Local Government Finance (England)

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill); my grandparents and my mother lived in his constituency for most of their lives.

I very much welcome this local government settlement. The Government have been flexible. I dare not use the word, but they have generous in how they have responded to the recent demands caused by the pandemic, and that is certainly welcomed by me, by the public, by my constituents and by local authorities. Our local authorities are the first responders—they are the frontline—particularly in delivering services and responding to what people perceive to be the challenges on the ground.

When the coronavirus pandemic began, it was striking from my interaction with my three local authorities just how on the ball they were; they knew where the businesses were, and if they did not, they physically went out to find them to ensure that they had access to the important schemes that the Government had created to support local business finance. The Government took a wonderful stance on homelessness, which has meant that across the country, homelessness has almost ceased to exist at the moment. It was local authorities, local housing charities and trusts and support mechanisms that brought that policy into reality. I want to thank the Pilgrim Hearts Trust and Windsor Homeless Project.

It is right that in these very challenging times, this is a one-year settlement, because any settlement beyond one year would involve speculation about the state of local government finances after that period. It is also right that the Government’s policy is that, if any local authority wants to increase its council tax rates, it needs to take that to the people to get their consent. Overall, I congratulate the Government on their flexibility and their approach during these really trying times.

I have three local authorities in my constituency, and I want to briefly focus on two. The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead has pretty much the lowest council tax in the entire country outside London boroughs, and Bracknell Forest Council is pretty close behind it. I want to say a big thank you to Duncan Sharkey and Tim Wheadon, who run those local authorities, and, in particular, Andrew Johnson, whose behaviour has been to be commended in leading the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.

We have not only the lowest council tax in the country but the highest rated services in both Bracknell Forest and the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. We have fabulous state schools, with a particular focus in Bracknell Forest on special educational needs, and the local authorities are managing them incredibly well, to ensure that our young people are very well taken care of. It is, I would argue, the most beautiful constituency in the country, and again, that is largely thanks to the local authorities. The green spaces, public spaces and parks and gardens are incredibly well maintained in a very cost-effective manner.

Our town centres were amazing before last year, particularly Windsor town centre, with its café culture, castle, massive hospitality sector and lots of tourist attractions. The commercial focus of the local authorities has been on developing commercial and retail properties, so that the council tax payer is subsidised by those commercial activities to a degree and people keep their jobs, which in the current circumstances means that they keep their homes. That is a wise approach. Parking has been improved immensely. We still have weekly bin collections. Quite often the only thing that people recognise as coming from local authorities is that their bins are collected, so it is really important to try to keep it that way. Despite the challenges with adult social care budgets, our care homes are some of the best run in the country and had the fastest response in the current climate.

Business rates are a challenge. It is good that a large proportion of the rates is retained locally, to keep down council tax, serve residents and ensure that businesses and the local authority can thrive. However, it is a challenge, particularly in the pandemic, because we do not know how much of the business rates or the commercial rents to the local authority will survive. It is important that we look at business rates, to ensure in particular that if retail is suffering on the high street, we redress the balance, potentially by increasing rates on the out-of-town warehouses of Amazon and other big online retailers. Otherwise, wonderful department stores such as Daniel of Windsor will go out of business, because people use them as a shop front to view products but then go and buy them online, enjoying the benefits of lower business rates out of town centres.

I want to flag three things with the Minister, the first of which is flooding. Sadly, the part of the lower Thames alleviation scheme that is in my constituency has not gone ahead because the local authority was not allowed to raise a flooding precept, which I think local people would have accepted because a number of houses and businesses would be protected. I ask the Minister to look at that.

The second is rewards for good behaviour. Why is it that Lib Dem and Labour local authorities that waste money on initiatives that never work out and rack up their council tax year on year get the reward of being able to increase their council tax more than careful and efficient Conservative authorities that keep council tax low because it is a percentage rate rise? I ask the Minister to have a quick look at whether there can be some mechanism for rewarding local authorities that have kept the council tax low for their residents but now find that they cannot increase it by a sufficient amount to even vaguely catch up with those reprobates in Labour local authorities across the country. With that, I would like to say thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Government for such a good settlement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)]

May I begin, like so many Members, by expressing my huge appreciation for the incredible work that councils across the country have been doing to lead the response to the pandemic? Social workers, refuse collectors, carers, teachers, council officers and so many more have been on the frontline of our response to covid-19, and they have been unwavering in their determination to deliver the essential services we all rely on every day. That is why this Government have backed councils with the funding and resources they need to support our communities, businesses and local economies in this local government finance settlement.

This settlement delivers a 4.6% cash-terms increase in core spending power next year, an increase in real terms, guaranteeing that no council in England will have less funding available than last year. That comes on top of the settlement for this current financial year, which was a 4.5% rise in core spending power. That in itself was the best settlement for a decade and it was supported by every Member of this House. Alongside this settlement, in recognition of the fact that the pandemic is not yet over, we are providing a further at least £3 billion in covid-19 funding next year to support councils’ income and expenditure. That takes the total support already committed to covid-19 income and expenditure pressures to more than £11 billion.

May I thank a number of my hon. Friends for their contributions today? My hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) both highlighted the increase in resource going to Cornwall Council, with that 4.7% rise in core spending power in cash terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) welcomed the rise in core spending power. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) questioned how much was going to Burnley; I can tell him that it is a 2.6% rise, alongside the 5.3% rise going to Lancashire County Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) welcomed the extra support and swift provision of funds for Darlington Borough Council, with a 4.8% rise in core spending allowing, as he described, the council to deliver for local residents. May I put on record my thanks to Darlington Borough Council for the excellent work it is doing to restore the council to its rightful place?

I was slightly confused by the contribution from the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) when she said that there was no commitment in this settlement to increase funding in Salford. The opposite is true; in the current financial year there has been a 7.8% increase in core spending power; and the settlement we have published and are debating today sees an increase of 4.7% in core spending power for her council. I am afraid that she is incorrect in her statements.

A number of Members today raised covid support for their councils and talked about what they saw as the gap in funding between what councils spend and what we are providing them with. Councils’ self-reported figures project that covid cost pressures this year will be £6.9 billion. We have already allocated £8 billion to councils, which is over £1 billion more than they are spending in responding to the pandemic. On top of that, we have provided a business rates holiday worth around £10 billion to local retail, hospitality and leisure industries. We have given councils over £17 billion to provide grants to thousands of businesses up and down our country, and they have done an incredible job in distributing those efficiently and speedily to ensure that businesses are getting the support they need. We have also introduced a sales, fees and charges scheme to help councils manage losses in income. We are backing local government all the way with the necessary funding, both now and into the future.

One of the recurring themes of the debate was the issue of social care, which was raised by the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), by the Chairman of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt). This settlement helps to support the most vulnerable people in our society, especially in social care. We are providing access to an additional £1 billion in funding for adult social care in the coming financial year, which includes £300 million in grant funding for both adult and children’s social care. We are also providing an additional adult social care tax flexibility of 3% to give councils the tools to make the best decisions for their residents, giving councils access to an extra £790 million. That is all on top of the £1 billion social care grant announced last year, which is being maintained in line with our manifesto commitment. We have responded to the pressures facing councils to ensure that they have the resources they need to provide the best quality care for residents across the country.

A number of Members raised the point about the varying ability to raise resources to pay for the increasing costs of social care, and it is a very valid point. It is indisputable. It is a fact that some local authorities can raise more than others, but I am afraid that those Members have completely missed a key component of this settlement, which is that we have chosen to help councils to bridge that gap through equalisation. We are taking specific action to level the playing field between different councils in different circumstances. Through this settlement, we will redistribute £390 million of social care grant, recognising this exact point that some councils can raise more than others through locally raised tax.

We make this commitment of £240 million this year, on top of the £150 million that is continuing from last year, so that funding is distributed fairly to those who need it most. Liverpool is receiving an extra £10.4 million, Manchester £9.2 million and Sheffield £6.9 million. We are determined to level up every part of the country using all the tools we have, and this is a clear, concrete example of us doing just that. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) made this very point—she talked about the fact that it is more difficult to raise funds in Hull, but if she looks at the detail of the settlement, she will see that Hull is receiving £5.2 million through this equalisation mechanism to support its delivery of services and to ensure that people in her constituency receive access to first-class care.

A number of Members also raised points about council tax. Of course it is right that individual local authorities should make decisions on council tax levels themselves.

[Adam Afriyie]

Could I just ask the Minister to keep an open mind towards the idea of some local authorities being able to have another, higher council tax band—band I? This would be raised locally, which I hope local people would be comfortable with, rather than being reliant on central Government.

[Luke Hall]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I will come on to talk about funding reform in a minute and perhaps try to address that point.

Importantly, we are giving councils the flexibility to defer rises using the adult social care precept to next year if they think that local circumstances dictate that that should be the case. That is of course a decision for them. Vitally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) pointed out, we are providing councils with up to £670 million of new funding to help them to reduce council tax bills for those who are least able to pay.

The referendum threshold that we have set strikes the right balance between allowing councils to raise income to deliver the services they need and making sure that residents have the final say over any excessive council tax rises. We trust councils to make the right decisions on council tax. I am afraid the Labour party cannot even persuade its own councils of that—they are constantly writing to the Secretary of State and me to ask for the caps to be removed completely. The long-standing policy of the Labour group on the LGA is to see the caps scrapped altogether.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) made the fair point, raised by councils with particularly seasonal economies during the consultation on the settlement, that they could have lost out because of the proposed structure of the sales, fees and charges scheme for the first quarter of next year, as it might not best account for the impacts of the pandemic on their income from April through to the end of June because usually they receive a large proportion of their annual income in that period, perhaps because of car parking and their having seasonal or coastal economies. We have listened to that point, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it and the many councils that raised it during the consultation. We will allow them to use their seasonal profile so that they are able to claim a larger proportion of their losses in the April to June quarter of this coming financial year and are therefore better protected from the income losses because of covid-19. That is one of the many ways in which we are trying to support councils as we ensure that they have the resources they need to deliver first-class funding services.

A number of Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North, for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), for Waveney and for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), raised the possibility of future funding reform. I can confirm to them that we on the Government Benches still believe that we need an updated and fairer method of distributing funds among local government. This year, of course, we have had to concentrate on supporting councils through the pandemic—we did not think it was right to use this time to engage in detailed conversation about local government finance reform—but I absolutely reassure them that we are committed to the principles of reform and to making sure that we put money where it is needed most. Once we get through this pandemic, we will return to the priorities for financial reform. I am happy to have conversations with councils such as Windsor and others and to listen to their concerns if they have tried, historically, to do the right thing by keeping taxes low and want to understand their options for the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield talked about the fact that he wants to make sure that in any funding reform, rural funding is received in areas that have a large urban population centre but rural fringes. He is right to raise that issue and I am happy to discuss it with him.

Several colleagues raised rural services, and they are right that we have increased the rural services delivery grant this year from £81 million to £85 million, which its highest ever level. We absolutely recognise that there are cost pressures—whether that is the need to drive long distances for refuse collection or to service more hubs across a larger geographic area—on the delivery of services in rural communities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) raised the individual circumstances that his constituents face. I am delighted that we are finding a way forward to work with his local authority to ensure that it can help to build the evidence case on the relative challenges facing the Island because of its separation from the mainland, with a particular focus on the impact of the local government finance system.

We are backing local government all the way with the necessary funding, both now and into the future, with a 4.6% rise in core spending power, £3 billion to help councils fight and recover from covid-19 and flexibility for councils to raise revenue, while also giving people the final say on excessive council tax increases. From our future high streets fund to our towns fund, the troubled families programme and increased funding to tackle domestic abuse and support rough sleepers and get them off the streets, we are backing councils, which are at the forefront of our shared recovery. I hope Members from all parties recognise the critical importance of passing the settlement and giving local government the support and confidence they need to plan for the brighter days ahead. I commend the settlement to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2021-22 (HC 1200), which was laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.

Resolved,

That the Referendums relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) (England) Report 2021-22 (HC 1201), which was laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

Resolved,

That the Referendums relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2021-22 (HC 1202), which was laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & 3rd reading & Committee: 1st sitting
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I am another layperson —a non-lawyer. Can my hon. Friend see any downside to including the set of words that he is suggesting in his amendment? Would they limit something that might otherwise not be limited? I hear very clearly his arguments about its possibly being superfluous and the legislation being subject to interpretation, but is there any downside other than it being an additional safeguard that might not have been required?

[Sir William Cash]

Indeed. As usual, my hon. Friend is very perceptive. This is really the main purpose of my words on the subject, because there is no downside at all in this context. I can think of circumstances where it might be arguable that there could be, because somehow or other one might be infringing some genuine human right. However, given that we are dealing with this issue for the sole purpose of preventing people from being murdered in the circumstances and in the manner of these heinous acts, and for the purposes for which people indulge in them, there can be no downside in making this absolutely crystal clear, subject to comments that may be made by other lawyers as a result of what I am saying now and, for that matter, what is said in the House of Lords.

I am not pretending that I have all the answers to every question in matters of this kind, but I do think it is our duty, in the context of what we are seeking to prevent, to ensure that we are as crystal clear as we can be in our direction to the courts that they should not and must not allow human rights considerations to allow murder to take place. That is the problem and that is why I am so emphatic about it. I have noted from the Minister’s remarks and from other conversations I have had with senior Ministers that they are perhaps more interested in questions of interpretation than I am. I do not want any interpretation in this context.

The sole purpose of this Bill is to deal with people who are going to commit murder. Let us be under no misapprehension: this Bill has not been brought forward to deal with some questions relating to the whole generality of human rights law; it is specifically emergency legislation to deal specifically with preventing people who, for a variety of reasons or without reasons, intend to perpetrate murder from doing so. Human life is at risk. That is why this is such a good move on the part of the Government. There is nothing negative in my approach; it is entirely belt and braces. If the opportunity is to be given to Parliament to make sure that we have both the belt and the braces, then for heaven’s sake let us take it and not leave it to the vagaries and the uncertainties of judicial interpretation.

I have already referred to the Hogben case. I am not going to go through the analysis, because this is not something that depends on compiling a judgment about the interpretation of law based on precedents. I do not think that any case we put forward, coming back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) said, could generate an upside or a downside. I just want clarity; that is the whole point. The words that I have used adopt the “notwithstanding” formula in section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, relating to the sovereignty of Parliament. I argued this in No. 10, and the Prime Minister, to his enormous credit, completely backed me. I said, “You have to include the words ‘notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972’.” By doing this in a certain manner, one ensures that one achieves one’s objective, without the uncertainty that can arise in the circumstances that I have described.

We need to bear in mind that the Del Rio Prada case was a decision by the European Court of Human Rights. The Minister referred to the other cases. In the case of Uttley, there was an appeal on which the House of Lords concluded that article 7 would be infringed only if a sentence was imposed on a defendant that constituted a heavier penalty than that which would have been imposed at the time the offence was committed. The ECHR then declared that his application was inadmissible. The Del Rio Prada case was to do with Spanish policy, but there is no doubt that part of the argument put forward by the Government today has depended on administration, rather than the object of the Bill. That is another area that needs to be carefully considered, because the question of administration should not be the basis on which we make these decisions.

There we are—I have made my case. The Government could review the situation when the Bill goes to the House of Lords, and I will be interested to see how people develop this argument from now on.

Building Regulations and Fire Safety

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the uncertainty and the cost of interim measures that may be put in place. One developer in Croydon has done the right thing: Barratt Developments has told residents of the Cityscape flats that it will cover fire safety and cladding costs. The message is that others should be doing the same.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I am conscious that it is very difficult to define combustibility in technical terms, so can my right hon. Friend reassure me that during the consultation he will be cognisant of the standards that underpin the words we use? One may say that something is non-combustible, but it can be combustible in certain circumstances. So we want to push towards a ban on our general understanding of combustibility, but that must be underpinned by a definition of the standards behind that.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes a point about the complexity and technical nature of this issue. I am sure we will reflect carefully as part of the consultation.

Heathrow Expansion: Lakeside Energy from Waste Ltd

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

We have just witnessed a wonderful debate on International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia that showed both passion and insight into the modern world. I am equally passionate about that subject, but this evening I wish to talk about the Lakeside Energy from Waste plant in my constituency. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on this important issue.

Lakeside Energy from Waste is not just a local energy provider in Windsor; it is an establishment of local, regional and national significance. I have concerns about the plant’s viability and longevity if the third runway should go ahead at Heathrow, or even if it is threatened that the third runway should go ahead at Heathrow, and I will explain why.

The Lakeside Energy from Waste facility is situated on the proposed site of the third runway at Heathrow. The plant is the largest facility of its kind in England and has been in operation for just six years. The cost of relocation is estimated at between £500 million and £700 million and, from what I can see, with all the potential delays and all the other issues surrounding it, the cost could well run to as much as £1 billion. Those are large sums of money.

The site is of local significance because of the number of people it employs—around 300, plus others—so it provides local jobs. Regionally, it deals with 450,000 tonnes of waste each year, which is more than the non-recyclable waste produced in a year by the people of Birmingham and Manchester combined. It is a major national plant.

Some 90,000 tonnes of waste come from west London, 45,000 tonnes of waste come from south London and 30,000 tonnes of waste come from Surrey. Lakeside’s impact is one of national significance because it deals with 40% of the country’s hazardous waste, much of it medical waste. Seventeen NHS trusts, 500 GP surgeries and other medical establishments rely on Lakeside Energy from Waste.

The plant also provides electricity to the grid, powering up to 50,000 homes in the area, and of course Slough Borough Council enjoys the fruits of its labours in providing services to Lakeside Energy from Waste. I will not name the exact figure for commercial reasons, but a very large sum of money is taken in business rates by Slough Borough Council.

The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) was keen to be here for this debate, and he wants me to say that it is clear to him that the jobs and the economic and environmental benefits of Lakeside Energy from Waste are incredibly important to Slough Borough Council and the local area. He points out that 4% of UK waste is processed through the plant. Like me, he is concerned that there will be a detriment to the local area unless there is a clear and orderly plan, with clear responsibilities, for a replacement plant if the third runway goes ahead. My right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who spoke so passionately in the previous debate, has been consistent and clear in asking the Government about who is responsible for ensuring the continuity of service if the third runway goes ahead and if the deadline for replacing the plant is missed.

My first concern is that, if the facility is demolished and not replaced—if there is a gap in service—the effects locally, regionally and nationally will be enormously harmful due to the inability to process the levels of waste that it is contracted to process. The second problem lies in the timeline for Heathrow’s decisions about the third runway, because a replacement plant must be in place before the current plant is decommissioned to avoid a break in operations. Relocating the plant will take a minimum of five years, including one year alone for planning permission, three years for construction and another year for decommissioning the current plant. We can see how tight the timeline is, and the consequences will be enormous for waste processing if there is any gap in operations.

All that makes Heathrow’s target of having a new runway operational by 2023 pretty much unachievable as things stand, and that assumes there will be no objections to people having an incinerator and a waste processing plant located near their homes. As Members of Parliament, we know that there is always an enormous number of objections from local residents whenever a new operation of this nature is promised. As far as I can see, no sites for new incinerator and waste processing plant have been identified, so it is hardly surprising that I am concerned that a site may not be available.

The delays and uncertainty are undermining the fantastic business that Lakeside Energy from Waste represents. How will it be possible for people to sign long-term contracts with the plant if there is uncertainty about its future? I am sure that that is having enormous consequences for its operations. Given that the relocation costs are perhaps likely to be in the region of £1 billion—the current estimate is £500 million to £700 million, but it could run towards £1 billion—that is an enormous amount in the context of the overall cost of developing a third runway.

Where is the money coming from? Airline charges are currently £22.53 per passenger, and rather than Heathrow Airport Ltd conjuring up the money to relocate the plant, passengers will bear the risk of the debt repayments on any secured loans and of ensuring a return on shareholder equity. Having the customers pay the enormous costs of something that does not necessarily benefit them directly does not seem like a good way to proceed with a national project of this nature. If Heathrow Airport Ltd raises the landing fee per passenger, it will probably have to go up to around £30 or £31, making Heathrow the most expensive airport in the world at which to land. If we are looking to become a more competitive nation, particularly as we head towards Brexit, it does not seem a good idea to proceed with a project that causes enormous challenges for waste recycling and processing and creates a white elephant when it comes to the price.

When considering the plant’s relocation, Heathrow’s financial viability is also called into question. As I said, the cost of relocation looks like it will be about 5% of the cost of the entire project. Looking at the gearing ratio of assets against borrowing, Heathrow is in a parlous position, so I worry that it will not be able to afford to proceed in the first place. We have become incredibly concerned because Thames Water’s gearing ratio is 81%, and it has been told that it must be reduced.

In 2012, the Civil Aviation Authority said that the National Air Traffic Services gearing ratio should be restricted to just 65%, yet Heathrow’s gearing ratio is already at 87%, before it has even begun the third runway project. If it goes ahead, Heathrow’s gearing ratio will end up somewhere around 91%. This is very worrying. Were I an investor, I would be worried, but as a Government I would be even more worried. As a user of the services of Lakeside Energy from Waste, I would be exceptionally worried that this would create enormous troubles for me, with a lack of continuity in waste processing.

Overall, my main concern is that there could well be a lack of continuity of service for waste disposal. I am also concerned that Heathrow’s viability in coming up with the money to finance the relocation of the operation, particularly without a site having already been identified, is in question.

I have two core questions for the Minister; he will have heard them before, but I want to reiterate them. First, will the Government confirm that they unconditionally accept the Transport Committee’s recommendation that

“a condition of approval”—

for the third runway—

“be specified in an updated”

national policy statement

“that provides the Lakeside Energy from Waste plant with equivalent recognition as the Immigration Removal Centres and that the replacement of its facilities be accounted for”

in the development consent order process?

Secondly, is there a way in which the Government can guarantee that there will be no break in service? If they maintain that

“the planning and costs of moving the Energy from Waste Plant would be a matter for the airport to take forward with the owners of the site”,

I fear that that responsibility may well be placed on a private limited company, when we are talking about a waste processing plant that is an asset of national significance. Although I hope this will not be the case, let us say that it turns out that Heathrow Airport Ltd is responsible for relocating the plant; who then is going to pay for the necessary local infrastructure—the roads and perhaps even some rail—for the heavy goods vehicles that will need access to the plant?

In summary, I have huge concerns. It is no great secret that I think the third runway is a bit of a mistake. I hope the decision will be changed at some point. In the meantime, I simply emphasise this: if we are going to have one more runway, would it not be far simpler, greener, less costly and, more importantly, quicker to proceed with the runway at Gatwick, which would not encounter these problems? Even the Government’s updated figures show that Gatwick gives a better net present value than Heathrow. A third runway at Heathrow would affect 2.2 million people more than they are affected today, and perhaps 300,000 people would begin to experience significant noise.

The Government have an opportunity to change their mind. When it comes to Lakeside Energy from Waste operations in Colnbrook, I urge the Government and the Minister to think carefully about continuity and who is responsible for this national asset, which provides such good services to the NHS, local authorities and others.