charging points and the time it takes to recharge when you reach one. Some are concerned  about battery life, repair costs and insurance given the impact the large battery has on the structure of the  car and how central it is to the lifetime costs of the vehicle.

 

Some think government and business should do more to develop low and no carbon fuel for existing internal combustion engines. After all, it is generally agreed that there cannot yet be battery powered long haul jetliners so the accent there is on the production of synthetic no carbon fuel for conventional jet engines. People can produce small quantities of synthetic petrol for existing car engines, so why not scale it up and try to find the economies of scale to make it more affordable? Many people are nervous about electric cars as they expect when there are more of them governments will need to tax the electricity they use to make up for the loss of petrol and diesel duties.

 

Governments want people to adopt heat pumps or electric heating systems. All electric heating is usually  dear to run. Heat pumps are expensive to install. Anyone in an older property may need to undertake extensive and expensive insulation and cladding of the buildings  first. They may also need to change the size of the pipes and radiators to get it warm enough with heat pump energy. Some people who have adopted heat pumps complain of high electricity bills to run them. Some find it difficult to get the water and the rooms hot enough. As a result only a very small proportion of people have so far bought them. The gas boiler remains more reliable, a lot cheaper to install and may also be cheaper to run.

 

Democratic governments will not stay elected if they force people to buy products that are too dear or do not fit people’s expectations of how they should perform. Governments should learn from the digital revolution which took off using private capital and thrives on the freely chosen wishes of billions of  consumers worldwide. It did  not take bans  and subsidies to get so many people to buy gas boilers or cars, replacing coal fires and the horse and cart. There are many ways of creating a cleaner and greener future,  but all successful ones will rest on consumer goodwill. The transition is too big and too dear for governments to carry the burden themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was a lot of interest yesterday in the history and performance of the railway. I was asked what would I recommend.

I voted against HS2 and would complete as elegant an  exit as possible whilst of course completing the section to Birmingham currently under contract. I would accelerate the introduction of digital signals which increase capacity substantially and improve safety.

I would break up Network Rail , re uniting track and trains around mainlines into  London terminuses as franchises fall in. The regional or line companies created could be opened up to private capital progressively on new and different franchise terms. All these companies would be subject to open access challenge. Freight companies and challenger passenger companies could compete for the increased number of track slots available. If any regional/line co sought to exclude from reasonable access there would be an appeal to the Regulator who would be under a duty to allow fair competition.

The present debate about whether to nationalise the railway overlooks one crucial fact. In 2002 Labour did nationalise all the track, signals and stations and ensured a public regulator controlled timetables and many fares for the residual private train companies. Since then several of the train franchisees have given up and the state has taken over. It is not easy to run a private rail company if you cannot get the track slots you want, if the track and signals provider lets you down too often with track and signals faults, and if the timetables required do not conform with demand patterns of passengers.

If there was any doubt about the failure nationalisation can bring you then consider the case of the entirely nationalised HS 2. There over paid public sector managers spend their way through huge sums of donated public capital, happily overrunning agreed budgets massively and progressively announcing  delays to the arrival time of London to Birmingham and putting off the start tine for the northern routes.

Network Rail states the value of the track, land and buildings at £82 bn but after 22 years of its management taxpayers only have £15 bn of net assets left. Network Rail has lost us money and taken out £53 bn of loans courtesy of a taxpayer guarantee. Strange how this justified high pay and bonuses.It looks like the work of a bad hedge fund, taking over great assets then borrowing and borrowing on the back of them, lumbering itself and us as taxpayers with huge interest bills.

There is plenty of bad commentary about this nationalisation idea. Margaret Thatcher with myself as her adviser did not privatise British Rail. When John Major did he rejected my advice on how best to do it.

This Parliament has seen a surge of cases against MPs. There are now 18 MPs sitting as Independents because their parties no longer support them. 8 were Conservatives, 7 were Labour,1 was SNP, 1 was DUP and 1 was Plaid. Looked at as percentage of MPs elected that means that 25% of Plaid MPs, 12.5% of DUP, 3% of Labour and 2% of SNP and Conservative MPs elected are currently suspended.

There are many differences in why they lost the whip. A few are on suspicion of criminal activity. Some said inappropriate things. Some behaved badly in their private lives though did not break the law. Some we are not allowed to know why Labour suspended them. Matt Hancock undertook a tv programme in the jungle.

The process for dealing with these very varied cases serves neither the public nor the MPs well. It is wrong for the public if an MP has broken the law or behaved badly but stays on for many months pending some action, in some cases barred from coming to the House. . It is wrong for the MP if it takes many months for Parliament to conclude the accusation was false. Whilst these matters  deserve proper investigation it is in everyone’s interest that decisions are speeded up.

Where the argument is over something the MP said or over actions that are not criminal the best judges are the electors at the next election. Where the accusations are about serious crimes the police and CPS are the  judges of whether to bring a prosecution.

 

As readers know I do not express views about who should win elections in foreign countries, nor usually comment on which potential government or President would be best.

It now looks very likely that Mr Trump will gain the Republican nomination and Mr Biden the democrat at the conventions in the summer. . Polls for the Presidential election itself show both Mr Biden and Mr Trump as relatively unpopular with the wider electorate. They also quite often show Mr Trump a little ahead.

It is therefore a good time to ask what would a second term Biden Presidency look like and how would it contrast with a second term Trump Presidency?

With the current President we should  expect him to continue with his economic policy based on the Inflation Reduction Act subsidies and the CHIPs Act. He will want to attract more semiconductor and digital investment to the US, and offer tax breaks and subsidies for green growth. He will be happy to see higher taxes on the very rich and on big business. He supports minimum tax levels globally on these groups.

Mr Trump will wish to renew his big tax cuts where some are due to retire, and will also wish to onshore more investment. He will renounce the Paris Climate Agreements and will promote more cheap oil and gas from domestic sources. He will cut green subsidies and regulations. This will make a big difference to the world policy of decarbonisation. With China and India continuing to boost fossil fuel output and use, joined by the USA, Europe will be lonely with its anti oil and gas policies.

The UK and Europe need to ask themselves what are they going to do about the drive to use more fossil fuel in India , China and many emerging market economies? It makes no sense to close our industrial plants only to import from high CO 2 producing countries. It seems very unlikely  the world can hit its targets for 2030 for CO 2, as fossil fuel use continues to increase. Even under Biden the US has added to her output of cheap oil and gas.  If the USA joins in with more fossil fuel it makes it even less likely targets will be hit. When are the international target setters going to confront the truth about India, China and other large emitters? Are they happy with President Biden adding to US oil and gas output? What would they do if Mr Trump becomes President and renounces the plans. ?

 

Today we celebrate England. We also remember England’s greatest writer, William Shakespeare. Both have given so much to enrich the world. England pioneered Parliamentary democracy and fired up the prosperity from industrialisation and freer trade. Shakespeare captured so much of the human condition that his plays are as relevant today as 400 years ago.

We live with asymmetric devolution in the UK. Labour’s model gave devolved governments to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They wanted regional assemblies to break up England,  but voters rightly rejected these.

The EU always refused to recognise England, also wishing to break it up into unloved regions. Most of us in England have affinity to our town or village and to our county but not to a region.

I live in Wokingham. We do not feel we belong to “the rest of the south east” or to the Thames Valley or to Berks,Bucks and Oxon, in ways government sometimes lays down.

This is all unfinished business. Today is a day to remember what is good and best about England, which has survived much in the struggles for freedom, democracy and prosperity.

The Department for Transport needs to get on with revising these guidelines. The Labour government in Wales now concedes they have introduced too many. There need to be some through roads that allow people to get to work or the shops at a reasonable speed, whilst  ensuring there  are safe paths, crossings and pedestrian areas for those walking. 

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether his Department has issued recent guidance on challenging the imposition of 20 mph zones by local authorities. (15526)

Tabled on: 26 February 2024

Answer:
Guy Opperman:

The Department is finalising the details to the guidance update on setting local speed limits and in respect of 20mph speed limits, as announced in the Plan for Drivers. This will be published in due course.

The answer was submitted on 04 Mar 2024 at 14:15.

The Department for Transport has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (15523):

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent estimate he has made of the level of funding his Department will provide to the rail industry in the 2023-24 financial year. (15523)

Tabled on: 26 February 2024

Answer:
Huw Merriman:

The Central Government Supply Estimates 2023-24, presented to the House of Commons and published on 27 February 2024 (see link below), details the funding provided to the Department for Transport across a large number of different areas. The value associated with all rail and rail related lines is £33.029 billion, across both Departmental Expenditure Limit and Annually Managed Expenditure. More than half of the total value is associated with Network Rail, with other areas including but not limited to High Speed 2, Crossrail and support for passenger rail services. The numbers in the Central Government Supply Estimates take account of technical accounting adjustments and are not necessarily reflective of cash that will be required.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65dcb981b8da630011c86233/E03059123_CG_Supp_Estimates_2023-24_Bookmarked.pdf

The latest figures for battery car sales in the EU show them down 11% in March, with a market share down at 13%. The fall in Germany was particularly steep. This follows news of price cuts and poor sales at Tesla.The Tesla share price is 62% down from the peak. Tesla announced 14,000 redundancies.

This should  be a salutary warning to governments and car companies. It is no good ploughing on with new products that too few people want to buy or can afford. Governments need to do more to deliver enough affordable renewable electricity before trying to force the pace on adoption of battery cars. Why try to sell more EVs when they need to be recharged with electricity from a gas power station?

Governments and international conferences have not been straight with the public. It is not green to scrap a petrol or diesel car early and make a new battery car to replace it. It is not  green to run a battery car recharging it with fossil fuel electricity. If many people do get EVs governments  will impose taxes on using them to replace lost petrol taxes. Using a battery  car will not be easy until there are many more fast recharging points. Going electric requires a huge expansion of the grid and cable systems that serve us.

Car companies spend plenty of money on EV car ads trying to make them look the thing to have .They never talk about running costs. How much does it cost to recharge? What happens to insurance costs? What is the true range? How long will the battery last? How quickly does battery performance deteriorate? How easy is it to repair a damaged battery car? The ads need to be more informative. Many people have many good reasons not to buy a battery electric car. The rich can afford them and often have a petrol car as well for long journeys. Most people think they are too dear, difficult to recharge away from home and no use if you do not have a driveway or garage of your own.

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):

Many people share the Government’s ambition to stop the boats. Would these Lords amendments not muddle the legislation in a way that, once again, would leave us open to an unnecessary court challenge? Can he reassure us that, unamended, the Bill will do the job?

Michael Tomlinson:
I know my right hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the Bill since the outset, and he is right. The amendments fall into two categories: those that are simply unnecessary and those that are worse than unnecessary. The second group are wrecking amendments deliberately designed to prevent the very things that the Bill was designed to do—namely, stopping the boats and getting the planes off the ground.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has previously accused me of repeating myself from time to time—heaven forfend—but he is right, because our approach is justified as a matter of parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional propriety. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) has even said that it is not unprecedented, and he is right. It also meets our international obligations.