Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

2. What recent discussions he has had on the future of emergency towing vessels in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I discussed emergency towing capability in Scotland with the right hon. Gentleman on 9 June, and we had an informal chat this week on that subject. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has consulted all interested parties about options for future provision beyond September 2016. I expect to make an announcement very soon.

[Mr Carmichael]

We look forward to hearing the Minister’s announcement. The last stakeholders’ group meeting convened by the MCA received a risk assessment —a proper, substantial piece of work commissioned from the private sector—that made it clear that removing the tug would pose an unacceptable risk for the coastal and island communities of Scotland. When the Minister makes his decision, will he make sure that that risk assessment is on his desk and at the heart of his considerations?

[Mr Goodwill]

I absolutely reassure the House that I understand the importance of maritime safety in those northern waters, from the point of view not only of pollution—we all know how difficult a major oil pollution incident can be—but of our seafarers at risk on the waters.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

3. What discussions he has had with Nottingham City Council on the use of income from the workplace parking levy for transport projects in Nottingham; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on border controls at air and maritime ports.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The Secretary of State regularly meets the Home Secretary to discuss a range of subjects, including border security. The most recent of these discussions took place on 26 April this year.

[Deidre Brock]

I understand that incoming international passengers at Edinburgh airport are experiencing lengthening delays as a result of cuts to the number of Border Force officers available. Given the increasing passenger numbers there and the likely increased need for passport checks after Brexit, will the Minister take urgent action to increase Border Force official numbers at the airport?

[Mr Goodwill]

I, for one, am pleased that we do not have border checks at Berwick-upon-Tweed when I travel north. The hon. Lady should more reasonably put that question to the Home Office, which deals with such matters. As the Minister with responsibility for aviation, I am aware of the whole airport experience, and long queues at immigration are not good for the experience of people who come to our country.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

8. What plans he has to expand airport capacity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

17. What steps he is taking to ensure that a decision is made as soon as possible on the new airport runway in south-east England.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The Government are fully committed to delivering the important infrastructure projects they have set out. The hon. Gentleman heard what the Secretary of State had to say about the decision on runway capacity in the south-east.

[Danny Kinahan]

I thank the Minister for coming over and visiting us, and discussing with all of us the future of runways and connectivity, but I am incredibly disappointed by today’s decision. He knows that Dublin airport is due to have its new runway by 2023. We need a decision. May we have a promise that we will have a decision by Christmas 2016?

[Mr Goodwill]

I think the Secretary of State was very clear. There are some other interesting developments, for example Stobart Air is looking at connections between Carlisle and Belfast, Carlisle and Dublin, and Carlisle and Southend, which will increase connectivity and improve the prospects for tourism so that people in the north of England can visit the wonderful Ulster that he represents.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The third runway for Heathrow would unlock some £16 billion of private investment at a time when the economy needs it most. The chief executive of George Best Belfast City airport has said that the

“Heathrow hub is vital in making Northern Ireland accessible to business and leisure passengers from all corners of the globe”.

It is really important for Belfast city; it is important for Northern Ireland. Make the decision now.

[Mr Goodwill]

The Davies report made very clear the importance of connectivity in the south-east to the regions, the north of England, Ulster, Scotland and elsewhere. We are very mindful of the issues that have been raised by colleagues from around the country.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

18. What recent assessment he has made of the condition of local roads.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

19. What proportion of the funding allocated by his Department to the West Yorkshire combined authority has been spent in Shipley constituency.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

My Department has allocated over £41 million of local transport funding this year to the West Yorkshire combined authority and nearly £233 million over the life of the Parliament to improve local roads and deliver integrated transport schemes across west Yorkshire. It is for local authorities to decide how funding is allocated to schemes.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful for the answer, but the Minister failed to say how much of that had been spent in the Shipley constituency, which was the driving force behind my question. I think we can take it from that response that the answer is very little, if we are being generous. What is his Department doing to ensure that Labour west Yorkshire authorities are not just spending money in the Labour heartlands, but that the whole of west Yorkshire benefits from Government investment?

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. Maybe those in charge in west Yorkshire should look at some of our national projects. We are determined to invest where investment is needed, in many cases in areas in the north of England not run by our own party, to stimulate jobs and to contribute to the northern powerhouse, something to which I hope the council and those in control in west Yorkshire will pay attention.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

20. What assessment he has made of the viability of new railway stations funded through (a) the new stations fund and (b) alternative funding arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend’s Department made any assessment of the potential for aircraft types such as the Boeing 787 and the A350, which can fly greater distances point to point, to provide opportunities for Manchester and Birmingham aircrafts, demonstrating that there are more ways of doing business in this country than landing in London?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

It is certainly the case that many airlines are investing in the A350, which is exclusively engined with Rolls-Royce engines, and the point-to-point option opens up many new opportunities for regional airports to provide direct services for their people.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the statistics showing that road improvement and road safety are getting better, but those statistics mask what is really happening with all-lane running. The Transport Select Committee has produced a report, published today, which shows the disingenuity going on in the statistics. What we are looking for is the Minister’s acceptance that all-lane running is dangerous and that we need to do something about it.

Electric and Low-emission Vehicles

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on securing the debate. I must admit to being a petrol-head, or rather a diesel and steam-head. Nevertheless, I understand that although it is important that we preserve our historic vehicle heritage, we should also look to a more sustainable future. I assure the House that the Government are committed to positioning the United Kingdom as a world leader in electric vehicle uptake and manufacture.

Under the Climate Change Act 2008, the UK became the first country to introduce a legally binding target on climate change—an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Transport needs to play a leading role, both to meet this important national target and to address air quality issues in the UK.

In the transport sector, emissions are dominated by those from road vehicles. We have therefore set ourselves the aim of nearly every car and van on our roads being a zero-emissions vehicle by 2050. That will require all new cars and vans on sale to be zero-emissions by around 2040. I understand that this is a bold and ambitious target, which is why we have in place one of the most comprehensive support packages in the world, and at the last spending review we committed over £600 million to help grow the UK market for these vehicles.

[Neil Parish]

I congratulate the Government on the money they are spending in this sector. However, in the particular hot-spots within cities, where there is actually a court case for Britain to reduce its emissions by 2025, there is a need to act much more quickly, particularly in those inner-city areas where we have problems with nitric oxide.

[Mr Goodwill]

Thankfully it is not nitrous oxide, which would be a laughing matter. Nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide are major pollutants. Of course, now that we know more about what is happening in diesel engines after the Volkswagen scandal came to light, the Government are working on that issue. Indeed, I am working with my fellow European Ministers, particularly those in Germany, to address that problem. Sustainable vehicles such as electric and hydrogen cars, which produce no tailpipe emissions, will certainly play a very important part in the transport sector.

It is interesting to note that although the record on car emissions has been disappointing, trucks have been operating pretty much as they should, mainly due to the fact that the monitoring equipment, which previously was too big to get in the boot of a car, is now able to be put on the back of a lorry. So the truck and bus sectors have actually been very good.

Since 2011, more than 70,000 claims have been made for plug-in car and van grants. At least £400 million has been committed to this scheme. With the grant guaranteed until at least March 2018, tens of thousands more motorists will be helped to make the switch to a cleaner vehicle.

Electric vehicle sales are now growing rapidly. Registrations reached a record high in 2015, as 28,188 new electric vehicles arrived on UK roads. More electric vehicles were registered in the UK in 2015 than in the previous four years combined. I am very proud of that progress. Electric vehicles have the potential to unlock innovation and create new advanced industries that spur job growth and enhance economic prosperity.

The low emission vehicle industry already supports more than 18,000 UK jobs and is a key pillar in our ambition for a low-carbon, high-tech, high-skills economy. The UK is already attracting global investment. Nissan’s LEAF, which is built in Sunderland, makes up 20% of electric vehicle sales across Europe. Geely has pledged £300 million to make plug-in hybrid taxis and vans at a new plant under construction in Coventry, creating 1,000 jobs. Ford’s Dunton technical centre in Essex is one of only two global hubs for the development of its electric powertrains.

Support for electric vehicle charging infrastructure has also facilitated the growth of home-grown and ambitious small and medium-sized enterprises. For example, in 2015 Chargemaster, a company that designs and manufactures its products in Milton Keynes, launched its new UltraCharger, which is already being sold in the UK and abroad.

The electric vehicle market is already a success story for the UK, but we need to maintain momentum if we are to meet our ambitious goals. We recognise the need to develop manufacturing and servicing skills to support the growing ultra-low emission vehicle market. The Government have set out an industry-led approach to skills training and apprenticeships. The new Institute for Apprenticeships’ programmes are already emerging, for example at Gateshead College’s skills academy and at Nissan in Sunderland. I understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire made: as cars get older and move down the vehicle food chain, so to speak, there will be more call for servicing at local garages. It is important that they have the skills to service the vehicles safely and so ensure that we do not have any nasty accidents.

In terms of air quality, the Office for Low Emission Vehicles’ “Go Ultra Low” city scheme is dedicated to supporting cities across the UK to deliver transformational change. Some £40 million has been awarded to eight cities delivering more infrastructure, including lane access, additional planning requirements and a host of other measures. Those exemplar cities will be key in demonstrating ways of addressing air quality issues. The Government-backed self-regulatory body for the motor industry is committed to maintaining high standards covering new technologies, warranties, car service and repair. The garage finder helps locate businesses committed to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute’s approved code of practice. I hope the progress we made through the block exemption on data for the servicing of conventional vehicles will also help people access the data they need to service these new kinds of vehicles.

Thanks to Government leadership and growing private sector and local authority engagement, the UK now has more than 11,000 public charge points, including more than 850 rapid charge points. That is the largest network in Europe. There are also more than 60,000 domestic charge points. The latest statistics suggest that the average distance to the nearest charge point is just over 4 miles in Great Britain, although I admit that my constituency is a little bit of a charge point desert, and I hope that will be addressed. There are a number of such locations; the constituency of the Secretary of State for Transport is another that does not have a large number of charge points, and we need to address that in parallel with the tourist industry.

[James Heappey]

In advance of the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s hearing about electric cars last week, I did some work to look at the roll-out of petrol pumps for petrol engines a century ago. It was clear that the car came first and the petrol network thereafter. Incentivising the uptake of electric cars must surely be the priority, rather than incentivising the roll-out of charging points. Will the Minister comment on how the Department for Transport and the Treasury intend to compensate for the loss of petrol pump tax revenues as a result of an increased uptake of electric cars?

[Mr Goodwill]

I suspect that that question should be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but falling duty levels from petrol and diesel because we have embraced this new technology would be a very good problem to have. Dare I say it, but I am sure the Chancellor or future Chancellors will come up with other, more devious ways of collecting tax from everyday people. As someone who owns a car constructed in 1900, I am well aware of the problems—particularly in the UK, as we were so slow to embrace the gasoline engine car—that people had refuelling their cars. They are not unlike the problems that people are having in charging their electric vehicles.

The electric vehicle only really makes sense on a slow overnight charge, when we have surplus electricity in the grid. Although fast charging is there to address issues of range, there is not really a prospect of thousands and thousands of cars up and down the country fast-charging at service stations. Electric cars make sense in terms of overnight charging at home.

A point was made earlier about sustainable electricity. We talk about zero tailpipe emissions, but that electricity has to be generated somewhere. Germany has sustainable delivery, but given its decision to abandon its nuclear programme and rely more on fossil fuels, the way that hydrogen and electricity are generated is a problem when it comes to better electric and hydrogen vehicles. Norway, with its large amounts of hydroelectricity, is well able to take that up.

Another point raised in an intervention was about electric cars as a means of storage. I was recently at a conference in Germany, where that issue was raised with Tesla. One of the issues is the number of cycles that a car’s battery may have to undergo if it is used as a means of storing electricity to be released into the grid. Some of the manufacturers are concerned that the battery life of their vehicles—it is very good, and better than many expected—could be compromised by large numbers of charge cycles being used in that way. An alternative is that when cars are scrapped the old batteries could be put into banks and used for emergency power supplies in hospitals or to augment the grid.

[David Mowat]

I was listening carefully to what the Minister said about the potential for increased carbon emissions due to this technology, notwithstanding the storage point, which I accept. He said that there were 28,000 electric cars in the UK. Does his Department make any attempt to measure the incremental increase in carbon emissions that that has caused, given our current generating profile and our likely profile in the short term? Is that number measured at all? I know that is an issue for the Energy and Climate Change Committee.

[Mr Goodwill]

The calculation certainly needs to be done as we roll out these vehicles. I expect that the Department of Energy and Climate Change is making those predictions. It depends, as my hon. Friend said, not only on the proportion of sustainable vehicles in the fleet, but on how that electricity is generated, particularly off-peak and overnight. Nuclear energy—the Government are determined to press forward in building a new fleet of stations—is ideally suited to overnight charging using off-peak electricity.

Throughout this Parliament, charging infrastructure will also be delivered through dedicated schemes for cleaner buses and taxis. As part of the £40-million “Go Ultra Low” city scheme, millions of pounds of funding will contribute to infrastructure deployment across eight cities in the UK. Those projects are focused on the most advanced technology for fast, reliable, smart and easily accessible charging for every driver. Highways England, which the Government have more control over than cities, has £15 million of funding to ensure that there is a charge point every 20 miles across 95% of the strategic road network, with rapid charging where possible.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles also have an important role in decarbonising road transport. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire had to say about driving the BMW vehicle. I drove the Honda vehicle, and it was no different from driving any other car, which is probably a problem solved. It was a pleasure, and I did not know that it did not have a normal engine under the bonnet. We are supporting infrastructure provision in line with the current state of market development. The Government provided £5 million of funding to help develop 12 publicly accessible hydrogen refuelling stations to support the roll-out of hydrogen vehicles. All 12 are being commissioned during the course of this year and will provide a significant first step towards an initial hydrogen refuelling network.

Just last month, a refuelling station in Teddington in London was officially opened by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones). The network of stations will support vehicle manufacturers that are introducing their first models of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Indeed, our support for hydrogen for transport has helped secure the UK’s status as one of only a handful of global launch markets for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

There is much more that I could have said about our ambitions to press forward with this new technology. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate on an important subject. I underline the Government’s commitment to ensuring that these sustainable new technologies are rolled out in the UK.

Question put and agreed to.

Air Passengers With Dementia

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) on securing this debate about provision for air passengers with dementia. This important issue touches many of us gathered here this evening through our friends and family, and certainly through our constituents. I must admit to encouraging my hon. Friend to apply for the debate because it is important that we get the subject raised on the Floor of the House. The debate gives me an opportunity to say why the Government take this issue so seriously.

Before I do, however, let me briefly address the disturbing case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). I will not comment on the case in detail, but it does underline why it is so important that patients with this type of problem who are travelling, particularly on long-distance journeys, have a carer with them. In almost every case when I have meet someone in relation to our role of helping people with dementia, that person is accompanied by a spouse, family member or friend who can help them. From what I have heard, it verges on the irresponsible to expect somebody with such a condition to fend for themselves on these flights.

[Jim Shannon]

I am aware of the case of a lady with a baby who was travelling with her mother who had dementia. This was not long after she had given birth and she was quite traumatised by being on the plane. When she was not able to cope, the airline staff had to come to help the mother and the child, so there is an onus on airline staff to be able to assist the carer as well.

[Mr Goodwill]

Yes, absolutely. Many airlines and airports are taking the training of staff very seriously indeed.

I will start by briefly going through the statistics, some of which we have heard already. We live in an ageing world, and we Europeans are living ever longer. A Eurostat survey forecasts that in 2040, if current trends continue, 25.5% of Europe’s population will be 65 or over. In 2015, that figure was only 16%. With an ageing population, we will face new challenges. It has been estimated that more than 850,000 people in the United Kingdom suffer from dementia, and that figure is expected to rise to over 1 million by 2025. While dementia is usually linked to old age, it is not, as we have heard, solely an age-related condition. Indeed, today in our country, over 40,000 people under 65 years of age live with dementia.

Those are big numbers, but how do they relate to air travel? As we have heard, the word “dementia” is used to describe a set of symptoms that affect the brain. These symptoms may include memory loss or difficulties with thinking, problem solving or language, all of which will lead to everyday life becoming more and more challenging. However, suffering from dementia does not, and should not, mean that one should automatically cease to enjoy the activities we are all used to. Generation after generation, we are travelling more, exploring the world and gathering new experiences. For some, it is a lifestyle, but if one gets diagnosed with dementia, there could be a daunting decision to be made, either personally or by one’s family, to stop travelling altogether or to face a travel experience in all its complexity. For dementia sufferers, air travel, in particular, can be confusing, unnerving and even frightening. Crowded terminals, loud noises, queues, security checks, and armed policemen and women are enough to confuse a healthy person from time to time, never mind a person with a hidden disability. The term “hidden disability” is used to cover a wide variety of conditions that are not evident, such as dementia, autism, learning difficulties and hearing loss. According to Civil Aviation Authority research, as many as 7% of all British people are potentially avoiding air travel because of a hidden disability; we would like to get that number down to 0%.

On helping us to reach this goal, there is a piece of European legislation called regulation EC 1107/2008, which concerns the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility—PRMs—when travelling by air. The aim of this regulation is to ensure that such people have the same opportunities for accessing air travel as non-disabled people, and that they have the same rights to free movement, freedom of choice, and non-discrimination. To ensure that that happens, airports and airlines are required to provide assistance that is appropriate to the needs of the passenger and that enables them to move through the airport while they travel. A person with reduced mobility is defined in the regulation as

“any person whose mobility when using air transport is reduced due to any physical disability (sensory or locomotor, permanent or temporary), intellectual disability or impairment, or any other cause of disability, or age”.

The regulation does not differentiate between physical and non-physical conditions, so assistance should take into account the needs of the person who has requested it.

For passengers with a physical disability, assistance needs are quite often visible and straightforward to provide—for example, a person who uses a wheelchair will require a wheelchair and a person to push it. However, with hidden disabilities, the needs of passengers vary widely, and the provision of the service could require adaptability from the provider. Some passengers may need only information and reassurance, while others may require a one-to-one escort through the airport. This can make planning challenging for service providers. In 2015, the CAA engaged with airports on the provision of assistance to passengers with hidden disabilities and found a wide variation in practices and standards. While it was acknowledged by all that there was no “one size fits all” solution, it was concluded that airports would benefit from sharing best practice among themselves, which will help airports to standardise some practices and plan their service effectively.

Furthermore, it was concluded that it would be beneficial for the CAA to clarify what it views as the obligations under the PRM regulation. I am glad to say that the authority has been working hard on that issue and has engaged with a broad set of charities during the past year to develop guidance on the minimum expected standards and practices that all airports should adopt to comply with the regulation. The CAA has published that guidance for consultation, which is due to end in July.

[Jim Shannon]

I made some investigations before coming to the Chamber and understand that airline companies and airports have a legal obligation to ensure that every person with a hidden disability is looked after totally and absolutely. Is that the Minister’s understanding as well?

[Mr Goodwill]

Transport is an international pastime and occupation, so there is a European regulation. As I have said, it applies not only to the physical disabilities of wheelchair users, the blind and people with sight disability, but to people with hidden disabilities. That is the whole point of the clarification that has been laid down, and the CAA is keen to ensure that airlines and airports discharge their obligations under the legislation.

The CAA guidance will ensure that a level of standardisation is adopted by all airports, which will bring huge benefits to this group of passengers. It sets standards not only for the actual assistance that is delivered, but for the information given to passengers before travelling and the level of training that staff are expected to be given.

The CAA has reported that the guidance has been welcomed by the airports and some of the obligations in it have already been implemented. For example, many airports—including Belfast City, Heathrow, Gatwick and Birmingham—have introduced guidance, in the form of videos, leaflets and pictures, that is specifically aimed at passengers with hidden disabilities. With that guidance, passengers and their carers can familiarise themselves with the processes beforehand, which has the potential to relieve the anxiety that some feel when facing an unknown environment. When I spoke at the Airport Operators Association dinner on 1 March, I made the issue the major theme of my comments and made a call for action from the airports.

Many airports already allow passengers with hidden disabilities to use fast-track security or are prepared to open separate security screening for those passengers upon request. Security screening has been identified in the past as one of the most stressful parts of the journey, which has the possibility of causing immense distress and anxiety.

There are other great examples of individual airports going above and beyond minimum obligations. For example, as we have heard, Gatwick airport has introduced discreet lanyards for passengers with hidden disabilities. The lanyards are a means for a person with hidden disability, such as dementia, to communicate their condition to the airport staff. That, combined with Gatwick’s commitment to provide appropriate training to all front-of-house staff, shows that there is willingness in the industry to encourage this group to travel more. More than 80% of Gatwick’s front-line staff have received dementia friends and dementia champions training, and that training is being delivered at one of this country’s biggest airports.

Gatwick is by no means the only example. Manchester airport already has special wristbands for autistic children. Norwich airport has signed an autism charter to become an autism-friendly airport. Virgin Atlantic is committed to considering the effects that long-haul flights might have on passengers with dementia, and easyJet has provided outstanding customer service to dementia sufferers, thanks to its commitment to staff receiving dementia awareness training as part of its special assistance training package.

The industry has truly embraced the challenge, and we want to see the good work spread across the sector. The UK can be proud to say that it leads in this area. We have recognised how the airport experience can feel intimidating for people with hidden disabilities. The UK and specifically the CAA, together with a few proactive UK airports, have been first to grasp that and to take action. Other European Union countries will surely follow our lead in due course.

Many of our country’s airports have reached out to the disabled charities to learn more about how they can make the experience better for people with hidden disabilities, and I strongly encourage the continuation and strengthening of this relationship. For example, the Alzheimer’s Society does a magnificent job in promoting awareness of dementia and could be an invaluable aid to the airports when they plan services.

Another group that I must mention for its substantial effort in tackling this issue is the air transport group, chaired by Ian Sherriff of Plymouth University, which is part of the Prime Minister’s rural dementia taskforce. The group, which was founded last year, has already shown remarkable commitment and speed in its task of promoting awareness in this field and encouraging travel.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Sarah Newton.)

[Mr Goodwill]

The air transport group has engaged with the CAA, the airports and the airlines, and is now looking at the wider tourism field. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, Plymouth University is funding a PhD student to research dementia and travel over a three-year period. A substantial amount of evidence is expected as a result of her work, and I would be delighted to meet her as part of the process. In addition to Plymouth, Exeter and Bournemouth Universities are also involved in the work of the group.

There truly is momentum behind this work and I am glad to see such progress being made. As I said, we are a leading nation in Europe in this field, but we need to keep the momentum going. The CAA’s guidance helps in setting the standards for airports and similar guidance is planned for the airlines in the near future. I encourage every operator in the industry to engage with dementia passengers and organisations, and to strive not for the base minimum, but for excellence beyond.

My hon. Friend mentioned the provision of a globally recognised card, which is a good idea. A pin badge might be even more discreet, while still being able to be seen. Indeed, people with dementia could be recognised in such a way and given special help not only in airports, but in the retail sector and in other aspects of our everyday life where it would be helpful to know, discreetly, if a person has dementia and may need a little more help if they appear confused. We certainly need to raise that idea through the European Union or the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which has an even wider reach.

As I stated at the beginning of my speech, there are hundreds of thousands of people with dementia in this country. Getting the assistance standards right, and raising awareness of what is available and what to expect when travelling, will unlock the huge potential that this group could bring to the industry. Encouraging dementia sufferers to travel in this way will make their lives and those of their carers, for whom a break from the routine can be a lifeline, that much richer, and that is worth fighting for. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and providing an opportunity to discuss this important and, to many, very personal issue.

Question put and agreed to.

HS2 Phase 2a

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I am today announcing to the House the Government’s package of measures to provide assistance to owner occupiers along the line of route for phase 2a of the High Speed 2 project (west midlands to Crewe).

This announcement responds to the public consultation the Government conducted from November 2015 to February 2016 on the long-term property compensation and assistance schemes for phase 2a. A Command Paper setting out the Government’s detailed response to the consultation and way forward has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament today.

Following detailed consideration, the Government are to implement the following long-term property compensation and assistance schemes for phase 2a which are based upon schemes already in place for phase 1 (London to west midlands) of the route. They will apply with immediate effect and replace the temporary exceptional hardship scheme that has been in place for phase 2a since 2013.

Express Purchase—owner-occupiers may be able to sell their property to the Government at its full unblighted market value (as it would be if there were no plans for HS2), plus 10% (up to a maximum of £53,000, known as a home-loss payment) and reasonable moving expenses, including stamp duty.

Need to sell—this scheme does not have a boundary and is available to owner-occupiers who can demonstrate a compelling reason to sell their house but are unable to do so other than at a discount because of HS2. The Government will pay the full, unblighted value for these properties.

Rent back—is available if a property that the Government has purchased under any of the HS2 property schemes is suitable for letting.

Extended homeowner protection zone—where a property is removed from surface safeguarding, an owner-occupier will in most instances continue to be able to apply under express purchase for a period of five years from the date the property ceases to be affected by the directions.

Further measures will be provided in rural areas where the line runs on the surface in recognition that the short-term effects on communities can reasonably be expected to be much more marked in these areas. This rural support zone (RSZ) will cover the area outside safeguarding up to 120 metres from the centre line of the railway. The RSZ will run from the connection with phase 1 near Fradley in the west midlands to the A500 south of Crewe. The schemes available in the RSZ are:

Cash offer—this is a lump sum payment of 10% of the unblighted open market value of a property. This payment is a minimum of £30,000 and is capped at £100,000. This scheme will be available to eligible owner-occupiers from today until one year after phase 2a first opens for public use.

Voluntary purchase—eligible owner-occupiers will be able to sell their home to the Government for its full unblighted value. This scheme will be available from today until one year after phase 2a first opens for public use. This scheme will be made available when Royal Assent is obtained for the phase 2a hybrid Bill.

Homeowner payment scheme—those beyond the rural support zone and within 300 metres of the centreline of the railway will, following Royal Assent of the HS2 phase 2a hybrid Bill, be able to apply for a homeowner payment ranging from £7,500 to £22,500.

I also confirm that we are going to make a number of changes to the discretionary property assistance schemes which will apply to phase 1 and phase 2a. They will be implemented with immediate effect. Key changes include:

NTS health and mobility—we have added additional guidance on health and mobility whereby HS2 Ltd will give wider consideration to an applicant’s health and mobility and suitability of their current property.

Valuations for NTS, EHS and RSZ—we are going to permit the use of local valuers in the valuation process.

I believe these refined schemes demonstrate our continued commitment to provide a package of compensation and assistance schemes for owner-occupiers along the HS2 route that far exceeds what is required by law in recognition that HS2 is an exceptional project. I am confident the schemes we now have in place represent the best possible balance between supporting affected communities and providing value for money for the taxpayer.

[HCWS24]

Points of Order

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to raise a very serious point of order with the Chair. We know from reports in the press that HS2 Ltd is apparently again facing difficulties on costs, which are being reviewed by no less a person than the Cabinet Secretary, and on issues of connectivity, which has ever been thus since the project was first announced. A serious matter has arisen that I believe is an attempt by the civil servants who are paid for by the taxpayer and who run HS2 Ltd through their agents—very highly paid lawyers, Eversheds—to gag Members of this House. I do not know whether the Chair is aware of this, but the locus standi of no fewer than four Ministers, three Back Benchers and, I believe, even the Speaker has been challenged.

In other words, HS2 Ltd is trying to prevent Members of this House from speaking out for their constituents and bringing information to the other place—to the House of Lords Committee, which will now be deliberating on the scheme. The question that arises is, “What is it afraid of? Why shouldn’t Members of Parliament be able to speak directly about their constituencies and their constituents and help to try to improve this legislation as it is going through?” Quite frankly, I regard this as an interference with the freedom of speech of Members of this House, and with our ability and right to represent the people who send us here. I ask the Chair and the House authorities to look into this issue, because I believe that on so many counts, HS2 Ltd has been trying to cover up what is happening, or even to gag those who want to speak against the project or improve the project and make greater gains for their constituencies.

It is ironic that Eversheds quoted in its locus standi challenge the 24th edition of “Erskine May”, pages 949 to 950, in support of the proposition that we should be gagged. The section on

“Members and Officers of the House disqualified as agents”

states:

“No officer or clerk in the service of either House is allowed to transact private business before the House for his emolument or advantage, either directly or indirectly.”

The previous sentence states:

“Members may not be agents, though they can deposit petitions on behalf of parties”.

I hope that there is no implication from Eversheds that any of the Members of Parliament who have made representations on behalf of their constituents on HS2 are

“in receipt of emolument or advantage, either directly or indirectly”,

but we know that Eversheds certainly is.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I just make it clear that the rules on locus standi are very clear and we are following them to the letter?

[Mrs Gillan]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is not a matter of the letter of the law, but the fact that it is wrong to prevent Ministers, Members of Parliament and even the Speaker from informing a Committee of the other House about a project that has been through this House in its first stage.

Great Northern Great Eastern Upgrade: Compensation

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 5th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for securing this debate on the upgrade of the Great Northern Great Eastern railway line and the impact on the residents of his constituency and beyond.

I will first say a few words about why the Government have chosen to invest in our rail network. We are undertaking the biggest transport infrastructure project in Britain since the coming of the motorways, because we have chosen to invest for the future. We are making journeys simpler, better, faster and more reliable, and we are making transport safer and more sustainable. The investment we are making today will help prepare our country for tomorrow. Our plan will support jobs, enable business growth and bring the distant parts of our country closer together. We are supporting a record £70 billion investment in rail, roads, ports and airports. For our railways, we are undertaking the biggest rail modernisation project since Victorian times.

Building world-class infrastructure is vital if we are to build a stronger economy. We are ensuring that every part of Britain benefits from the growing economy and that everyone who works hard gets the opportunities they need to succeed. That includes, for example, High Speed 2, which will connect London Euston to Birmingham, Leeds and Scotland, as well as new, British-built intercity express trains for the east coast and great western rail routes and the electrification of the midland main line. Indeed, on Monday, I will be in Doncaster to mark the start of the building of the HS2 college, which will ensure that we have the skills to deliver such projects.

Rail passengers today are already seeing the fruits of our labour following the renovation of many of our busiest stations, including Manchester Victoria, Birmingham New Street, and the landmark stations at King’s Cross and St Pancras International. We have truly entered a new age of the railway, which will leave a lasting legacy for future generations. Our railway and its supply chain contribute up to £9.3 billion in gross value added per year. It employs 212,000 people and provides tax receipts of up to £3.9 billion. The sector is succeeding in winning custom and investment on a level that was unthinkable just a few decades ago.

The strategic purpose of the GNGE upgrade was to provide high-quality freight paths between Peterborough and Doncaster, via Lincoln, on a 24/7 basis. Modal shift of freight from road to rail is good for the country. Rail presents a faster, greener, safer and more efficient way to transport loads across Britain. It has been said that for every freight train operated, 60 lorries are removed from the road network—lorries that thunder past people’s homes. The upgrade will allow for up two freight trains an hour to be diverted away from the east coast main line, thus freeing up capacity for more long-distance passenger services, which will be needed when the new intercity express trains start operating on that route.

The upgrade complements other vital work that is helping to unlock major bottlenecks at York, London King’s Cross, Peterborough, Nottingham, Hitchin and North Doncaster. For example, passengers from Cambridge no longer have to cross the east coast main line, increasing the reliability of that route and making journeys better. The significant upgrade between Peterborough and Doncaster via Spalding and Lincoln was one element of a wider package of work to improve the region’s railways.

Another strategic objective of the upgrade was to improve safety and to make the railway more sustainable. It now delivers significant operational cost savings through the abolition of 16 manned signal boxes, estimated at £l million per annum. It has allowed for the replacement of 26 level crossings, as well as lower maintenance costs through the replacement of old jointed rails with continuous welded track, which is designed to reduce noise and vibration for neighbours, while dramatically extending the major maintenance intervention period to 15 years. In fact, comparative analysis between continuous-welded and older jointed track indicates that noise and vibration are reduced by up to 60% as a result of re-railing.

Across the country, Network Rail is developing a range of techniques to reduce rail noise. They include rail grinding, which provides a smoother contact surface, leading to less noise when trains run over it; noise barriers along the side of the track; track dampers fitted to the rails to reduce vibration and noise when trains run over them; and composite brake blocks, which reduce noise significantly compared with previous cast iron ones. The vast majority of the UK rolling stock fleet now has these fitted.

Since completion of the upgrade on the GNGE route, freight traffic has increased as services have been diverted from the busy east coast main line. This obviously represents a change in usage of the line, which previously had a limited day time passenger service. I am aware that there was extensive consultation about this upgrade, including numerous community exhibitions, drop-in sessions, public meetings and presentations to parish councils. Network Rail also held a comprehensive schools engagement programme to help to raise awareness about safety matters associated with the railway.

My hon. and learned Friend will be delighted to hear that the work to specify the next east midlands franchise is under way. We will be seeking views from stakeholders and passengers later in the year about what they would like from the new franchise, including the GNGE route.

Turning to the specific matter of compensation, I thank my hon. and learned Friend for continuing to raise the issue, which I know is important to him and his constituents. I will liaise with the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), to address the points he made, particularly the correspondence he referred to.

Passengers are at the heart of what we do in the Department, and the Rail Minister has written to Network Rail to encourage it to take an active interest in noise and vibration on the GNGE line and look into conducting studies of any increase in them caused by extra freight traffic.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

4. What estimate he has made of the potential cost of transport infrastructure for a third runway at Heathrow.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The Airports Commission assessed the surface access requirements of each short-listed airport proposal as part of its work published in July 2015, and it estimated that there would be a cost of up to £5 billion for surface access works in relation to the Heathrow north-west runway.

[Ruth Cadbury]

There are clearly widely differing estimates of the capital costs of building an additional runway at Heathrow, but what is not in dispute is that building an additional runway there will cost significantly more than building one at Gatwick. If the Government decide to go ahead with expanding Heathrow, who will pay the difference—the airline passenger or the taxpayer?

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that some of the estimates for surface access differ widely, even by the standards of some economists. One must bear in mind that the three sets of figures include different things over different timescales, the main ones being the work required exclusively for airport capacity, where the airport would be expected to make a major contribution; the projects that support airport capacity, but have wider benefits; and those in the Transport for London figures, which are needed in respect of wider population and economic growth during the next 20 to 30 years.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Do the Government accept the Airport Commission figure, which is £5 billion, the £2 billion from Heathrow or the £18 billion from TfL? Is this not just more of the 30 years of disinformation we have had out of Heathrow? When are the Government going to come to a decision, make their view clear and stop delaying matters just because of elections?

[Mr Goodwill]

If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention to what I just said, he would know that I explained that those figures relate to different things over different timescales. On the decision, perhaps he could wait until my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) poses her question to the Secretary of State.

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

Can the Government give us any indication of the time period for construction from when the decision has been taken until the runway at either Gatwick or Heathrow is completed?

[Mr Goodwill]

It is important to note that the additional time we are taking to look at a number of economic and environmental factors will not delay the delivery of a runway at whatever location is decided on.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

7. What plans his Department has to improve infrastructure for electric cars.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The Government have committed £600 million in this Parliament to support the uptake of electric vehicles. The UK has the largest network of rapid charging points in Europe, with a total of more than 11,000 public chargepoints. We will be announcing further details of the next phase of plans to expand the UK’s charging network later this year.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that response. I had a meeting a few weeks ago with Nissan, one of the vehicle manufacturers here in the UK. Nissan set out clearly the significant changes there have been in electric cars, with better acceleration and power, and longer battery life. We need charging points where people are: in the high street, in garages and in shopping centres. That is the way forward—to make them accessible in the places where the people and electric cars are. Does the Minister agree?

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is a much wider range of vehicles, many of which are built in the United Kingdom. We have seen a big increase; last year, more ultra-low-emission vehicles were registered in the UK than in the previous four years combined. I am very pleased that Ulster was one of the UK’s eight plugged-in places, which received £19 million of funding from the Office of Low Emissions Vehicles.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

As the Minister will know, work has finally started on the new Ilkeston train station, where I am sure there will be at least one charging point for electric cars. It is vital that this major new investment brings as much benefit to our town as possible. With that in mind, will he back my campaign to establish a new electric bus route to link the station to the town centre, and will he look into how his Department might contribute to that project?

[Mr Goodwill]

I can tell my hon. Friend that great advances are being made not only with electric cars but with electric buses. I was at the Wrightbus factory in Ulster recently, where buses that will go all day are on a charge. Those vehicles would be perfect for the sort of project that she suggests.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Not just physical but intellectual infrastructure is required to support the electric vehicle industry, not least because the extreme voltages are extremely dangerous to people who do not know what they are doing and because the engines are entirely different from petrol and diesel engines. Has the Minister seen the campaign by the Institute for the Motor Industry for a proper accreditation, training and licensing system to spread knowledge about electric vehicles, and might his Department be able to support it?

[Mr Goodwill]

It is certainly important that the people who work on these vehicles are adequately trained. But I would caution the hon. Gentleman about suggesting that electric vehicles are more dangerous than the alternatives; anyone who has seen a petrol tank catch fire will realise that electric vehicles are intrinsically very safe.

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

8. When the Government plan to announce a decision on the location of a new runway in the south-east.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

9. What steps he is taking to promote low-carbon transport.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The Government are committed to delivering the emissions reductions needed to meet our climate change targets. That includes promoting the uptake of low-emission vehicles, reducing emissions from the road freight sector, and encouraging sustainable choices such as walking and cycling.

[Dr Cameron]

A quarter of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions come from transport emissions, which the Government have pledged to cut. Will the Minister follow the example of the Scottish Government, who are committed to investing £62.5 million to create low-carbon infrastructure?

[Mr Goodwill]

I will take no lessons from the Scottish Government on low-carbon infrastructure. We have some very tough targets—for example, for the electrification programme on our railways—which we are determined to meet. We will set our fifth carbon budget later this year and publish our emissions reduction plan shortly afterwards.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

Electric cars are a form of low-carbon transport. Given the disasters with the nuclear power stations in Normandy and Finland involving EDF, will the Minister explain whence the electricity for all these electric cars?

[Mr Goodwill]

Electric cars can benefit from surplus electricity overnight and use that off-peak electricity very effectively, and I for one believe that nuclear generation will be part of our future energy strategy.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Too few companies in east Lancashire either offer or advertise the cycle to work scheme. What can the Government do to extend the scheme in areas such as mine?

[Mr Goodwill]

The Treasury is an enthusiastic backer of the cycle to work scheme, and I know that many people have taken it up and that many companies can make sure their employees get information about it. It is a great scheme that gets a lot of people on to two wheels and reduces not only carbon dioxide emissions but other pollutants that cars produce.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The most low-carbon forms of transport are cycling and walking. Extraordinarily, the Government chose to release the long-awaited “Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy” on Easter Sunday, although I can understand why the Minister did not want people to notice it, because while it is long on aspiration it is rather short on investment. Cycling UK has produced a detailed breakdown and concludes that by 2020-21 the amount of money spent on cycling outside London will be just 72p per head. How far does he think that the CWIS can go on 72p?

[Mr Goodwill]

I think we should hang on a minute. When we came to power in 2010, we were spending £2 per head, but by the end of the coalition we were spending £6 per head, which is a very good record of investment in cycling. In the spending review, the Chancellor confirmed more than £300 million for cycling over the next five years, and many of the decisions on cycling are made by local authorities, some of which, at least, are still run by the Labour party.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I think that was an admission of a dramatic cut to cycling, but let us move on to walking. As we approach walk to work week, which I am sure we will all be doing, it is interesting that the strategy contains no measurable targets for walking at all. When I pressed the Minister in written questions, he sidestepped the issue and claimed that the strategy contained two “objectives” for walking. Why do we have to wait until 2025 to have any measurable targets?

[Mr Goodwill]

We are determined to increase levels of walking—children walking to school and people walking as part of their everyday lives—and I know that many people understand the importance of walking not only to improving our transport infrastructure but to contributing to cleaner air in our cities.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

10. What steps are being taken to ensure that ticket offices at train stations are accessible to disabled people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

12. What steps he is taking to provide funding for local major transport projects.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

This Department is providing over £7 billion for the local growth fund, which will fund over 500 local transport projects by the end of the Parliament. As part of that fund, we have launched a new £475 million fund for transformational local transport schemes that are too large for the main allocations, and we have invited local enterprise partnerships to bid by July.

[Fiona Bruce]

The construction of a 20-year awaited bypass for Middlewich would not only alleviate local congestion but open up employment land and thus support the regional economy by helping to create jobs. Will the Minister meet me and Cheshire East Council representatives to discuss the merits of a funding application for this project?

[Mr Goodwill]

I would be happy to have that meeting, particularly if my hon. Friend involves the local enterprise partnership, as LEPs are central to putting these bids together. These types of investments are important for the local regional economy and some of the councillors’ own objectives might be relevant.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the Minister look very carefully at the plans that are being forwarded by the Mersey Dee Alliance for a direct strategic rail link to Manchester airport? Such a link would have a dual benefit, speeding traffic to the airport while taking cars off the M56.

[Mr Goodwill]

That is just the sort of project that Transport for the North will be looking at. As aviation Minister, I understand the importance of good surface connectivity to airports to ensure that they can continue to grow, and Manchester airport, with its £1 billion investment programme, is an example for others to follow.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Government have given considerable amounts of money to the Labour-dominated West Yorkshire combined authority, which spends most of the money in the Labour heartlands, ignoring the needs of areas such as mine. A Shipley eastern bypass, for instance, is vital to my local economy. How can the Minister ensure that the Government’s money is spent in areas like Shipley as well as in the Labour heartlands? If he cannot persuade the Government to act, will he directly fund the bypass that my constituents so desperately need?

[Mr Goodwill]

One of the important changes that have taken place since our move from regional development agencies to local enterprise partnerships is a tendency to give more consideration to business and economic matters than to some local political objectives. I think that that is a great change, and I hope that, as a consequence, there is far less pork-barrel politics in Yorkshire.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

A number of major transport projects are mentioned in “The Northern Powerhouse”, but west Cumbria seems to have been omitted. Will the Government look into how we can improve our transport links, and, in particular, will they give consideration to the nuclear developments that are taking place in the region?

[Mr Goodwill]

We recognise that all parts of our country, including the peripheral areas, benefit from transport investment. The good news is that this Government understand the importance of infrastructure investment, unlike previous Governments who did not see it as such a priority.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

13. When he last had discussions with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency on the administration of driving and theory tests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

14. What plans the Government has to encourage cycling in rural areas.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

On 27 March—during the Easter break, when people had plenty of time to read it—we published the draft “Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy.” We want everyone in the country, including people in rural areas, to have access to safe, attractive cycling routes. Local authorities have a detailed understanding of their roads, and are well placed to decide how best to provide for cyclists on them.

[Stephen Phillips]

Safe and attractive cycling routes are important, but a number of constituents who are keen cyclists have written to me about the problem of potholes, of which I have personal experience—and a scar to prove it, although I do not intend to show my hon. Friend where it is. Will he join me in welcoming the £28.4 million that Lincolnshire County Council will receive this year for highways maintenance, and will he also encourage highways officers in Lincolnshire to continue to do what they can to reduce the risk posed by these dangerous potholes?

[Mr Goodwill]

Lincolnshire is a wonderful county for cycling, not least because it is relatively flat. The Government have allocated substantial funds for the repair of potholes, but I would encourage local authorities to concentrate on how effectively they are using that money. There is some good new technology out there which will mean that potholes can not only be repaired but stay repaired. We often hear stories about potholes being temporarily repaired and then opening up again very quickly.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

15. What recent progress has been made on rail electrification schemes in the north of England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Over the past 10 years, destinations and routes from Scotland have doubled, but flights to London have fallen by more than a third. Not only do we need starter routes, such as the Inverness to Heathrow route that we will have next week, but we need to up the frequency of these routes and guarantee them, as that would allow them to bed in and become fully established. Will the Minister establish a point-to-point public service obligation, including specific regional hub airports, and do all he can to create PSOs for airports such as Skye in my constituency?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

We absolutely understand the importance of PSOs and of aviation, particularly for island communities. I am pleased that we have seen such a successful uptake of many of these routes, a number of which have been started without needing subsidies because of the buoyancy of the economy and the aviation sector.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

T4. The slogan of CrossCountry trains is “Going that bit further”; my constituents would be delighted if it did exactly that and instructed more than three out of 63 trains a day on the inter-city service between Birmingham and Bristol to stop at the city of Gloucester. Will the Minister with responsibility for rail confirm whether the Department will require CrossCountry to restore decent commuter services from Gloucester on that line as part of its franchise extension?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

What are the Government doing to stem the flow of job losses among British qualified seafarers? In particular, will the Minister with responsibility for shipping have a look at how some of our regulation operates here? My constituents tell me that the operation of the certificates of equivalent competency, for example, are putting them at a disadvantage compared with seafarers from other parts of the world.

[Mr Goodwill]

We certainly have the best-qualified seamen in the world, due in no small part to the tonnage tax scheme and the SMarT—support for maritime training—funding of £15 million a year. It is of concern if less-qualified people are taking jobs. I know that there are particular problems in the North sea with regard to jobs being cut. I would be pleased to meet the right hon. Gentleman to talk about the matter in more detail.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend reassure me that the Department is training apprentices and investing in apprentice-training programmes, so that the country can continue to have the skills and expertise to keep on with our world-leading transport infrastructure programme and improvements?

Vehicle Emissions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I wish to inform the House that the Government have now concluded the Vehicle Emissions Testing Programme and we have published our findings.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport informed the House on 10 November that we had established this important programme following the revelations that Volkswagen had been using software in their cars which caused the engines to behave differently during emissions tests compared to real world driving. Not only has this caused disruption and distress to the 1.2 million Volkswagen Group users in the UK, it showed a lack of regard for the serious health consequences of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions and caused significant damage to the trust consumers have placed in car manufacturers across the country. It was vital that we immediately started a UK investigation into whether other manufacturers were using equivalent prohibited devices and more broadly to better understand why emissions results in the real world were significantly different from those tested under laboratory conditions.

Our testing programme was designed to test a range of the best-selling passenger diesel cars. We selected an independent and representative sample of vehicles to test in a variety of conditions using the latest technology. We appointed Professor Ricardo Martinez-Botas, of Imperial College London, to provide independent academic oversight of the work.

Importantly, the tests have not detected evidence of test cycle manipulation strategies as used by the Volkswagen Group from other manufacturers. However, tests have found higher levels of NO emissions in test track and real world driving conditions than in the laboratory for all vehicles, with results varying significantly between different makes and models.

Although the progressive tightening of European emissions standards has substantially reduced harmful pollutants from vehicles, existing laboratory tests designed to ensure these emissions limits are met have been shown to be inadequate. However we have already secured a tough new real driving emissions test in EU legislation. From next year, vehicles will have to meet emissions limits in real driving conditions across a wide range of typical operating conditions. This will improve consumer confidence in manufacturers. The results from our testing programme further confirm that the UK was right to push for the early introduction of these tough new limits.

Even before the introduction of the new limits, we are urging manufacturers to introduce new technologies to reduce emissions sooner than the new EU regulations require. Some manufacturers have announced that they intend to make changes to vehicles already in use, to improve emissions, and will offer this to customers on a voluntary basis. We welcome this and encourage action from other manufacturers.

We will continue working to ensure that the new rules for real driving emissions and type approval are robust, deliver the expected outcomes and that manufacturers behave consistently. In addition, this year the Department for Transport will be establishing a new programme of market surveillance testing which will seek to ensure that products entering our markets fully comply with the law.

I am appearing at the Transport Select Committee’s inquiry into vehicle type approval this afternoon where I will be happy to explain these findings further.

I have placed copies of this report in the Libraries of both Houses.

Attachments can be viewed online at:

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-04-25/HCWS700.

[HCWS700]

Aircraft Noise

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) suggested that we might need the wisdom of Solomon. I cannot claim to have that, but I am wise enough not to stray into the area that the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), encouraged us to stray into. I shall focus on the issue of noise, if I may.

I want to assure the House that the Government are acutely aware that noise is a major environmental concern around airports. We know that communities feel strongly about the issue. I remind the House that, as set out in the aviation policy framework published in 2013, our overall policy is

“to limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise”.

How we define the word “significantly” is important, and I well understand the points that have been made about background ambient noise in more rural areas. In accordance with the aviation policy framework, we will continue to treat 57 dB as the average level of daytime aircraft noise that marks the approximate onset of significant community annoyance. That does not, however, mean that all people within that contour will experience significant adverse affects. Nor does it mean that no one outside the contour will consider themselves annoyed by aircraft noise. We are looking at the matter, and our consultation later in the year will consider policy in that area and particularly what it means for airspace change. Our overarching policy on the issue of noise remains as I have set out, and I think that the House will agree that it is the right approach to take.

We have a strong aviation sector here in the United Kingdom, and we should be proud of it, but we want to ensure that it does all it can to reduce the effect of noise on communities. I know that airports and other stakeholders, such as airlines, the CAA and NATS, all realise the importance of tackling noise if the industry is to continue to grow. The Government, too, have a role to play, which is why we set noise controls at Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted to balance the benefits of aviation with the burdens they place on communities.

Aircraft noise is a difficult issue, as we have heard, and when changes take place, they can lead to less noise for some but a worsening for others. It can be particularly difficult for people who experience a noticeable change in noise, and it presents formidable challenges for those responsible for decisions. I am aware that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, and in others, people will have experienced changes in noise in recent years because of changes to where aircraft fly.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, a recent change to the joining point for aircraft approaching Gatwick from the east has created concerns for some residents. That change affected the point at which aircraft join the instrument landing system that leads down to the runway. Although that will have meant that some people have experienced fewer aircraft, for others it will have led to an increase in noise as a result of a narrower and more concentrated swathe on the final approach. As he will be aware, the Government believe that it is usually better to concentrate aircraft over as few routes as possible in order to minimise the number of people affected. That has been Government policy for many years and works well for many airports across the country.

Our current policy makes it clear, however, that there may be instances in which multiple routes, such as those that can offer respite for communities, can be better. The Government believe that those decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, with local communities informing the process where possible. I understand that in this instance, as the change was not to published airspace routes, communities were neither informed nor consulted before it occurred. For aircraft arriving in the UK, there are no set routes leading to the final approach. That is because arriving aircraft approach UK airspace in a random pattern and then have to be sequenced for safe operation by air traffic controllers. The change that took place in 2013 was to the procedures that air traffic controllers followed. It was therefore not subject to the Civil Aviation Authority’s airspace change process, which needs to be followed when changes to airspace routes are proposed and requires consultation. Although there is no suggestion that NATS, Gatwick or the CAA acted improperly when making the change, as I have said, I believe that communities should be engaged when such changes are made.

I turn to one or two points that were made in the debate. My hon. Friend talked about changing the angle of approach. At the end of March, Heathrow airport trialled a 3.2° descent, but of course that requires significant pilot training and safety tests. As some airports trial that, more can follow. We need to look at pilot training and plane technology, and the report following that trial is expected over the summer. Having flown the 747 simulator into Heathrow at various descent angles, I can well understand some of the issues involved—in particular, the kinetic energy in a plane when it arrives on a steeper descent. That requires training, and there are noise issues when planes get nearer to the airport as greater braking power is needed. However, the descents are certainly not the same as I experienced when being taken into Kandahar airport some time ago.

My hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge and Malling and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) both referred to the lack of a night flight ban at Gatwick. The Government recognise the impact of noise disturbance at night and, for that reason, set night flight restrictions at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick. The current restrictions end in October 2017, and we will consult on future arrangements later this year to ensure that the cost and benefits of night flights continue to be balanced.

My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham asked why stacking could not be done out at sea. The Gatwick arrivals review has recommended that holding areas should be enabled over the sea. Gatwick has accepted that, but it will take some years, as it will require widespread airspace and procedural change. Gatwick will be conferring with the CAA and NATS on that particular issue.

A number of Members raised the issue of the health effects on people on the ground. I have visited schools in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and experienced the noise at first hand. I had a briefing earlier this week from the Aviation Environment Federation, which presented some very important research—not least from Imperial College, a well respected institution—on the effects on cardiovascular disease and other diseases.

The basic structure of UK airspace was developed more than 40 years ago and since then there has been a dramatic increase in the demand for flights. The future airspace strategy, which is being led by the CAA, is crucial to ensuring that the industry is efficient and can minimise its overall environmental impacts. The plan is to modernise UK airspace and deliver our contribution to the European Commission’s single European sky by 2030—the date by which we feel we should be able to do that. It is an ambitious plan designed around the use of modern technology, including more precise navigation.

Performance-based navigation can vastly improve the accuracy with which aircraft can fly a designated route, and airspace systemisation will mean that they follow a more predictable route, reducing the need for interference from air traffic controllers. That will not only make air travel safer but reduce emissions and journey times. It will also offer the chance to reduce noise for communities around airports by allowing routes that can accurately avoid built-up areas and maximising the rate at which aircraft can climb or descend. For those benefits to be realised, however, we need to ensure that when those essential changes take place, they work for communities as much as possible.

My officials are constantly reviewing Government policies on airspace and aviation noise. One thing I have asked them to consider is whether we can ensure that communities are informed and, when appropriate, consulted when such changes are to be made. They have also been working to deliver the right policies by engaging with all stakeholders, including representatives of local communities. I know that they have found that engagement valuable in ensuring that communities’ interests are represented, and we will continue that dialogue when refining our policies.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the Minister for his promise to consult communities. Should the Government be inclined to go ahead with runway 3 at Heathrow, will they consult the 300,000 residents of west London and beyond who would be affected? Those people are not currently affected by aircraft noise to the same extent as they would be in that situation.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

May I ask the Minister to bear in mind that he needs to leave some time for the mover of the motion to sum up?

[Mr Goodwill]

Thank you, Mr Howarth.

Of course we will consult in that case.

The Government want to maximise the benefits from a strong aviation sector; it is good for the economy, bringing investment and employment to the UK and wider benefits to society and individuals. However, the Government recognise that that needs to be balanced against the costs to the local environment that more flights bring, with noise being a prime example. I thank the Members who have taken part in this debate; it has been useful to inform the Government of people’s views, and I look forward to hearing the summing-up by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons & Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

I say thank you, because the change is a positive step, but I wonder why it is has happened. We obviously do not oppose it, and are pleased that it will be made tonight, but let us shine a light on it, and get a bit of the transparency that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth was talking about a few moments ago. TfL fought for more than five years to retain the clause, so why is it disappearing now?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I reiterate that the Department supports TfL’s commercial programme. We want TfL to maximise its unique position to ensure that its assets generate revenues to their greatest potential. Giving TfL greater financial flexibility will provide it with the opportunity to run its business in a more efficient way, to the benefit of taxpayers and fare payers. For those reasons, the Government continue to support the Bill and do not support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), which would generally have the effect of watering down the Bill.

[Ruth Cadbury]

That aim is creditable, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) gave a number of examples of where he has concerns about TfL’s ability to negotiate effectively and to make the best of its opportunities. The Opposition have some concerns about the private sector’s ability to pull the wool over the eyes of public sector bodies—even those as large and experienced as TfL.

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I may be a bit old-fashioned, but I quite like a principle called democracy. London has devolution of power, democratically elected Mayors and other democratically elected members around the city. Giving people the power to make decisions is something that we should do around the country. We should trust the people to elect the right individuals and then trust them to make the right decisions.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Goodwill]

I will probably regret it, but I will.

[Andy Slaughter]

I take slight exception to the term “watered down”. I could have gone on longer, but I thought I had explained pretty fully that this is about not watering down but strengthening the Bill—putting in exactly those democratic elements that the Minister says he wants. I ask him to explain in detail why he objects to the majority of the amendments standing in my name, which simply do what he says: give a surer footing to the Bill.

Separately, on my important amendment 7 and what the Minister says about that, I should say that watering down has been done already by TfL, which has withdrawn the two substantive clauses to the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Her Majesty’s Government believe that, rather than strengthening the Bill, the hon. Gentleman’s amendments have the effect of watering down the Bill’s provisions or making it more difficult for TfL to use them.

I also note the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) to remove clause 5. The clause would have enabled TfL to join with others in setting up limited partnerships. However, it had been amended, following scrutiny of the Bill by the Opposed Private Bill Committee, to provide that the Secretary of State must consent to the formation of the limited partnership by way of an order debated by both Houses. Given the burden that that would have placed on both Parliament and my Department, and the fact that it would have made it difficult in practice for TfL to enter into any limited partnerships, we support the principle of these amendments. I understand why they have been tabled and support them, perhaps slightly reluctantly.

We have already spent a lot of time talking about these amendments—indeed, we have spent a lot of time talking about this Bill altogether. I will therefore quickly conclude my remarks so that we can make progress.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I think it is fair to say that this Bill has had an arduous journey through both Houses; a petition to introduce it was presented to Parliament on 29 November 2010. Plenty of people have aged during its passing—some of us visibly. One who has not is my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter); I pay tribute to him as he has clearly improved the Bill during these lengthy discussions. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for their contributions tonight.

Let me take a little time to deal with the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has tabled, as they deserve detailed responses. New clause 1 would ensure that neither TfL nor any subsidiary of TfL would be able to

“lease land to third parties which:

(a) has been used in the preceding 10 years,

(b) has been considered by TfL in the preceding 10 years as suitable, or

(c) is adjacent to land in use or in use in the preceding 10 years,

for the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers.”

That would safeguard significant, useful land from being leased to developers for private profit at the expense of public transport passengers—those who rely on London’s transport system in their everyday lives. However, it would not prevent land from being sold; TfL already holds the power to do that.

The new clause would also compel TfL, or any subsidiary of TfL, to carry out “a public consultation” before entering into a contract involving the development of land for anything other than the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers. A process of consultation before using TfL’s land for anything besides transport services is very important, to make sure that local communities have their views and voices heard. The development of land should come from the bottom up, rather than the top down, and with the backing of local people. One need only look at the Earls Court development, for which TfL leased out its assets, to see why my hon. Friend believes that prior consultation before lease and development is so important.

Let me turn to clauses 3 and 4. An insertion to subsection (1) of clause 4 that the consent of the Mayor may be granted to a subsidiary of TfL only after the Mayor has consulted, and published a report of such consultation with, a variety of bodies, including the London Assembly and the London boroughs, is surely welcome. Discussion and collaboration with a range of stakeholders will ensure that a balance between public and private interest is retained. Similarly, the insertion into clause 3 that TfL must consult the Greater London Assembly and publish the report provides greater accountability and transparency. That is important, although we must also beware that the measures imposed on TfL do not become draconian.

A balance must be struck between scrutiny and freedom, and while TfL must act in the public interest, it should also not be restricted more unfairly than other public and private sector bodies. We are sympathetic to the aims of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith. He, along with other Members, has campaigned tirelessly to ensure that this Bill provides the best outcome for Londoners. We are grateful that these amendments will give Ministers and the Bill promoter the opportunity to discuss further provisions in the Bill and to alleviate any remaining concerns, and I welcome their thoughts on that.

Let me turn now to the vexed question of the removal of clause 5, which I understand will happen and which we advocated. Undoubtedly, it was the most controversial element in the Bill, which in our view would have risked TfL entering into opaque limited partnerships. It is quite understandable that, although the clause has been withdrawn, some of my hon. Friends still have reservations about certain elements of this Bill, which is why they have a continuing desire to tweak its text—not least because of the bitter experience of the Earls Court development, to which frequent reference has been made tonight.

With TfL potentially morphing into the role of property developer, I quite understand why my hon. Friends remain concerned and seek reassurance on how new powers will be used. Even without clause 5, these are still significant changes, with significant implications for local councils and communities as TfL comes to exercise these new powers. However, we are pleased that, following the strong objections from Labour Members expressed in previous debates, clause 5 is to be withdrawn.

I must also mention the context against which this Bill has come to fruition. Transport for London recently said that, from 2019, its objective is to cover all of the operational costs of running the tube and bus networks in London through non-Department for Transport grant sources of income. It says:

“We have planned for some time to achieve operational breakeven by running our business more effectively and efficiently.”

That operational independence—for want of a better word—is happening far sooner than anticipated. TfL says that its overall income is being reduced by £2.8 billion over the period to 2020-21. Its resource grant from central Government, worth around £700 million annually, will be completely wiped out by the end of the decade. I would like to stop momentarily and point out, as I have done previously, that this means that London will be the only major European city transport network that will operate without an operational subsidy from Government. The Campaign for Better Transport put it succinctly:

“Almost nobody anywhere in the world runs a sizable public transport network without”

subsidies.

It could well be said that this Conservative Government are cold-shouldering our capital’s transport system. TfL is keen to limit the damage.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about subsidies from the Government. Does he not agree that these are subsidies from taxpayers? They are paying for the subsidies.

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is a fine distinction. Most of us understand that the reason we pay our taxes is for exactly the kind of high quality transport system that a capital city such as London needs, and it is a huge risk that this Government are taking. The Government are forcing TfL to limit the damage, and they are using ingenious means and utilising existing assets to do so. The Budget indicates that there will be a move towards the full retention of business rates by local authorities, and we welcome the ability of local councils to have control over funding, but this is uncharted territory and we should be in no doubt about the risks to our transport system in London—risks that are a direct consequence of the political choices of this Government.

We want TfL to be modernised and to become a highly efficient public sector organisation. TfL has been making savings, some very difficult and controversial, but in its annual budget in 2014, TfL said that it is

“becoming progressively more difficult to achieve this without compromising our core services.”

This pattern of cuts is visible not just in the capital, but across the country. Cuts to local authority budgets have been extreme, leading the Local Government Association to point out that even if councils stopped filling in potholes, maintaining parks, closed all children’s centres, libraries, museums, leisure centres and turned off every street light they would not have saved enough money to plug the financial black hole they face by 2020. Department for Transport resource funding has been cut by 37%, from £2.6 billion in 2015-16 to £1.8 billion in 2019-20, representing a real terms decline of 71% since 2009-10.

Let us consider the fact that last year a record 8.6 million people were living in London. By 2030, that figure is predicted to reach 10 million. That is the pressure under which TfL finds itself. We are not ideologically opposed to TfL’s maximising the value of its assets to increase the revenue seized by the Treasury. They do what they have to do, and using resources efficiently is important to keep our capital city running.

On Second Reading, my hon. Friends and I expressed concern about certain measures in the Bill, including clause 5, which we have discussed. We are happy with the principle and understand the necessity of TfL’s having greater commercial freedoms, but the implications of those so-called freedoms were problematic. The controversial Earls Court development, a joint venture between TfL and the private developer Capital & Counties, set a worrying precedent for further public-private partnerships. Clause 5 would allow TfL to enter into limited partnerships with private property developers. Those partnerships are vague in legality and opaque in accountability.

I said on Second Reading that we must consider carefully the long-term impact of introducing powers to enter into those partnerships. We are reassured both by the fact that TfL has noted those concerns and by its decision to table amendments to remove clause 5 and references to limited partnerships from the Bill. It is encouraging that our opposition to that problematic part of the Bill was taken into account, and we are pleased with the outcome.

I also spoke on Second Reading about the importance of putting public needs above private profit. Property development to increase TfL’s revenue must not happen without the backing of local communities—those who are affected most directly. Those who bankroll projects should not subsequently be able to steamroller over local people. TfL is obliged to obtain the consent of the Mayor to dispose of an interest in land by sale or by granting a long-term lease. If that land is operational or has been in the previous five years, the Secretary of State for Transport must give his or her consent. It must be noted, however, that that did not prevent the unhappy saga around the developments at Earls Court from unfolding. The balance between the provision of affordable homes on the one hand, and maximising revenue to reinvest in transport, is an extremely significant and fine political judgment. We will be watching closely to ensure that proper balance is secured.

In conclusion, as clause 5 has been shelved, I think we are all hopeful that TfL can now move forward. We are keen to see how TfL uses its commercial freedoms to develop and improve the transport network that keeps our great capital city moving, but we will be watching closely to ensure that profit is used to benefit the public, and not the other way round.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on taking this Bill to Third Reading. I have listened with interest to the contributions of Members on both sides of the Chamber.

The outcome of the 2015 spending review means that TfL will need to find further savings and look to maximise its commercial income in the interests of both the taxpayer and the travelling public. That is why I welcome the principle behind the Bill. It will enable TfL to use financial practices and mechanisms to release greater value from its assets and financing arrangements. In short, it will maximise its unique position to ensure that assets generate revenues to their greatest potential. I understand from TfL that the Bill could realise in excess of £50 million in immediate benefits by improving its hedging power, enabling it to borrow money in a more cost-effective way and allowing it to make the most of its assets.

For all those reasons, the Government support the Bill and I look forward to seeing it finally receive Royal Assent.