National Policy Statement: Airports

Debate between Lord Grayling and Dominic Grieve

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We have been very clear about two things. First, this runway cannot open if it does not meet air quality standards. Secondly, the air quality issue in west London is much bigger than the airport itself. This is the kind of challenge that we see in any busy metropolitan area. That is why we published our air quality strategy last summer, and it is why we need to get on with the job of making our car fleets much greener through lowering emissions. We are pushing ahead with low emission vehicles as fast as we can in this country.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that Heathrow is a vital economic hub, but because of that, the traffic congestion that surrounds it is a really serious problem, particularly in parts of my constituency, where the emissions levels are high and the roads are almost impassable. Can he give me an assurance that, in looking at the development of a third runway, attention will be given to improving the infrastructure so that these areas benefit?

[Chris Grayling]

That has to happen. This is not just about infrastructure. My Department has already been in discussions with South Bucks Council about some of the issues that my right hon. and learned Friend’s area will face and about how they can be mitigated. One of the options is to improve the environment around the Colne Valley, and I am keen for my officials to work with him and the local authority on that. The provision of a community fund from Heathrow as a result of this will make it easier to fund projects such as those.

Airports National Policy Statement

Debate between Lord Grayling and Dominic Grieve

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

As the hon. Lady will know, the Airports Commission looked at this issue very carefully and formed the view that we could meet our climate change objectives and expand Heathrow. Of course in the aviation sector there is a transformation of the technology that means aircraft are much more fuel-efficient and therefore emit less, so technology is helping us move towards achieving the right approach.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and many in my constituency will benefit economically and directly from this expansion and are supportive of it. Does my right hon. Friend recognise, however, that the issues around air quality, and indeed pollution generally, are not just confined to aircraft movements, but are also affected by the entire traffic management in the area around Heathrow? He will be aware that parts of my constituency, particularly Iver, are seriously blighted by the existence of Heathrow as it is at present, and if this development is to go ahead there will have to be the necessary infrastructure investment to alleviate that.

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. He will be aware that we have had a number of toings and froings over the months about whether it will be necessary to build a depot at Langley; that has now been resolved and that depot is not now happening, which will simplify the process of delivering western rail access, and I hope will ease many of the pressures. One of the factors that will have an impact in my right hon. and learned Friend’s constituency and the large number of people who travel to work at Heathrow is that western rail access will not only deliver better connectivity to the west country but will make it easier for staff to get the train to work.

English Votes on English Laws

Debate between Lord Grayling and Dominic Grieve

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The people of Scotland voted for the Union, and we are delivering more powers for the Scottish Parliament so that we can strengthen the Union. That is what we committed ourselves to doing in our manifesto, and it is what the whole House agreed on before the general election. We are fulfilling our promise, which is the right thing to do.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

The point has been fairly made that, because of the funding system we have in the UK, many decisions that might appear solely to have an impact on England can have a UK effect, but my understanding of what my right hon. Friend was saying was that the Government fully understood that and that it would be recognised in the structures put in place. If that is the case, I have to say I find some of the arguments being advanced by the SNP to be rather synthetic. I have a great interest in all sorts of subjects, including wind farms in the Monadhliath mountains, but I have to recognise that they are not ones that I can pursue as a Member of Parliament in this Chamber.

[Chris Grayling]

The point that SNP Members seem to have failed to take on board is that no measure will be able to pass through this House without the consent of the whole House, and the whole House includes Members of Parliament from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is how it is today; that is how it will continue. It is absolutely right and proper that that should be the case. They will continue to vote in all the Divisions they vote in at the moment. They will speak in the debates and ask all their questions. This does not create a second tier of Members of Parliament. It actually addresses the existing West Lothian question, which creates a division in competence between different Members of Parliament.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Grayling and Dominic Grieve

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

That may indeed be an option in the courts. I go back to the Richard III case which, the hon. Gentleman may remember, was brought by Plantagenet Alliance Ltd. It is still to this day not clear to me who the Plantagenet Alliance were and who was behind it. It was launched on the basis of it being the family of King Richard III—his descendants—demanding a right to a say in where he was buried. I suspect that most of us in this Chamber are, in some way, shape or form, descendants of King Richard III given the way the generations have spread out. The Department was subject to a case and won that case. The court ruled that I had fulfilled my statutory duties appropriately. None the less, as a result of that case the taxpayer faced a bill, if I recall correctly, in excess of £100,000. To my mind, that is not good use of public money.

My view, therefore, is that at the very least we should know—as I say, I do not know to this day—who the backers of the Plantagenet Alliance are. It is my full intention to put forward a proposal to set a £1,500 threshold, but I will also be considering how to prevent the use of shell companies to provide a shelter for those bringing judicial reviews. I hope that will command the support of the House. I still do not understand why the Labour party is so opposed to it, because I cannot see how it is in anybody’s interest for public bodies to be subject to court cases by bodies that are unknown. We do not know who is behind them, who has set them up, and whether they are a front for an interest group that we would find utterly distasteful.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

The process of ping-pong has narrowed the issues. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend that on the other two amendments he has made an effort to restrict matters, but I have to say that I remain unpersuaded that this amendment will not excessively fetter judicial discretion. I also have to say that the concession made in the Lords, when they tabled a fresh amendment, is difficult to criticise. Obviously, it leaves a measure of discretion to the judiciary, but one that is in my view nevertheless correct. I will need a lot of persuading that the route he is currently taking is not excessively restrictive. For that reason, I cannot support it at the moment.

[Chris Grayling]

The key issue is that it is very easy to define a public interest around public authorities fulfilling absolutely the legal terms of their requirements, but if we accept that that is the case there is often very little justification for a case not being brought. Simply having a public interest test without the exceptional qualification would leave open the opportunity for all of these cases continuing. Where a case is brought for reasons of intentional delay, the case will be argued that this is a matter of public interest. The exceptional level, which deliberately raises the bar, ensures that this part of the Bill achieves its objectives.