Public Passenger Transport

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond in this debate on behalf of the Opposition. I am grateful to the Minister for the detailed technical briefing she offered me from the Department. We will not be calling for a vote on these proposals. I will respond to the specific measures and new powers set out in the SI, but I also want to comment on how the proposals help to address the wider issue of how we can improve our bus services, which outside of London and a handful of other areas have faced deep cuts in recent years.

Before I respond, I put on record my support for our bus services and the workforce who have been on the frontline during the coronavirus crisis. I pay tribute to our bus drivers and other transport workers. They are key workers who have kept vital public services running during the most serious and sustained crisis this country has faced since the second world war. The public are immensely proud of our key workers, and I hope the House will agree that it is important that bus workers are recognised as key workers and receive the support that they deserve.

It is also important to remember that a number of bus workers and other transport workers have sadly died during the pandemic. I offer my deepest condolences to their families, and I hope Members from all parts of the House will join me in support of those and other key workers who have paid the ultimate price in our struggle with the coronavirus. I urge the Government to look again at health and safety on bus services and the financial support available for the families of those workers who have lost their lives. That is vital in the coming weeks.

I am pleased that the Government have listened to calls from Labour and the unions for passengers to have to wear masks on public transport. I should say I was one of those passengers today. There is more to do to improve health and safety, such as tackling the risk of infection from drivers having to handle cash on buses and providing improved facilities for hand washing, which I know the Minister’s colleague in the Lords, Baroness Vere, is interested in supporting. I am also pleased that at a time of national crisis, we have been able, as the official Opposition, to work with the Government, trade unions and bus operators to consider these important problems, and I look forward to Ministers coming forward with further urgent improvements to health and safety.

Before turning to the regulations, I will mention the significant economic effects of the crisis on bus operators and workers. We welcome the Government’s financial support for bus services during the coronavirus crisis and as lockdown eases. However, I underline the importance of that being applied fairly. Support needs to be maintained while demand for bus travel returns to normal, which could take some months.

The current funding package is welcome, but it is offered to bus companies on a flat rate per mile, which is then multiplied by the distance of the routes that they travel. That inadvertently favours some rural routes and areas with lower wage costs, while disadvantaging urban or suburban operators, particularly those in areas where housing costs and costs of living are higher. I hope Ministers will look again at that and offer a fair deal to the whole country. Will the Minister meet me and MPs from all parts of the House who have concerns about this important issue? I note that she is nodding, and I am grateful for her support.

It is also important that the Government review the length of time that support is available to reassure operators about the future of their businesses, as we have seen for other sectors of the economy, and to help them to plan for a gradual increase in passenger numbers. I understand that some operators are now experiencing around 20% of normal demand, up from just 10% during the height of the crisis. However, it is unclear how long it will take for passenger numbers to return to normal, and the current funding package ends during the summer. A further guarantee of funding would be welcome for the industry.

Turning to the substance of the regulations, which are intended to help the bus sector, it is positive to see the Government’s interest in our bus services. That has not always been the case in recent years, despite buses being the most common mode of transport for commuters and, indeed, a lifeline for older and vulnerable people. Since 2010, Government funding for bus services has fallen by 45% and hundreds of routes have been lost, largely because of Government cuts to subsidies for socially vital services, as many Members will know. This policy has led to a steep decline in bus use and, I am afraid, increasing isolation, other social problems and, indeed, greater damage to the environment. I should add that things have got so bad that two major bus operators have thought about selling off large parts of their business.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best way for the Government to address those matters is urgently to introduce a national bus strategy, which would put in place a hydrogen technology programme that would allow the development of a new bus building programme that would be totally free of a carbon footprint?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am anxious that we stick to the substance of the regulations. Matt Rodda.

Covid-19: Aviation

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Lady knows that decarbonisation of the aviation sector is an important priority both for the Government and the sector itself. They have come together to work towards that. I, as the aviation Minister, and the Department commit to working with the sector to reduce those emissions and to decarbonise the industry as far as we are able.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

May I put on record my thanks to the Minister for the meetings that she has had with me and my colleagues over this crisis to deal with the airport situation in Northern Ireland which has its own particular problems? I am sure that she agrees that the staff of British Airways—the cabin crew, the pilots and other staff—who operate out of Northern Ireland feel absolutely betrayed by the conduct of Willie Walsh and the organisation. BA carries the strapline “national carrier”, but that should be changed to “national disgrace” given the way that it has operated. None the less, the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot close down air traffic, introduce a quarantine that will impact on airports and airlines and then say, “This has nothing to do with us”. Action has to be taken to address this matter holistically. I urge the Minister and the Government to act.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words, particularly in regards to our regional connectivity. Being able to continue that connectivity with Northern Ireland is a key priority, and it has been good to be able to continue to do that with Government support. We will continue, as I have outlined, to work together across Government with the aviation taskforce, working with the sector, working with experts, and working with our stakeholders in order to try to find solutions. The reality is that, with regard to aviation, there has to be consumer confidence to travel. We need to ensure that we are not only tackling consumer confidence, but creating the right environment with our policies in order to get airlines back in the air. I am committed to working with all our colleagues across Government, as is the Secretary of State, to deliver that.

Transport

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

I agree entirely. It is remarkable that London is the only city of any comparison that is without a central Government grant. Some of the measures that we would be taking, were we in government, would have gone some way to addressing that. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not be taking any more interventions. I am very much aware that a great number of people want to speak in the debate, so if colleagues will bear with me, I will carry on.

We said that we would totally reverse the cuts made to bus services since 2010, then invest the same amount again. That would allow for 3,000-plus route cuts to be reversed, and for the expansion of new services through the redirection of funds currently being channelled into road building. We could then provide free travel for the under-25s in the areas that own or regulate their buses, in order to address generational inequalities, encourage lifelong public transport use and help reverse the long-term downward trend in bus patronage in England outside London. Electrifying 35,000 buses by 2030 would reduce their emissions by 72% as well as boosting manufacturing. However, progress has been painfully slow over the past decade, and I wonder whether the Secretary of State might furnish us with any proposals in that regard.

Similarly, we have seen rail fares rise by 40% since 2010. In contrast, fares in Germany were cut by 10% at the start of this year to encourage more people to travel by train in order to cut emissions. It is frankly absurd that UK rail fares have risen so excessively while the cost of short-haul flights remains low, with taxes broadly frozen. That is why we pledged in the election campaign to reduce fares by 33% by using part of the revenue brought in by vehicle excise duty. This financial offer to commuters would have encouraged the shift from car usage to public transport that will be essential in the coming years if we are to be successful in decarbonising the transport sector.

However, capital investment in our railways will also be required to reverse the electrification cancellations that we have seen under the Conservatives. Despite the clear environmental and performance benefits of rail electrification, the Tories cancelled the promised electrification on the midland main line, on the line between Windermere and Oxenholme, on TransPennine and on parts of the Great Western route.

Rail freight is a low carbon transport choice, emitting 76% less carbon than the equivalent road journey, and has massive potential to lower UK transport emissions, so I regret that the Government have done so little to encourage it. For example, the TransPennine upgrade has no new capacity for freight. Labour’s policy of bringing the railways into public ownership would allow a long-term strategic approach to investment, delivering a more consistent approach that would better support UK industry and help to decarbonise our railways.

I welcome Eurostar’s announcement this week that full direct rail services from London to Amsterdam will begin on 30 April, with direct services to Rotterdam beginning on 18 May. More rail links between the UK and Europe are vital to reducing carbon emissions from short-haul aviation, and I will work with EU colleagues to promote better rail connectivity.

Ahead of the Budget next month, I remind the Transport Secretary and the Chancellor that we cannot road build our way out of the climate crisis. New roads quickly fill up with cars, and “predict and provide” is a 20th-century concept. Ministers claimed that the road investment strategy for motorways and major A roads between 2015 to 2020 would revolutionise the network. In fact, one in three of the projects has been cancelled or delayed, and the strategy is in complete disarray. Road spending should focus on providing more capacity for sustainable transport, such as provisions for bus priority and integrated transport schemes. We need to develop a more holistic approach to transport funding that is geographically rebalanced across the UK.

Labour committed to repurposing vehicle excise duty to establish a sustainable transport fund. Such a fund could provide £550 million a year for walking and cycling routes, £1.4 billion a year to fund free bus travel for under-25s when bus services are re-regulated, £1.3 billion a year to restore the 3,000 bus services lost and deliver an additional 3,000 on top, and £500 million a year to fund local road improvements and maintenance. Most journeys start and end on local roads, which are also used by cyclists and pedestrians, so fixing potholes and better maintaining those roads and pavements should be a priority.

Tackling road transport emissions requires an enormous investment in electric vehicles to see a just transition of the UK’s fleet of road vehicles.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andy McDonald]

I am aware that many people want to speak, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will carry on.

Labour set 2030 as the date for ending the sale of new diesel and petrol cars. The Government’s new target of 2035 is not ambitious enough for our climate, our industries and our motorists. It is also deeply worrying to hear that the Government may be planning to scrap the £3,500 electric car grant when it expires next month. Perhaps the Transport Secretary can confirm whether that is the case when he comes to the Dispatch Box.

Electric vehicles are already cheaper over the lifetime of a vehicle, and up-front costs are likely to fall sharply by the mid-2020s. It makes sense for the supporting industry and for reducing emissions that motorists should transition soonest. Last year, Labour announced plans to invest £3.6 billion in a vast expansion of the UK’s electric vehicle charging network and to offer 2.5 million interest-free loans for the purchase of electric vehicles, saving buyers up to £5,000. Furthermore, our plans included the introduction of a targeted scrappage scheme to replace cars over 10 years old powered by fossil fuels with new electric cars. We would also have put 30,000 electric cars on UK streets through publicly owned community car sharing clubs. In contrast, the Government have repeatedly slashed EV subsidies and have failed to invest any of the electric vehicle charging infrastructure fund announced in 2017. Not only is that preventing the UK from making necessary emission reductions, but it leaves our motor manufacturing industries lagging behind foreign counterparts.

In the midst of an air pollution crisis, active travel remains massively underfunded. The Government are predicted to miss their own cycling targets, achieving just a third of the 800 million extra trips that they hoped for by 2025, and much of the growth in cycling is limited to London. Labour set out plans to boost cycling and walking and to make England one of the most cycling and walking friendly places in the world, making our towns and cities cleaner and greener, and transforming the environment, travel opportunities and quality of life right across the country. The emissions-reducing plan would also have addressed the local air pollution crisis and the epidemic of ill health caused by sedentary lifestyles. This investment in walking and cycling would, for the first time, have made active travel a genuine option for the many, not just the brave.

The plan included: doubling cycling for adults and children; building 5,000 km of cycleways; creating safe cycling and walking routes to 10,000 primary schools; delivering universal affordable access to bicycles and grants for e-bike purchases; and providing training for all primary school children and their parents, extending training to secondary schools and making training available for all adults.

Aviation emissions are a particular issue: in the UK, they have more than doubled since 1990, while emissions from the economy as a whole have fallen by around 40%. The Government plan to build a third runway at Heathrow. According to the Department for Transport’s projections for Heathrow expansion, the UK’s legally binding targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 will be missed. The Government should rule out any expansion that is not compatible with our climate targets. Who are we expanding airports for?

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I thank all the colleagues who supported me—or told me they did—in the election for the Transport Committee, which it is a great privilege to chair. I have not done much for diversity, because I think I am the first male to chair it. There is a serious issue with diversity in the transport sector, and I recognise that I am not exactly waving the flag for that. I also want to thank the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who chaired the Committee previously with such rigour. She was an incredibly popular Chair, and it is a delight to see her back on the Committee. She has promised not to be a backseat driver, but another formidable female politician once said the same thing in this place. I am happy to be driven from the back.

It is a delight to speak on such a wide-ranging motion tabled by the Opposition. I do not agree with many parts of it, but I welcome the fact that we are debating them, and none more so than the need to decarbonise our transport sector. We have had great success in reducing emissions by 40% since the 1990s. Pretty much every sector except transport has reduced emissions over the past few years. It has remained stubbornly difficult to reduce transport’s footprint. Surface transport accounts for 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions, and transport as a whole accounts for 33%. In fact, between 2014 and 2016, emissions from transport went up, so it is clearly the sector that needs the most focus, and I welcome the fact that it is getting that focus today.

I want to talk about some of the exciting innovations in the transport sector that we need to harness and encourage in order to meet our net zero carbon commitment.

[Ian Paisley]

Is it not interesting that the Secretary of State is the only person in the debate so far to mention hydrogen, the true zero-emission product that can help us to achieve the goals set out by the Government?

[Huw Merriman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In fact, I was just about to talk about hydrogen, so that is a brilliant segue.

The Transport Committee visited the engineer who first retrofitted a conventional train with hydrogen technology. We talk about the need to electrify and move away from diesel, but 2% of the national grid is taken up by electrified rail, and if only 40% of energy is coming from renewables, that means that 60% is still unpleasant. We need to invest in hydrogen, and it is very exciting that we have the engineer in this country who will enable us to do just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the £220 million announced recently by the Government for bus investment. Mine is the only constituency in the whole United Kingdom that has a British-owned bus-building company. That is an essential strategic measure by the Government, especially if they invest in bus building in Northern Ireland. It will affect every constituency in this country, whether in Aberdeen or Cornwall, because it is a bus-building company owned by British entrepreneurs and invested in by British taxpayers. It is also the home of the hydrogen bus. The opportunity is in our hands to make Northern Ireland and, indeed, the UK the flagship for hydrogen power as a public transport solution and a world leader in use of that zero-emissions product and world-leading technology.

Hydrogen power is much more advanced and cleaner than battery power. Batteries are a fantastic opportunity for cars and other vehicles, but we must remember that if we buy a battery car, the entire battery component will need to be replaced in seven years’ time. Of the old battery component, 50% gets recycled, and the other 50% can only go to landfill, increasing a problem that we must still address.

I welcome the £1 billion investment in a battery gigafactory here in the United Kingdom. That is a great opportunity, but it pales into insignificance when we consider that China has monopolised world battery production. Indeed, one factory alone on the Chinese mainland employs 260,000 people. We cannot catch up with world battery production, so our nation needs to lead the way with new technology and solutions such as hydrogen power, which was mentioned by the Secretary of State—and I believe we can.

Jo Bamford, with his Ryse technology and the Bamford Bus Company, and Hugo Spowers, with his Riversimple Rasa hydrogen car, have demonstrated that entrepreneurs are looking at ways of using hydrogen power as a new solution beyond batteries. Batteries are fantastic for lightweight, short-range applications, but hydrogen offers a solution for distance and heavyweight vehicles such as buses, lorries, trains and ferries. Who knows what it could offer in the future for aviation? Members today have talked about low emissions for transport, but hydrogen is a zero-emissions solution, so let us grasp it. What plans do the Government have for hydrogen investment in the United Kingdom? What can they offer to investors in innovative new technologies that will turn waste into energy?

I support the third runway at Heathrow, which is a brilliant opportunity for investment and aviation. Some 51% of people who fly from Northern Ireland to England are coming here to do business. We need a third runway because Heathrow has reached capacity. We have to remember that 95% of the global economy lies within reach of a single direct flight from Heathrow. Heathrow has facilitated £118 billion of trade outside the EU in the last 12 months alone. It is a wonderful airport, and it must—

[Munira Wilson]

So we should destroy our planet?

[Ian Paisley]

No, we are not destroying our planet; don’t be silly. Accelerating investment in sustainable alternative fuels will only happen if we increase air passenger travel.

All-lane Running Motorways

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate is heavily oversubscribed for a half-hour debate. Members may wish to lobby the Backbench Business Committee for a longer debate, given the considerable national interest on this subject. Tracey Crouch has asked for, and has been granted, time to speak.

Aberystwyth to Carmarthen Railway Reopening

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) on securing the debate.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s interest in ensuring that the corridor between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen in which this former rail line is located has the transport infrastructure that it needs to flourish and grow, and I agree that the potential role of reopening that line needs to be carefully considered by regional partners alongside potential improvements to existing transport links. He thinks that that area of Wales is one of the most beautiful in the world. I entirely agree. My name might be Jones, but I have to say that I am a Yorkshire Jones, rather than a Welsh Jones.

The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are not investing anywhere outside London and have ignored Wales. I do not accept that. The Government have committed to investing in Wales. We delivered the Wales Act 2017, which places the Welsh devolution settlement on a firm footing and builds further powers in areas such as transport, elections and energy. We are providing a boost of more than £550 million to the Welsh Government’s budget, including more than £25 million from a 5% uplift in the Barnett consequentials. By 2020, the Welsh Government’s block grant will have grown to more than £16 billion before tax devolution adjustments, which is a real-terms increase over the spending review period.

The Williams review is looking at the structure of our rail industry and includes a review of devolutionary arrangements. I hope that we will see more devolution in our services, but let us see where that goes. We do not yet know what Mr Williams will recommend.

The UK Government recognise that improving transport connections is an important part of helping people to access job opportunities, supporting business growth and access to education in Wales. Throughout control period 5, which covered the period from 2014 to now, Network Rail invested £900 million in the Welsh rail network. That includes a £50 million project to upgrade the north Wales railway, including new signalling on the north Wales coast mainline from Shotton to Colwyn Bay, which was completed only last year.

Network Rail’s proposed investment for the rail network during CP6, which starts in April and runs to 2024, is £1.34 billion. The Welsh Government now have responsibility for franchising rail services in Wales, and franchises bring investment. The new Transport for Wales franchise will recruit an additional 600 members of staff and invest £194 million in station improvements.

We have committed £125 million to the upgrade of the Valley lines as part of a wider contribution of £500 million to the Cardiff capital region investment fund, which will help to drive the growth and employment increase in the Cardiff region that we all want. Through our investment, Wales is benefiting directly from a range of projects.

HS2 was mentioned as a white elephant. I do not accept that. HS2 will deliver the capacity and connectivity that our United Kingdom needs. It will benefit the people of Wales, most obviously by bringing forward by six years the delivery of HS2 to Crewe to give access to north Wales. The idea that the Government are focused only on London is simply not correct.

In addition to the spending I mentioned earlier, Bow Street station near Aberystwyth was announced as one of the five successful new station fund 2 stations in July 2017. The scheme received close to £4 million from that fund in addition to £2.4 million from the Welsh Government. The station will increase accessibility to the rail network, improve transport integration and provide an alternative to car journeys. It is on schedule for completion by April next year.

The line from Aberystwyth to Carmarthen was closed to passenger traffic in 1965, although a section remained open to freight until 1973, as the hon. Gentleman said. I am aware of the local group, Traws Link Cymru, which campaigns to reopen the line. The group was established in 2013 and calls for the reinstatement of rail links across west Wales. I pay tribute to its work. It has raised the profile of the case for reinstating that 55-mile link. The scheme has been discussed here on several occasions, including a debate in November 2017.

Our rail strategy, “Connecting people”, includes exploring opportunities to restore capacity lost under Beeching where it unlocks growth for housing or commercial development, eases crowded routes or offers value for money. The strategy makes it clear that any potential line reopening would need to demonstrate a strong business case if Government funding were sought. If we are to invest in reopening routes, they have to unlock economic or housing opportunities, or break up a point of congestion.

The Government have, however, consistently explained throughout the years that local authorities and local leadership are best placed to decide on and take forward transport schemes that will most directly benefit their local areas. We work closely with individual authorities to help them to take forward schemes that they are interested in progressing.

The rail planning process is led by Network Rail with input from a wide range of stakeholders and funders. In March 2016, Network Rail published its Welsh route study, which sets out its strategic vision for the network in Wales over the next 10 to 30 years. That route strategy will inform decisions by funders for the period up to 2024, and the reopening of the route between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen is identified as a stakeholder aspiration. It has not, however, been identified as a potential priority for funders during that period.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the Welsh Government and local authorities have commissioned useful reports over the years. A scoping study commissioned by the Welsh Government, which reported in October 2015, set out all the issues to be considered in a full feasibility study into reopening the line. The report identified a large section of former track bed that remains in place, but there are other engineering challenges. It discussed the potential routes to obtaining consent, along with the operational and environmental considerations.

In November 2016 a strategic case jointly commissioned by Ceredigion/Cardigan County Council appraised potential options for improving strategic connections between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen. It recommended that road-based options were taken forward and a rail link not pursued further. That was followed by a Welsh Government-funded £300,000 feasibility study completed only last year that estimated the cost of reinstatement at £775 million.

The study identified numerous challenges, including the continued need to accommodate the Gwili Railway Preservation Society, which runs on part of the former track bed. It considered the environmental impact: ground conditions, property impacts and the need for environmental protection of peat bogs. Subject to the satisfactory resolution of the issues, the report states that initial operational assessments have determined that the reinstated route could provide a regular hourly train service between Aberystwyth, Llanilar, Tregaron, Lampeter, Llanybydder, Pencader and Carmarthen—I am not sure I got the pronunciations absolutely correct—with an end-to-end journey time of around 85 minutes. It really comes down to how we can best serve the transport connections in that area to deliver the connections that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) articulated very clearly.

The route can include bus services as well. The hon. Gentleman mentioned there was a bus service. There is a road-based transport link in the TrawsCymru bus service, funded by the Welsh Government. It has operated since 2014, seven days a week, between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen. It has an hourly service on weekdays and Saturdays. I recognise the journey takes more than two hours, but it does connect Aberystwyth and Carmarthen rail stations and offers free weekend travel. TrawsCymru is an important part of the integrated transport network in Wales. The route between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen connects with Bwcabus and is a fully accessible bus service.

I will finish by congratulating the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr on the commitment that he and his local groups have shown to the issue. I recognise entirely the case he makes for broader devolution with transport budgets, but I also have to highlight that the Government look to local leaders, local authorities and the Welsh Government to determine their priorities for connectivity in his region and in Wales. On this particular proposal they think the transport need can be met through other solutions, but of course that may change over time. I look forward to seeing how the Welsh Government determine their transport priorities in the future.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Congratulations on the pronunciations, Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

National Policy Statement: Airports

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The Airports Commission looked very carefully at the estuary airport concept, concluded that it was not viable and made this recommendation. I see no way how, off the back of an expanded Heathrow, an estuary airport would become a viable option, so I reassure my hon. Friend on that point.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

In terms of the benefits for the regions, does the Secretary of State accept that the expansion opens up the opportunity for over 500 jobs for Northern Ireland, £5 billion of economic growth, a £10 million airline route development programme, and a logistics hub that, if based in Northern Ireland, will increase productivity and jobs and make Northern Ireland a key part of this development programme? Does he support that hub being in Northern Ireland?

[Chris Grayling]

This project, including the development hub concept that Heathrow has been promoting, will make a contribution to the economy of all parts of the United Kingdom. I know the hon. Gentleman has a keen eye on making sure that the hub goes to Ballymena; I cannot make any promises to the airport on the plan, but I know the hon. Gentleman will carry on making that argument very robustly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I will elaborate on my right hon. Friend’s point later in my speech.

The Government have still not responded properly to recommendation 10 from the Select Committee on Transport, regarding the 15% of new slots for domestic connections. They have fallen short on clarity. Paragraph 1.60 of the Government’s response to the recommendations states:

“The Government expects the majority of these domestic routes from a potentially expanded Heathrow to be commercially viable”.

Expecting the majority of routes to be commercially viable falls a long way short of cast-iron guarantees that the UK Government are going to protect those slots. There is a concession that

“the Government will take action where appropriate to secure routes through the use of Public Service Obligations (PSOs)”,

but, crucially, the Government do not explain how these will be managed. We are advised in paragraph 1.61 that:

“The Government’s expectations on domestic connectivity will be detailed as part of the Aviation Strategy Green Paper”,

which is not expected until the second half of 2018. Having to wait months after tonight’s binding vote in order to get clarity on these points is simply not good enough.

[Ian Paisley]

As someone who represents one of the regions of the United Kingdom, I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants certainty and clarity about this issue. But does he accept that an expansion, by its very nature, will necessitate more domestic passengers and, hence, more routes will open up locally?

[Alan Brown]

That is not the case. It all comes back to the protection of slots. Airlines operate the slots. If no protections are put in place, the whole concern is that domestic slots will be lost to more lucrative international flights. That is why I am asking for this protection. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, who represents airports in Northern Ireland, would be grateful that I am looking for this guarantee from the Government.

[Ian Paisley]

But by necessity more passengers will be required to travel through Heathrow. Those passengers are going to come from Northern Ireland, Scotland and the north of England. That is a fact. Some 700,000 passengers annually already travel from Northern Ireland. That number will expand, and it will also expand for Scotland.

[Alan Brown]

But that is not guaranteed, which is why we need these protections.

Over the years, domestic connectivity and the number of domestic slots have been cut massively because of the way in which the airlines have operated the existing slots. If we are going to get these increases, we need protections in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

Well, it is a daft point because it assumes that, if Heathrow goes ahead, the slots will somehow magically be there for Scotland. That is not the point, and that is why we are asking for these guarantees.

[Ian Paisley]

I really appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way again because it is absolutely essential that the House understands that four out of eight of the domestic routes that are already available go to Scotland. Scotland already stands strong in this area. It does not need protection measures. Indeed, British Airways has already expanded its routes to Inverness.

[Alan Brown]

The fact is that Scotland has lost a lot of domestic connectivity over the last few years, so the hon. Gentleman is not quite right. It is good that he sees Scotland as strong, but we want to be stronger and we want further connections.

As we have already heard, the Department for Transport said that there would be 100 extra flights a week to Scotland. Although it is now saying that there could be 200 flights coming from Heathrow, it is up to the Government to provide the protections. Let us take the figure of 100 that has been quoted. If, say, Dundee and Prestwick get the new suggested slots, even just a twice-daily service from each of those airports would equate to well over half that figure of 100 flights. When we take the rest and spread it over the rest of Scotland’s airports, it is not actually a great deal of increased connectivity. That is why this falls short of our expectations.

Heathrow airport has made it abundantly clear that it is willing to work with the UK Government on the matter, and acknowledges that it is a Government function to deliver that protection. As has been touched on already, Heathrow has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Scottish Government. The airport has been very open and communicative with both me and my predecessor in the SNP’s transport spokesperson role. I believe that it really wants to deliver on its commitments to Scotland, including the preconstruction logistics hub, for which I appreciate it is currently doing an ongoing assessment. I hope that that assessment concludes that Prestwick airport is successful, because that would be really good for my local area. There is also a stated minimum value of £300 million construction and supply chain contracts for Scotland, and a minimum peak construction job creation of 100 jobs.

Heathrow committed to a £10 passenger fee discount to Scottish airports, and, to be fair, it has since increased that reduction to £15 per passenger. It committed £1.5 million to advertising through a Scotland-specific marketing fund, and it has delivered on that, with only £250,000 outstanding, which it has pledged to use to promote the new V&A museum in Dundee. It has also confirmed that it is now working with VisitScotland to provide a takeover of a gate room to promote Scotland for a five-year period, equating to some £300,000. Cynics will say that it is bound to do these things to keep Scottish MPs and the Scottish Government onside. However, it seems to me that it has delivered to date, and over-delivered in some aspects, so I can only take it at face value.

In the bigger picture, 16,000 jobs are predicted to be generated in Scotland through an expanded Heathrow. These are certainly benefits that I want to see delivered.

Tolls on the Mersey Crossings

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Thank you for chairing this crucial debate, Mr Paisley. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), for securing it.

Like my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, I am opposed to tolls on the Mersey Gateway. As MP for Weaver Vale, I am in a unique position, in that half of my constituents live in Halton and have access to the funding and free travel arrangements that my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) referred to. I echo his point that bands G and H council tax payers and small businesses in the Halton part of my constituency should be included in any concessionary scheme, as the previous Chancellor argued in the past. The other half of my constituents live in Cheshire West and Chester, and therefore, like those of the hon. Member for City of Chester, must pay. If the system is unfair to users who, having paid their taxes to the Treasury, are forced to pay again to use the bridge that they have already helped to fund, it is doubly unfair to my constituents whose friends and neighbours get what they perceive to be free travel simply because of their postcode. For them, they are subject to a postcode lottery that they did not ask to enter in which the ticket cost is, in many cases, more than £1,000 a year, and they have no choice but to play. Like with other lotteries, they pay to enter only to see somebody else rake in the winnings, but the winner is not a fellow player but a private company making a hefty profit from the private finance initiative.

Before I expand on what the situation means for my constituents, I want to be clear about where the responsibility for the unfairness lies and who has the potential to fix it. Halton Borough Council rightly campaigned for decades for a new bridge across the Mersey. To echo a point made by other hon. Members, it was needed. It is a wonderful piece of engineering and infrastructure. It is iconic, and it certainly has improved connectivity and speed flows across the city region. In the public inquiry, the residents of Halton were given a choice between a toll bridge and no bridge, so it is understandable that they chose a toll bridge. Halton Borough Council’s hands were tied by successive Governments. This was the only show in town.

The best way to fund major infrastructure projects—it always seems to be done like this in other parts of the country, particularly the south-east—is from the Exchequer. The only solution is for central Government to address this issue, as they have done for other crossings across the country. If the Conservative Government can abolish tolls on the Severn bridge, they can do so on the Mersey—including for the Mersey tunnels. If the Conservative party can promise free travel for Cheshire and Warrington during the 2015 election campaign, the Chancellor can honour that promise in government. It was not Halton Borough Council or the Labour party that made and broke a promise to my constituents about bridge tolls; it was the previous Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, and the Government must be held to account for that.

Although I recognise that the bridge has been good news for travel times and is a fantastic piece of engineering, it is clear that the current-set up, as my hon. Friends said, is posing major challenges for people in my constituency and way beyond it. Money is all too often the reason. More than £1 million in fines—arguably more than that now—has been dished out in one month. I have spoken to many residents who have been dealt with harshly and insensitively. There has been poor communication and signage. An elderly woman in Helsby, which is part of my constituency, was fined £80. She was in tears on the phone because she did not know how to access the internet. It was unjust—she was just a couple of days late with the payment.

Constituents are being hit with bills of £150 if their car breaks down, due to some strange contractual arrangement that means they must be towed by an approved private contractor and pay a charge before their car is released from the compound. Membership of the Automobile Association or the Royal Automobile Club does not count, which is also a frustration for those organisations.

Although it is true that the bridge has created hundreds of skilled jobs during its construction, the jobs that support its ongoing operation are with a private company, Emovis. To be clear, as a Labour MP I am very disappointed that it does not recognise a trade union or pay the real living wage. The true benefit to the economy cannot be measured only in travel times, as crucial as they are; it has to be whether the benefits are shared fairly by all residents, as my hon. Friends have argued.

Recently, with others, I have launched a Christmas campaign. I was disappointed with the clear and quick answer I got from some of the powers that be. The clearest illustration of the crossings arrangements was that clear and quick refusal even to consider allowing free travel on Christmas day. Hon Members may correct me, but we have that for the Mersey tunnels, so on that one day of the year friends and families can visit relatives and so on. They are travelling from all over the country, as hon. Members have said, and we want to ensure that they do not get caught by that interesting arrangement of a fixed penalty notice. I do not believe that the Government should get in the way of a private contractor offering such a concession at Christmas, but in a recent reply about why it is not possible, comment was made not only on the financial arrangements but on the need for Government permission to offer that concession.

The tolls, however, are not just for Christmas but for a period of about 25 years. Ministers will no doubt point to other crossings and say that the scenario is the same there, but the reality is clearly anything but, as people have already said: the new Forth bridge is toll free; tolls will be abolished for the Severn bridge—I have listened to Ministers’ interesting arguments about the economy—and the Dartford crossing is free at night; and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester has mentioned the option chosen for the East Anglia road toll. There is, however, no respite for users of the Mersey Gateway. Instead, when the Silver Jubilee bridge reopens next year, that will be tolled as well. My constituency has many unique and welcome claims to fame, but being near to the only place in the country that has two tolled bridges side by side—the Mersey tunnels are tolled too—is a scandalous situation for the people of Merseyside. It is a unique arrangement.

We have heard much from the Government about the northern powerhouse. Words have yet to be matched by actions or funding, but I do believe that some Ministers in this Government genuinely—I hope—want to tackle the regional divide. We understand that tolls on the Humber bridge are in line to be scrapped as part of a future Yorkshire devolution deal and, if that is the case, we would welcome the same for Merseyside, Cheshire and Warrington. As one constituent said to me, if this bridge was across the Thames, it would be free. What better way to prove that the Government want to change the perception than by abolishing the tolls?

I recognise that the Mersey Gateway is a multi million- pound project, and if abolition outright is not immediately feasible, extending to others the deal that Halton council secured would be a step forward. I and my colleagues would welcome sitting down with Ministers to see how that could be achieved as a first step. The £1,100 a year taken away from an individual household income is simply not fair to constituents and is a tax on jobs. It is not good for our economy, and not good for our region. I urge Ministers to join me and my colleagues in looking at things again and to abolish tolls.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I am about to call the last Back-Bench speaker, but I would like to call the Opposition spokesperson before quarter to 11. I am not imposing a time limit, but I would like you to bear that in mind—I call Justin Madders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of people in bands G and H. There has to have been a socioeconomic basis for that, otherwise the problem could not have been addressed without a leakage, but I am very happy to revisit the letter that he received with Treasury colleagues to see whether further consideration can be given to that issue.

I want to give the hon. Member for City of Chester a chance to wind up, so let me say very quickly that it is not fair to point to the crossing on the M4 in Wales as a precedent, because that bridge had been paid for through its tolls. Yes, there have been teething problems and snags. Those are issues for Merseyflow and Halton Borough Council.

Let me conclude by reminding those present of the significant transport investment that the Government have made and wish to continue to make in the Liverpool sub-region. These crossings are the subject of local governance by the relevant bodies and I am delighted that the bridge opened successfully on schedule.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

There is no time for a wind-up speech—whether to allow one is at my discretion—so I will put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered tolls on the Mersey crossings.

Exiting the EU and Transport

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The world has moved on somewhat. The International Civil Aviation Organisation agreement that was reached in Montreal six weeks ago provides a global framework to tackle emissions in the aviation industry. All of us, both inside and outside the European Union, will be part of that as we ensure that the economies of the developed and the developing world can continue to benefit from improved aviation links while, at the same time, we meet our obligations to control carbon emissions.

The second area on which I am focusing is road haulage. We depend on road hauliers—without them, our shops would be empty and industry would grind to a halt. Our logistics industry does a first-class job in getting our goods to the right places, but the vast majority of lorries on the roads never leave the country. As we look to the future and to trade that does leave the country and crosses borders, there is one simple fact that we need to bear in mind. About 85% of the lorries operating between the United Kingdom and the continent belong to EU-owned businesses—international hauliers that are not based in this country.

The member states of the EU and the United Kingdom have a common interest in reaching an agreement. We need sensible arrangements for the future to allow goods to flow freely from and to the United Kingdom. We need to give UK hauliers a fair chance to win business and to be successful. We shall focus on that during the negotiations, ensuring that we achieve the right outcome for the international hauliers that serve this country and for UK hauliers as well. I am talking to all those who are involved in running our roads and the freight services that use them.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will that include an aggressive look at freight charges for the movement of goods outside the United Kingdom to faraway markets? I understand that New Zealand, Australia and Canada have freight subsidies that allow them to cut the prices of freighted goods.

[Chris Grayling]

I am not necessarily a great fan of inappropriate subsidies, but I hope and believe that as we negotiate free trade agreements with countries around the world we shall create an environment in which trade and freight haulage are conducted on a level playing field, and that there are no artificial barriers that push up our costs and help others to reduce theirs. Above all, however, we benefit from a world in which trade flows freely. That is clearly in the commercial interests of European hauliers, especially hauliers from the Irish Republic. I am very aware that as we enter the negotiations, we have a particular duty of care to our friends in the Republic. We have a duty to seek to reach an agreement that will ensure that their trade, which frequently involves travel by road through the United Kingdom to other parts of Europe, can flow smoothly. It is in all our interests to ensure that we have sensible cross-border arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he has made his point and I will not follow it up any further.

One can imagine, under the future provisions, being a tourist from Europe, especially in the short break market, with the choice of going to the UK or somewhere else where there is a lot less hassle—somewhere more welcoming. Additional space will need to be allocated to immigration control operations in airports and other ports of entry. It is thought that the costs could spiral into tens of millions of pounds. This cost must be borne by airports and port operators, who then cannot invest that money in increased connectivity and improving the passenger experience. According to the Tourism Industry Council, if the 23 million EU nationals who visited in 2015 were to be subject to full border checks, Border Force would be required to increase resources allocated to this by 200%—on top of the problems that already exist. Manchester Airports Group says:

“Border Force provision at a number of airports is already inadequate, with a lack of long term planning meaning queue times for passengers can already be unacceptably long.”

So what is the plan?

[Ian Paisley]

Before the hon. Gentleman gets into the detail of the hypotheticals of border controls, does he accept that the single largest threat to ordinary travellers in the United Kingdom, and across the entirety of Europe, is none of the things he has mentioned but the package travel directive about to be introduced by the EU, which will put additional costs on every single traveller because they perhaps use sites like Expedia?

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. So many issues are facing us that it is very difficult to pick out the single most important item. There are a lot of unanswered questions.

Is the plan to reach an agreement with the EU that the EEA channel will continue to operate in the UK, and that EU member states will allow UK citizens to use the EEA channel in the EU?

Regional airports are vital for connectivity within Scotland, but the reckless gamble with our EU membership has caused great uncertainty for these airports that could have a seriously detrimental impact on our economy. Scotland has a large number of regional airports, many of which are reliant on low-cost airlines and outbound tourism to survive and to be an economic success. The International Air Transport Association predicts that a 12% reduction in sterling would result in a 5% decline in outbound travel, while Ryanair has said that it is scaling back its expansion in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

My constituency voted overwhelmingly—62.2%—to leave the EU, despite the fact that with its large agricultural hinterland it receives huge European farm subsidies, and with its manufacturing base it benefits from the opportunity to manufacture and export to the EU. It also has a huge travel base. It is a tourism mecca, and tourists need travel infrastructure. So it is engaged in manufacturing, travel, tourism and transport goods, but despite all that, it voted to leave the EU, and we must ask ourselves why.

Why would so many people in that set of circumstances vote to leave? It is because the EU is seen to be failing them. When we look specifically at transport issues, we can see why. Before we even discuss the EU, there are many things that we could do domestically to assist companies in the transport sector in our country. For example, in my constituency we manufacture buses. The Wrights Group manufactures a considerable number of the buses for this great city and for Scotland—indeed, it recently enjoyed a very beneficial order from Scotland, for which we say thank you to our Scottish cousins. It also manufactures for Singapore and a number of other Asian countries, and employs hundreds of people in Singapore in the assembly of those buses and, importantly, in the maintenance of those buses. It is a significant local employer and a world employer.

The company can benefit more from domestic decisions taken here than it can from EU decisions taken in Brussels. For example, the Government’s Bus Services Bill currently going through Parliament will have a dramatic impact on transport orders for my constituency if it goes the right way. We also have—I say this very gently to those on the Labour Front Bench—a new Mayor of London. I appeal to him through his Front Bench colleagues to come to Northern Ireland as soon as possible to visit that bus company, which transports his citizens around his city, and see the great work that it could do to expand the bus offer in London. I understand that between now and 2021 London will require another 1,000 buses. I hope that that transport infrastructure will benefit from buses manufactured in my constituency. I wanted to put that on the record before I turn to the substance of the debate.

When the Secretary of State opened the debate, he was full of confidence and optimism. I share that optimism. We should approach the issue of transport and Brexit with some optimism because there are opportunities that can be beneficial to us.

There is one issue that could have been addressed in the Chancellor’s statement today. I hope that the Transport Secretary will continue to whisper “airport passenger duty” in his ear between now and the Budget in April. I hope he will keep pushing that little issue. We should not be paying a pernicious, dirty little tax to the Chancellor of the Exchequer just to transport ourselves from one part of the UK to another. It is wrong. It is not the sort of tax that our Government should be levying, and it should be removed soon. I hope that the Chancellor will hear that not just from me but from the Transport Secretary between now and the Budget.

Many people, including our neighbours in the EU, complain about Brexit. We hear it every day and read about it in the newspapers, but those of us who voted to leave the EU did so with a good intention—to bring about good for our country, not bad. I have noticed that those on the remain campaign and those opposed to the action that the United Kingdom is about to take are talking up crisis after crisis—whether a transport crisis or a crisis to do with transport problems with our border in Northern Ireland.

I commend the singular actions of the Secretary of State over the recess. When a crisis emerged in Northern Ireland relating to our one transatlantic fleet operator, United Airlines, it was largely because the Secretary of State got on the telephone to the United States and spoke to the head of the airline and others, pressing them to keep the flights operating in Northern Ireland, that the service was saved.

As a result of the right hon. Gentleman’s conversation with United Airlines and an emergency aid package put in place by the Northern Ireland Executive, involving multiples of millions of pounds, the service was indeed saved—until two weeks ago. Someone in the EU then complained that the actions of the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Executive amounted to state aid and were therefore wrong. They objected so much that Europe has now told United that it must reject the multi-million pound aid package. As a result, the airline is now closing its service; the last flights from Belfast to Newark in the United States of America will take place in January next year. That shameful action needs to go on the record.

[Sir William Cash]

In the ports sector, as in many others, there are hidden subsidies. Ports over the whole of Europe are publicly owned. Given the money pumped into them, they also represent the lack of a level playing field. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I commend the hon. Gentleman for what he said and what the Secretary of State tried to achieve.

[Ian Paisley]

I agree; the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the fact that the issue extends not only to airports but to seaports as well.

Last week in the House, I pressed the Secretary of State about the United Airlines issue. He kindly said that the decision was “deeply unwelcome” and that a fair amount of effort had been done by his Department, working alongside the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Executive, in trying to make sure that this air route was sustained. He went on to say:

“The loss of the route because of EU action is deeply unwelcome and precisely the kind of unnecessary decision from Brussels that led this country to vote to leave the European Union.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 377.]

I say a hearty “Hear, hear” to those words. That action was pernicious and should not have taken place. The company should have been allowed to continue to operate in Northern Ireland. Many people in County Antrim who have seen the benefits of Europe have turned against it because of such decisions. I am glad that we as a nation have woken up to that.

We have also had the allegation that the Irish Republic—our well-known neighbour—wants to be supportive of Northern Ireland as it leaves the EU. Indeed, it has written to many of the hauliers in Northern Ireland to invite them to a tea party hosted by the Taoiseach in Dublin. He has called it the all-island civic dialogue, and he wishes to have a conversation about the implications of Brexit for the Republic of Ireland. Now, I am quite happy for the Taoiseach to do that, and for him to understand the conversation that is going on, but if he targets businesses in Northern Ireland with a view to getting them to go to the south of Ireland and to crank up opposition to the UK’s decision, that is where I draw the line. I therefore commend the words of our First Minister in Northern Ireland, who said that the Dublin Government are poaching some of our businesses, and that includes our haulage businesses. It is right that this House understands that, while we welcome the opportunity to work with our southern neighbours, we can also see when someone speaks out of both sides of their mouth—on the one hand saying they are concerned about our relationship, but on the other hand doing everything they can to undermine that relationship and poach businesses from us. I think we should put that on the record.

It is also important that we identify those EU transport regulations that hurt British businesses. In an intervention on the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), I mentioned the package travel directive. Expedia is an American company that employs over 2,000 people in call centres and outreach centres in the United Kingdom. It is based in England and Scotland, and it will hopefully soon be based in Northern Ireland. That company employs thousands of people, but it is now faced with the package travel directive. Ordinary business and tourism travellers who use sites such as Expedia or trivago as a one-stop shop for their airline ticket, their hotel, their car rental, the shows they wish to attend or other things they wish to book, such as restaurants, will find that this package travel directive, which comes from the EU to protect huge monopolies, will try to pass on a major charge to the companies—Expedia, trivago or others—or, more than likely, to the customer, because they are using a one-stop shop, when they should apparently be encouraged to use several different operators to place their orders. That package travel directive is wrong, and it should be opposed. That is another reason why many people in the United Kingdom see that, in terms of travel arrangements, we would be better off out of the EU.

[Drew Hendry]

On the point about additional costs to the travelling public, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the absence of the European health passport would mean an increase in insurance costs for UK customers travelling in Europe?

[Ian Paisley]

I do not know whether that is the case, so I cannot say whether it would or not. I would certainly be happy to look at that, but we need to encourage our own insurance industry—perhaps we will have a debate about the insurance industry and Brexit—to pick up those issues to determine whether there is a way in which we can address them.

Companies such as Expedia are faced with this package travel directive. We need to be alive to the fact that Europe is not a great benefactor of the travel sector and that it is actually doing an awful lot to hinder it.

[Sir William Cash]

On the general principle that the hon. Gentleman is addressing—the extent to which directives have an adverse effect on certain industries and the national interests of particular countries—is he conscious, as I certainly am, of what is called regulatory collusion? This has been written about by Professor Roland Vaubel of Mannheim University, who makes it clear that a system is employed in the Council of Ministers and through COREPER whereby decisions are made that benefit certain congregations of countries in a way that is detrimental to others, and that this is not a benign system, but actually the pursuit of national interests in another name.

[Ian Paisley]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and thank him for making that point. This is about not only helping congregations of countries, but assisting cabals within certain sectors of the industry. For example, the package travel directive helps people who do not use computers to buy their tickets and encourages people to use only shops. I have nothing against travel shops, but they should not be assisted over the heads of people who wish to use the internet to make their bookings. There is a very deliberate attempt to try to destroy that business on the internet.

On road haulage, the Government need to address exporter freight charges. Many of our competitors outside the EU, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and countries in Asia, including India, have opportunities to assist the trade in their manufactured goods by reducing the cost of exporting them around the world. In essence, this is about freight charges, not just internally within their own countries, but externally. Our Government need to decide what assistance that system gives and how, when we eventually leave the EU, our companies can have a similar type of assistance or, more importantly, can be encouraged to get round the advantage that those other countries are given.

Let me give the House a few examples. In Australia, the freight equalisation scheme allows for goods shipped around the world to be subsidised when going to their final destinations. That means that a similar good manufactured in New Zealand, for example, suddenly becomes more expensive because its freight charges are included in its shipping, whereas the Australian good has its freight charge subsidised or, in many instances, wiped out. New Zealand opposed Australia when it introduced that scheme, but it is still in place. India has a freight assistance scheme, as well as an enterprise promotion policy, which is about assisting with freight charges.

If these issues of transport costs are not addressed, when we finally leave the EU and have wider export opportunities, we will find that if we try to get our goods—manufactured goods, foods or drinks—to certain markets, they will be disadvantaged because we do not give them a freight subsidy. I know that the Government do not like the word “subsidy” and that they will have to look at this further, but something should be done to assist with those transport costs. It is important that the Government have that in their mind.

I welcome the debate and the comments by the Secretary of State. It is useful that we continue to prod and examine these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

Here we go! We were so well prepared that that is not just in the White Paper—I know the hon. Gentleman has read it—but we even had a fiscal commission working group. We had 670 pages of the White Paper and a fiscal commission working group setting out three options, including sharing the currency, which one Minister said that we would, of course, be able to do—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, that compares to tumbleweed—absolutely nothing—from the Government.

The Secretary of State might want to take notes, because there were 15 pages on transport alone in our White Paper. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) will be pleased to hear, it set out the areas for high-speed rail. It makes much more sense if high-speed rail goes through to Edinburgh and Glasgow, rather than just to Birmingham. The benefits of specialist transport organisations were mentioned, too.

[Ian Paisley]

How many of the 600 and more pages started with the words “could”, “maybe” or “might”?

[Stephen Gethins]

To be fair, a lot more than in the Government’s plans about the EU referendum. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point on that, as usual. There were a lot more “coulds”, “woulds” or “maybes” than in the Government’s preparatory documents.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) will be pleased to hear that the Government must have been reading our White Paper, because there was talk about the benefits of transitional agreements. Clearly, on the basis of recent press reports of the Government’s plans, they are taking to heart ideas about transitional agreements, which have come straight from the White Paper on Scottish independence. There is also talk about working with our European partners and the EU, where it has responsibility. Of course, Government Members told us that if people voted for Scottish independence, we would not be in the European Union and that the only way to guarantee membership was to vote no. What happened there? The point is that co-operating with Europe is vital.

I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) has returned to the Chamber. She raised the critical issues of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. In the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we have many reasons to be grateful for co-operation with our European partners. Everyone who has survived this debate so far continues to benefit from the European Union air quality directives every moment of every day. As for climate change, Scotland’s world-leading Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which smashed its targets when Conservative Members said we could not achieve them, is much closer to Brussels policy than legislation in this place. We have allies and friends who take a similar view.

There is also an important point to be made about the single market. As the Member of Parliament representing, for instance, Pittenweem, Oban and Peterhead, I notice that articulated lorries from European Union countries take fine Scottish seafood to markets across the EU. Driver licensing for EU nationals is especially important in rural areas, be they in the borders, in North East Fife, in Northern Ireland or in the highlands. We want to make those people feel at home, because they contribute so much. Will that licensing continue? Will we continue to have the harmonisation that we have enjoyed?

Our geography in Scotland makes airports and air links very important to us, and I am delighted that the Scottish Government have managed to secure 23 new routes since 2014. We benefit from that, and so do other people. Who would not want to spend their holidays in North East Fife? I am sure that you would, Madam Deputy Speaker, and have done so as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) pointed out that Prestwick was nearby. Just the other day, Michael O’Leary said that the UK Government did not have a clue, and it is hard to disagree with him.

European funding for research and development has been and continues to be critical. We need to develop clean, green technologies, and Scotland is well placed for that. Currently, Horizon 2020 has a smart, green and integrated transport fund which is worth €6.5 billion. We need to start planning now for what will happen after 2020. Perhaps Ministers will provide certainty by telling us what their plans are.

It is becoming clearer and clearer that Scotland is closer to Brussels in so many policy areas. Transport is just one of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

What I can say is that the Department encourages the trade unions, as it does every other part of the community, to contribute to the consultation that we are currently holding. I suggest that the right hon. Lady encourages them to contact us.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), who pronounced himself to be a passionate supporter of the remain campaign, made a remarkably Eurosceptic speech, in which he raised the issue of Volkswagen and what he described as a “scandal”—many in this House would agree with that. As I have said previously, when the great repeal Bill comes through, the EU legislation will be absorbed into our own body of legislation and we can then amend it. It will be up to this Parliament to decide whether it wishes to improve on the current arrangements, and I discern from his remarks that that is something he would welcome.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made an upbeat speech, in which he identified a number of opportunities arising from Brexit. He raised the issue of the package travel directive, and all I would say in response is that we are aiming at a new state of affairs, under which this Parliament can make decisions such as that and not simply accept the directives that come from the EU.

[Ian Paisley]

Is the Minister at a point yet to make a commitment that that directive will never come into force?

[Mr Jones]

Forgive me, I did not hear the question.

[Ian Paisley]

As a person called Paisley, I have never once been told that no one can hear me—I apologise profusely. Can the Minister make a commitment at this point, or at some time in the future, that that directive will never come into force?

[Mr Jones]

I think the answer to that is that it depends on how quickly we complete our withdrawal from the EU and on what this Parliament decides to do. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will be a strong advocate for its non-acceptance of that directive.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) made a contribution relating, inter alia, to the spaceport that he hopes will be located at Prestwick. I had ambitions for north Wales, but I am sure we will both be happy wherever it is located. He also raised the issues of road freight and customs checks, both of which are certainly being taken into account by my Department and by the Department for Transport in the context of our EU exit negotiations.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) raised the issue of the importance of logistics. I understand that he is the chairman of the all-party group on freight transport, and he has raised a number of these issues in round-table meetings that have been arranged by the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who has undertaken to maintain that dialogue.

Finally, we heard a contribution from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), who spoke about the Scottish referendum.

This has been an important and valuable debate. As I say, it has helped to inform the consideration of my Department and the DFT, and we will continue to hold similar engagements both within this Parliament and with stakeholders from outside the EU. [Interruption.] I make no apologies—I hear the catcalls from Labour Front Benchers—for the fact that this Government are giving proper consideration to the process of withdrawal from the EU. I believe that this Government—

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

I worked with the right hon. Gentleman in government and he knows of me what I know of him, which is that he does his homework. I have the statutory instrument and the original legislation in my hand as I speak. Let me tell him this: I am committed to reviewing the legislation to ensure that it applies to the offshore sector.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

13. What steps the Government are taking to ensure that air connectivity between Northern Ireland and London is improved by the proposed expansion of Heathrow airport.

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

Heathrow airport expects to add six more domestic routes across the UK when the new runway opens in the middle of the next decade. This will strengthen existing domestic links to regions such as Northern Ireland, Scotland and the north of England, and allow the development of new connections to regions such as the south-west. We expect Heathrow to meet these pledges. We will ensure that the Government hold the airport to account; that is an obligation, not a desirable.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the Secretary of State for that excellent answer, and for the hope and expectation contained therein. Is he, like me, taken aback by the EU’s decision to block a multimillion pound aid package to United Airlines, which has effectively removed one of our air carriers out of Northern Ireland? Will he investigate who lodged the complaint to the EU that has effectively destroyed this business in Northern Ireland?

[Chris Grayling]

I fear it probably will not tell us, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the decision was deeply unwelcome. My Department spent a fair amount of time working alongside the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Executive on trying to make sure that we sustained this route for Northern Ireland. The loss of the route because of EU action is deeply unwelcome and precisely the kind of unnecessary decision from Brussels that led this country to vote to leave the European Union.

Regional Airports

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I can see that the Minister is interested. He should give some consideration to the impact that that practice has on domestic passengers and regional economies.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent point. Does she agree that this should not be about persuading Scotland not to reduce this taxation? In fact, I am delighted that Scotland has indicated that it will reduce it. This should be about all of us persuading the Chancellor to remove this pernicious, dirty, nasty little tax on passengers and on business.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Interestingly, the Prime Minister seemed to recognise the issue during the general election campaign. He told regional newspapers:

“We are not going to accept a situation where there’s unfair tax competition...We will do what’s necessary to make sure that England’s regional airports can succeed.”

However, there has been near total silence on this issue ever since and there is a considerable amount of understandable concern that that was simply a lot of hot air.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I was not sure that I would be called so soon, but I appreciate the opportunity. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on focusing everyone’s attention on the issue. Clearly, I will be speaking from a Northern Ireland perspective.

The issues of regional airports, including capacity and air passenger duty, are particularly pertinent to Northern Ireland as we share a land border with the Republic of Ireland. My hon. Friends the Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) have said that on a couple of occasions so it is clear that these issues concern us all. Another indication of that concern is the number of Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland who are here.

Just a few miles down the road, Dublin airport does not have APD imposed on its flights. Not only does the existence of APD put strain on Northern Irish airports as it does with other regional airports throughout the UK, but we are punished twice by having to compete with foreign airports able to operate at a significant advantage. APD was designed to be a revenue raiser but, in the case of regional airports—especially in Northern Ireland—APD has instead become an obstacle to growth. Perhaps the Minister could comment on the suggestion that revenue could be raised by reducing APD and by making us an equal competitor with the Republic of Ireland.

Just last week, news came out showing that passenger numbers have soared at Northern Ireland’s two main airports: George Best Belfast City airport and Belfast International airport. More than 7 million passengers passed through Ulster’s airports last year—a rise of 9% at Belfast International and a rise of 5.4% at Belfast City. However, despite the success at Belfast City and Belfast International, there was a huge slump at Londonderry airport with numbers down by almost a fifth.

[Ian Paisley]

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the figures from 2006 to 2016 show that passenger numbers have not yet recovered for Belfast City and Belfast International airports because numbers are being sucked to Dublin.

[Jim Shannon]

I will certainly speak about that. The figures show an increase, but a much greater increase could be achieved. Perhaps we might dwell on that. A spokesman for Belfast International airport said:

“If we can make advances such as this with the drag of APD impeding progress, think what we could achieve for the Northern Ireland economy if we didn’t have this regressive tax”.

That is a great point, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim also makes. We could do better and much better.

Some 240 million passengers a year join or leave aircraft at the reporting airport. That figure is important because the increase in traffic is yet to be evenly spread out. Other airports outside of London—in Wales, Scotland and, particularly, Northern Ireland—should get the advantage of that. I want to see the connectivity and I know the Minister will comment on that. Those airports are making a case for at least some reduction in APD, with Wales and Scotland already on course to deliver. This debate is important to me as the MP for Strangford because I see Belfast City airport as the airport for my constituents, and they see it that way as well. We want the advantages, across my constituency and across the whole of Northern Ireland, of better prices and better connectivity with other parts of the United Kingdom.

As well as regional disadvantages, APD is at risk of creating a socioeconomic divide, where those with the ability to pay can enjoy the benefits of air travel when and where they want, while those without it are left using other, less appropriate means of transport. APD raises some £3 billion a year in tax revenue, year on year, for the United Kingdom but, despite its introduction, demand has risen rather than fallen. Although APD is a form of revenue, raising it has failed in its aim of reducing demand and carbon demand. If something is broken—and in this case, it is—we should fix it. It is clear that APD does not work for regional airports across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland wants something different.

The benefits of abolishing air passenger duty will be seen across the entire United Kingdom. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, abolishing the duty would see the UK economy grow by a staggering 0.5%, which would give the UK Treasury some £570 million in tax receipts in the first year after abolition due to the increased demand for air travel. That is a win-win.

In Northern Ireland we know all too well how much air passenger duty influences the decisions of airlines about doing business. We compete directly with the Republic of Ireland in this sector, and we need only look at what happened when air passenger duty was abolished in the Irish Republic. The figures are interesting: Dublin airport increased its passenger numbers from north of the border—my constituents—which is proof that APD is an obstacle to business, growth, prosperity and security for our people. We must do everything we can to ensure the future success of Northern Ireland.

My party is on record as supporting a third runway at Heathrow—we said it in previous debates, and we are saying it in Westminster Hall today. Let us get the third runway in place for Heathrow. Let us get connectivity across all the United Kingdom, and let us get it for Northern Ireland—for Belfast City, for Aldergrove and for Londonderry. Let us move forward and give everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the opportunity to have the advantage of no APD.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.

This has been a very agreeable debate. I do not think I have ever attended a debate in which I have agreed with absolutely everything that has been said by every Member—with the exception of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who does not care if he flies from Dublin. I think that Northern Ireland Members can say, with unity for once, that in future we want him to fly from everywhere but Dublin. We will encourage him to do so and get him a timetable to make sure that that happens.

I watched the Minister of State’s reaction to the debate and I noticed that he agreed with a number of points. That is probably because he hails from and represents Scarborough, so he knows the needs of people who come from the north. Of course, whenever he comes to Northern Ireland he does not have to fly north; he just flies west to visit Northern Ireland. So I think he gets this issue, which is important. Members recognise that there is a very distinctive north-south divide here and we must address it very quickly.

A lot of this debate has focused on airport passenger duty, and I agree that it is important. I described it earlier as a pernicious, dirty and nasty little tax, and it is a tax on competitiveness, so it has to go. Frankly, however, it is not up to Scotland or Northern Ireland to do their own side deals on this issue. Addressing APD is an issue that the Chancellor must grasp and deal with centrally. He must recognise that if he does not grasp the issue, unfairness will be created across vast parts of the United Kingdom, which will probably disadvantage the north of England more than anywhere else; other parts of the UK will also be disadvantaged.

What has been absent is a proper aviation strategy that pulls together the tourism need, the business need, the capacity need and all those types of issues. When the Minister looks at this proposal, I am sure that he will bring to the debate a recognition that we need a proper aviation strategy that addresses the needs of other airports in Northern Ireland.

There has been an awful lot of discussion—not just in Parliament but outside it—about sorting out the Gatwick versus Heathrow debate. Yes, that debate needs to be sorted out, and expeditiously, but we also need to address the capacity at London City Airport very quickly.

[Ian Mearns]

I agree that we need an aviation strategy, but we also need a much more integrated transport strategy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) pointed out about the expansion of Manchester airport, the problem for the north-east of England is that it takes more than two hours by rail to get to Manchester. The connectivity is simply shocking, and I honestly assure the hon. Gentleman that if I was going to Dublin, I would not start from here.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of ensuring that such a strategy also includes other transport. For example, my colleague the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has a railway that goes almost to the airport. I have a motorway that gets almost to the airport at South Antrim. We need that entire process joined up, so that passengers, commuters, businesspeople and tourists coming in and out of the airport have an easier time of it getting to and from the airport.

In that strategy, we should also ensure that Gatwick, Heathrow and the other centralised airports have slots for the regional airplanes to reach them. That is important, as it will address the issue of ensuring that the C series, whenever it comes on stream, will be available for the other airports, as well as the Airbus equivalent.

Finally, I will point out that when Holland had APD its airports were devastated by competition from its neighbours in Germany. The Dutch scrapped APD and we need to learn the lesson of history.