Real-Time Bus Information: North-East

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mary Kelly Foy]

Constituents tell me that real-time data is a huge issue, making it impossible for them to accurately plan their journeys, whether for a very rare dental appointment or to get to school on time. It is even worse for those in smaller rural communities where they are often put off using public services due to infrequent or unreliable bus services. It is really affecting them, especially when they are waiting, as my hon. Friend says, for up to an hour for a bus that may or may not turn up. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we need to see buses in the north-east taken into public control, like in Manchester?

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank my hon. Friend for her passionate intervention. I agree with her that local accountability would be a huge improvement, which is why I am excited about Labour’s plans to give every local authority the power to franchise their buses and reverse the ban on municipal bus ownership.

This is what I would like to see: when someone gets off the train at Newcastle Central station and puts into an app one of our wonderful destinations—Benwell, Scotswood garden, St James’ park, Blakelaw community centre, Kenton School—I want them to know when a bus will come to take them there. Does the Minister agree that that must be the test? Why is it not happening?

Nexus, the Tyne and Wear passenger transport executive, told me that the real-time systems for passengers in the north-east are

“fragmented and need both investment and harmonisation”.

Each bus company, whether it is Arriva, Stagecoach or Go North East, has an app and real-time feed, created to its own design and specification, decided by corporate headquarters HQ. I was told that the Arriva app is designed in Germany, making integration more challenging. Apparently, they did not know about the disappearing bus bug until I raised it with them, and they have still failed to respond to my letters. Will the Minister encourage them?

Different operators provide their data feeds to different standards. Should the Government not use their levers—guidance, bus service improvement plans, city region sustainable transport settlements and so on—to ensure greater collaboration and standardisation in real-time bus information provision? Nexus tells me there is no specific duty on bus companies around real-time information that it can enforce, but the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for North West Durham, told me that there is a duty to supply data. Does the Minister believe that local or regional decision makers should have the powers to enforce real-time information delivery to an agreed standard?

As I know from my time working in competition regulation, standardisation does not stunt competition but enhances it, by allowing the best, most innovative apps to win out. When people travel across our region they should not have to download 10 apps in order to do so. There is also the problem that the technical systems and infrastructure underpinning those services do not guarantee a high enough standard of information. They are too open to human error—for example, when drivers decide to change their running boards early in their route—and they cannot account for simple things like a bus being at the start of its route. What are the Government doing to enable improvements in infra- structure, after more than a decade of local government cuts?

It should not take MPs to get bus operators and Government working on this issue. Bus operators should be aware of the failings of their services. Where passengers find an issue, there must be a clear avenue to make a complaint and get redress. I note that the accessible information regulation, which applies to journey information while someone is on a bus, will have a clear complaints enforcement process; why can we not have something similar for the information needed before someone gets on the bus?

The legislation that created BODS requires that the Government publish a review of the regulations at least every five years. That deadline of July 2025 approaches. Specifically, will the Minister confirm that his officials will respond to the issues raised today, and that members of the public, or their representatives, will be able to provide feedback?

Lastly, I want to question why the previous Minister gave such a rosy picture when I asked my question in October, when we all experience such difficulty in accessing real-time bus information. Does the Minister understand the very real issues that bus passengers in the north-east are experiencing? If so, will he retract and condemn the tone struck by his predecessor? It is disgraceful that, when real-time bus information has been standard in London for years, we in the north-east still do not know when and if a bus is going to turn up. It shows what Tory levelling up really means: Geordies left to shiver at bus stops in the dark, both literally and metaphorically. Does the Minister accept that we need a Labour Government to fix our broken bus services? Finally, when did he last take a bus?

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

The situation is that the last bus I took was the 148 last week. [Interruption.]

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

Order. If Members want to intervene on the Minister, they can do so in the usual way. Shouting from a sedentary position disadvantages not only themselves but the public, who are paying attention to an important debate.

[Guy Opperman]

The 685 and the 122, which are run by two different organisations, are the buses I take in Northumberland.

I will try to address some of the points raised. Clearly, we accept that buses are, without a shadow of a doubt, the most popular form of public transport in our country. They are essential to our national transport system in both urban and rural areas, and they play a vital part in the economy that we all wish to see thrive. In the year ending March 2023, around 128 million passenger journeys were made by local buses in the north-east. That is an increase of 12% compared with 2022. Following the introduction of the £2 fare cap in January 2023, bus fares in England outside London fell by 6.2% between September 2022 and September 2023. I congratulate the many bus operators in the north-east that have signed up to the subsidised £2 fare cap scheme, and I hope that others can see the benefit of doing so.

I will set out the national bus strategy and the bus service improvement plan in a little detail, and will then come to the more substantial questions of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). In March 2021, the Government published England’s national bus strategy, setting out the vision for bus services across the country. It sets out how we will deliver better bus services for passengers through ambitious and far-reaching reform.

As a first step, the Government asked every local authority to work with their bus operators to develop the bus service improvement plan—BSIP for short. Those plans are intended to set out each local authority’s vision for improving bus services in its area and to act as a guide to help design local transport networks that are tailor-made for the communities they serve. The central aim of the national bus strategy—to get more people travelling by bus—can only be achieved by making buses a more practical and attractive option for more people. Strong local plans delivered through enhanced partnerships between local transport authorities and bus operators or franchising operators are crucial to achieving that.

The Government have invested over £4.5 billion to support and improve bus services since March 2020. We have consistently provided funding to subsidise local bus services through other routes. We have provided over £200 million a year through the bus service operators grant directly to operators to help keep fares down and maintain extensive bus networks. A further £42 million is provided to local transport authorities annually from the bus service operators grant to subsidise socially necessary bus services; of the 80 English local transport authorities outside London, Nexus receives almost £1 million a year to subsidise services in the north-east through that route. We are also providing funding to local authorities so that older and disabled people up and down the country can travel on buses for free. That is a concessionary scheme that costs around £1 billion per year.

Further funding of £2 billion has been allocated to prevent reductions to bus services following the pandemic, £1 billion of which was allocated in 2022 to help local authorities deliver their bus service improvement plans. Subsequently, the Prime Minister announced an extra £1 billion in bus service improvement plan funding—redirected from the High Speed 2 decision—to deliver improved bus services in the north and the midlands as part of Network North.

Night Flights: Impact on Communities

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

I agree 100%. It is important to think about the mental health impact as well as the physical impact.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady may not know this, but my staff and I became somewhat expert on this matter in 2015 when there was a flightpath consultation by Edinburgh airport. My Livingston constituency has, I believe—although it may be debated—around 70% of Edinburgh’s flight traffic during the day, but also at night. What we learned from that experience was that there was a complete lack of community consultation. Would she include in her asks of the Government that community consultation, compensation, proper structures and oversight of that must be implemented? You would not put a road through somebody’s constituency without proper consultation. Why would you put a flightpath over people’s homes without consulting them properly?

[Sarah Olney]

That point is powerfully made. The Government set the current night flight regime at Heathrow airport, but the restrictions are simply not stringent enough and the true number of night flights is significantly higher than the quota allows. An average of 16 flights per night are permitted to land at Heathrow each year between the hours of 11.30 pm and 6 am, but flights may receive special dispensation not to be counted towards the overall quota if they are delayed due to specific reasons such as weather conditions or air traffic control disruption.

From July to September this year, 231 flights were granted dispensation. That is between two and three additional flights per night on average. In total, 475 unscheduled night flights arrived at or departed from Heathrow airport due to extreme delays and disruption. At times, my constituents would suffer almost continuous noise from aircraft overhead. That is partly due to the Government’s complete lack of long-term planning, which saw airports engulfed in chaos and flight schedules thrown into the air. However, it also proves that the current restrictions are insufficient to limit the impact on residents when disturbances to flight patterns occur.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention; he is absolutely right. The Government state that their policy is to

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

We can see from the numbers already that the policy is not fit for purpose, but he is correct that it is not about the numbers, but about the impact on those who are affected.

Long-term exposure to nocturnal aircraft noise is strongly linked to sleep disorders, and lack of sleep or disrupted sleep can have a direct impact on people’s health. One study found that, for each additional 10 dB of night-time aircraft noise that communities are exposed to, there is an increase of between 14% and 69% in their risk of high blood pressure, increasing the risk of strokes and heart attacks.

A World Health Organisation study from 2009 also found that an individual may suffer from negative health impacts of sleep disruption even if they do not wake up at night. Other researchers have found links between long-term exposure to aircraft noise and an increased risk of obesity, depression and cardiovascular issues—and I do not need to cite a scientific study to explain the impact that a lack of sleep has on mental wellbeing, as so many right hon. and hon. Members have already mentioned it.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Olney]

Does the hon. Lady mind if I make a bit more progress?

In children, sleep disruption makes it more difficult for them to retain focus throughout the day. Studies have suggested that that has a negative impact on reading comprehension and memory, which can have a knock-on impact on their academic performance and general wellbeing. The human impact of night flights only intensified over the summer months, during which temperatures reached record highs. Many Londoners were left choosing between keeping their windows shut and suffering with unbearable heat or opening them and hearing the full roar of jet engines overhead. This opposition to night flights does not arise purely out of annoyance or inconvenience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. She is precisely right. Our concern relates not only to night flights, but very much to the fact that Heathrow expansion would lead to increased noise levels and around 6 million additional tonnes of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere each year. The UK cannot properly tackle the climate crisis if we continue to expand our airports, especially when we should be promoting greener transport.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Olney]

Very briefly.

[Hannah Bardell]

I promise this is my last intervention. On the point of greener transport, does the hon. Member agree that freight flights, which are particularly noisy and polluting, should especially be banned at night? We discovered in studies and the work we did in my constituency that they were the noisiest and most problematic. We are all compelled to look for alternatives, as is the aircraft industry.

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Member is particularly right on that. Where particular types of flight are known to be noisier, there should be additional restrictions. Members listening to the scale of disruption caused by night flights might wonder why they are still allowed to continue, and that is precisely the question to which I am seeking an answer.

Heathrow bosses have argued that night flights are vital to the UK economy, but there is a serious lack of evidence to back that up. The Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise and other campaigners’ groups have argued that the economic benefit of night flights is exaggerated. Heathrow claims that the direct benefit of night flights operating at Heathrow was £325 million in 2011, supporting 6,300 jobs, but its estimates are based on a report that expands the definition of jobs supported by night flights significantly and includes the many day workers who clock in before 6 am.

The positive economic benefits of night flights are not certain. Researchers at CE Delft found that a ban on night flights would only harm the national economy if none of the passengers who currently arrive on scheduled flights before 6 am were transferred to other flights. There is simply not enough data at present to claim that night flying is essential to the UK economy. The studies we have are more than 10 years old and have not taken into account the changes to the aviation sector since the pandemic.

London is one of the most overflown capital cities in the world. Millions of people across the city experience the negative impacts of night flights, such as on their health, sleep quality and mental wellbeing. What my constituents really need is a complete ban on flights between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am. That is the only way to prevent continued disturbance. Despite the vast amount of disruption caused by night flights, no independent analysis has ever been conducted to show the impact of night flights on London’s health, economy or society. If the Government refuse to legislate to ban night flights, they must at least look at tightening the current restrictions, to limit the human impact on local communities.

For the Government to make an informed decision, we need accurate, independent data on the negative impacts that these flights have on the surrounding communities, as well as the supposed economic benefits. Will the Government commit to commissioning a full independent analysis on the impact of night flights? The Department for Transport must listen to the concerns of local communities and take those into account to devise a night flights policy that works for both residents and the aviation sector.

I would like to take a moment to thank the Members who attended the debate and have added so much emphasis to what I wanted to say.

Motor Insurance: Court Judgments

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking. This is in line with current Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. As a result of votes earlier, the debate will go on until 5.45 pm, notwithstanding any votes that we may have during this debate.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of recent court judgments on the cost of motor insurance.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Bardell. I would also like to warmly welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), to her role. I am sure that she is going to be a great success.

Today, I want to make the case for the removal of the EU rules contained in the European Court of Justice judgment in the case of Damijan Vnuk v. Zava rovalnica Triglav d.d. I would like to thank my constituent Robert Rams and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau for alerting me to this problem and providing some very helpful briefing information.

Mr Vnuk was the victim of an accident involving a reversing tractor inside a barn in a farmyard in Slovenia. He took his compensation claim to the European Court of Justice. In the United Kingdom, an incident of this nature would be covered by our compulsory employer’s liability insurance regime, but not all EU member states have such a scheme to protect employees in the workplace. In its 2014 judgment, the ECJ therefore shoehorned Mr Vnuk’s compensation claim into the EU’s motor insurance law. In doing so, it extended the scope of compulsory motor insurance to accidents on private land involving a very broad range of vehicles—essentially, anything with wheels and a motor that does not run on rails, no matter where it is used or for what purpose. This is manifestly different from the compulsory motor insurance requirement in the Road Traffic Act 1988, which applies to vehicles that are permitted to be used on our streets and roads.

The UK’s approach to compulsory motor insurance has been consistent since the 1930s. It is proportionate and it works. However, Vnuk had direct effect in EU law, and that means that it forms part of the retained EU law imported on to our domestic statute book via the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As a result of cases in the UK courts, such as Lewis v. Tindale, the UK’s compensation fund for people injured by uninsured drivers is now obliged to pay out in the circumstances covered by the Vnuk judgment.

The UK compensation fund is run by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, and every driver who takes to our roads funds the scheme through their motor insurance premiums. The combined effect of the Vnuk and Lewis cases and the 2018 Act is that the scheme is now having to bear very significant costs for which it was never designed, and motorists are left picking up the bill. Let us be clear about what we are talking about here: accidents on private land, in private gardens, in farmer’s fields, on golf courses, inside supermarkets, in banks or in offices—the list is long. These are places where what has happened, or even the fact that anything occurred at all, will often be difficult to establish with any clarity, and that gives rise to worrying opportunities for fraud. The extension of compulsory insurance to motor sport is a further side effect of the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers]

It would indeed be most unfortunate, and I am grateful to all the hon. Members who are here to make such points on the need to resolve this issue because of the potential pressure on household budgets.

In a column in The Daily Telegraph, the Prime Minister —in the years before he became Prime Minister, of course—described Vnuk as the “perfect example” of the over-regulation that had

“sapped the competitiveness of the EU and burdened it with low growth and high unemployment.”

He continued:

“There is no need, no call, no demand, no appetite, no reason, no justification, not even the shred of the beginnings of a case—in the United Kingdom—for this kind of pointless and expensive burden on millions of people.”

Against that background. it would have been reasonable to expect the Government to remove the effects of Vnuk from UK law once the transition period ended. There is nothing to prevent them. Under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, a simple piece of primary legislation is needed to make the change. In a February press release, the Transport Secretary said that his Department intended to do just that, adding that he was delighted to announce that we no longer needed to implement Vnuk.

Sadly, since then, not a great deal appears to have happened. Nothing on this was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech in May. In late June, the Transport Secretary did issue a written ministerial statement, which is welcome. In it, he said that delivering the commitment announced in February was a priority and that the Government would follow the passage of the private Member’s Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough “with interest”.

As we have heard, my hon. Friend’s Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill would deliver the legislative change we need. I very much welcome the Bill and urge Hon Members to support it when it returns to the House on 22 October. I gather that the Department for Transport has advised on the drafting of the Bill, so hopefully, as the Prime Minister might say, it is oven ready.

I hope this debate will give the Bill some momentum and reassure hon. Members who follow Friday business with care that the issues it seeks to address have received proper scrutiny in this House. However, as everyone here today will understand, a presentation Bill of this nature almost never gets the parliamentary time it needs to reach the statute book. It takes an extraordinary amount of good fortune and a very fair wind for such a Bill to make any progress at all. In the Sessions from 2010 to 2019, 470 presentation Bills were tabled and only six became the law of the land. I am afraid a Government Bill is needed, along with adequate parliamentary time set aside for it to be debated and passed, perhaps as part of a wider regulatory reform Bill going through Parliament. As yet, there is no sign of that happening.

Meanwhile, even as this rather sorry state of affairs in Westminster persists, the irony is that Brussels has been working on a package of changes to EU law that would remove the most extreme effects of the Vnuk case. The rapporteur of the European Parliament described the case as an example of “absurd over-regulation”. The changes have been approved by the Council of Ministers and apparently passed by the European Parliament, so their entry into effect would appear to be fairly imminent. When that happens, we could face the bizarre situation where the UK is forced, by its own law, to continue to apply that absurd over-regulation because its effect was frozen into our legal system as retained EU law at the end of the transition period. In the meantime, the EU has taken action to mitigate the problem, relieving its own motorists of the unfair cost burdens the case imposes.

I do not think that that is what taking back control should look like. Now we have left the European Union and regained the power to make our own laws in this country, we need to use our new freedoms wisely to build a regulatory system that is more proportionate, more agile, more adaptable and better suited to our domestic circumstances here in the UK.

Earlier this year, I was asked by the Prime Minister to be part of his taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform. The report we published contains a series of ideas for how the Government can create a modern regulatory framework that is based on core principles of domestic common law and that facilitates both innovation and competition. There are huge economic benefits to be realised if we do that, particularly in the high-growth, high-tech sectors of the future. Last week, it was encouraging to hear the Paymaster General outline the Government’s plans to do that in response to the TIGRR report, and the Minister responsible for EU relations, Lord Frost, is to be commended for the proposed regulatory reforms in the paper he circulated on the same day. However, one of the key barriers he faces is the fact that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 means that retained EU law can, in the main, only be amended or repealed using primary legislation. The Vnuk controversy shows that we urgently need a faster track way to remove or update EU laws that no longer work for us, most of which arrived on the statute book via secondary legislation in the first place.

My message today to the Minister and to the Government is that we need to get on with tackling the Vnuk problem. I urge them to take action now to put things right and remove the case from UK law. That will mean bringing forward their own Bill in Government time so that we can make repealing Vnuk a demonstrable benefit of leaving the European Union and regaining the historic right to make our own laws in our own Parliament once again.

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

I will seek to call Opposition spokespeople by 5.23 pm and the SNP and Labour spokespeople will have five minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I may say to my right hon. Friend, who is a very good friend of mine, that that is a very welcome piece of news, because this is exactly what happened in the case of the International Development (Gender Equality) Act. What happened was that the Clerks in the House were sitting there with bated breath to hear whether anyone was going to object, because all that has to be done on such an occasion is simply for any Member to object. It does not have to be a Whip; it can be any Member of the House. On that occasion, we got down to about No. 17 or 18 on the list—wherever I was. There was complete silence, and the Bill went through. That is what can happen, and I therefore strongly agree with what my right hon. Friends the Members for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) and for Chipping Barnet have said. I think this is a potential opportunity.

I was very interested in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said regarding the question of what the EU was up to at that stage. I am speaking as the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, and we shall keep an eye of these matters. We also propose reports, bring forward suggestions and inform the House accordingly in Hansard and so forth. On 30 June 2021, as my right hon. Friend said, the European Commission announced a decision to waive the requirement for UK drivers to show a motor insurance green card when entering the European Union. The decision needs to be fully implemented through publication in the official journal, and there is a waiting period of 20 days, so in the short term green cards are still needed.

The point I want to make is that on 29 June, the Transport Secretary published a ministerial statement, along the lines that my right hon. Friend mentioned, on the motor insurance directive—removal of Vnuk, in other words. It states the Government’s commitment, which the Minister announced on the Floor of the House:

“To remove the effects of the…ruling in the Vnuk case from GB law.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2021; Vol. 698, c. 8WS.]

Putting two and two together, if the Minister has said that the Government intend to remove the effects of it, and we have also the opportunity through the private Member’s Bill, and we know it is precedented for the Government to take the action I have described, I see the potential for a fair wind for this. That will be a tribute, not only to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, who has spoken today, but also my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough.

I would like to touch on the principles that underpin the issue of EU retained law. I will outline it by saying that the issue of EU retained law in this context arises partly in relation to the Road Traffic Act 1988, which has not yet been amended to comply with the European Court of Justice decision. Legislative change is necessary, as my right hon. Friend has said, to bring clarity on the matter, given that pre-exit European Court of Justice case law is now part of UK domestic law, as retained EU case law.

Given that, what is going to happen next? I will give a description of the extent, nature and depth of what my right hon. Friend for Chipping Barnet has rightly put forward, in one instance, with huge financial consequences, with the EU going into reverse, and the absurdity of our being in a position where the EU deals with it in its legislation and we are stuck with it in ours. I am now going to address the question of where I think the Government’s navigation should go.

In June 2016, just before the referendum, I was responsible for bringing forward a Bill that set out the basis on which the legislation after we won the referendum—as I was confident we would do—could be dealt with. There is a huge body of legislation, some of which I will refer to in general in a few minutes. Given the scale of the problem, the best thing to do was to deem all EU law as part of UK law, so that at least we grabbed hold of it as a whole, then we could deal with it on a piecemeal basis.

My Bill was one and a half pages long. The Bill we ended up confronting under the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), went far further and more regressively—if that is not a contradiction in terms—than was necessary, by incorporating the whole concept of EU retained law and the principles of EU law. With it came the assertion in section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 that the courts, if they wish to do so, given the circumstances of a case, would be enabled to quash any Acts of Parliament, if inconsistent with the judgments that they came to in interpreting the issues before them.

That is all very well, but those of us who are acquainted with the manner in which EU law was implemented under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, know very well that the Factortame case was the example above all others where the whole of the fishing industry was thrown into chaos, with Spanish fishermen invading our waters. The issue in question turned on the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. I remember saying to the Attorney General at the time that I thought it was a very unwise business for them to do introduce that Act, unless they put at the beginning, “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972.” Had they done that, then the judgment in Factortame, which struck down the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, could not have taken place because the courts would have been under an obligation to comply with the provisions of the Act, which would have said notwithstanding the Act of Parliament in question, the UK could legislate on its own account.

I referred to section 38(2) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which specifically contains the words “notwithstanding” and “direct effect”. It is notwithstanding the direct effect of any provisions that are on the statute book as part of EU retained law, and it enables us to override the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act and, some may care to note, the Northern Ireland protocol. So, the law is in place.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet indicated, it can be done by primary legislation. I am just adding a bit of flavour as to how it came about and how it can be done. I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and what he said in the context of the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough.

I turn to the question of the absurd situation identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and what the Prime Minister said about it some time ago, using very strong language. If it was an absurd position before he was Prime Minister, it is doubly so now, and that is why we need to tackle it. The intention behind the grandfathering, as it is called, in EU retained law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is making a very flavourful, detailed and interesting speech, but I gently remind him that we are trying to stick as best we can to the specific topic of the effect of the court judgment on the cost of motor insurance. He is giving us a very interesting tour of his knowledge of EU retained law, but I gently remind him of the topic.

[Sir William Cash]

I am very glad that you mention that, Ms Bardell. I am not giving a tour of my knowledge; I am giving a tour of the answer to the question that is before the Chamber at the moment. It is the only way it can be dealt with. The remedy is there, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has said.

I will pursue this point for a short few minutes, because it is really important to get this on record. The objective of the grandfathering of EU retained law was to maximise continuity and stability following our withdrawal, without an express commitment to keep this anomalous category of law on the statute books indefinitely. There are ambiguities in all this and they have to be resolved as well. As I have indicated, the most dangerous situation would be if the concept of EU supremacy continued to apply, notwithstanding what I have said.

We have one directive here. I can assure you, Ms Bardell, that the House of Commons Library briefing paper No. 08136, published in November 2017, identified up to 20,000 EU laws that fall into this category. Forgive me if I make the point again, but it is important that people understand the scale of the problem and the fact that it can easily be remedied. About 900 directives are in force, almost all of which apply to the UK, which are not generally retained, and there are 12,484 regulations, around 7,000 of which were incorporated in the UK as

“the amended legislation is considered as one with the legislation amending it”.

There are 7,000 EU decisions, which are converted through the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act and apply to the UK. That also includes European court judgments and case law before exit date, converted to UK law as retained EU case law.

I am now Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, having been on the Committee for 38 years, with my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay). I can assure the Chamber that there is a very easy way to achieve this, but it is a complicated political manoeuvre, which is now under consideration by the Government. These laws were passed under qualified majority vote, as was the ports directive, for example, which I believe is now on the execution block for the same reason. It was done by qualified majority voting behind closed doors, and much of the legislation that emerged out of the Single European Act is stuff that we would never have implemented ourselves.

In a nutshell, this is a serious matter. It raises questions of sovereignty and the role of the courts, and it raises practical questions of the scale that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has referred to. One incident she mentioned would cost the British taxpayer £1 billion. That is the scale of the necessity to get this right. I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister. She and I have got to know one another very well over the past few years and I am delighted that she has got the job.

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. We will now move to the Front-Bench speeches. I call the SNP spokesperson, Alan Brown.

Thomas Cook

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

The hon. Lady is right. I was made aware of this scam yesterday, and it is absolutely disgusting that it could happen at this time. We have issued messages through things such as Neighbourhood Watch’s Online Watch Link email system, which the hon. Lady will be familiar with, telling people to be on the lookout for these sorts of scams; obviously, to someone who did not actually even have a holiday booked, it is absolutely ridiculous.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

My constituent, Mr Boland, lost his wife Elizabeth last year in Cuba on a Thomas Cook holiday. It now turns out that the cause of death was wrong on the death certificate, and for the last year I have been trying to get Thomas Cook to investigate the issue properly and to give due compensation. In the past day, I have been told that the company will not investigate because it has gone under and that the case is closed. I am sorry, but this is not good enough for my constituent. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the issue?

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I am pleased to say that I have been cycling this week, so I do not think it is just the brave who are going cycling. The average number of miles cycled per person has increased by 54% since 2002. The number of trips cycled has remained between 14 and 18 for the last 16 years, however, and we are putting massive investment into this area and will continue to do so.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

4. What steps he is taking to prepare UK ports for when the UK leaves the EU.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

11. What steps he is taking to prepare UK ports for when the UK leaves the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The UK port sector is resilient and flexible, and is well placed to adapt successfully in preparation for Brexit. My Department continues to work with the border delivery group to ensure that trade continues with minimum friction at UK ports. The Government shall take all steps necessary to ensure that vital goods continue to flow into the country when the UK leaves the EU, and we continue to liaise closely with the devolved Administrations.

[Hannah Bardell]

Last month we learned that the National Audit Office warned the Transport Secretary in advance that there was a high likelihood of a successful legal challenge regarding the no-deal ferry contracts, which directly contradicts his previous responses on the subject, so when will he admit culpability and apologise for this reckless action, which has resulted in a hefty bill for the taxpayer?

[Ms Ghani]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady needs to look again at the notes that have been placed in her hand, because she has contradicted herself in that statement. It is absolutely right and proper for the Government to prepare for no deal, and that was exactly what we did to ensure that vital goods got into the country in case of a no-deal.

Offshore Helicopter Safety

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham]

We should look at all the evidence relating to helicopters. That is why I am seeking a public inquiry to examine all the issues, to ensure that we come to the right conclusions and can plan a way forward. I have flown in offshore helicopters—I was not an offshore worker; I worked in public relations for the gas industry. I admire anybody and everybody who steps on to a helicopter, because it can be an uncomfortable time.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The detail of the hon. Gentleman’s speech is fascinating and very important. Does he agree that any worker going offshore must have confidence in their colleagues and their company that the helicopter in which they are travelling will keep them safe, and that they should not be put in a position where their health and safety is put below company profits?

[Alex Cunningham]

There is no doubt that that must be the case. As I said, I have flown on these machines myself. I wanted to be assured that everything was good. When I went, there was a group of us, and because we were inexperienced—we had never been offshore before—we had a safety man sitting next to each and every one of us to reassure us and to help us through the journey. It is critical that people have that confidence. However, people are turning up time and again to fly offshore only to be told, “Sorry, you can’t go now. There are technical issues.” Four hours later, they are given a lunch voucher, and told, “Sorry, there are still technical issues.” That does not build confidence among those who have to work offshore.

The Government rejected the Select Committee’s recommendation, and claimed that there was no evidence to support the assertions about commercial pressure and offshore helicopter safety that had persuaded the Committee to make the recommendation. Yet trade unions on the offshore helicopter safety leadership group tell me that discussion of the CAP 1145 recommendation has gone nowhere because the contractors will not jeopardise their commercial relationship with the oil and gas companies.

I am told that the CAA sits on the offshore helicopter safety leadership group—quite a mouthful—but does not take a proactive role in trying to move that issue along and to tackle the core confidence issues affecting the workforce. To my knowledge, the OHSLG has yet to take concrete action to rein the oil companies in, although I am advised that the industry is looking at a draft principle in Oil & Gas UK’s supply chain code of practice that would state:

“Contract cancellations should not be without good reason or cause. If an operator or contractor must have the ability to terminate a contract then the circumstance or risk should be outlined, explained and understood—not hidden.”

To me, that smacks of self-regulation, and is simply not good enough in such an unbalanced customer-contractor relationship. The helicopter operators are not even signatories to the existing supply chain code of practice, so they are not even within scope of the industry’s self-regulatory framework. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response to that problem, and to know what he plans to do to give teeth to some parts of the regulatory chain.

Successive surveys of offshore workers have found helicopter safety to be their No. 1 concern. Even an Airbus survey in 2017 found that 63% of offshore workers would not travel in a Super Puma again if they had the choice. That fundamental lack of choice is all the more reason for the UK Government to commission an independent inquiry into offshore helicopter safety, covering the up-to-date safety record of all offshore helicopter models; international comparisons; workforce engagement; the overall North sea helicopter market; contractual relationships, including commercial pressures; and the regulatory framework.

What is happening to bolster confidence among the workforce? Step Change in Safety has relaunched its helicopter safety awareness courses for offshore workers to attend, but they are via webinars with helicopter pilots from the main operators. Helpful though that is, it is a relaunch of existing courses and does not chime with the industry and regulatory mantra of “safety is our No. 1 priority”. In fact, it suggests a hierarchy of safety issues, with helicopter safety a secondary concern that is best dealt with by communications between pilots and their passengers.

Such an approach to passenger safety could never be contemplated in any other area of the aviation industry, and for good reason. The RMT, Unite, GMB, the British Airline Pilots Association and Nautilus formed the offshore co-ordinating group in 2015 to streamline demands and activities in the offshore oil and gas industry and the associated supply chain to work for positive change. We have to welcome that sort of work.

The ongoing financial viability of the UK continental shelf’s remaining 10 billion to 20 billion barrels of oil reserves—a core aim of Government policy—is intrinsically linked to the commercial fortunes and safety of helicopter operations in the North sea. Yet there is little evidence to suggest that that link is included in the high-level discussions in industry to set standards for commercial contracts in the sector, especially in helicopter transport. I remain very concerned about workers’ lack of confidence in the CAA and others who are responsible for their safety. In fact, workers’ confidence in offshore safety has been declining over the last decade, demonstrating that the measures of the regulator and the Government have not been successful in allaying workers’ fears and concerns.

After the Turøy tragedy—I hope I pronounced that correctly—the CAA, along with its Norwegian counterpart, grounded the aircraft type, in a move that was supported by the European Aviation Safety Agency and trade unions across the North sea. The Accident Investigation Board Norway began its investigation shortly afterwards, but before it could produce a detailed report, the EASA summarily lifted the restrictions on the Super Pumas in October 2016, with next to no explanation to the workforce or their trade unions. The UK and Norway’s respective civil aviation authorities did the right thing and opted to keep the restrictions in place, despite the EASA’s incredibly hasty decision.

By 2017, there were threats of lawsuits in the US against Airbus by helicopter companies because of the differing regulatory approach to the Super Pumas in the North sea. In July 2017, an extraordinary meeting of the OHSLG was announced, albeit at short notice. That was quickly followed by a briefing note explaining that the meeting was being called to discuss a decision on the Super Puma and a CAA-embargoed press release announcing that restrictions on the H225 and the AS332L2 aircraft were being lifted. That action was taken despite the fact that the AIBN was still conducting its investigations and would not produce its final report for another year.

Some suspect that commercial pressures affected the decision to reissue airworthiness certificates. Whether such pressures took the form of the Super Puma manufacturer Airbus lobbying at European level or the threat of legal action from the European Free Trade Association against the UK and Norwegian Governments, I cannot say, but the Minister must look into the matter because it is bringing the regulatory framework into disrepute.

Airbus appears to have completely washed its hands of the North sea Super Puma issue. In February 2018, it told a meeting of the British offshore oil and gas industry all-party parliamentary group that it was preparing to hold town hall-style meetings with offshore workers in spring and summer 2018 to address the core confidence issues. Those meetings with the workforce did not take place.

After many years of working on this policy area—during which time the oil and gas industry, the Government and the regulators have all repeatedly testified to their commitment to high safety standards for offshore workers and offshore helicopter fleet crew—I can see limited effective work going on to tackle the core confidence issues. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that he will take action and seriously consider a public inquiry, so that the confidence of the people who do the jobs that drive a large slice of our nation’s wealth will be restored.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) very warmly on obtaining this debate

The hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) spoke about the importance of the oil and gas industry to north-east Scotland and to my constituency of Orkney and Shetland. He is absolutely right. He also spoke about the safety culture in the industry, and he is right about that as well. However, it is sensible for us all to remember why that safety culture is as it is. Let us not forget that it was the Piper Alpha tragedy and the inquiry that followed, conducted by Lord Cullen, that really brought that culture right back to where it needed to be. The danger is that the further away we get from an incident like that, the more likely people are to forget the reasons why we have the rules that we do.

As the hon. Member for Stockton North said, there is a lack of confidence among the North sea workforce about helicopter safety. Whether that is right or wrong, justified or not, there is no escaping that fact. It is a legitimate question for us parliamentarians to ask what can be done to restore that.

The oil and gas industry in the North sea and to the west of Shetland is absolutely crucial to the continuing growth and performance of our economy. The effective and safe operation of helicopters within that industry is absolutely central to it. I still have concerns about whether a public inquiry is the best way forward. My principal concern relates to my experience of the 2013 crash of the Super Puma off Sumburgh Head at the south end of Shetland; I was the constituency MP, although the four people killed were not constituents of mine. They came from different parts of the United Kingdom, from Inverness all the way down to Winchester.

It is surely unacceptable that five and a half years after that tragic accident, the families have still not had the closure that they will get from a fatal accident inquiry. This is not an isolated incident; the fatal accident inquiry on the Super Puma that crashed about 240 km to the north-east of Peterhead in 2009 was not held until 2013—more than four years after the accident. We are now at five and a half years, and we do not yet know whether there will be criminal proceedings or a fatal accident inquiry. As the deaths took place in the course of employment, holding a fatal accident inquiry is mandatory, unless criminal proceedings are to be held.

One of the elements of delay relates to the work of the air accidents investigation branch. I understand why the AAIB runs its business as it does, and why it is important that it is able to get information from witnesses in a way that will get to the truth of the matter as far as safety and technical issues are concerned, and that the integrity of the AAIB is protected in that way, but the police service in Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which is ultimately responsible for making decisions on criminal proceedings or a fatal accident inquiry, do not start their work until the AAIB has completed and published its final report. The report on the 2013 accident at Sumburgh Head was not finally published until March 2016. It is getting on for three years since then.

In my correspondence with the Lord Advocate in Scotland, he tells me that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service had to raise legal proceedings in order to get the data from the voice and flight data recorder from the AAIB. I understand the need to keep the integrity of the AAIB work intact, but we are dealing here with two public bodies, both broadly charged with the same responsibilities—public safety, investigation and prosecution of crime, and the investigation of deaths in the course of employment. Surely there is a better way than having one public body take another public body to court to get access to relevant evidence.

[Hannah Bardell]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is outrageous that families are left having to wait so long? I appreciate that there are many reasons for that, but the work of the AAIB must be done in conjunction and collaboration with other bodies, and it should not thwart any proceedings by the Crown. Families who have suffered deserve better.

[Mr Carmichael]

I agree with the hon. Lady up to a point. There will be occasions when it is absolutely crucial that the AAIB should proceed in the way that it is doing. It should not insist on proceeding in that way on every occasion, instead of exercising a measure of judgment and discretion about the information that can be shared at any stage with the police, the Procurator Fiscal Service and Crown counsel; that would indicate that we had two public bodies that were focusing solely on their work, rather than on the interests of the families.

The only people not given proper consideration in this process are the families. It is unacceptable that those families still do not know whether there are to be criminal proceedings or a fatal accident inquiry, five and a half years after the deaths of their loved ones. That does not allow them the closure that they absolutely deserve and need. That goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Stockton North about a public inquiry. When the sheriff has made his or her determination, there almost certainly will be a fatal accident inquiry, which will have the opportunity to make recommendations, and which might involve issues that would be appropriate for a public inquiry, but unless and until we get to the stage of having the FAI, we simply do not know that.

I hope that the Minister has heard what I have said about the work of the AAIB, and I hope that the Lord Advocate and those in the Crown Office in Edinburgh have heard. Even though they did not get to the starting line until March 2016, the fact that in February 2019 we still have no final determination from Crown counsel suggests to me that the Crown Office is also not beyond a measure of criticism. I know about fatal accident inquiries—I worked for three years in the Procurator Fiscal Service many years ago—and I know they are technical and difficult cases that require thorough preparation, but it is getting on for three years now; surely to goodness there is enough to bring a case to court, or at the very least for a decision about which course of action will be pursued.

We are at the point when all those charged with investigation and prosecution in the system need to take a long, hard look at what they do and how they do it. They should give more consideration to the families of those who have suffered in these tragedies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

At the outset of my comments, Sir Henry, I want to declare an interest. On the evening of Friday 23 August 2013, I was employed by Stork Technical Services and was part of the emergency response team that responded to the accident off the coast of Shetland. My colleague Gary McCrossan from Inverness was one of those who died in the accident, along with Duncan Munro from Bishop Auckland, Sarah Darnley from Elgin, and George Allison from Winchester. I have not spoken about this publicly since then, other than a few times briefly, but that evening is etched in my memory and I will never forget the events of the days after. The response by the emergency services and by the company I worked for was absolutely exemplary. When dealing with such an incident, it is important to reflect on the experience inside a company and what it can be like.

In the three years that I worked in the oil and gas sector before I came to this place, I had on many occasions been through emergency response drills. In the previous company I had worked for, Subsea 7, I had had the opportunity to work in one of the best emergency response facilities, so in many respects I was well prepared. I also spent three years in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark), working for his predecessor. I had dealt with many distressed families in many difficult emergency situations, but I do not think anything prepared me for the experiences of that evening.

I pay tribute to the emergency response teams who responded that evening, and to Gordon Craig, who is still the chaplain for the offshore industry; he gave a huge amount of support to the families affected, and also to the staff who responded. Sadly, because of previous accidents in the North sea, there was a huge amount of experience and support from within the industry on the day following the accident. Today we are looking at whether there needs to be a public inquiry. I say to all the policy makers here and in Scotland that we need a balance, and to consider all aspects of what companies do for profit and how they treat their staff, as the hon. Member for Gordon highlighted.

I was getting into the bath that evening with a glass of wine. Before I had put the wine to my mouth, my phone rang. I got out of the bath, and I was asked to come to work. There were about 15 of us around the table. We were largely sitting and waiting for information and pulling together responses. We were taking calls from family members who had seen the news about a helicopter ditching, but did not know which platform their loved one was on. Because of the nature of social media and the speed at which news now moves, it became a process of elimination; we did not know the names of those who had been killed even when those who had survived were getting off the helicopter. I remember sitting with another colleague, with a picture of Gary, and trying to identify whether he was among those getting off the helicopter who had survived.

Eventually the call came from Total. It was the Borgsten Dolphin platform operated by CHC that the workers had been working on. The response and support was exceptional. Total did an excellent job of including colleagues from the company that I worked for, and made sure we had the relevant support and information. A decision was made that evening that I and a colleague from the human resources team would drive overnight to stay in the highlands and meet Gary’s family the next day. They were an incredible group of people. Although I do not have personal contact with them anymore, I want to pay tribute to the McCrossan family, and to the families of all those who have lost loved ones in not only this accident, but other accidents. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) rightly pointed out that they are still waiting for answers. It is a matter of deep regret that they are five and a half years on and still no further forward in finding out what happened.

We now have an industry that is incredibly resilient and has done a huge amount of work to engage with the workforce, yet it still does not have confidence in Super Puma helicopters. We have to consider carefully how the engagement happens. In the days and months after that tragic accident, I worked with many staff who worked both onshore and offshore. I saw the challenges of teams trying to resource jobs offshore with big operators; there were significant pressures. Safety is absolutely everyone’s No. 1 priority. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, the further away we get from the Piper Alpha accident of 1988, the further away we get from remembering how devastating some of these accidents can be. Just as that was a turning point for health and safety offshore, so was the accident on 23 August in terms of helicopter safety.

When the Government consider this issue—I know that the Scottish National party Government in Scotland are also considering this issue—I hope that they consult families. What consultation has the Minister had with families and the workforce? There is no better way to understand an issue than to speak to those who work in companies and organisations. In the aftermath of that accident, there was a huge amount of regulation and many changes, from the size of escape routes to a reduced number of passengers. I spoke to some guys who worked offshore who told me about their experiences of flying. Perhaps they would be seated next to someone at a window who was a lot bigger than them. They would literally fear for their life; they had fears not only around mechanical failures, but around whether they would be able to escape from the helicopter.

We have to remember that helicopter is the only way to get to most offshore installations. At the time, many other options were looked at. Boats were considered, but fixed-wing planes are obviously not an option; helicopters were clearly the only one. It was not the way it is for the rest of us, who get on a plane, bus or train to come to London. Helicopters are literally the only way for offshore workers to get to their place of employment.

The Step Change in Safety helicopter safety leadership group, led by Les Linklater, continues to do an incredible power of work, and although in the past few years, since being elected, I have got further away from that work—and there is obviously limited interest in the oil and gas sector in Livingston—I have kept in touch with many of those I was involved with, who did such incredible work. That is why I take a particular interest in today’s debate and what happens next. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the scope for a public inquiry, and at whether that is possible and would be the right thing. I take the point that there are strong views on both sides, and that my Scottish Government colleagues will also have engaged extensively with the workforce. However, the bottom line is that families have lost loved ones, and many still do not understand why. There is a list in the Library briefing of the many accidents.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I am keen to call two more Back-Bench Members to speak, so if she could wrap up her remarks, I should be grateful.

[Hannah Bardell]

Absolutely, Sir Henry. I hope that the Minister will consider my request, and engage with the families.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

As my hon. Friend will know, we have discussed this at some considerable length over a long period. The matter currently rests with discussions with Northamptonshire County Council, but we are pushing ahead as fast as we can on it.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

T6. Following December’s fiasco at Gatwick airport, the Secretary of State displayed his characteristic Midas touch when he said on Monday: “The Government are taking action to ensure that passengers can have confidence that their journeys will not be disrupted in future”.—[Official Report, 7 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 101.]Twenty-four hours later, Heathrow passengers found themselves having their flights suspended following another drone sighting. When can passengers expect this promised action to have the desired effect?

[Chris Grayling]

First, let us be clear: there is no perfect, off-the-shelf system available to airports that will simply deal with this problem overnight. I pay tribute to those in the police and the military, and across government, who responded so quickly to the Heathrow problem, ensuring that the runway was closed for a very short length of time, and to the team at Heathrow who did the same.

Edinburgh Airport: Flight Paths

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Thank you for granting this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, which has taken on a completely different aspect from the one it had when I originally applied. I appreciate that it is on an issue of importance to communities across Scotland and elsewhere who live in the proximity of their local airport or the flight path, but it has a particular resonance for my constituents, who live closest to Edinburgh airport and would argue that they are most affected by the flight path and aircraft noise.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I appreciate that the hon. Lady has just started her speech and I congratulate her on securing this important debate. She will know that, at the beginning of my time in this place, nearly three years ago, I secured a similar debate. Does she appreciate that about 75% of Edinburgh airport’s aircraft go over my constituency? I would therefore argue that my constituents are as affected as hers, if not more affected.

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention; I was going to come on to say that although my constituents who live directly around the airport are affected, I appreciate that communities are affected right across not only Lothian but Fife and as far as Falkirk.

This issue is also vital to the airport itself, which is not only a gateway to Edinburgh and Scotland, but increasingly a gateway to the UK from the United States, Europe, the middle east and, most recently, China. It is one of the biggest employers in my constituency and is a lynchpin of both the local and Scottish economies. It is, though, important to ensure a balance between what is good for jobs and our economy and the welfare of those communities that live side-by-side with the airport or under its flight path. We all know that the operation of airports inevitably impacts on surrounding residents, who have to put up with the high level of noise created by the aircraft.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am sure that noise issues affect all our constituents. We all hear a great many concerns about that. As we become more connected to each other—not just within the House, but the different parts of the UK—the impacts of aviation must be recognised and mitigated in consultation with those affected most.

As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, by coincidence this debate is now particularly timeous. Originally, I was motivated by a call on the Secretary of State to call in the decision, against which I had a great many representations from my constituents. However, just this afternoon, the Civil Aviation Authority announced that it was rejecting the airport’s new flight path proposals, creating a completely different scenario for this debate. For Edinburgh airport, it is a tough blow, but for many of the communities that have endured two or three—as the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said—years of consultations and campaigning, and more consultations and concerns, it is a disappointment at a time when it seemed to many of them that a solution might be at hand.

[Hannah Bardell]

On that specific point, although my constituents may be of a different view about today’s decision, I am sure that they and the hon. Lady will agree that it is vital to have a proper process and a proper legislative framework, as proposed by the Davies report on the third runway at Heathrow. The fact the airports have been allowed to spend money, consult communities and disrupt their lives outside of a proper regulatory framework is the key issue at hand. Her constituents, like mine, have been disadvantaged because a proper framework has not been put in place. Does she agree that we have to make sure that one is put in place, and that it happens soon?

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. The need for a framework and for a way to ensure that it is done properly and that we do not have the technical problems and technicalities that have beset this process is important to everyone present in the Chamber. It is important to those who live around not just Edinburgh airport, but Gatwick, Heathrow, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness and every airport in the UK.

For my constituents in Cramond in particular, today’s decision will mean further frustrating delays before they know whether they will benefit from hard work done by themselves and other communities with the airport to find a workable solution. People everywhere affected by this issue need to know where they stand, which is where due process comes in. What will happen now to the flight path proposals and will something be done to control the way that these proposals are made and pursued in future?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing this important debate on the flight paths at Edinburgh airport. As the airport is in her constituency, I understand that this is a matter of considerable concern to her, both positively, in favour of supporting the airport, and negatively, in favour of supporting the constituents who are affected.

Let me start by talking about the general status of the aviation sector and the airport in general, and then we can focus on the decision reached today and its effect on the hon. Lady’s constituents. I do not need to remind the House that the aviation sector brings enormous benefits to this country. My Department seeks to balance the economic effects of those benefits against the needs of communities affected by any adverse environmental impacts, ensuring that those impacts are properly taken into account.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the Minister expand on the specific proposal for an independent aviation noise authority, as per the Davies report? The proposal in the most recent Government consultation was for that organisation to be at arm’s length from the Civil Aviation Authority, but my understanding is that that is not the best practice example. The Minister’s point about the balance between communities and business is important, but we cannot have airports being the last arbiters on their own aviation noise. That is not good for communities and not good for business.

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady has done a great job of crowbarring a much wider issue into a quite narrowly focused discussion about the flight paths into Edinburgh airport, but I can reassure her that the new agency, which is in the process of being set up, will have plenty of influence over the Government and its chair is being selected as we speak.

Edinburgh is the busiest airport in Scotland—we recognise that—and sixth busiest in the UK. In 2017, it handled over 128,000 aircraft movements and over 13 million passengers, representing 5% and 9% growth respectively on the previous year. At the same time, the airport facilitated the movement of over 20,000 tonnes of freight and 20,000 tonnes of airmail. In terms of connectivity, Edinburgh serves about 150 destinations. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West will know, this year a number of new routes have been established, including to Washington DC with United Airlines, to Beijing with Hainan Airlines and to Dubai with Emirates. A new service to Philadelphia with American Airlines is scheduled to start next April. That connectivity provides essential links for families, holidaymakers and businesses.

The airport plays a critical role not only for the local community, through jobs and investment, but for Scotland and the whole UK. Indeed, 5,000 people work at Edinburgh airport, many of whom will be the hon. Lady’s constituents. A study by BiGGAR Economics published in March 2016 found that Edinburgh airport contributes nearly £1 billion to the Scottish economy every year and supports more than 23,000 jobs across the country. The report predicted that by 2020 the airport will be worth between £1.1 billion and £1.6 billion gross value added per year and would be supporting not 23,000, but 40,300 Scottish jobs.

Across the UK, the sector as a whole directly supports over 230,000 jobs, with many more employed indirectly, and contributes around £20 billion annually to the UK economy, with an inbound tourism industry across the UK that is worth a further £19 billion. Scotland, of course, has benefited very much from this increased tourism. In recent years, overseas visitor numbers to Scotland have increased sharply to about 3.2 million people in 2016, spending an estimated £2.8 billion. Many of these visitors will have used Edinburgh airport as their gateway to Scotland. I am sure that that would be a pleasurable experience not merely for them but for all travellers, because the airport has been named both as airport of the year at the national transport awards in London earlier this month and as Scottish airport of the year at the Scottish transport awards in June.

[Jesse Norman]

Understandably, I am not going to comment on the process that has been involved because it is well laid out in statute and it is not appropriate for the Government to make comments specifically about the processes themselves. This is a devolved matter, of course, and one would expect the Scottish Government, working with the local communities involved and the local Members of Parliament, to put together a solution that has maximum benefit for the whole city, rather than seeking to beggar one’s neighbour by playing off one community against another. I think that mechanisms exist to address that.

[Hannah Bardell]

rose—

[Jesse Norman]

Unfortunately, I need to make some progress if I am to conclude this debate, so I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not give way. She has had a shot already and can hopefully have another later on if I can make some more progress.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West rightly congratulated the airport on the achievements that I mentioned. I think that hon. Members will join me in also congratulating the airport on these awards and recognising the importance of the airport to the local and wider community.

It is important to reassure the House that the Government recognise, as I have said, not just the economic benefits but the impact on communities that are overflown by aircraft—precisely the issue raised by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) in relation to the community in North Queensferry. That is why the Government’s policy, as set out in the aviation policy framework, is

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

Edinburgh, like all larger airports across the UK, is required, in accordance with its obligations under the environmental noise directive, to produce a noise action plan. The airport consulted on its latest plan earlier this year in relation to the period 2018-23. In its plan, the airport stresses its continued commitment to manage the impacts of aircraft noise and to engage with local communities. If it discharges the obligations that it has laid on itself, then that will hopefully go some way towards addressing the issues that have been raised.

A good example of the airport seeking to engage with those communities is the launch earlier this year of a new noise and track-keeping system that allows members of the public, via a web browser, to track aircraft and view noise monitor data, as well as to register noise complaints. We have seen at other airports the benefits that communities can derive from the use of these systems. While the UK Government do not set noise restrictions for Scottish airports, noise and airport policy being devolved, we do set the overall framework for airspace. It will be well known that these arrangements, historically, have been based on a set-up that is almost 50 years old. We believe that this architecture is inefficient and inadequate in today’s world and can lead to unnecessary delays for passengers and excessive impacts on the environment and on the communities around airports.

The UK is therefore progressing with a major modernisation of airspace over the coming decade. This is designed to improve the efficiency of our airspace through the use of new technology and procedures. An important by-product of that work should be to enable departing aircraft to climb more quickly out of the airport and arriving traffic to descend more continuously, with less reliance on the use of holding stacks—a more efficient and environmentally friendly means of getting to the airport.

There have also been important advances in aircraft technology, which have provided great improvements in the environmental performance of aircraft frame design and engines, in terms of both noise and carbon emissions. For example, new generation aircraft such as the Airbus A350 and Boeing 737 MAX have a noise footprint that is typically 50% smaller on departure and 30% smaller on arrival than the aircraft they are replacing, which has had an important effect on reducing the noise experienced on the ground.

As the House is aware, the Government have committed to the creation of an Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise, which the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) referred to. ICCAN will help to rebuild the trust lost in industry by communities and ensure that the noise impacts of airspace changes are properly considered, by giving communities a greater stake in noise management.

Looking ahead, the Department is also developing a new aviation strategy, the purpose of which is

“to achieve a safe, secure and sustainable aviation sector that meets the needs of consumers and of a global, outward-looking Britain.”

The strategy will consider how we can maximise the role that our world-class aviation sector plays in developing global trade links, providing vital connections from this country to the world’s growing economies and to more established trading partners. We expect to deliver a final aviation strategy next year.

In that context, I turn to the events of today, to update the House on this morning’s important developments regarding Edinburgh’s flight path proposal, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh West referred to. As she will know, Edinburgh submitted its airspace change proposal to the independent Civil Aviation Authority in August. In the intervening period, the CAA has been considering whether the proposal complies with its requirements. The CAA has now determined that the proposal is not compliant with its requirements. It is therefore minded to reject it.

It is now up to the airport to determine its next steps. It has made an announcement on this, but further announcements doubtless will follow. I hope that the hon. Lady, her constituents and the House will agree that the CAA’s decision to reject the Edinburgh airport proposal demonstrates that we have an independent and effective airspace regulator—one widely respected around the world—that is prepared to ensure its requirements are met and is capable of making what are, in some cases, undoubtedly difficult decisions when it considers that they are necessary.

If the airport wishes to proceed with an airspace change proposal, it is our understanding that it must comply with the new CAA airspace change process, known as CAP1616. In doing so, it must follow my Department’s air navigation guidance to the CAA, which was updated in October 2017 following a major public consultation on airspace and noise policies. That requires the airport to consider multiple options, to analyse them using the DFT’s WebTAG analysis tool and to consult on the options that it considers practical. If another proposal is put forward by Edinburgh airport, communities near the airport will be able to have a greater say in the final option to be chosen. That is the important point.

The CAP1616 process also brings with it increased transparency via the new airspace change portal, which the CAA launched last week. All relevant details of future airspace change proposals will be publicly available on that portal. The House should welcome that initiative, which increases transparency and accessibility for communities and local people.

My Department has received a request from North Queensferry Community Council to exercise the call-in function that now exists for airspace changes in relation to the pending proposal on which the CAA has opined. We have yet to consider the CAA’s overall assessment of whether the call-in criteria have been met by the Edinburgh airport proposal. My Department will now, as a priority, consider in depth the CAA’s assessment of the Edinburgh proposal. We will then write to the CAA and North Queensferry Community Council to confirm our decision on the call-in. We appreciate fully that the communities around the airport and the airport itself will want to know that decision as soon as possible.

This has been an important and useful debate. I am glad that we have had a chance to discuss these issues, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing this to the Government’s attention.

Question put and agreed to.

Airport Capacity

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about this issue. I give her an assurance that we will do this job properly. The appointment of Sir Jeremy Sullivan—an exemplary former judge who led an important part of our judicial system, as those who know him will acknowledge—will, I hope, give people comfort that we intend to take the consultation process properly and seriously.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State will know of my campaigning on the establishment of an independent aviation noise authority. About 70% of Edinburgh airport’s traffic goes over my constituency, and a recent flight path trial—the first in 40 years—caused havoc. This noise authority is for everyone in the UK; it should not be dependent on this decision. Will the Secretary of State include me in the discussions as an interested party and bring them forward as soon as possible?

[Chris Grayling]

Absolutely. Every Member will be included in the discussions as part of the consultation process. I will happily do what the hon. Lady asks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman thought that. I will be announcing tough plans on this matter shortly, in response to sensible pressure from a wide variety of outside groups. The hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned one national newspaper group. In fact, the campaign is coming from both sides of the spectrum, because the Daily Mail is running the same campaign. Those newspapers are right to do so, and the truth is that, in my view, this requires strong action. It is happening far too often.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State may be aware that I secured a debate earlier in the year on the establishment of an independent aviation noise authority. Given his warm words today and the concerns of my constituents about noise pollution from aircraft, will he commit to supporting the establishment of an independent aviation noise authority?

[Chris Grayling]

Given the impending decision on runways, I am not going to set out any plans today. All I will say is that I have taken note of what the hon. Lady has said. Noise is of course a major issue for us.