Community Transport

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the Chair of the Select Committee, for summarising a powerful case, which many Members across the House support. I also thank community transport providers operating in my constituency of Easington. In particular, I thank Angela Kent, the operations manager of East Durham Community Transport, who kindly contacted me and briefed me in advance of today’s debate.

As has been pointed out, community transport is a vital lifeline for many people, especially elderly and vulnerable people at risk of social isolation and exclusion. My constituency is semi-rural, and the quality of local bus services for many people is nothing short of lamentable. If commuters in London had to put up with the quality of public transport services operating in my constituency, there would be protests on the streets. The regulated, integrated, frequent and modern public transport network that is standard for the capital city is a million miles removed from the experience of my constituents. Communities such as South Hetton, Haswell, Haswell Plough, Hesleden, High Hesleden and Hutton Henry can be left isolated, with an infrequent, sub-standard bus service that does not operate in the evenings.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the impact assessments conducted by the Department for Transport underestimate the impact of the proposals on very vulnerable people? The impact assessments led us to believe that the impact would be minimal.

[Grahame Morris]

That is a really important point; I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The problem is that, as a consequence of the regulations, people will be denied access to local amenities, leisure facilities and employment opportunities. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South indicated the cost—some £400 million.

People are rightly angry and frustrated about the implications of the changes. I am angry about the quality of the transport infrastructure in my constituency, and this will simply compound that. The proposed guidance from the Government implies that community transport providers need to show that they are not blocking commercial operators that may wish to deliver a local service on a particular route—the section 19 and 22 recommendations that have been mentioned. However, community transport is plugging the gaps of a failing commercial network. The ongoing withdrawal of commercial bus services means that the community transport sector as a whole has gained growing importance in filling transport gaps, particularly in largely rural areas such as mine. Many voluntary transport services are financially fragile, and rely on donations and the goodwill of volunteers to continue.

The Government must realise that community transport is about so much more than simply moving people from A to B. It brings people together, teaches people new skills, makes disabled and elderly people in rural areas less socially isolated, improves physical and mental health, and makes communities pull together to tackle many issues that they face on a daily basis.

I share the reservations of community transport providers in my constituency that the Department for Transport, sitting in splendid isolation in offices in central London, may find it difficult to comprehend the service and support provided by community transport. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South that the narrow and legalistic approach that the Government are adopting to community transport is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Rail Franchising

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

May I begin with the one thing on which we agree this afternoon? I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) for his generous comments about my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who has been a great servant of my Department and other Departments for a very long period. He has been on the Front Bench for 19 years, in government and in opposition. That is an epic career, and we all very much appreciate the work that he has done, particularly on legislation and on building bilateral discussions and so on, so I pay tribute to him for all that he did. I am grateful for the warm words from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough.

Apart from that, we have just heard about 25 minutes of complete nonsense from the Opposition. I suspect that you would say it would be unparliamentary of me to call them hypocritical, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not do so, but I have no doubt that others in the know will be astonished by the gall with which they simply forget their actions in government; with which they pretend that their ideas will not cost a penny—I keep hearing that, but it is absolutely untrue—and with which they make inaccurate claims based on a lack of facts about subjects they appear not to understand.

Let me set out why the Opposition’s ideas do not stack up and why their positions do not add up.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Grayling]

I will make some progress and then take interventions.

I shall also set out why the Opposition’s policies make no sense for the travelling public and why their pronouncements on the east coast main line are wrong. I shall also explain why it is this Government who have set about the task of modernising and upgrading our railways—the biggest programme of investment since the steam age—after 13 years of a Labour Government who quite simply failed to deliver the infrastructure improvements that this country needed. It has taken Conservatives to begin to change that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I will take one more intervention and then make some progress.

[Grahame Morris]

It is an interesting concept that the travelling public have got a good deal that is paid for by the private train operating companies. I just checked what it would cost me if I left the House of Commons and went to Durham now. It would cost me £153 standard class—or £236 first class, but of course we are not allowed to do that. A similar journey at the same time of day from Frankfurt to Munich in Germany would cost £39 and tuppence. How is it that our travelling public are getting a good deal from this fragmented privatised system?

[Chris Grayling]

In this country, under Governments of both persuasions, we have taken decisions about the right balance between the cost of the railways being borne by those who use the railways and those who do not. Yes, the hon. Gentleman may be quoting walk -up fares, but he can go and buy an advance ticket for the east coast route at a fraction of the cost that he described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

We have rightly heard from the Secretary of State that there is record investment in the railways and a record number of passengers, yet Opposition Members are here to criticise the running of the railways. I am sure we will hear many tales of woe from Opposition Back Benchers, but the reality is very different. There are problems, and we have heard from my right hon. Friend about the Virgin Trains East Coast situation, which is not desirable, but of course, to some extent Virgin predicated its income projections on improvements to be made by Network Rail, and of course Network Rail, being a nationalised organisation, usually delivers late and over budget. The Secretary of State was somewhat critical of Virgin, and it clearly should have taken note of the fact that Network Rail failed to deliver on the promises made on the west coast route some years ago, so there is some legitimate blame on both sides.

Regrettably, I am old enough to remember the days of British Rail, a failed nationalised monolith and a watchword for failure. Until 1992 there were direct train services to my constituency, but British Rail cut them, and the new Minister, whom I welcome to his place, will be hearing a lot from me about the need for through services to Grimsby and Cleethorpes.

The Government support the rail network to an enormous extent. Many of the figures cited in an article in the 13 October edition of Rail magazine were repeated in The Times last week, including that £925 million was invested by the private sector in the rail network in 2016-17. The shadow Secretary of State failed to identify how any Labour proposal would bring forth that money. The reality is that cuts are made under all Governments and usually the first thing that goes is capital infrastructure expenditure. There is no way that a renationalised network under a Labour Government would be able to raise the approaching £1 billion that the private sector is currently investing.

[Grahame Morris]

What does the hon. Gentleman think the state-owned German rail company that owns a substantial chunk of our franchises does with the profit it makes here in our privatised system? It invests that profit in its own system, through subsidised fares there. That seems ludicrous to me and most of the travelling public.

[Martin Vickers]

Perhaps they are a little more free-market and capitalist-minded over in Germany.

At present, competition is for the franchise; what we want is more competition in the running of services, and one way we can achieve that is through open access operators. Hull Trains and Grand Central both run on the east coast main line and provide services to areas that in the main do not get a service from the main franchise holder. Indeed, I understand that Grand Central will shortly put forward a proposal for direct trains from King’s Cross through to Scunthorpe, Grimsby and Cleethorpes. I hope that the Minister will be supportive of that, because it would be a great boost to the local economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I have had to take the Beeching axe to my speech, but I will make a couple of points in the few minutes available to me.

I wanted to take up some of the points made by previous speakers, including the Secretary of State, with which I completely disagreed and which, frankly, were fake news. If we look at the evidence and compare train fares in the United Kingdom and European countries—their state operators own many of our franchises—the difference is stark. I do not accept that this is about particular fares in peak periods.

It is worth looking at the German-owned operators. Deutsche Bahn owns Northern Rail, which is the principal operator in my region. Some 42% of Deutsche Bahn’s revenue is made outside Germany, much of it here in the UK, but 93% of its investment is in the German railway, so the company is creating profits here to improve services back in Germany.

It is clear that regulated rail fares have risen by an average of 32% since 2010, which is three times faster than the average median wage has grown. The Secretary of State said that fares increased more rapidly, or to higher levels, under the previous Labour Government, but we have to factor in average wages. The Conservative policy of raising regulated fares by the retail prices index ensures above-inflation fare increases every year. Compare that with Labour’s stance as set out in the motion, which I support. We would peg fare rises to the consumer prices index, which would save the average season ticket holder £500 over the course of a year. That would affect everyone’s constituents. Indeed, the annual cost of a season ticket for one of the Prime Minister’s constituents travelling between Maidenhead and Paddington has risen by £732 since 2010.

Passengers on our railways pay some of the highest fares in Europe for increasingly unreliable and crowded services, and that has been my experience. Passengers, our economy and our environment need affordable fares and reliable services, which I do not think the Tories’ policy is capable of delivering. Labour would take back our railways into public ownership as franchises expire and use the savings to cap fares, and we would upgrade and extend the rail network.

Rail Update

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is after not just the hors d’oeuvre but a second course. That second course will probably be the Crewe hub, on which we are working carefully at the moment, but I thought that he at least deserved an appetiser. I buy the argument that the present situation as trains head north from Wrexham is not right, and I am therefore delighted that the Chancellor agreed to fund the development work for that scheme.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I give the Transport Secretary credit for acknowledging the failure on at least two occasions of the private franchise running the east coast main line. My recollection is that when it was operated by the UK state-owned Directly Operated Railways it generated more than £100 million in profit for the Treasury, which could be used for vital public services. What assessment has he made of the additional costs of the private-public sector partnership, and would it not be better to use the profits to extend the Tyne and Wear Metro into Easington rather than swelling the coffers of privately operated train companies, often German, Dutch and Spanish Government-owned?

[Chris Grayling]

There is a curious conundrum in this. We hear so much uncertainty from Labour about what they think about Brexit: they seem to want to stay in the single market and continue to operate in the traditional way, but they do not want to work with train companies from other countries. That is a bit illogical.

I am delighted that we as a Government are finally investing—in a way that the hon. Gentleman’s party did not—in rail in the north-east. The investment in trains on the Metro and the plans to extend it are the right things to do to help his constituency and the economy of the north-east, and I am very proud to be able to deliver them. It is also worth saying that the private sector franchise on the east coast main line has been contributing more to the Treasury than the public sector one did.

Guards on Merseyrail Trains

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dan Carden]

Negotiations are of course critical to resolving the dispute, and I absolutely welcome the new trains. They are long overdue and something the unions have campaigned for. They will be publicly owned by the people of the Liverpool city region and are forecast to be 30% cheaper for the taxpayer than using the failed model of rolling stock leasing companies. ROSCOs are like the loan sharks of the railway, and it is right that they are rejected in Liverpool. The Minister might like to say a few words about why his Department persists in using them across the rest of the rail network.

There is not, however, a binary choice between having our new trains and keeping a fully staffed service. The two are not mutually exclusive. The new carriageless trains, with their more open structure, allow a guard to pass more easily through the length of a train. In fact, Merseytravel originally said it wanted both, because when the new train contract was first announced, Liam Robinson, the chair of Merseytravel, said:

“In an ideal world we’d like to have a second member of staff on every train, but there aren’t the resources to do that.”

I am grateful to Liam for his assistance in the lead-up to this debate.

Local politicians rightly speak up about the pitiful investment in public infrastructure in the north. Tory cuts in revenue support grants to local councils of the city region mean that the local transport levy has been cut by £32 million in real terms, which represents a third of the annual local transport budget being lost. Faced with those cuts, we must defend and maintain the standards we have, protect jobs and passenger safety, and expose unjustifiable profiteering from the travelling public. I will return to the role of local representatives, the transport authority and government later in my remarks, but first let me set out why I believe the first step to resolving the dispute is to agree the principle that keeping the guard on the train is essential, so that we can move to a more constructive debate that looks at solutions.

There are four railway stations in my constituency. The loss of 1,000 police officers and £100 million from Merseyside police’s budget since 2010 has had a devastating impact on our communities and the ability of the police to protect the public. Data released by the British Transport police shows that the number of violent attacks on mainline and underground trains has increased by 12.5% in the past year, with a spike in hate crime. Reported sexual offences on trains have more than doubled in the past five years. Figures obtained under a freedom of information request submitted by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers showed that in the past five years there were more than 1,200 on-train crimes on Merseyrail. The figures also show that almost 900 crimes, or 72%, took place before 8 pm, which was the time at which Merseyrail indicated that it would seek to keep a second, non-safety-critical person on the train. That begs the question that if Merseyrail acknowledges the need for a second person on the train after 8 pm, why not before? Just as the public are more vulnerable to crime when police numbers are cut, when frontline rail staff are removed passenger safety is jeopardised.

A report produced for Merseytravel by Passenger Focus in April 2014, titled “Future Merseyrail rolling stock—what passengers want”, was clear. It emerged that the most important factor identified by passengers was personal security on the train. The report showed that passenger satisfaction with personal security while on the train was high, at 86%, and said:

“this aspect is a strength upon which it is important to maintain focus and development.”

It went on to state that:

“the importance of this measure to passengers suggests that if satisfaction with personal security were to decrease in future, this would likely have a severe negative effect on overall satisfaction with the service as a whole.”

Subsequent polling by Opinium found that 84% of women passengers said that they would feel less safe without a guard, and the figure for people over 55 was 85%. Perhaps the best demonstration of how our guards are valued on Merseyside was the fact that a recent petition gained almost 25,000 signatures. It was started by Merseyrail passenger, Ellie Ward, who was assisted by a guard while in a vulnerable position. The guard took extra steps to make her and other female passengers feel secure.

Too much of the debate so far has focused on issues such as who will operate the doors and whether DOO can safely dispatch a train. I am afraid that these arguments are disingenuous and completely miss the point. Neither the Government nor the train company-financed rail regulators have made any assessment of the additional risk to passengers once the train has left the platform, with or without a guard on board. How can any decision on extending DOO claim to take passenger safety seriously before such an assessment has been made?

Train guards’ safety-critical duties include protecting the train, safely securing the doors, and dealing with emergencies such as derailments, evacuations, fires, driver incapacity and failures of train safety systems. On Merseyrail, following a collision between a train and road vehicle at the Crescent Road level crossing in Southport in August 2016, the guard placed isolating equipment on the track, isolated the electric rail and evacuated passengers to safety, while the driver remained in his cab, leading the communications with signallers. Without a guard on the train, such emergencies would be dealt with by controllers up to 20 miles away speaking to passengers via intercom. It cannot conceivably be argued that that is as safe or safer. There are many more such stories, but as I am pushed for time, I will move on.

Disabled passengers, people with visual or hearing impairments, and people who suffer from anxiety rely on the reassuring presence and practical assistance of staff on platforms and guards during their journey. Merseyrail’s current disabled people’s protection policy states that:

“our on-train staff are trained in the procedures to advise and help you”.

The vital role of the guards is also acknowledged in the Rail Delivery Group’s 2017 report “On Track for 2020? The Future of Accessible Rail Travel”. Moreover, it is worth fighting to keep good jobs for the future. Losing more than 200 secure skilled jobs from essential services is in no way progressive.

Despite several days of strike action, the public still overwhelmingly back the guards. Recent polling shows that 78% of regular passengers oppose the removal of guards from Merseyrail. The entire trade union movement and the north-west TUC support the guards, and the Labour party’s policy is clear: to oppose any extension of DOO. The Welsh Government have now guaranteed a guard on every train for future franchises, and Scotland has made similar long-term arrangements. The shadow Secretary of State wrote to train operators last week to tell them that a Labour Government would halt any plans to extend DOO. Merseytravel’s former chairman, Mark Dowd, remains fully opposed to removing the guards, saying that “common sense should prevail”.

It has never been clearer that we need a new structure for our railways. Labour would take back control by bringing our rail network into public ownership. By reinvesting the revenues that are currently disappearing into shareholders’ pockets, a Labour Government would ensure that we have affordable fares, state-of-the-art trains, safe staffing levels and an end to DOO. We would embrace technology while preserving good, skilled jobs.

This Government, on the other hand, do not have a plan for our rail network. They are writing job cuts into rail contracts, and they stand by as private rail companies mismanage services while making eye-watering profits. Almost a quarter of Merseyrail’s income from passengers is swallowed up in profit. Merseyrail’s owners, Serco and Dutch state-owned Abellio, can expect to pay out average dividends of £6.7 million each. It cannot be fair that profits can be extracted from the travelling public to fund Dutch public railways while our own rail network pays the price by losing guards. Is it too much to ask that they take a smaller slice of the profit so that passengers—who fund their profits, let us remember—might continue to have a safe and secure service?

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the state-owned operator puts guards on its trains in Holland, but proposes to run a service without them on its Mersey franchise?

[Dan Carden]

I find that incredible. It is not good enough for the people of Merseyside to go without guards when companies that profit from the revenue from those people’s tickets provide guards in other countries.

Instead of pushing DOO, the Government could make passenger safety and the provision of safety-critical guards non-negotiable, before profits, at the top of contracts for all rail franchises. Better still would be to scrap the legislation under which only the private sector can run passenger train services. If the Minister wants to argue that this is a devolved issue and he cannot interfere, he must explain why Merseytravel is prohibited from running its trains in the public sector.

Transport in the North

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on securing this debate, which is really important and timely, and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

The A19 is one of the principal economic drivers—no pun intended—in my constituency. It is vital for the export-focused manufacturing businesses in my region, particularly Caterpillar, NSK Bearings, and—until it closes just before Christmas—the Walkers potato crisp factory. Many businesses are dependent on a functioning A19, which too often is left at a standstill for hours on end following multiple road accidents, which are almost a daily occurrence. The lack of investment, maintenance and upgrading of this vital economic highway is clearly holding back businesses in my constituency. I have tabled numerous questions on this, and I urge Conservative MPs who want to work co-operatively to sign early-day motion 267. The Government have yet to deliver on a proper investment strategy for this vital road. We need a Government with some foresight who seek to future-proof our infrastructure and support the development of our regional economy. The billions that, as colleagues have mentioned, are being ploughed into Crossrail in London, which already has an embarrassment of riches in terms of excellent public transport links, will see the capital pull further away from the regions, particularly the northern regions.

I welcome the Government’s decision to invest in the new railway station at Horden, which will create much needed links with towns all across the region. However, that needs to be linked with a new fleet of trains and improvements at Seaham station—and of course we need to keep the guard on the train. If we genuinely want to rebalance the economy, an airport congestion charge would help to lower airfares in under-utilised regional airports like our own at Newcastle and Durham Tees Valley while charging a premium to use the most congested and polluting airports like Heathrow. The Metro system is a fantastic service serving the people of Newcastle and Sunderland, but we need it to connect our entire region. I will never stop calling for the Metro to be extended into my constituency. However, this seems like a fanciful dream when we consider that the Government are still haggling over the replacement of the Metro trains, which are 47 years old, and rolling stock that is simply not fit for purpose. The Government need to replace their rhetoric with action.

The north-east is a fantastic region, neglected by Governments who have been unwilling to invest and support a better future. My constituency offers many hidden gems. We have a vibrant and active arts community, with the East Durham Artists Network. There are iconic public artworks such as the Tommy and Marra statues. We have an award-winning heritage coastline, with the England coastal path running through my constituency. There is the local nature reserve in Easington and our ancient woodland of Castle Eden Dene. These are hidden gems, and they will remain so until we have the infrastructure that will connect our past and our heritage to our future.

The north-east and east Durham have the skills, the history and the heritage to succeed in business, manufacturing, and tourism. What we lack is a Government who are committed to delivering real investment for our region. I commend Durham County Council and all the local authorities in the region for working around some of the most difficult budget cuts imposed by central Government, which have disproportionately affected my region and my constituency. The longer we allow the lack of investment to continue, the greater the economic divide between London and the south-east and the rest of the country will become. The Government need to future-proof our infrastructure, invest in our economy and reap the benefits of a more prosperous north-east.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I can indeed update the House. The Government are committed to ensuring that disabled people have the same access to transport services and opportunities to travel as everybody else in society. We plan to commence sections 165 and 167 of the Equality Act by the end of this year. I was pleased to see that raised in the Lord review, as I have been working on it for some time. Drivers will be required to provide assistance to wheelchair users, and to refrain from charging extra.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

T7. Will the Minister take the trouble to come to the north- east and take the train from Nunthorpe, Middlesbrough, to Newcastle? Using an ancient Pacer train, it takes almost 90 minutes. The journey might be quicker by bicycle. If we had had a new train every time it was announced that the old ones would be replaced, we would have a whole fleet of them. If the Minister came and got a wiggle on, that might speeds things up a bit.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I think I need a bit of mentoring in the dialect being used this morning. I accept that the last Labour Government did nothing to improve the system in their 13 years. I am glad to say that new trains will be operating on that line by 2020 as a result of a decision that I took, which was to override the advice, and to instruct the permanent secretary that the Pacers would be phased out, and that we would have new trains on the line. I am very proud of that decision.

Cabin Air Safety/Aerotoxic Syndrome

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Gillan.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the debate and all Members who supported the application for one. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) for the professional and comprehensive way he put forward the case, and to the contributions of both Government and Opposition Members, in particular that of the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), who I suspect has not got the credit he deserves for raising the issue. The proposals and suggestions have been extraordinarily helpful, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively.

I must declare my interest as chair of the Unite group in Parliament. I am a proud member of Unite and I feel, as my colleagues do, that this is an important part of the work we do for our members and their families. I also pay tribute to Matt Bass’s parents, Charlie and Fiona, who might be listening to the debate today. I had the great privilege of meeting them and some Unite members who are air crew. At a meeting in Parliament, they relayed to us their personal experiences and concerns.

I thank my trade union, Unite, for its excellent and detailed briefing on such an important issue, and a number of Members have emphasised some specific aspects. It is important to recognise the valuable work of Unite in investigating concerns and protecting passengers and cabin crew from toxic fume events. I am concerned that airlines, regulators and, with due respect to the Minister, Governments do not seem to be terribly active in considering contaminated cabin air.

It would be remiss of me not to remind people—the general public who are listening to the debate or reading it in Hansard—that Unite has established a fume event register and a helpline, which are available through the website. Given the lack of any official reporting, I hope that when air crew and members of the public who are frequent flyers feel that there has been such an incident, they will use the Unite register to report it. We need the evidence and an objective assessment. We need public and cabin crew affected by fume events to come forward and identify them.

If we are not successful in convincing the Government to take action and to investigate the matter fully, we will need evidence because the only other option for people is to seek legal redress. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) mentioned, Unite is taking up the case of 61 of our members in relation to this issue. Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) suggested that there was not a causal link between symptoms and exposure, but I am old enough to remember the arguments made against any causal link between smoking and lung cancer, or exposure to asbestos and the development of mesothelioma and asbestosis. I fully understand the reluctance of the industry to have an investigation, because of the potential costs involved, but it is beholden on us and the Minister in particular to look into such a link with all seriousness.

[Jeremy Quin]

I think I might have misheard the hon. Gentleman, but, if not, I would not want the record to suggest that I think there is no causal link—I am concerned that there might be. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) referred to asbestosis and we have also heard about organophosphates. I think there may be a causal link, and I am keen that the precautionary principle applies until we get really hard evidence that there is not. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am genuinely concerned.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention; I did not mean to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman’s position. It is important that we look at evidence. Considerable pressure is building to have a proper investigation and to make an objective assessment as to whether there is a causative link between the symptoms, which are wide and various—I do not propose to go into them again because other Members have already done that—and exposure to toxic air fumes that have come from engines through bleed air systems.

Other Members have referred to the new generation Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which uses bleed-free systems. Those systems are not an industry standard, nor does Boeing’s decision seem to mark the beginning of a transition to a safer system. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, because, apart from anything else, Unite has a substantial number of members involved in the aviation industry—not just flight and aircraft maintenance crew but those working in the manufacture of aircraft components and engines. I do not seek to damage confidence in the industry, but it is important that we ensure that this safety-critical industry enjoys complete confidence and we have those necessary assurances and investigations.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Grahame M. Morris]

I will give way to my friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens).

[Chris Stephens]

Is there not also confusion about which body is responsible for occupational health and safety? It seems to be split between the Civil Aviation Authority and the Health and Safety Executive, and that is confusing in terms of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002—the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with them—which the CAA has denied responsibility for.

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is a good point. I hope that the Minister will reflect on it and perhaps refer to it in his response.

I am afraid that we do not have a lot of information on the frequency of these events in the United Kingdom. The much-criticised UK Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment estimated that smoke and fume events are reported by pilots in one in every 100 flights—I think that was previously mentioned—but those are conservative estimates. If there is under-reporting, as many seem to believe anecdotally, that might be another reason why many fume events are not being investigated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) mentioned, it is important to monitor in real time rather than bring portable equipment on to aircraft when they have landed.

I understand that UK fleet figures are not available—if the Minister does have such figures, I am happy to take an intervention from him to put them on the record—but what was initially thought to be quite a rare event anecdotally seems to be happening far too often. Figures available from the United States are quite alarming, although they have many more aircraft and flights. Clearly exposure to contaminated bleed air can have a serious impact on health, particularly for cabin crew, who are at greater risk of exposure and of cumulative effects.

We have already heard about the coroner’s letter following the sad death of pilot Richard Westgate and the regulation 28 report, so I do not intend to go into that. However, it seems to be an omission that there is nothing on the public record. We have heard quotes from the Civil Aviation Authority response to that letter, but we have not seen the full response. The CAA said that

“there is no positive evidence of a link between exposure to contaminants in cabin air and possible acute and long-term health effects”.

Although it did conclude that

“such a link cannot be excluded.”

I am not sure what good that is. It seems to me that this issue is crying out for some further research and evidence so that we can either establish a link or rule it out.

I am prepared to concede that there is a knowledge gap, but the industry and regulators are relying on a system of denial rather than fitting the detection systems required to collect evidence on the true number and concentration of fume events. I do not believe that the industry—or the Government for that matter—would deny the existence of fume events. Again, the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they also accept that fume events are detrimental to health. While they may disagree on the extent of such impacts, I ask the Minister to support calls for an independent inquiry into the risks and hazards associated with contaminated air.

We need monitoring and detection systems for cabin air to be introduced so that we can ascertain the true extent of the problem. We also need a better system to diagnose, treat and compensate workers whose health and wellbeing has been compromised and damaged by fume events. Finally, all future aircraft should be designed to be bleed-free. If there is a shred of doubt about there being cumulative, long-term adverse effects on health, surely that is a sensible way to proceed when drawing up design specifications. In the meantime, it is possible to mitigate any effects, perhaps by looking at maintenance schedules, because aircraft that are not maintained to such a high standard are more likely to be subject to fume events as seals go—that is the nature of a mechanical design. Things could therefore be done; indeed, engine oils and hydraulic fluids could be reformulated to minimise potential adverse effects on health.

Ultimately, we need airlines to step up to the plate and accept their responsibilities and duty of care to employees and passengers. If not them, regulators need to demand changes, and detection systems should be fitted to seek further evidence on fume events. If not the airlines or the regulators, the Minister and the Government must take charge. Until such time, I do not believe any of us—the travelling public or indeed air crew—can say with confidence that air travel is completely risk-free and that fume events are not a risk to public health.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)]

I do not think that any other Members are seeking to catch my eye, so we will move to the wind-ups.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

The Minister is making a good point. In fact, the issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). Does he accept that the problem is the regular, continuous exposure to various levels, whereas sheep dipping, even though it was done without proper protection initially—he can correct me if I am wrong—would presumably be for a limited period? It would not be every day in someone’s working life on the farm.

[Mr Goodwill]

I will go on to describe the levels that those in aircraft cabins are likely to be exposed to under normal operations when a fume event has not taken place. However, as I was saying, neither of my two friends who are suffering from career-finishing symptoms—they are not able to work—had been involved in either the aviation industry or in agriculture. I suspect that if they had been involved in agriculture, I would have been asking questions about whether their exposure to sheep dip or to other agrochemicals may have been to blame. Similarly, if they had been in the aviation industry, I would perhaps be asking the same questions.

The Government take the health and air safety of passengers and crew extremely seriously. The United Kingdom is recognised throughout the global aviation community for its high standard and excellent record of safety in commercial aviation. I must make it clear that the Government must always act on evidence and we have over the years worked hard to collect evidence, as did the previous Government when the problem first came to public awareness. There has been much public debate about the issue as so many people are aware of the problem.

There are currently two inquests into deaths where the relatives of the deceased are trying to establish whether contamination by cabin air could have been the cause of death. Both inquests are still open, and in both cases the CAA rather than my Department has been named as an interested party. Both of the deceased were employed by the same airline, and so far the evidence that has been gathered does not support the view that the deaths were connected to contamination of cabin air.

In the case of Richard Westgate, the Dorset coroner’s January pre-inquest review has been adjourned to 30 March 2016 to allow time for medical experts’ reports to be submitted, but he did release a prevention of future deaths report in 2014, which some have taken as a signal that the death might be attributed to contamination of cabin air. However, there was no evidence to suggest that this was the case, and we await the full inquest verdict with a great deal of interest.

In the case of Matt Bass, who has been mentioned during this debate and whose case is before the Berkshire coroner, the January pre-inquest review has been adjourned until 15 June 2016 to allow time to locate medical samples and to instruct the experts. I offer my deepest sympathies to the families and friends of the deceased, but, as the two inquests have not been concluded, it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment in further detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Certainly the CAA is involved in this. I meet regularly with the unions involved, particularly BALPA, so it is not something that we are trying to shuffle away, but we need to wait for the result of the inquest before we report on these particular cases. I will go on to present various pieces of evidence and show where we are on this important matter. I will talk about what work has already been done and what work we believe needs to be done.

The safety of cabin air is an issue that has been a matter of public debate over several years—in fact, over a decade now. This continues to be the case, and I, together with my noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, have received a considerable amount of correspondence and responded to several parliamentary questions on cabin air quality. As background, some crew and passengers have expressed concerns that they have suffered long-term health impairment, which they contend is due to exposure to organophosphates present in small amounts as additives in aviation engine oils and hydraulic fluids.

As ever, we have to be careful to have regard to whether there is evidence to support the link between the illnesses and cabin air. That is why the concerns have been investigated at length over a number of years. In 2006 the previous Government arranged for the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—an independent advisory committee of toxicology experts—to review evidence from the British Airline Pilots Association. At the time, the Committee on Toxicity considered that it was not possible to conclude whether cabin air exposures in general, or following incidents such as fume events, cause ill health in commercial aircraft crews. It recommended further work to ascertain whether substances in the cabin environment could potentially be harmful to health.

A second inquiry was held by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, which looked into this issue as part of a wider inquiry in 2007, and published its findings in a report called “Air Travel and Health”. In that report, the findings of the Committee on Toxicity were supported. Following the recommendation in 2007 by the Committee on Toxicity, the Government commissioned a series of scientific studies as part of a research programme on cabin air. The principal research study, which was carried out by Cranfield University, was published in 2011. It found that, with respect to the conditions of flight experienced during the cabin air sampling, there was no evidence of pollutants occurring at levels exceeding health and safety standards and guidelines. Levels observed in the flights that formed part of the study—I stress that they did not include an instance of an oil seal failing—were comparable to those typically experienced in domestic settings. No higher levels of exposure were found than, for example, we would experience in this Chamber.

In addition to the principal study, three further research studies were commissioned and published by the Government. Those four published studies were formally submitted to the Committee on Toxicity for consideration in 2012. The Committee considered the research reports, as well as other research published in the scientific literature since 2007, and subsequently published a position paper on cabin air in December 2013.

I have recently written to several Members of Parliament regarding the findings of the Committee’s position paper. In that letter, which was also placed in the Libraries of both Houses, I summarised the advice the Committee gave and its conclusions. In short, the paper recognises that contamination of cabin air by components or combustion products of engine oils does occur, and that episodes of acute illness have occurred shortly after such episodes. However, it found that levels of chemicals in bleed air would need to occur in far higher concentrations than those found during the studies to cause serious toxicity, and that the symptoms that have been reported following fume events have been wide-ranging, and less specific than those that typically occur from chemical toxicity.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is being characteristically generous in giving way. Is there not a basic flaw in that suggestion, if we do not count incidents? Could it be that in some older aircraft that may not be maintained to such a rigorous standard, air fume events are more frequent? Is that not a possibility, if we do not do a proper investigation, in situ, in real time?

[Mr Goodwill]

That is a very reasonable point to make. The findings have been made by professional toxicologists, whose job it is to analyse the effects of toxic compounds in a variety of locations, including the workplace. I shall come on to talk about the number of so-called fume events, and I have some evidence from the CAA to put it in context.

London Black Cabs

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and will be coming to that point.

Before I move on to the steps we need to take on regulation, we should acknowledge that black cabs are already adapting and changing fast. From 2018, all new black cabs will be zero-emission capable, helped by £8,000 grants from the Mayor. The cost to drivers will be no greater than that of buying conventional cars, but the cost of managing the cars will be much lower because they will be independent of fuel and will be able to fuel their cars electrically. That change has been very much welcomed by the drivers I have spoken to. Incidentally, the first motor cabs, which arrived in 1897, were electric, so we are seeing a neat ecological full circle—we are experiencing the circle of life right here in London with our black cabs. Many drivers are also using new booking apps, some of which are very innovative. For example, some help passengers to share journeys; others enable serious discounts over longer distances.

I do not believe that on their own those changes will be enough, however. We need to find a way to maintain the two-tier system distinguishing between cabs and taxis that has worked well in London for over 50 years.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I apologise for arriving late and congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I was listening carefully to what he said about improvements to air quality. Does he acknowledge that the huge influx of minicab drivers and Uber drivers has had a really negative effect not just on air quality but on congestion in central London?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and will be making a similar point shortly. We need to look at that issue.

The bottom line is that we need to find a way of maintaining the two-tier system. I know that some within the black cab trade are calling for a mandatory five-minute period between booking and pick up to try to maintain the divide. I understand why that would work, and there is a strong case for it, but I worry that it would alienate—even infuriate—customers, who would not understand why it was happening. I understand that a similar mechanism has been brought in in New York, and there has been a considerable customer backlash there, which has been felt by the Mayor, who introduced the scheme, and whose popularity has been collapsing as a consequence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

Consumers may think it is great to get cheap meat, until they realise it is horse meat; they may think it is great to get a cheap builder, until the house falls down; they may think private hire vehicles are cheap but, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, they want to feel safe. We need to make sure that drivers speak basic English, have basic geographical knowledge and are properly insured. Choice is important, but the job of parliamentarians, and of those who aspire to be the Mayor of London, is to make sure that there is proper regulation of those who run public transport—and I consider black cabs and private hire vehicles a form of public transport.

The key answers that we need are not platitudes; we need to know what Government and those who run TfL can do. I have several questions for the Minister.

[Grahame M. Morris]

My right hon. Friend is making important points. We accept that there is a need to balance the interests of consumers with the Rolls-Royce service that we enjoy through the black cab industry, but does he agree on the fundamental need for a legal definition of private hire, to distinguish between that and hackney carriages? There may well be a role for Parliament in that, and it is another example of deregulation being a good thing. We can still innovate—and black cab drivers are indeed doing that in zones 1 and 2, through the introduction of the new app—without the need for the five-minute gap that was tried in New York. There is a balance to be struck, and I wonder if my right hon. Friend agrees.

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend is right. I made that point earlier in an intervention. We have had innovation in technology, but what my hon. Friend has described requires innovation in regulation. I do not mean a race to the bottom; I think that a levelling up rather than levelling down is required.

Does the Minister agree with criticisms of TfL that it failed to carry out proper licensing and enforcement functions in relation to the hire market? Does he agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park and me that the Government should introduce legislation containing a clear definition to protect the distinction between taxis and private hire vehicles? Is he aware of the concerns raised by the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association that TfL may wrongly have licensed Uber in 2012, not fully understanding its methods of operation, and that it now has concerns about revocation, for fear of paying compensation? If the Minister thinks new legislation is required, will he consider whether it should include limits on the number of private hire vehicles in London, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Richmond Park and I have given, to do with congestion, pollution and illegal parking? Does he agree that any legislation should, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) mentioned, require any licensed operators to have a UK tax liability? Also—and this is probably the most important issue for black cab drivers—would the new legislation define plying for hire?

What reforms is the Department for Transport considering to secure a fairer system for London’s cabbies and a better service for passengers—an important consideration at the core of this issue? Would that include a clear distinction between the working practices for black cabs and private hire vehicles? Finally, we understand the temptation for Ministers to meet celebrities and for the Mayor of London to meet Joanna Lumley; but roughly how many times have the Minister, other Transport Ministers or the Mayor had meetings with the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association or black cab drivers’ representatives such as Unite, GMB and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers?

The hon. Member for Richmond Park deserves our thanks for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. He has raised important issues, as I hope I have, and it is important that the Minister and the current Mayor respond. If they do not, the next Mayor will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate and on the contributions that he and many other hon. Members, on both sides of the Chamber, have made. I mention in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). Like him, I suspect that this is the first of many debates that he will have with the hon. Member for Richmond Park. They were in agreement on the matter, and the consensus across the Chamber has been remarkable. I hope that the Minister bears that in mind when he replies to the debate.

Today’s debate concerns something fundamental for London, as many hon. Members have said, namely the future of black cabs in the capital. It is clear that existing regulation is insufficient to deal with the changes. That point has been made by the hon. Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Tooting and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—he made an excellent speech—and it has been recognised north of the border by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). Although black cabs are regarded as having some of the highest safety and accessibility standards for taxis anywhere in the world, the phenomenon of ride-sharing schemes and taxi apps has made it clear that regulation has simply not kept pace with the changes. That gives us a choice about how we cope with those changes and regulatory challenges.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Although I acknowledge that the subject of the debate is black cabs in London, I attended, along with other hon. Members, a national lobby of Parliament expressing the concerns about the matter across the midlands and in a number of the great cities in the north. This is a problem that we will all face, even if we do not face it immediately. Is it not a good time, as a Parliament, to look at the legal definition of plying for hire and to resolve the matter not only in London, but across the whole United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing this debate on London’s famous and wonderful black cabs. This topic has been the subject of a previous debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), so I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park for continuing to highlight the contribution of London taxis to the economy and transport network of this great city and the issues that the industry faces.

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, although the Government are responsible for creating the legislative framework within which local licensing authorities license taxis and private hire vehicles, responsibility for licensing in London rests with TfL. It is TfL’s responsibility to decide who is a suitable person to hold a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence, or a private hire operator’s licence, and for ensuring that all its licensees comply with the rules and regulations that govern the industry. I understand his desire to raise his concerns in the House but, as licensing is TfL’s responsibility, some of the points raised today are TfL’s responsibility, so I might not be able to address all those points.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the Minister acknowledge the contributions made by Members on both sides of the Chamber? We have highlighted problems that are likely to manifest in other parts of the country and, in fact, are already manifesting in the midlands and in some northern cities. Similar problems are likely to arise in Scotland. Do the Government not have a responsibility to legislate in anticipation of those problems to introduce appropriate redress?

[Andrew Jones]

I recognise the excellent contributions made by Members on both sides of the Chamber. Some of those points will apply across our country, but this debate is about the future of London’s black cabs. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I will address the Law Commission later in my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

That smacks of a mayoral hustings debate rather than a Westminster Hall debate. The legislative framework is complicated and technology is changing. The Government took action by commissioning this complicated work from the Law Commission. That work is currently being digested and the Government will respond shortly. I cannot provide a date for the response, but the work is important and will provide security and clarity not only for TfL, but right across the country. That has been understood, and voices from across the House have made that clear this morning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park may be aware that TfL recently completed its own consultation on the regulations that govern private hire vehicles in the capital. That came in response to developments in the industry that I have described, including advances in technology and changes in how people engage and use private hire services. The proposed revisions to the regulations will be known later this year, and some of TfL’s proposals may address concerns raised this morning.

I was asked several specific questions, which I will try to address now, although I have already answered some of them. On whether plying for hire has been defined, the Law Commission addressed creating such a statutory definition, but it came to the view, after careful consideration, that a statutory definition would not be a practical improvement on the current position. As for Ministers meeting celebrities, the Minister responsible for transport in London is in a Delegated Legislation Committee this morning, which is why I am covering this debate—

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the Minister take a brief intervention on his previous point?

[Andrew Jones]

I am slightly running out of time, but I will give way.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Regarding the Minister’s remark about the Law Commission and the statutory definition of plying for hire, given rapid technological advancements such as the Uber app and the complications that they are causing, does he recognise that the Law Commission advice is perhaps out of date? Is it not worth the Government considering the matter again?

[Andrew Jones]

There may be ways of addressing some of those issues, such as providing a definition of a lawful pre-booking, which will perhaps achieve the same objective. The Government’s response to the Law Commission is still a work in progress. We recognise its importance, and I am happy to commit to maintaining the Department’s energy in delivering it.

I cannot comment on Ministers meeting celebrities— I have not met any—so I cannot really add to that. Do I agree with the comments about TfL’s actions as a licensing authority? That is up to TfL and the scrutiny of Assembly Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park mentioned price surging, and I will certainly write to TfL to highlight that point and to ask it to investigate. The same applies to the points made about predatory pricing. The key thing will be to start collecting evidence—if, indeed, this practice is taking place—so that we can make insightful comments. I have already commented on capping numbers.

On the regulation of fares, TfL is the licensing authority and has the power to set fares for London taxis. That regulation is an important element of consumer protection in the hail-and-rank market. TfL has no power to set private hire fares, which are set by the licensed operators. When booking a private hire vehicle, customers can shop around in advance and obtain a quote or estimate for a journey, which is why the regulatory authority sets no price constraint.

In conclusion, the Government are fully aware of the changes and challenges affecting the taxi and private hire vehicle industry in London and elsewhere in the country. The challenges include not only new technology and increased competition, but the need to ensure that vehicles play their part in improving air quality. The London taxi trade has rightly recognised such challenges, and I have recently been advised of a new campaign launched by trade bodies to promote London’s taxis. I believe the reputation of the London taxi trade and its high-quality service mean that it is well placed to continue to compete in this changing market and have a strong and healthy future. That is what I want, and that is clearly the view of the House this morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of black cabs in London.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

The letter came from the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and with that information the hon. Gentleman may be able to find it. I am happy to send him another copy.

The industry will need to show how it has complied with the charter on an annual basis, and any failure to follow through will ultimately result in a loss of membership and the benefits attached. In addition, operators will contribute a voluntary one-off payment of £20,000 for the right to use deep-level land. Each year, operators will need to publish evidence detailing how these commitments are being met. The Department of Energy and Climate Change will regularly monitor this evidence. Let me reassure the House that the proposals in the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to set up a statutory payment mechanism, if not satisfied.

On new clause 19(j) and amendments 62, 63 and 64, notice and publicity requirements relating to the planning and environmental permitting processes are already in place. We believe the system works well, but we recognise the concerns that have been raised by the new clause.

New clause 19(k) and amendment 60 are on the approval of substances to be left in the land. As part of the application for environmental permits, the EA will require full disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and has the power to restrict or prohibit the use of any substances where they would pose an environmental risk. Our regulations ensure that information on chemical substances and their maximum concentrations is included within the environmental permit, along with information on the total daily discharge of hydraulic fracturing fluid into the ground and the fluid taken off-site for disposal. The permit is placed on the public register.

I have already announced that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will direct the Environment Agency to publish information about chemicals it requires operators to disclose.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister indicate why she is not taking the opportunity to regulate and impose environmental requirements on other non-conventional gas extraction processes, such as underground coal gasification?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I hope he will find that it will be dealt with later on, but if it is not I will certainly write to him on that point.

New clause 19(m) relates to water companies. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that water companies are engaged fully in shale gas development. The existing regulatory framework ensures issues relating to water are addressed robustly. The water industry and shale operators have already agreed a memorandum of understanding to engage early, and share plans for water demand and waste water management. The Government have considered this issue carefully and want to provide further reassurance to the public. Therefore, we are consulting on whether to make water companies statutory consultees in respect of these applications. Subject to the response to the consultation, which closes at the end of this month, we would seek to bring forward any necessary secondary legislation.

New clause 19 has raised some very interesting and critical points in relation to reassuring the public. It is the Government’s view that we will accept new clause 19, but we plan to amend it in the other place to replace provision (g) on depth, with a review to put back the depth at the appropriate level for proper development.

On amendment 61, regarding compulsory purchase of properties in the event of blight, I would like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) that the regulatory regimes for planning, environmental permitting and health and safety already provide a very robust framework that ensures residential amenity is properly protected from any unacceptable effects of development. The protection of amenity is recognised in the core planning principles of the national planning policy framework. In the unlikely event that operations caused any damage, there are various options available. The landowner may be able to bring claims in tort, such as negligence and nuisance, against any operator. I trust my explanation of this issue reassures hon. Members, and that they will withdraw the related amendment.

On new clause 8, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ “Rural Economy Impacts” document was a draft internal document, which was not analytically robust; it was a literature review of existing studies and was not exhaustive. Where policy work is current, draft documents are usually kept within government, because they do not provide a complete and accurate picture of the overall material. This is a highly sensitive and fast-moving policy area. Releasing information that is at the formative stage of being shared between Government Departments risks substantially undermining our ability to deliver effective policy.

DEFRA retains an interest in the implications of shale gas development for rural communities, but the Department of Energy and Climate Change leads on the economic aspects of shale gas policy. It is therefore my view that DEFRA should not have produced a document of this kind. The redactions were made for those broader reasons, not on the basis of sensitivity of materials. In fact, in the interests of providing free access to the information on which the draft paper was based, the Government have provided the full list of references. Following Committee, I consulted with a range of colleagues. Releasing the unredacted draft paper would not help to inform the debate on developing the UK’s shale industry. I ask, therefore, that my hon. Friend withdraws her amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Roberta Blackman-Woods. Not here. I call Grahame M. Morris.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

May I draw the Minister’s attention to the Airport Operators Association report “Airports in the community” which shows the excellent work that regional airports—also known as local international airports—are doing in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that the development of our regional airports is just as important as HS2 or HS3 in delivering economic growth, jobs and broader community benefits?

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I am pleased he was paying attention earlier on. It is vital that local international airports play their part, and I know that Newcastle airport is doing that. Of course, the Government are improving connectivity to Newcastle airport, with upgrades on the Metro, work taking place at Newcastle International station and, as he will know, the £61 million upgrade of the A1 western bypass between Coal House and the Metro Centre. That will address not only congestion, but the anxiety that many people feel as they are travelling to the airport worried that they may miss their flights.