Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Second sitting)

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

Q This is a question for Edward, and then perhaps Steve. Given the need to ensure that we have breadth in the charging infrastructure—not just number, but location—is it not important that we also base charging points in rural places, village shops and small post offices, rather than concentrating them in places that already have charging points? Similarly, is it not also important that we work with small garages, rather than simply the major garages, to avoid creating an uneven distribution of charging points that would be a major barrier to entry to the market for many potential consumers? Would you like to deal with that one before I come on to my second question?

Edward Woodall: Obviously, we do not want to be left behind. The fuel retailers in our membership are looking at this at the minute. They have electronic vehicle charging points, but significant costs are associated with delivering that. Keeping pace with those costs, if we introduce charging points by regulation, would be a challenge. It would be even more of a challenge for village post offices and shops to have charging points on their sites. Obviously, we do not want to be left behind, but I think the industry will naturally fill that space where it is appropriate.

[Mr Hayes]

Q We would not want to exaggerate or exacerbate the trend towards fewer places at which to buy fuel and food. Steve, on your point about skills, this morning, at a roundtable with the industry, the point was made that this might act as a spur to people who were keen to get into the industry. The excitement of the new technology, and of being part of an important, cathartic change, might attract more recruits. Have you come to any judgment on that and, if not, how can we make that happen, as it is surely a good thing?

Steve Nash: We are like every other industry: we are competing hard for talent, and we are definitely using the massive, incredibly exciting change we are going through to engage young people and show them that this is a cutting-edge, futuristic industry—so, absolutely. As the professional body for the industry, part of our raison d’être is to raise professionalism and bring new talent into the industry, and this a great catalyst for that, yes.

[Mr Hayes]

Q We heard from a witness this morning who suggested that we should have roadshows—demonstrations of electric vehicles in different localities—and that once people had tasted the fruit, they would want more of it. That might also apply to people who want work in the industry. Is this not about marketing in a sense?

Steve Nash: Yes. We are very much involved in UK skills and world skills. We are at the Skills Show. Last year, in co-operation with some of the manufacturers, we featured electric cars there, and it absolutely does pique interest. I very much go along with what you are saying.

[Mr Hayes]

Good. Thank you.

[Richard Burden]

I should declare an interest. I am an honorary fellow of the Institute of the Motor Industry. It is non-pecuniary, but I thought I had better put that on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

Q You could be caught with a person with a disability, or a child, who is not subject to ordinary limitation; it would be from the date of their majority. There could be an action on the attaining of that majority and your product liability recompense from the manufacturer is effectively null and void.

Ben Howarth: Yes. I think that is factored in. The Bill means that that is a problem for the insurer, rather than the victim. I suppose part of the calculations that insurers will make is how many of those claims they will be likely to face. Are they insuring vehicles that are over 10 years old? That might have an impact. What is important in the Bill is that it makes that a problem for us as an industry. It will not affect, say, a disabled person who is using these vehicles. I think that is the insurance we need at the moment.

[Mr Hayes]

Q On this insurance issue, there has been quite a lot of speculation about what might happen to the products that the industry offers, which will clearly have to evolve. We were told that again this morning. Is it your estimation that that will affect premiums? One would expect premiums to fall, given the fact that these cars will be safer; many of your claims are related to human error, after all. Is that how you see things developing? However, we are also told that many people who cannot currently drive will now be able to—the infirm, the elderly, some disabled people. In a way, that is the most exciting thing about this development. How would that affect your assessment of premiums?

Ben Howarth: On the first case, I would think of it more in terms of claims costs than actually speculating on what the premiums would be. Obviously, if the number of accidents comes down dramatically, that is going to have a significant impact on the costs that insurers face. Motor insurance is very competitive, and it is inevitable that, if we see a significant reduction in costs, we will see a significant reduction in the premiums charged. So I think we can be pretty confident of that. As far as we know, it is still four or five years before these products will come to market.

Looking ahead to the cars you are referring to, where, say, there is a severely disabled person who possibly cannot drive at all at the moment, we are probably thinking about a level 5 car that can go from A to B in fully autonomous mode. It is fair to say that this legislation is primarily aimed at cars that will be manual for some of the time, automated for the rest: more of a level 4 car. Once you get to level 5, that is probably the point at which the insurance system is going to have to change more significantly.

Where the Bill is really helpful is that it allows us to learn from the first developments, get an insurance function in place and see that that system works. It is probable that we are going to have to evolve further once we get to a fully automated car. David Williams, who was one of your witnesses this morning, is one of the insurers involved in trials of fully automated technology. There is a significant degree of interest from insurers in the next generation of technology as well; but it is probably fair to say that this Bill is more around a level 4 car. I prefer to think of it as a binary distinction between automated and not-automated. I am not completely convinced about the levels and how useful they will be for consumers. It is probably fair to say that we think of it as level 4.

[Drew Hendry]

Q Public confidence in autonomous vehicles will be critical in terms of how quickly we can take advantage of some of the benefits that are portrayed by the industry. Given that the technology largely exists, do you feel that the Bill is going to go far enough to encourage the uptake of autonomous vehicles? I am specifically interested in whether you feel that the connectivity will allow a truly UK-wide uptake and also in rural areas, given that, as we have heard previously about electric vehicles, range and the ability to get to the destination is one of the limiting factors.

Iain Forbes: The point about confidence is really important. Trust in the technology is going to be a vital factor in seeing some of the benefits we are talking about. It is part of the reason that the Government are investing with industry in demonstration projects, which will involve members of the public trying the technology, understanding what it might mean for them and helping the developers to learn from that in terms of their public messaging and how they take the technology forward.

With regard to connectivity, what is interesting is that different developers are following different development paths for the technology, some of which rely on connectivity and some for which do not. So, from a Government perspective, it is difficult to say exactly what the final technological solution will look like. Some time is needed to work that through, but we are actively trialling this technology with the industrial players to understand, from a Government perspective, what action we need to take to make sure we are prepared for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

Q I just wonder what input your organisations have in the testing trials that are ongoing. I know that there have been four trials in different parts of England, but I am thinking of the bigger issues. If we look at it from a Scottish perspective, we have rural roads, single-track roads and different weather conditions. There are connectivity issues, which my colleague touched on earlier. What plans are there to review the tests that are ongoing? How much more robust do the tests need to be and how is that going to be rolled out across the rest of the UK?

Iain Forbes: My team actually oversees the research programme that is paying for the tests you mention, the four city driverless car trials. It is really important when taking forward the competitions to have as open a process as possible. We work closely with Innovate UK, the Government’s innovation agency, to design competitions around challenges where we think it is likely that the UK is going to be able to pull through developments in the research base into products that are going to be usable and commercially viable. The initial set of tests were in London, Bristol, Milton Keynes and Coventry. We anticipate having future rounds of competitions that will be open to anyone in the UK to participate in if they want to form consortium bidding.

[Mr Hayes]

Q You know that the Bill attempts to strike a balance between, on the one hand, doing enough not to constrain future development—indeed, to facilitate it—and, on the other hand, trying to determine what the schedule describes as an “unknowable future”. Have we got that right, or should we have done more? I draw particular attention to the relationship between connection and automation and the issues of privacy and security of data. Should we do more now, or is it enough that we take powers to do things when we know more later?

Iain Forbes: It is a really important question. The advent of automated vehicle technology will in time require changes to different parts of our regulatory system. We have heard about some of those already today. The trick is to try to find ways of targeting the areas where we think action is necessary now in order to unblock barriers, or where we know technology is near to market. We need to make sure that we have the framework in place to enable the safe use of that technology.

To some extent it is a question that different people have different views on, but we certainly consulted last year with a range of different stakeholders on the areas where they thought action was necessary in order to ensure that the UK was doing the right things to set up a framework. The area in the Bill was the one that stakeholders highlighted as the one that was most important to act on first.

In time we will have to have further steps in the process of getting our regulatory framework ready. In doing so, I would hope to follow the same approach of identifying where the barriers are that need action now and which technologies are nearer to market. We need to make sure that we have the framework in place to enable those.

[Richard Burden]

Q Can I go back to the definition? At the start of the session you said that the thing you welcomed in the Bill was that it would define what an automated vehicle is by whether or not that vehicle was on the list produced by the Secretary of State. Do you think that creating a definition will be simple? Where would autonomous emergency braking come into that? A large number of vehicles might have autonomous emergency braking that one would not normally define as automated vehicles. Nevertheless, autonomous emergency braking, by its nature, will take control of the car and stop it whatever the driver is doing. So would the car fitted with autonomous emergency braking need to appear on that list, because it would

“in at least some circumstances or situations”

be capable of driving itself without having to be monitored by an individual? If it were included, are we saying that this new insurance product that the Bill brings into effect is essentially going to be the norm, not the exception, much more quickly than we thought?

Iain Forbes: Autonomous emergency braking is one of a suite of technologies sometimes referred to as advanced driver assistance systems. The Bill does not seek to set out a regime to manage those systems. It is about automated driving in vehicles where the driver can step out of the loop and does not need to be involved in monitoring the system. The difference between those systems and ADAS systems, as they are sometimes called, is that the driver always has to oversee what is going on in the vehicle. For those sorts of systems we anticipate the current regime being appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

Q I would be grateful if I could explore one other area with you briefly. One thing that raised a number of eyebrows when this Bill was published was the fact that it did not say anything about the regulation or safety of drones. How do you see the existing regulatory framework, and if we were going to look to improve that framework, who do you think should be responsible, for example, for bringing in geo-fencing?

Richard Moriarty: Drones are something that we are spending an enormous amount of time on—getting the balance right between effective regulation to prevent aviation-related risks and allowing this new technology and market to grow. There is an existing set of regulations for both commercial and public operators, but it is worth highlighting two important initiatives that we should all take stock of.

First, the Government are consulting on the future regulation of drones at the moment; we are working with them on that. Also, at the European level, the European Aviation Safety Agency, EASA, is doing some important work, which we hope it will publish in April and which may relate to international manufacturing standards, because things like geo-fencing, which effectively prevents drones flying into controlled space, are only really effective if that can be done through international manufacturing standards. That is one of the reasons why we are keen to see that EASA publication, which is mooted for April, before we decide next steps.

[Mr Hayes]

Q On the issue of penalties in respect of ATOL, you will know that this Bill attempts to amend the Transport Act 2000. In respect of section 225 of the Transport Act 2000, you will also know that there is a responsibility to prepare and publish a policy statement on the use of penalties. How do you envisage these penalties taking shape, and how will you ensure that their use is proportionate?

Richard Moriarty: The first thing I would say is that our having powers to introduce financial penalties for NATS brings us into line with the powers that we have for airports. It also brings us into line with other economic regulatory regimes in energy, water and telecoms, so it brings the regulation of NATS up to the modern standards of the other sectors.

We already have a published policy on how we would go about issuing a financial penalty for the airports. My starting position would be that the policy should be similar for NATS. Financial penalties are rare events in economic regulation: they do not come around too often, and there is a good reason for that. But they are a necessary part of the armoury, if you like, to drive the right behaviours and give a deterrent effect.

We would obviously have a graduated approach to enforcement. That would start off through informal means—conversations with the company, looking to it to put the issue right. If that had failed, we would move on to a more formal footing with them. I tend to think of financial penalties as a bit of a last resort but, as I said, it is important to have them there because it incentivises the right behaviours.

[Mr Hayes]

Q The other question I was going to ask reflects the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield about the post-Brexit deal on travel. We have been a leading player—one might say a trailblazer—in terms of providing protection for holiday makers, haven’t we? Post-Brexit, it is really important that we retain consumer protection across Europe. What are your views on that?

Richard Moriarty: I completely share that objective. To go back to the point that John made, I think there is a job to be done by the CAA, ABTA and other groups on raising awareness with UK consumers about the level of protection that they get from different types of products. You can imagine a future where we are in a less binary world in package travel than whether something is ATOL-protected or not. There will be a graduation of protections that consumers can get. It is important that we work with consumer bodies to raise the level of awareness.

We start from a solid and good basis. The scores for levels of awareness of ATOL, which is often seen as the gold standard, are about 75% or 80%, so we start in a good position for that work.

[Drew Hendry]

Q Some UK operators have stated that they feel that passenger rights go too far. Which passenger rights do you feel are most contentious in the industry?

Richard Moriarty: A number of airlines have expressed concern not about the principle of compensating consumers for delays, but about the tariff—the amount that is charged. It is important to get the balance right. It was not so long ago that airlines did not take the issue at all seriously. We saw long delays and a lot of consumer detriment as a result. I hear from a lot of chief execs of airlines that although they would wish for a lower tariff, because it is clearly straight off their bottom line, this is not front and centre of their urgent priorities. I do not know whether John would take a different view.

John de Vial: I think that our members would agree. If you look at the package travel directive—that particular piece of work has been updated to allow for a new directive—there is broad industry support for it. I do not think there are any great concerns about it. The EU regulation 261 regime on denied boarding and flight delays is a different issue. A much smaller number of airlines have concerns about the denied boarding piece, but the concerns are principally around the delay regime whereby, through the European Court of Justice process, the same sort of tariff for delays has been adopted as existed and was intended for denied boarding. That is viewed as a rather blunt and sometimes counter-productive regime. The loudest voices are heard around that and there is considerable merit in it being revisited.

On Richard’s point, it is about the level and proportionality of the tariff, where compensation for a few hours’ delay can be a multiple of the purchase of a low-cost ticket. That is seen to be an injustice—it is not the principle of providing the protection, but the way in which it operates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

Q Finally, changing tack totally, can the police officers help me with an unrelated matter in the Bill about diversionary courses for road traffic offenders? Have you come prepared to speak about that at all? Could you give some indication of your experience of those courses, how effective they are and, just as importantly, the evidence base that you may or may not have on whether they are effective and reduce repeat offending? Are you able to comment on that?

Simon Bray: It is not my area of expertise and I have never had to undergo one of those courses myself. There is a good look at diversionary methods at the moment. There are certainly plans to streamline the various diversionary methods and out-of-court disposals around the country. Clearly, that would fit in that overall picture, but it is not specifically traffic.

[Mr Hayes]

Q As you know, gentlemen, the CAA says that many of the incidents involving lasers are unreported and it is probable that there are many more than those of which we currently know. Is it your view that it is a growing problem? How do you think the proposed legislation will help with reporting? If you think it does not do enough, what more could it do?

Paul Watts: I am from the National Police Air Service and we saw it as a growing problem, probably about three or four years ago. Over the last three years, we have averaged out at about 100 incidents a year, so it seems to have plateaued somewhat, but it has gone from a low level to a very high level. We would welcome any legislation that makes it easier to catch an offender, but we would also still like to see a reduction in the availability.

We did see a tailing off of offences after the first few prosecutions for endangering an aircraft came into play. Over London, there was a reduction in the number of times a laser was used and less of the casual targeting of an aircraft. That seems to have tailed off and we seem to be back to a level of use that seems fairly stable and fairly high. On average, about 100 offences a year are reported through our safety system.

Simon Bray: I do not know whether Richard wishes to comment on the Met figures.

Richard Goodwin: We took a view that this matter was so serious that, despite the fact that it is not currently a reportable and recordable offence under Home Office counting rules—the legislation will change that—on 1 April last year we started reporting all lasers reported to us as crimes in London. I know that colleagues in Scotland have done the same thing. Across the year, we are averaging around 100 to 120 incidents within London being reported to us. The CAA figures are slightly higher.

Colleagues from BALPA did a survey of their members, which indicates that the figures are drastically underreported. We can get into the reasons for that, but some of it could be the perception that as pilots they were not being treated as victims and the matter was not being taken seriously. The legislation will give the degree of gravity that we think the offence deserves and it will have an impact on the aviation community, pilots and captains. It will show them that we as the police will take it seriously, because we will have a consistent recording of all offences, particularly across aviation.

Richard Moriarty: We at the Civil Aviation Authority would strongly support the measures. Our figures show that laser incidents are at about 1,500 a year. That is probably an underestimate, for reasons that have been suggested by other panel members. To put that in perspective, that is three or four incidents a day in and around UK airports. We have talked before about injury to pilots and often these attacks are during their peak workload—either landing or take off, in and around airports—so there is a real aviation and public safety aspect, which it is very important to get right. We would strongly support it for those reasons.

Beyond the Bill, we are interested in continuing to work with other authorities and Departments on other measures to complement this, whether through import controls or working with the police on offensive weapons. The good news is that the provisions in the Bill will send a very strong signal that we all take this risk very seriously.

[Mr Hayes]

Q Clearly, the use of these devices in the way you have described is malevolent, but have you made any assessment of how much of this is what might be described as irresponsible, thuggish behaviour, and how much is more serious than that? Potentially, we could be talking about devices that were used by some very serious criminals indeed. What is your assessment of that? How much is this people grabbing hold of these things and causing trouble, and how much of it is planned, plotted and serious?

Simon Bray: The difficulty is that our detection rate of these offences so far has been pretty low. That is partly because of the legislation available to us. There is a range of it for the different areas of transport: the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 goes back many years on the railways, and air navigation orders are used in the policing environment for airports. In truth, the successes that we have had in prosecution have been where the National Police Air Service has been involved—we have our own helicopters, linking with our officers on the ground and so on.

One of the issues with the legislation that we have been able to use around distract and dazzle is that the offence under the air navigation orders has been not only not recordable, but not indictable. We have therefore not been able to use the full range of powers—entering premises in order to arrest someone or, once we have arrested them, going into premises to get evidence—and the proposed new offences will allow us the use of those powers. That is a real advance, which we welcome. We think that we will benefit from a defined power of stop and search around that. I have written to the Minister and had a response, but once the consultation goes live on that aspect we will certainly contribute to that debate, too.

[Mr Hayes]

Q Okay. But of course you would be able to search on suspicion following arrest.

Simon Bray: Yes, indeed. That would be the case. As regards the type of people involved, we have not got the full range of knowledge because there have been so many offences that we have not been able to get to the bottom of and we have not been able to make those arrests and prosecutions. In some cases it will be malicious; in some cases it will be because people do not understand that it is a big problem. Again, one of the benefits of the legislation will be the opportunity to educate the public and law enforcement officers at the same time.

[Mr Hayes]

I see. Thank you.

[Drew Hendry]

Q I am interested in how we take further action to tackle reckless behaviour. You have said that, because of the previous legislation, it has been very difficult to get the numbers of offences that are actually being committed, but I imagine that, even if anecdotally, there is some evidence of serial offending in these cases of shining lasers at vehicles. Given that is the case, do you feel that there should be consideration within the work we are doing here on the Bill of future repeat offending to have further punishment?

Simon Bray: This legislation will allow the courts to do that in any event. It is an offence triable either way, which can be dealt with with summary powers and at a higher level, potentially, with short terms of imprisonment and so on. The fact that it will be a recordable offence means that we will be able, or required, to record all instances of it, which will give us a greater level of data about patterns and intelligence on where these happenings are taking place.

Martin Drake: The magistrates or judges can be informed by the Ministry of Justice and by the Crown Prosecution Service, which brings these prosecutions, of whether the offender has been prosecuted successfully before and, if they have, whether the case can be heard in the magistrates court or whether it is so serious that it needs to be pushed up to the Crown court. That can be done, given the span of punishments for somebody found guilty of that offence. Of course, there is also the question of the circumstances in which it occurred. If someone was using a laser slightly mischievously, that might be considered a lower offence, whereas if someone was doing that absolutely maliciously, it might be seen as a higher-level offence. The venue for the trial can be decided at the pre-trial hearing.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Carry-over motion: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is making an extremely thoughtful speech. The socialisation of the inanimate depends on understanding the interface between the robotic technology he describes and human beings, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said. Understanding the impact it will have and the benefit it might bring allows the acceptance of the inanimate and socialises it accordingly.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The Minister is absolutely right.

In his first intervention, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling asked about the change this will bring to our economy. The big technological change that stands before us will perhaps bring us some unintended consequences. For example, if driverless cars become a thing of the mass market, what of the future of car parks? Local authority car parks are worth over £1 billion to the economy according to the British Parking Association, and that does not take into account private sector car parks. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you can get your car to take you to the airport and programme it to pick you up after your two weeks in Salou—though I am sure you would not be away for that long—or wherever you have chosen to spend your time, why on earth would you pay the fees, which are in some cases exorbitant, for your car to sit in the car park for a fortnight? It also raises questions about what it will mean for the workforce who drive taxis, buses or HGVs, who, it has to be said, in most cases do not have the education or qualifications to go into other skilled parts of the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

That is a very good point. We should lead by example in the House, and if more of us have electric cars, we shall need more electric charging points. I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to my hon. Friend’s point—

[Mr Hayes]

rose—

[Neil Parish]

And I see that he is just about to do so.

[Mr Hayes]

I think that is an excellent point, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I know you will think so too. We will get on to it straight away. I will ask my officials—indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am asking them now, through you—to bring me some reports, as a matter of urgency, on how we can do something about the matter.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It will probably be done overnight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

That is interesting, and I love the way the hon. Gentleman has framed that for me. The point I was trying to get to is the one I made, which is that the language of clause 4 must be tight enough to ensure that, should it be tested in court, we do not find that the law fails as a result of describing software as the “operating system”, which is the wrong term. I dread the day that this House starts regulating how software is written. Much as I respect my colleagues in this House, the last thing I would want to see in legislation, having been a professional software engineer, is detail of how to write software, particularly safety-critical software. I will be grateful for having done my MSc in computer science when the House is able to have a detailed discussion of Object-Z, but that day is far off. We should not be legislating for how safety-critical systems should be engineered.

I have two other points on the Bill. I am glad we are now legislating for offences relating to the use of lasers. I was an engineer, rather than a pilot, but I can see the issue. The Government are wise. If anything, I would ask whether the penalty is harsh enough given that we could be talking about airliners with large numbers of passengers.

My final point is about drones. Having looked at the legislation on remotely piloted vehicles, I think there is a danger of constraining things not just too tightly but quite wrongly. If we were to regulate drones such as the DJI Phantom, which are hobbyists’ toys for taking video footage, as if they were aircraft, we could end up ruling out perfectly legitimate uses—for example, the man who uses a drone to inspect tiles on rooftops so that he can reduce householders’ bills because, by doing so, he can avoid the expense of putting up the scaffolding that he is now legally required to use before going up on a roof. By investing in a drone and flying it near someone’s home, this person saves the householder a fortune, without endangering them. Were we to regulate these things as aircraft, he would not be able to do that.

[Mr Hayes]

Let me reassure my hon. Friend that we are consulting on those matters, and his contribution to that consultation is eagerly awaited and most welcome.

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful for the addition to my workload.

I wish to make a final point about diesel, which has been mentioned. I drive a diesel vehicle, and I am conscious that there is a good argument to say that so many of us are in diesel cars because Governments encouraged us to drive them, in the interests of reducing CO_2. Let us not compound one bad incentive with other poor incentives. Let us just be a little more humble about what we encourage people to do in large numbers and leave room for experimentation and for markets to work, provided always that people carry the costs of their own decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

I have just over two hours in which to sum up this debate, and it will not be easy. It is with great pleasure that I close the Second Reading debate on this Bill. It has been an excellent afternoon’s and evening’s debate, without a glimpse of animus, a hint of acrimony or a moment of contumely. In that spirit, I thank very much all who have contributed to the important consideration of this important subject.

The Bill is not politically charged or partisan. We act in the national interest and for the common good. I am grateful to Labour Front Benchers for their kind comments about the spirit in which we have embarked on this process. They can be assured that that will continue during its scrutiny. By the way, as they have said, it is right for the Opposition to hold us to account and that they should critique the Bill. I look forward to such discussions and debates in Committee and beyond, because I know that the Bill will be improved with that kind of considered and measured scrutiny.

As many of those who spoke have said, the Bill is certainly prescient, pertinent and, I might even say, pellucid—pearl-like—in its quality. However, that does not mean that we should not listen and learn from its further consideration. As well as the Government, other parties will help to frame the shape and form of the legislation; it is right that they should because we are preparing, together, for the future. As I have said, this has to be driven by the wellbeing of all our people. We share a commitment—do we not?—to ensuring that the UK remains one of the best places in the world for the research and development of the next generation of transport technology that is fit for those to come.

As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, these things must be shaped by the influence they have on people’s lives and life chances. It is true, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) described so eloquently, that technological change is rapid, dramatic and—as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said—perhaps even revolutionary. However, it has to be measured against the difference it makes to those who enjoy it, and those who do so must not be limited to the privileged few; it must be for the many. It is also true that the Bill must ensure that the UK benefits from the economic and social opportunities that the next generation of technology will provide. This is not a Bill that tries too hard to do too much, but instead a Bill to pave the way, carefully, to the future.

Winston Churchill once said that the future is unknowable but the past should give us hope. The lesson of the past is that good government must always attend to the future, a future with all its potential and pitfalls, as the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) described it. It is the Government’s ascription of value to the future, as well as to the present, that motivates us in putting this proposed legislation before the House. Putative technology is rapidly changing, but we cannot predict exactly how it will develop.

Let me say what the Bill is not. It is not prescriptive. It directs us to the future, but it does not try to dictate it because we simply cannot. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield said in his summing up, that presents a dilemma for the Government. Should we delay to be certain and risk falling behind, or legislate now with the risk of error? It is true, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) said, that these matters are changing rapidly. By the way, I would be delighted to attend her recently formed all-party group. That sounds as though I have invited myself, but I am sure she will accept my suggestion in the spirit with which it is offered to talk through some of the drama of the rapid changes she described.

In truth, we must do what we can now and leave what we could do for the future. This measured approach characterises the Bill. I recognise that, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield said, no one in this House, particularly the Opposition, would want to give the Government what he described as a blank cheque. It is right that we consult properly and fully and that we set out as much as we can about how further developments will happen. It is true that the Bill paves the way to the future through a series of powers taken by the Government, but it is right, too, that those powers should be framed in a form that the House will respect, as a means of further scrutiny and shared consideration. I understand that call and will respond to it.

The Bill, as the Secretary of State set out, will do a number of important things. It will make it compulsory for drivers of automated vehicles to have insurance that covers innocent “drivers” who are legitimately disengaged from the driving task, as well as any innocent third parties involved in a collision. The Bill will give the Secretary of State powers to improve the charge point infrastructure for electric vehicles, powers to create technical standards, enable interoperability and ensure consumers have consistent information on pricing, location and availability.

The need to ensure that the charging infrastructure is reasonably and fairly spread lies at the heart of our ambitions. As was said by many contributors to the debate, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), it is right that rural areas across the country should have access to charging points. We do not want them to be focused entirely on urban areas, a point raised by other hon. Members, too. My hon. Friend also made a point about the rapidity of charging vehicles. It is important that we not only accelerate the roll-out of electric vehicle infrastructure at key locations, such as motorway service areas, but make charge points modern and flexible and take advantage of technological change, so that people can charge their vehicles more quickly.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said, it is important that we take account of the regulatory environment, both in respect of electric vehicles and automated vehicles, and we will do so. He is right to suggest that that will change as the technology changes, and I understand his call perfectly.

Our management of those providing our air traffic services will be improved through more appropriate control of the licences under which they operate, including enforcement tools and unlocking access to more efficient forms of finance. Holidaymakers will see their protection against the insolvency of travel companies extended to cover a broader range of holidays. Protection will also be aligned with that offered across Europe to allow UK-established companies to sell more easily throughout Europe and across borders.

Commercial vehicle owners will be given access to a greater range of sites to undergo their mandatory tests, and controls will be put in place to ensure fair prices for using those sites.

The shadow Secretary of State raised the issue of employment. We will address that. I appreciate and understand his concern about jobs, so I will come back to that issue when I have concluded these brief introductory remarks and move on to the main part of my summation.

The legislation will make it an offence to shine a laser at an aircraft or any mode of transport, so improving the police’s ability to maintain the safety of our transport network and safeguard wellbeing. This has been widely welcomed across the House, as I think we all recognise the risk posed by these devices getting into the wrong hands and the need to act now to deal with that risk.

The Bill will provide greater transparency and police accountability in the way in which fees are set for courses offered as an alternative prosecution for driving offences.

We have heard so many interesting and thoughtful contributions to this debate. I shall try to respond to some of them now, but I give this, perhaps unusual, commitment, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I hope will be welcome: I shall respond in writing to every point that has been raised. There have numerous points and I would tire Members if I were to go through them religiously and in detail now, but I will commit to respond to each and every one of them, following today’s debate.

Let me therefore in this short peroration—[Interruption.] I hear someone behind me saying “all too short”. [Interruption.] Welcome to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just saying that in this perhaps all too short summation I shall have time to deal with only some of the contributions, but will deal with them all subsequently in writing.

On the points made about insurance, I appreciate that, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and others, people are keen to make sure that the insurance industry responds in a way that is appropriate and protects the interests of drivers and those who might suffer as a result of accidents. As it is important that we do not over-regulate, we are consulting; we have been in discussion with the industry; but the critical point is that no one must be worse off than they are now in respect of liability and that people’s interests are protected. Frankly, I accept that different insurance models will develop—different products are bound to result from these changes—but I am more than happy to discuss this during the passage of the Bill and outside it. We will have to deliver those objectives through the Government working with the insurance industry to guarantee absolutely the commitment that no one will be worse off and that people will be properly protected.

I think that Members have been right to suggest that it is possible for changes in technology ultimately to drive premiums down. The safety that results from automation might well reduce risk, and if risk is reduced, it is likely that the vehicles will become easier and less expensive to insure. I do not want to give any guarantee, but I think that change is most likely in that direction. Let us take the steps we need to take now, so that we do not constrain or inhibit these developments. Let us do so without dictating the future but simply by pointing towards it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) was understandably concerned about older vehicles. I understand that, as an owner of many of them, he speaks for many others who share his concern. I want to be absolutely clear, although I think that he knows this already, that vintage and classic car drivers have nothing to fear while the Secretary of State and I are in post, because we appreciate their perfectly proper concerns. They have a particular interest, which should be neither ignored nor disregarded. My right hon. Friend can be sure of that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South made a good point about the protection in place to prevent hacking cyber-security on automated vehicles. It is clearly vital that security is designed for these systems from the outset. We are actively shaping the agenda to deliver outcomes on those important issues at the relevant international forums, including the European Union and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. We shall be chairing a technical working group with the aim of developing internationally harmonised guidance, standards and regulations.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) raised the issue of consistency and pricing in the context of electric vehicles. I shall be taking action in that regard. It is only fair for drivers to be charged the market rate for the electricity that they use. Electric vehicles will still offer significant savings in running costs, especially given that most charging takes place at private charge points—for instance, at home or at work—but we want to ensure that the market is competitive, the costs are fair, and the consumer’s interests are protected. We plan to introduce new regulations this year, under existing powers, consulting further when necessary, to improve the consistency and comparability of pricing information. Everyone is familiar with the price of petrol being given in pence per litre, and with the clear, simple signage at petrol stations. It should be just as easy to shop around and get the best deal for electric vehicle charging, and we will make sure that it is.

The hon. Member for Southport and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, and other places—[Laughter]—not that those other places are any less important than Inverness or Nairn, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be quick to point out—raised the issue of hydrogen, and how that technology fits into the Bill. I know that I have talked a great deal about charge points and automated vehicles, but the Government must have a technology-neutral perspective. In achieving our goal of zero road transport emissions, we must rule out no emerging technology. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are at an earlier stage of technological development and market roll-out than battery electric vehicles, but, as has already been said, they can offer a useful alternative, particularly in certain settings. We are supporting the early market for those vehicles and the development of an initial refuelling network, and we are excited to see how the market is developing. We also recognise the wider economic and decarbonisation benefits that hydrogen, as a flexible energy source, could provide.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield spoke briefly about NATS. The Bill does not include privatisation measures, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the measures that it does include have been widely welcomed by those who felt that the regime needed to be updated and to become more practicable.

In the context of the air travel organisers’ licence, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey made a good point about how the Bill would help UK businesses to trade in the European economic area. UK-established businesses licensed under ATOL will no longer need to comply with the different insolvency rules in other EEA states, which will make cross-border trade easier. It will give such businesses more opportunities to sell to a wider consumer base, and to grow.

The hon. Gentleman also said that he wanted to ensure that British consumers were safe post-Brexit. Far be it from me to anticipate the negotiations—that would be well above my pay grade, and outside my orbit—but it is important for us to continue to co-operate in these matters, and of course it is right for us to continue to take into account holidaymakers and other consumers throughout Europe. I have no doubt that there will be many opportunities to debate such issues as the Bill progresses, and I do not want to anticipate those exciting opportunities this evening.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough asked whether staff would lose their jobs when we closed Government-owned sites for vehicle testing. The answer is plain: no. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency will still employ the examiners who deliver the vehicle tests at private sector sites. Staff who maintain the facilities do so under a contract with a total facilities management provider, and are responsible for a number of different facility contracts as well as the DVSA contract, so they will be redeployed on those contracts. That will include the maintenance of local driving tests centre under the same contract with the DVSA.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) raised the issue of lasers, so let me be clear again about that. Under the new offence, the police will have the power to search after arrest on suspicion. Creating a laser-specific offence will bring consistency across all modes of transport, give police the powers they need to investigate the offence fully, and carry penalties that reflect the seriousness of that offence.

As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield raised this point, I emphasise that diversionary courses are not an alternative to proper enforcement. He is right to emphasise that, and I do so too from the Dispatch Box in accordance with his request.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked for a reassurance that we will work with colleagues in Northern Ireland. I can confirm that we will and that we have been in close contact with devolved Assemblies in respect of this Bill. I have both spoken to Northern Irish Ministers and received their communications, which have allowed the further development of the Bill. Indeed, I have spoken to Scottish Ministers too, to ensure that they, the Welsh and the Irish understand what so many contributors to this debate tonight have grasped: this Bill is important, non-partisan, vital for our future, and measured. The Government understand that as the Bill develops it will evolve and change as the technology changes. That is the approach that we are adopting, and I am very grateful for the welcome that that approach has been given.

[Jim Shannon]

I am very pleased to have the Minister’s reassurance in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and in relation to the Scottish and Welsh as well. The Government have given a certain amount of financial assistance, certainly for electric cars and ensuring there are charging points. Is it possible to confirm for Hansard today in this Chamber what that financial commitment will be to the Northern Ireland Assembly?

[Mr Hayes]

As many more issues to which I wish to respond have been raised in this debate, I suggest that I add the hon. Gentleman’s request to the list and make sure I satisfy him, as far as I can, in respect of the matter he has raised.

It is a consequence of our knowledge of the past and our assiduous stewardship of the present that we can now prepare for a presently unknowable future. I was challenged by one of my hon. Friends to introduce some poetry to my peroration, and I did not want to let her down. As T. S. Eliot wrote in the “Four Quartets”:

“Time present and time past

Are both perhaps present in time future,

And time future contained in time past.”

I thank all who have spoken for their contributions, and anticipate further consideration of the Bill without fear of contumely or animus, but rather with confidence and enthusiasm. In particular, I am grateful to the Opposition for their sedulous and thoughtful approach. Change and challenge face us all; Government must meet both with foresight tempered by care, and ambition softened by humility. We cannot be certain of all that will come, but we can certainly ensure that all we do is driven in the national interest and by the common good. I therefore commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 23 March 2017.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the charging of fees for courses offered as an alternative to prosecution for road traffic offences;

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Carry-over)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Emily’s Code: Pleasure Vessel Safety

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 1st March 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this short debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for securing it and bringing these matters to the House’s attention.

I have been a Member of Parliament for 20 years, a Front-Bench spokesman for my party for 18 years and a Minister since 2010. Over that time, I have spoken in Parliament hundreds of times, sometimes about significant things, often about insignificant things and usually, I hope, with good humour, but I have rarely spoken on an occasion that combines solemnity and importance as much as this one. This is a sad occasion, but a hopeful one too.

It is important that I emphasise how valuable this debate is. It provides the opportunity for me not only to join my hon. Friend in offering personal condolences, and those of Her Majesty’s Government, to Emily’s family and friends—I note that her parents, Clive and Debbie, her sister Katie, her brother Todd and her grandparents are here today; I welcome them and offer those condolences to them—but to join him in my admiration for their campaign, their effort, their spirit and the difference that they are making.

I do not understand death—I barely understand life, actually—but what I do know is that each life has a purpose. That purpose is not entirely a matter of the span of a life; it is really about the fact that, throughout the time we spend here, each of us touches and affects many other people. Through the development of this work and this code, little Emily, who died in this tragedy, is not only touching the lives of those who were close to her, but the lives of hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of others. Her impact will be much greater than the span of her short life. It will change all those lives for the better. It is therefore a real pleasure for me not only to welcome, but to endorse Emily’s code. It will be a lasting legacy and memorial to the daughter who was so loved and to the sister and the granddaughter who is so missed by the family, who are here today.

We in politics are in this business because we want to make a difference. That is why we are what we are and why we do what we do. We try to make a difference for good, don’t we, but other people can make as much of a difference—perhaps more of a difference—than most of us do, however long we spend here and however much we succeed. What I am so impressed by is the seriousness and care that has been taken in the development of this code.

It is true, as John Masefield said in his poem, “Sea Fever”, that

“the call of the running tide”

is a feature of our lives and these islands. It has been for all the time that men and women have lived here. We cherish our seagoing heritage and all that it means. It can, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, bring immense joy, excitement and thrills, but it also brings risk and danger, and that is precisely why it is important that we establish good practice and underpin it with regulation in the way that he suggested. An important principle at the heart of what he said today and what the code embodies is that learning through education and the establishment of what he described in his short speech as a set of rather simple, rather straightforward principles can make such a difference in guaranteeing the wellbeing of those who are called down to the running tide.

I have a long and detailed speech prepared for me by my excellent officials, but I will not give it, because I do not feel I should give it. Instead, I want to respond to this debate as a father of two young sons. I feel this, like everyone listening to this debate will, in that spirit. I looked at the code, and thought, “This is exactly as good as it could be. It is just perfect, isn’t it?” The code is in line with RNLI practice and has its support. The code is very much in the spirit of our wonderful Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which does such valuable work in providing the assurance of safety that I mentioned a moment or two ago. I met the MCA just today to discuss the code and this debate.

The code is in tune and chimes with the work we do through our regular inspections and through the intelligence provided about ships, the weather, our coast and the dangers that those circumstances can bring. More than that, through its straightforwardness, persuasiveness and its relationship with Emily, it will make an immense difference in changing people’s perceptions of the joy and the risks associated with the sea.

The code is, as I have said, straightforward. It states:

“Wear a suitable lifejacket or buoyancy aid

Service equipment

Get trained

Make a plan

Know your limits

Carry distress signals

Use the kill cord”—

that is a way of turning off the engine in a boat—

“Know your boat

Have a radio

Check the weather”.

Those may sound like rather routine things, but my goodness, if the code is applied with rigour and enthusiasm and people know how much it matters, it will make an immense difference. So many accidents and tragedies are associated with one or more of those straightforward, but timeless principles.

It is a delight to speak in this debate, but it is also a responsibility. It is critical that education, training and voluntary initiatives associated with the leisure sector emerge from the work that has been done by Emily’s family. With the guiding hand of the Royal Yachting Association, the pleasure boats sector has aspired to and achieved very good safety standards, and we need to say that Emily’s loss was an exception. It is not the rule; our seas are safe and they are well policed. All the agencies I have described do sterling work to ensure that that continues to be the case.

Having said all that—I have also been in contact with the RYA, and I know that its training is of the highest standards—it is still important that we know there will be those who, for one reason or another, get involved in boats and do not take for granted those straightforward, resonant messages. There will be those who will not necessarily know the sea as well as they might. There will be those who are therefore at risk. The Government’s commitment is such that not only do I give an assurance that we will do all that is necessary to make the code as widely established and as well-known as it can be, but we will formally launch the code at the Royal Yachting Association’s dinghy show at Alexandra Palace and we are sending a senior coastguard commander to do so. We will continue to promote the national drowning prevention strategy, which aims to halve the 400 or so accidental drownings in all forms of water by 2026. Even where accident levels are thankfully low, we must do more. It is our purpose, but more still, it is our mission.

I started by paying tribute to Emily’s family, and I do so again. The difference they are making is profound and appreciated. As I have said, the code will change many, many lives for the better. Marcel Proust said:

“Happiness is beneficial for the body, but it is grief that develops the powers of the mind.”

That is not an easy lesson to learn. When one is obliged to learn it by circumstance and then turn the power of the mind to a noble purpose, it deserves to be recognised in the way that my hon. Friend has allowed us to do today. I thank him for that and once again offer the thanks of the whole House of Commons and the Government to Emily’s family for the difference they are making.

Question put and agreed to.

Heathrow Expansion: Surface Access

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

What a delight it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to respond to this short but significant debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing it. I know that she cares about this issue a great deal. She follows in the footsteps of a Member who, one might say, was a champion of this cause.

Other Members who have contributed—notably my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias), but also my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury)—have raised these matters regularly and vehemently. It is right that hon. Members should do that. All those I have mentioned are tireless workers for the interests of their constituents, and they are right to press the Government in the way they have done and continue to do.

[Dr Mathias]

I greatly appreciate my right hon. Friend the Minister’s words. Does he agree that there is now cross-party unity on the need for better information in these consultations, as was so ably expressed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney)?

[Mr Hayes]

Yes. It is important, as I said, that the Government are held to account. That is the purpose of debates such as this. I take a plain view about these debates—I do not know whether all Ministers follow my lead, but would that they did, frankly—which is that they must have a purpose beyond the Minister coming with some prepared speech that he reads out, rather like reading the lesson at church, and being unaffected by the contributions made before he speaks. It is important that these debates are a proper opportunity to challenge the Government, to scrutinise what we are doing and to elicit from the Minister a meaningful response, which is what I hope to give today.

To that end, let me start by saying that there is a proper debate to be had about the character of the consultation. We have begun to speak today about whether, in the national policy statement, we should have come to a conclusion about the detailed plans for surface access, and should then have consulted on those plans, or whether one should have a consultation based on the NPS and, from that consultation, discern what is right and go into rather more detail later. That is about how one sees a consultation. One criticism often made of consultations is that they are foregone conclusions. This one clearly is not a foregone conclusion; it is a legitimate consultation exercise, designed, as I have said, to give people the opportunity to make their case, to take their argument to the Government, and the Government will then cogitate, consider and draw conclusions. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would have had every right to complain had we come to a definitive conclusion about these things prior to the consultation and then gone through the motions of a consultation without meaning to take any notice of what local people said. That is not our approach, and it is certainly not my approach.

That said, it is important that we recognise some of the arguments that have been made in this debate, so let us be clear: it is fundamentally important in relation to expansion that Heathrow provides a detailed application, built on a detailed transport assessment, including a surface access strategy. That should be part of the process as we go forward, and it will be. That detailed analysis should be based on the latest available evidence on how the requirements in the airports national policy statement will be met. It is important to appreciate that, as we move to the point at which Heathrow Airport Ltd lodges its planning application, it will be expected to provide that kind of detailed analysis as part of the planning process.

Moreover, the Government have been clear that it would be for Heathrow to meet the full costs of any surface access that was required only for airport expansion. That is set out in the draft airports national policy statement. As has been said, we are carrying out a full consultation, because we want to hear everyone’s views about the detail of that, but I repeat that we are committed to the principle that Heathrow must meet the costs of any surface access changes necessitated by its plans for expansion.

Let me go further and say that the hon. Member for Richmond Park and others are right to point out, in relation to the way people get to the airport, that although no final plans or designs have been approved for the runway and there is a series of options, those changes will require us to think about the public transport needs of those who want to get to the airport. It is certainly our view that a greater proportion of people could be encouraged to use public transport to get to the airport.

The huge investment that is already planned or under way for the provision of better public transport services will play its part. The Elizabeth line—Crossrail—will significantly improve links between Heathrow and central London destinations. From May 2018, four trains an hour will run between Paddington and Heathrow airport, replacing the existing two-train-per-hour Heathrow Connect service. From December 2019, Elizabeth line trains will run from the airport directly to central London destinations, including Bond Street, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf.

High Speed 2, of course, will connect directly to the airport via the interchange with the Elizabeth line at Old Oak Common, providing a new express route to the midlands and the north from 2026. Transport for London plans to increase capacity and upgrade trains on the Piccadilly line. Network Rail is developing plans for a new rail link from the Great Western main line to Heathrow, which will allow passengers to travel directly to the airport from Reading and Slough, and a new southern rail link from Heathrow to south-west London and the south-west trains network is being developed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has expressed his ambition to accelerate that scheme, and we are taking that into account as part of the planning process for the next funding period. There is no doubt that with the improved services to which I have referred, we will make available new means by which people can get to and from Heathrow from a range of destinations around London and well beyond it.

I emphasise that it is also true that the draft airports national policy statement recognises that expansion of the airport would have a range of potential impacts on the transport networks around it. Improvements would be needed to make Heathrow’s transport links adequate to support the increased numbers of people needing to access the expanded facility there. The proposition in the draft airports NPS for service access is to require the applicant to develop and implement a surface access strategy, which would mitigate the impact of expansion on the transport network.

That is a clear statement that we recognise the arguments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park about understanding that surface access is a critical part of the development and that its success will depend on getting surface access right. I entirely accept that. That does not seem to be an argument against expanding the airport, but it is an argument in favour of doing so in a way that is sustainable and that links the airport and growth there with the developments that will take place in and around its vicinity, and beyond.

[Sarah Olney]

Could you answer the point I made about freight, because so far your answer has focused specifically on passenger transport—

[Sarah Olney]

Could the Minister respond on the point about freight?

[Mr Hayes]

I will come to the issue of freight, but before I do I want to make a couple more points on passengers and then say something about air quality, which the hon. Lady also mentioned.

As part of the regulatory process, the Civil Aviation Authority is expected to decide how the costs of any capacity-related surface access schemes would be treated as part of the regulatory settlement, including which of the costs would be recoverable from airport users. That is an important additional point that was not specifically dealt with in the hon. Lady’s initial remarks, but she will be reassured that it is a further element in the package of proposals that the Government are bringing forward.

I know that many others have views and estimates of what they believe the surface access costs might be. We do not accept some of the estimates. Some people have said—others might say surprisingly, but I will go so far as to say amazingly—that they might cost £18 billion. We do not accept some of the more extravagant estimates, because no final plans or designs have been approved for the runway. While there is a range of potential options for surface access improvements, it is for the developers to produce the detailed plan, as I said earlier, as part of the development consent order, which will be properly considered through the normal statutory planning processes. In a sense, we cannot prejudge exactly what the needs will be, nor what will be necessary to meet them, but we are clear that, in principle, surface access has to be part of the process that will now take place.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Does the Minister agree that with the known 47% increase in flights that a third runway will bring, it is actually not that difficult to predict the expected increase in passengers, staff movements, freight and air surfacing? Will he consider in a little more depth whether those calculations could be done now within reasonable tolerances?

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, it is true that we could model some of the anticipated increase. I accept that, with the caveat that it is dependent on some of the other things I have already mentioned: the exact design, the balance between access by car and access by public transport, the additional investment we are making in rail, and the whole range of other variables that will affect the character of demand. It is important as we come to the end of the consultation process and listen to what people have to say, and as the application moves forward, that we get greater clarity about some of that modelling. However, at this juncture I would not want to be prescriptive about the character, the shape or, less still, the substance of that. I take the hon. Lady’s point, which was well made, but there are still a lot of variables that prohibit us from being too definitive about some of the modelling at this stage.

I am conscious of time, but I want to say a word about the Environmental Audit Committee’s report on air quality, to which the hon. Member for Richmond Park referred. I recognise the points made about both air quality and surface access following the publication of the Committee’s most recent report last week. To contextualise that, the hon. Lady will know that the Government are considering their air quality plan. We intend to bring a draft plan forward in the spring, with a final plan by the end of July in the summer. It will clearly take into account the recommendations of the Select Committee. All kinds of possibilities are being considered and there has been some speculation on what the shape and character of that air quality plan might be.

Let me be crystal clear, Sir Edward, as I know you would expect me to be: it is very important that we grasp the challenge associated with the relationship between air quality and wellbeing. I discussed exactly that with the British Lung Foundation this morning. The relationship between poor air quality and poor health is well established, and it persuasively argued the case that a range of pulmonary conditions are exacerbated and worsened by poor air quality. We take that very seriously indeed. This is not some high-flown theory about what might happen in centuries’ time; this is about the health and wellbeing of our children, in particular, and of older people and ill people who are especially affected by poor air quality.

We have been clear that as the application for the expansion of Heathrow proceeds, air quality will be salient in all we do. We have been clear that it is important that Heathrow will not proceed unless it meets legal air quality requirements. The Secretary of State made that clear on 25 October in his statement to the House, and I affirmed it in this place in an earlier debate on precisely such matters.

[Sarah Olney]

We were not specifically talking about air quality, but since the Minister has raised it, will the air quality plan include details of any penalties for Heathrow should the third runway go ahead and it is then found to breach the air quality targets that have been set?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Lady is eager—eagerness is often a feature of new Members and I congratulate her on it—but she must wait to see what the plan looks like. Then we will be able to debate it at great, but not inordinate, length. She will not expect me to say more about it and what it will include now.

The hon. Lady asked about freight, and it is important to be clear that freight traffic will play a key part in the development of Heathrow—I have no doubt of that. It is absolutely right that a plan anticipating changes in freight movements is made and is subject to scrutiny and debate. We will inspect that plan, and the Government will expect the developers at Heathrow to deliver a cogent, well argued, proper assessment of the impact of any changes in the volume or character of freight traffic and how they might affect congestion, road safety, air quality and all those other matters that are dear to my heart and of concern to this Chamber and the whole House.

I see that I have only a moment or two before we conclude. In summary, I will write to hon. Members about any other matters raised that I have not dealt with. Let me be crystal clear: we will proceed with the expansion of Heathrow only on the basis that it is conducted in a diligent, thorough and sustainable way; for that is the responsible position taken by this Government on all such matters.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Oral Answers to Questions

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of diesel cars.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

We are working with local authorities to drive the improvements in air quality that are so needed in our more polluted cities. My right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary will consult on a new air quality plan later this spring.

[Mr Sheerman]

Diesel vehicles are part of the problem and we need urgent action on them, but is the Minister also aware of today’s Environmental Audit Committee report on how Heathrow will affect pollution and climate change? I have just come back from Beijing and saw the level of pollution there. Will the Minister bear it in mind that that is not where we want to go for towns and cities in this country?

[Mr Hayes]

It is important to appreciate, as I know the hon. Gentleman does, that this is not a matter of some high-flown theory about what might happen in many centuries’ time; it is about the wellbeing of people now in our cities and elsewhere. The direct relationship between air quality and health is well established. Pollutants are affecting the quality of life—more than that, they are affecting the health and wellbeing of our people. The issue is about the defence and promotion of the common good, which, as he and the whole House know, is always central to my heart.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I urge Ministers and the Government to do something about older diesel cars, either through taxation or a scrappage scheme. We can get electric vehicles in, but we also need to take diesels out, especially in our inner cities, with their hotspots of pollution. Unless we tackle that issue, we will not get the levels down.

[Mr Hayes]

Just this morning, I was with no fewer than 16 motor manufacturers looking at low-emission vehicles. It is vital that we promote electric cars. As you will know, Mr Speaker, this week we have published our Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, which deals with the electric car charging infrastructure, among many other things. One can deal with this by sanction and penalty or through encouragement, incentive and a change of mind. I prefer to look on the positive side of these things.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The penalty is going to be the millions of pounds of fines faced by our constituents because of the Government’s failure to act. When are we going to hear about some practical action from the Government to reduce the number of diesel vehicles? The Minister has not answered the question. Air pollution is the second biggest avoidable killer after smoking.

[Mr Hayes]

Let us be clear: we have made real progress to date. In 2016, the UK was the largest market for ultra-low emission vehicles in the EU and a global leader in this development.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, in the spirit of bipartisan generosity that characterises all he does in the House, will welcome the announcement in the autumn statement setting out a further £290 million of funding for ultra-low emission vehicles. He says that he wants action, but what more action does he want than the policy, the legislation and the resources—we are taking action. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is feeling grumpy because it is Thursday morning, but he really ought to welcome that.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I point out to the Minister that figures from the London Assembly Environment Committee from 2015 set out why it is wrong to try to demonise diesel cars and their drivers. Diesel cars account for just over 10% of all emissions in London: the same amount, nearly, as Transport for London’s buses; the same amount, nearly, as ageing trains; the same amount, nearly, as ground-based aviation services. The issue is not simply diesels.

[Mr Hayes]

As this short discussion on low-emission vehicles and emissions began, I thought, as you Mr Speaker, must have done, of Proust, who said, as you will remember:

“The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes”.

Using those eyes to see to the future is necessary if we are to be ambitious and have vision about where we can go with low-emission vehicles, particularly electric vehicles. We are making progress and we will continue to make more. The plan that I described, which we will draw up this spring, will set out exactly what that progress looks like.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

On diesel vehicle manufacturers, the Minister knows of my particular interest in Volkswagen. Will he confirm from the Dispatch Box the extraordinary and contradictory evidence that the Select Committee on Transport received on Monday from Volkswagen’s managing director, Paul Willis, and that Mr Willis has not given the Minister’s Department everything it asked for?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman was at the sitting of that Committee, on which he serves, where he will have heard the extraordinary statements made by Mr Willis, which I described at the time as “little short of ridiculous.” I have met Mr Willis and Volkswagen on numerous occasions and asked them for four things: a quicker retrofit to the vehicles affected; compensation for customers who are affected; a warranty for those retrofits; and the money the taxpayer has had to spend as a result of what Volkswagen did to be repaid in full. None of those things has yet been done to my satisfaction, which is why I have written again to Mr Willis, setting out exactly our Government demands—not Government demands, but demands on behalf of the people.

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The public are perplexed about where we are going with diesel cars. Will the Minister be sure to remember that many people bought a diesel car because they knew it would be cheaper to run, even though it was a more expensive car? They cannot afford to make the coming changes. Does the Minister recognise that?

[Mr Hayes]

It is certainly true that we need to make the transition to low-emission vehicles affordable. We are not in the business, as a Government who champion the cause of ordinary, hard-working people, of penalising people to the point at which they cannot go about their lives or access employment and other opportunities in a way in which the whole House would expect, so it is absolutely right that we take a measured view. Having said that, we have to make more progress, and being measured does not mean being complacent. As I set out earlier, we will make that progress, and we will change minds and behaviour through what we do.

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

Following the Transport Committee hearing earlier in the week, am I right in thinking that Volkswagen situation now denies any wrongdoing in the UK but still feels obliged to fix 472,000 vehicles, with another half a million remaining to be looked at? The company says it has provided the Government with all the information requested, but the Minister denies that, and it is refusing to publish the report it commissioned from its lawyers, Jones Day. The Minister told the House in November that there would be a “steely fist” in his “velvet glove” if Volkswagen did not meet its obligations, so will he tell the House what that steely fist will actually mean and what he will actually do when he meets VW again next month?

[Mr Hayes]

First, to establish the detail of what Volkswagen has and has not done, and what the Government have asked it to do, it might be best if I let the hon. Gentleman and the House have a copy of the letter I have just written to Mr Willis, which sets out how and where Volkswagen has not done what the Government have asked. Secondly, as I said a moment ago, I am determined to use every avenue to pursue the interests of the consumer. The Secretary of State and I will travel to Berlin to meet German counterparts to have discussions because much of the evidence lies there, where the tests were done. Yesterday I met the legal representatives of the consumers who are moving a private prosecution against Volkswagen. I will leave no avenue unexplored and no stone unturned. My steely fist is now a galvanised steely fist.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the level of transport modal integration in the north of England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to reduce harmful emissions from road transport.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

As you would expect, Mr Speaker, I am working closely with my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the vital issue of air pollution, and as I said earlier, we intend to consult on a new air quality plan later this spring.

[Clive Lewis]

Given that 40,000 people die prematurely every year from air pollution and that the Government have lost two High Court cases over their lack of action, will the Minister now use his large, galvanised fist to push through clean air zones in cities such as Norwich to protect people’s health?

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, I think the hon. Gentleman is right. Clean air zones play a vital role in that work. Sometimes all I need is the air that I breathe. Certainly, we all need and deserve clean air. He will know that Norwich is one of the cities that has already implemented a bus low-emission zone and that the Campaign for Better Transport has welcomed the themes to be addressed by the clean air zones, including the plans for local growth, air quality and health. It has said that these are

“sound principles to underpin transport and planning”.

He is right, however, that we need to do more on clean air zones, and we will consult on that. I am in weekly discussions with my colleagues in DEFRA accordingly. The key thing—if I might add this, Mr Speaker, at your discretion—is that it is really important that we not only have good, consistent national standards, but respect the local particularities of different places and cities, so the role of local government will be vital. These zones will not be vanilla flavoured. They will reflect local circumstances, but they must all work to high national standards.

[Mr Speaker]

We are all, I am sure, greatly educated in consequence, but at a cost in time.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

One of the reasons for harmful road emissions in my constituency is the queues of traffic from Baildon through to Shipley, so when can we have a Shipley eastern bypass, which would be good for the local economy, alleviate congestion, and deal with these harmful emissions?

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend’s perspicacity means that he has managed to weave a point about local roads into a question about air quality. On that basis, I think the best thing for me to do is to agree to meet him to discuss its particularities in greater detail.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

20. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the new report “Any Journey is Greener by Bus”, which shows how bus patronage has grown in Labour-led cities such as Nottingham that have adopted new and innovative approaches, including greener buses, and reduced harmful emissions. That has brought about wider social and economic benefits. Given that bus use in the UK as a whole has fallen by about 7% in the past six years, and that in the past year mileage fell on commercial and local authority-supported bus services, are not his Government failing to support one of the most effective ways to tackle air pollution?

[Mr Hayes]

It will not come as any surprise to the hon. Lady to know that when I am in Nottingham I travel on the bus from my mother-in-law’s home to the city, so I can speak with some authority about bus journeys in Nottingham. She is right that bus travel is a key part of this, which is why we have made an extra £150 million available specifically for cleaner buses. She is right, too, that we need to encourage that as part of our low-emission zones.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

Encouraging parents to leave their cars at home and get their children on to local public transport can have a major impact on air quality. Has my right hon. Friend done any analysis of how much free bus travel for children will cost? The Labour metro mayor candidate has promised free bus travel for all children across the west of England, even though the devolution deal is £30 million a year. Is this another underfunded Labour promise?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is very wide of the substance of the question, so I think that a single sentence of eloquence from the Minister of State will probably suffice on this occasion.

[Mr Hayes]

Buses are good, walking is good, cycling is good—that was how I got to school.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The Minister promised new eyes, so will he use them to recognise that there are some 10 million diesel car drivers in the UK. Rather than joining in their demonisation by a hysterical media, will he hold a full and proper inquiry into the pros and cons of diesel, including for buses, trucks and trains, and thereby adopt a proportionate approach to what remedies might be necessary?

[Mr Hayes]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise from my immensely measured remarks earlier that I am not prepared to demonise anyone. I am certainly not prepared to put at risk the wellbeing of people who need to travel to work and school, and to access other opportunities—public services and so forth. Of course we need to be balanced in our approach to this.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

6. What his policy is on reducing the number of night flights at London airports.

--- Later in debate ---

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

8. Whether he plans to review his Department’s policy on road tolls.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

The Government have no plans to roll out tolling on existing roads. Successive Governments have taken the view that tolls are occasionally justified when private finance enables some of the most expensive road infrastructure, such as significant river crossings, to proceed. It is right that the user pays, rather than the taxpayer, because the user benefits.

[Christian Matheson]

My constituents who work in Liverpool will need a pay rise of £1,000 a year just to stand still when the Mersey crossing tolls are introduced. Will the Minister consider a scheme whereby those who can demonstrate that they were in permanent employment on the other side of the water on the day the tolls were announced would have either some kind of tapered introduction or a discount to reflect the additional costs?

[Mr Hayes]

As I said, it is not unusual for Governments to use tolls to finance large estuary crossings. I would rather be straightforward with the hon. Gentleman about this matter because he is a diligent, popular and well-respected Member of this House and, more importantly, he is one of my friends. I cannot do what he wants and I would rather say that now. We did consider whether we could widen or add to the discount scheme, but we could not make that cost-effective, so I would rather be absolutely frank with him and just say that.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

19. Last week marked nine years since the Scottish National party scrapped the last of the transport tolls in Scotland. Since then, the average commuter travelling on the Forth and Tay bridges has saved around £2,000. In the same period, the average toll-paying commuter in England and Wales will have paid just under £4,000. If the Government are serious about helping what they call “just about managing” families, why will not the Secretary of State reassess his transport toll policy?

[Mr Hayes]

My goodness, what barefaced cheek from the SNP. It did indeed cancel the tolls, and the crossing closed because the SNP did not have enough money—[Interruption.] There was not enough money to make it work.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

12. When he plans to publish the Government’s cycling and walking investment strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

18. What steps his Department is taking to improve the road system in east England.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

My hon. Friend is well aware of the investment that we have made in the A47, which affects his constituency and indeed mine, to some degree. I know that he has been a consistent and effective campaigner for improvements to the road, and I look forward to continuing to work with him to complete those improvements.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

Given that nearly 30 years ago, back in 1988, the then Transport Secretary promised to dual the entire length of the A47, will the Minister give serious priority to the six schemes that are currently planned, and ensure that they start as soon as possible?

[Mr Hayes]

There is indeed a series of schemes for improvements along the road, particularly in the parts where it could be dualled, and, as my hon. Friend will know, Highways England is looking into the matter. However, I think that I should meet my hon. Friend on the road, with representatives of Highways England and my officials, to look at the specificity of this, because I owe him and the House that at least.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the image will be graphically captured for posterity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

T2. The Minister has told us today that he is pursuing the interests of consumers, but can he explain why we still have no timescale for UK drivers of Volkswagen cars to have them fixed and compensation paid, as has happened for US consumers, and will he tell us who in the UK Government will be taking responsibility as they face legal action from the EU Commission for their poor response to the scandal?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

Having been a little unkind to the Scottish National party earlier, let me be rather more generous now: the hon. Lady is right, and this is a matter for the whole House to work together on. As I made absolutely clear earlier, Volkswagen’s behaviour has been unacceptable. It is vitally important that we move ahead with rigour, but with care, too, to make sure that consumers are properly dealt with by Volkswagen as a result of this unacceptable behaviour.

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

As most of East Anglia has a two-track railway at best, does my right hon. Friend accept that it is very difficult to reconcile the ambitions of the Mayor to have increased frequency services to inner London train stations while there is a growing need for faster services to Norwich, Chelmsford, Stansted airport and Cambridge, without providing extra track capacity at key points?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

The Minister of State will recall our meeting in December with representatives of Vivergo Fuels, where jobs are under threat. The renewable transport fuel obligation consultation has now closed. Will he enlighten us as to when he is going to make a decision and lift those threats of redundancy?

[Mr John Hayes]

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we are looking closely at these matters following the consultation. He will know that I held a meeting with all those concerned recently. We will consider the representations that we have received and make a decision as soon as possible.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

T4. In the light of this morning’s release from the Government, what guarantee can the Minister give us that any savings resulting from reducing pay-outs to innocent victims of motor traffic accidents will be passed on to drivers?

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I am sure the whole House will be disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) was unable to ask about space flight, so will my right hon. Friend the Minister please set out what steps he is taking to ensure that the UK becomes the world leader in commercial space flight?

[Mr John Hayes]

Ah, the final frontier! And who better to take us there than Britons? Our journey to the stars will be informed, and we will become the premier site for satellite launches and lead the way in commercial space flights, as we set out in our document earlier this week. Mr Speaker, I see you as Captain Kirk and me as Mr Spock. Other parts will be played by members of the cast.

[Mr Speaker]

We will leave that open to the imagination, but I think it is safe to say that the right hon. Gentleman will always shine brightly on the outer edges of the galaxy.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

At the last Transport questions, and again today, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) has been bullish about Volkswagen executives facing criminal charges for the diesel emissions scandal in the UK. How is that going?

[Mr Hayes]

It is important that we work with the Germans on this. The tests were done in Germany, and they have much of the evidence that we need to proceed with all that we are doing to force Volkswagen to do the right thing. It is also important that we work with and support the private prosecution that is being brought by consumers. I am doing both, and I will bring the results of all that work back to the House in due course. The hon. Gentleman can be sure that I am absolutely determined to defend the interests of people against this soulless corporate behaviour.

[Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

The A27 Reference Group has long campaigned for investment, and my constituency of Wealden—and especially my town of Hailsham—are in desperate need of modern roads. Will the Minister agree to meet me and representatives of the A27 Reference Group to discuss how we can secure extra funding for the A27?

[Mr Hayes]

I can hardly wait. Coffee, tea, supper—whatever my hon. Friend wishes. I will be happy to meet her and her friends to consider these matters.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

T7. Seeing the first Aventra train undergoing trials on the existing Crossrail network east of Liverpool Street earlier this month was a proud moment for the workers at Bombardier, and indeed for the whole east midlands rail supply chain. Given Bombardier’s success with sales of Aventra to the East Anglia franchise, does the Minister share my hope that we will see this train being deployed more widely across Britain?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I support the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) in raising the issue of Vivergo Fuels and the danger that the 2% crop cap may pose to an important local business. Will the Minister meet MPs of all parties from the region to consider the matter before determining what to do?

[Mr John Hayes]

I have had meetings about that. I know how closely the hon. Gentleman has worked with colleagues from across the House to promote the interests of his constituents and others. I will happily have more meetings. It is a challenging matter, but we must get it right. The hon. Gentleman is right that we do not want unintended consequences, so I will of course be delighted to meet.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the proposals for Crossrail 2? If there are to be any delays, will he tell us what can be done about overcrowding on our trains, such as the one I was on this morning, in the meantime?

Ministerial Cars

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) has made the following written statement.

I am publishing today details of the charges incurred by Departments for the use of official Government cars provided to Ministers by the Government Car Service during the financial year 2015-16, which are in the attached table.

Official transport is provided so that Ministers can carry out their work effectively and securely, including working on sensitive and confidential Government documents while travelling.

We are committed to continuing our focus on reducing the cost to the taxpayer of the provision of secure ministerial cars. The Government Car Service has reduced its running costs by three quarters since 2010. We continue to be committed to reducing the cost to the taxpayer of the provision of secure transport.

To assist public scrutiny, equivalent figures for the £6.7 million charges to each Department under the last Labour Government can be found at 28 October 2010, Official Report, column 23WS.

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansard/cm101028/wmstext/101028m0001.htm#10102827000372.

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury on introducing the Bill. I am delighted that it has cross-party support. I have very little to add although, in the accustomed manner, that will not stop me saying it anyway.

We very much support repealing those provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that suggest it would be lawful to dismiss a seafarer for homosexual activity. This is a very short Bill. Clause 1 would omit from the 1994 Act sections 146(4) and 147(3):

“(homosexual acts as grounds for dismissal from the crew of merchant ships).”

Clause 2, as we have just heard, is being amended. It would have required the Act to come into force at the end of two months, but we support the amendment.

The Bill’s brevity does not in any way undermine its importance; short Bills can be quite significant, as we are discovering at the moment. There is little to amend and I hope it will be agreed that it is relatively straightforward. We are all keen that the Bill should be passed, and speedily. It is clear that the provisions that the Bill seeks to repeal have no place in a modern society based on sexual equality and inclusion. Although other countries appear to be going backwards at the moment, it is good that we continue to go forwards.

The provisions to be repealed are now legally null and void in any case, superseded as they were by the Equality Act 2010 and related regulations. Dismissing a member of a merchant ship’s crew on account of homosexual activity would be discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, contrary to part 5 of the 2010 Act.

As we discussed on Second Reading, section 14(3) of the Armed Forces Act 2016 already repealed the parts of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act that related to the armed forces but left in place the aspects concerning merchant ships. The Government said they would decouple the two issues and would soon act to repeal those sections concerning merchant ships.

The Bill will tidy up existing legislation and remove discriminatory language from the statute books. It is an important, albeit symbolic, gesture, so let us get it done.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. Like you, during my time in the House I have heard many hon. Members and Ministers begin their speeches by saying, “I will be brief.” The difference today is that I mean it: I will be extraordinarily brief.

I have to do only the following: to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury on bringing the matter to the attention of the House and to reassure the Committee that I will not be using the beautifully crafted but arid speech prepared for me by my civil servants, because I do not need to add much to what was said on Second Reading and previously.

It is a curious thing that in our age we tend to measure virtue in mechanistic terms—both curious and undesirable, I think. Men and women are driven by feeling, and what arises from feeling. So, in taking the Bill forward, let us not speak in mechanistic terms. Let us not speak drily about legal consistency and procedural certainty.

Let us delve a little deeper just for a moment. The Bill is about being fairer, kinder, more reasonable and more generous. If those are more testing virtues and more difficult to think about this morning, then so be it: we should consider them for all legislation—particularly the kind that we have before us, which involves people’s feelings, sentiments and privacy. Men and women are complicated and fascinating because of their complexity. We should at all turns, at every opportunity, try to remember those enduring values of reasonableness, kindness, fairness and generosity. In that spirit and for that purpose, I welcome the Bill.

I will say one more thing if I may. It is also common in our age to speak of transparency and openness. Let us also this morning, just briefly, make a case for privacy. The Bill would reinforce the privacy of people who simply seek to go about their lives in the way that they choose.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Commencement, extent and short title

Amendment made: 1, in clause 2, page 1, line 6, leave out “at the end of the period of two months beginning with” and insert “on”—(John Glen.)

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Severn Bridges

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.

Dickens said:

“An idea, like a ghost...must be spoken to a little before it will explain itself.”

The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) has certainly spoken to and about this idea on many occasions, including today, and I congratulate her on taking the opportunity to make the case that she has made before once again. Relatively recently, in July 2015 in this Chamber, she raised these issues and asked the Government to do many things. I will address as many of those issues as I can in the time that I have available. As is inevitable on these occasions, I have a pre-prepared script written for me by my officials, which will inform me, but I will not be constrained by it. As I have said before, I feel it is important in Westminster Hall debates to answer the points made by hon. and right hon. Members and not simply to parrot what I could have said regardless of their contributions.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I am sure that is very welcome.

[Paul Flynn]

Will the right hon. Gentleman elevate himself to a star in the political firmament by abandoning his pre-prepared script and answering the debate? It would be a rare and delicious experience for us.

[Mr Hayes]

I was hinting at that already and I have done so many times previously. Although I would not claim to be the shiniest of stars, I am starlike—at least, that is how I would describe it. In that spirit, I will deal with some of the—I will not say inaccuracies because that would be too unkind—exaggerations in the hon. Gentleman’s grasp of history. Let us start with when the tolls began. He brings—I do not blame him for this for a second—a certain tribal prejudice to these things and he ascribed the tolls to those he characterised as Tories. He knows, however, that the tolls were first introduced in 1966.

I wonder whether any Member present in the Chamber could remind me of who was in government in 1966. I recall that it was a Labour Government who, when the bridge was first opened, cemented tolls as a means of partly funding the cost of the development. In fairness to the hon. Member for Newport West, he said the Welsh would have accepted any deal at all, but he did not say that they would have accepted any deal from the then Labour Government, and tolls began at the inception and have continued since. The Chamber will recall that it was a Conservative Government that pegged the tolls in 1992. You will remember the 1992 Act, Mr Davies, which says the tolls can rise only in line with the retail prices index. Indeed, they have risen since then by only that amount.

Before I move on to the main substance of my remarks—I do not want to short-change any hon. Member by not dealing with the specific questions that they raised—I have one other historical matter to deal with. The Rebecca riots, which began in 1839 as the hon. Member for Newport West said, concluded in 1844, as he will also know, for several reasons. It is true that extra troops were deployed to dissuade those who were rioting from taking action against the tolls; it is true, too, that many of those who were causing disturbances resisted the violence that some of their compatriots recommended; but it is also true—the hon. Gentleman will want me to fill the gap and add to the quality of his account—that criminal gangs became involved in the riots. They used the disguise of the original complaint of the rioters to engage in all kinds of malevolent activities. That is the full account of the Rebecca riots for those who are interested in the history of such things and want an unabridged, uncorrupted and balanced account of those events.

[Paul Flynn]

It depends how we look at history. I once read a book that asserted that only the future is certain, but the past is always changing. We have just seen an example of that and of somebody rewriting his own history. However, it is a matter of great honour and pride to us in Newport that in 1839 the last Chartist riot took place in order to set up a republic. We have week-long celebrations every year. That is our view of history and the Chartist riot was contemporaneous with the Rebecca riots. It was a glorious start to socialism in this country and throughout Europe, and something of which we are very proud. Of course, there is a black history interpretation whereby people with a Conservative mood of mind try to fictionalise those great events, but they were heroic and it is time to bring them back.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I confirm this is in order because it is a bridge to the future.

[Mr Hayes]

I did not want any historical inaccuracy—I have used the word now—to stand on the record uncorrected. I know you would not have wanted that either, Mr Davies.

I want to turn now to the specific matters relating to the Severn crossing. The hon. Member for Newport East generously acknowledged at the outset that we have begun the consultation that was promised previously. In the debate that I referred to in 2015, she referred to

“the need to offer some light at the end of the tunnel for my constituents.”—[Official Report, 21 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 436WH.]

That is part of the reason why she secured that debate then when she sought further progress on the character of tolls, which I will try to address today. She will know that the current consultation invites contributions on a range of issues, many of which have been raised here. It is a real consultation, and we are genuinely open-minded about how we move forward. The Government have made some proposals, as was also said. None the less, to be meaningful, the consultation has to respond to consultees’ ideas and thoughts. We have not come to any predestined conclusion, and I will take into account the various comments that have been made.

I want to deal with five matters. First, on the amount of the toll, the hon. Lady and other hon. Members will know that we have proposed effectively to halve the toll by reducing it to £3. She will also know that that will be welcomed widely by regular users of the route, for any reduction of that scale and size is bound to be welcome. However, the hon. Lady asked for more detail on traffic flows. That is a perfectly reasonable request and I will make more information available following today’s debate. It is important that we gauge the effect on traffic flows of any changes we make both in the toll and in the way it is collected.

There were changes to traffic flows—I discussed this before the debate—when we changed the tolling system at the Dartford crossing in Kent. We believed that if we could automate the process it would improve the flow of traffic and ease congestion and so on. If we were to make that change at the Severn crossing—we are consulting on that and people will offer views—it is important that we gauge the likely effect on the convenience of travellers. The hon. Lady is right to ask about that and details will be provided.

The hon. Lady also asked us to break down costs in greater detail, and that is also a reasonable request. There are a variety of costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who always speaks with great authority on all matters to do with Wales—indeed, on all other matters as well—said that a balance has to be struck. A perennial debate on river crossings—bridges and other structures—is how much the Exchequer and the user should each contribute. That debate continues almost wherever some fee or charge is made. It is easy to describe it as double taxation of those concerned but, my goodness, we could say that of any charge that is made for any public service. I do not think that we should want to characterise every charge made to every taxpayer as double taxation. That would be crude and even—dare I say—a little crass.

[Glyn Davies]

rose—

[Paul Flynn]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend.

[Glyn Davies]

Does the Minister accept that many, like me, will be concerned about the issue? A huge number of road schemes in Britain are in need of development, for the benefit of the relevant parts of the country and the economy. That is hugely important—it is vital. However, if we cut off the possibility of part-funding through user contributions, we will not be able to provide all those schemes. I use one in the west midlands every time I go home. It will be damaging to the British economy if we take a view that there must be no tolls at all.

[Mr Hayes]

That was the point that I was making—less concisely and persuasively than my hon. Friend. As I said, the debate is perennial; we have such a debate about nearly every kind of fee or charge, for every public service. I suspect that the answer—and I hate to sound tediously consensual—is that a balance has to be struck.

[Jessica Morden]

Tolling at £3, in part, to pay back the £63 million cost to the Government of the latent defects on some of the bridges, when the Government have in fact recouped more than double that in an unexpected tax windfall, seems especially unfair—particularly when the Government stepped in and wiped £150 million off the Humber debt. Does the Minister appreciate how strongly people feel about that?

[Mr Hayes]

The reason I said I wanted to break down the costs is that, as the hon. Lady will understand, as well as a capital cost to be recouped in the form of a debt, maintenance costs are associated with any crossing of this kind. She will be familiar with the details of the Severn Bridges Act 1992, which makes it clear that those costs can be included in any tolling system through to 2027. The operational, maintenance and servicing costs are real, and are borne by those who pay for the crossing through tax and tolls. As I have described, a balance has to be struck, and that is why the Government are engaged in consultation in response to calls from the hon. Lady, among others.

Having been slightly unkind to the hon. Member for Newport West, I will mention that he has longer and more profound experience in this context even than that of the hon. Member for Newport East—certainly than mine; I pay tribute to the fact that both hon. Members have been consistent in advocating their constituents’ interests in making their case about the crossing. I hope that they, in similar good faith, will recognise that I will do my best to bring about a reasonable and fair outcome to the consultation, which will guarantee the interests of all concerned into the future.

[Paul Flynn]

How was the £3 figure arrived at? What are its components? Past examinations have suggested that there is no way that future costs would make it anything like that. Is not it true that the Wales Office has lost out to the Exchequer? The Treasury has said, “We want to continue to use the bridges as cash cows for as long as we can.”

[Mr Hayes]

The £3 cost brings the charge much more closely into line with the Humber estuary, the Dartford crossing, and so on; but none of those figures is magical or derived from a mystical process. They are designed to reflect the real costs of running the crossing—the operational and maintenance costs and the capital costs over time. I have already conceded in the third of my five points—you will remember, Mr Davies, as you follow such things assiduously, that I said I would make five points—that I would break down the costs further. I am happy to do so, in the interest of being straightforward in this debate and in the consultation.

It is true that businesses on both sides of the Severn have long called for reductions in tolls—thus our response, in the form of the consultation. The crossings will of course return to public ownership early in 2018, so this is the right time for what we are doing. The main proposal is to abolish the toll category for vans and small buses and halve the tolls for all vehicles. That 50% reduction should not be disregarded and I know that the hon. Member for Newport East would not want it to be.

[Jessica Morden]

The Minister just referred to the handover in January 2018. Can he be specific about the date? The consultation ends on 10 March. Presumably in October a car will drive through the Severn bridge toll plaza and the revenue target will be hit; what happens then? Potentially, with a handover period, businesses that can now reclaim VAT might be unable to do so. If the handover is not until January 2018 will there be an increase then, as there has been every year?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Lady is right to say that we need to set out the process, and that responsibility will pass to Highways England. The fourth of my five points is that it is important to be clear about how Highways England will manage the process. She asked particularly whether others will be involved and Highways England will contract the responsibility. That will of course partly depend on the results of the consultation. If we move to a free-flow system, like the one at the Dartford crossing, it will have implications for organisation and management. Fewer people will be involved at the crossing and more behind the scenes, and there will be advance booking as happens at Dartford, with an account-based system that will hopefully help traffic flow. That will require us to set out, following the consultation, the further steps necessary for the handover. I am happy to do that, but I do not want to pre-judge the consultation.

There are arguments for maintaining cash payment; I will be blunt about that. When we debated Dartford, the first time I was in the Department for Transport, we considered that closely because a cash system is simple and straightforward; but there are disadvantages—particularly the delays. Evidence from places in this country and abroad shows that automated systems can be highly effective, can be properly managed, and can offer considerable benefits, particularly to regular and business users. We will set out the transition process and it will to some degree depend on what we do about future toll collection.

The fifth point that I want to make is to express thanks to those involved over time in managing and maintaining the crossing. It is right that in any changes that take place we recognise the contribution that people have made to running this important crossing, which is a vital piece of UK infrastructure. It has benefited road users from England and Wales for 50 years, it is used by more than 25 million vehicles each year and it has provided road users and businesses in England and Wales with exceptional savings in time and money since the first crossing helped to connect the economies of both countries in 1966.

I enjoyed the story about the ferry, although I am not sure I was meant to enjoy it. It sounded like a hazardous—indeed tortuous—business, and I imagine that those who can look back on that will recognise just what a difference the crossing has made. As we now consider the next steps, it is important that we take account of the effects they might have on all of those involved in the process, and I wanted to do so publicly.

Let me summarise my response. I repeat that we have no preordained view about how this matter should unfold. It is important that these debates inform thinking, and they certainly do in my case. There is a strong argument for making as much information available as possible to Members of this House and more widely along the lines requested throughout the debate across the Chamber, and we will do so.

If the debate does no more than all of that, it will have achieved a great deal, because it has persuaded this Minister—if he needed persuading—not only of the importance of the matter but that we need to move ahead with as wide agreement as possible about the kind of tolls charged, the effect they have on people, the methodology that we employ and the steps we will take to manage that process. All of that will happen, and the hon. Member for Newport East can be proud of yet again representing her constituents and others so admirably.

As a postscript, the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Newport West can be pretty sure that my references to the pre-written script were as slight as the hon. Gentleman had hoped.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

We will finish where we started: I call Jessica Morden to wind up briefly.

[Jessica Morden]

Thank you for ably chairing the debate, Mr Davies. My thanks to all hon. Friends who took part and in particular my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). May I thank the Minister for his response and in particular the points about the staff who work on the Severn bridges, whom I mentioned?

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out forcibly that we do not feel that the Government are being generous in their offer. For years, excessive tolls have been charged to people making essential journeys and we feel strongly that it is time to right that wrong. I worked out that this is about the 87th time I have spoken about the Severn bridges in my time here in questions and at other times. As the concession is nearing its end, the impression is that the Government have been dragging their feet. For instance, we expected the public consultation last autumn and it has taken its time.

[Mr Hayes]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. I have spoken already, but I omitted to pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones). Were it not for him and his role in this matter—I mention him because he answered the debate last time round—I do not think we would have moved as quickly as we have. He has been determined to ensure that we responded properly to the hon. Lady’s concerns. It is not I but he who deserves the credit for any progress that has been made.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

That sets a precedent—an intervention on a wind-up.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

12. What progress has been made in encouraging the use of ultra-low emission vehicles.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, we are blessed.

[Mr Hayes]

Mr Speaker, I waited to rise to build excited anticipation. We want the UK to be the world leader in the take-up and manufacture of ultra-low emission vehicles. Last year, more ultra-low emission vehicles were sold in the UK than in any other country in Europe.

[Craig Whittaker]

The British built Nissan Leaf continues to be one of the most popular electric cars in the world, but what are the Government doing to support the uptake of other types of vehicles?

[Mr Hayes]

Like Cicero, we believe that the good of the people is the chief law, so it is for public wellbeing that we want to see low emissions from all types of vehicles. Just yesterday, I announced the results of the low emission freight and logistics trial, which will see the Government providing no less than £24 million to help place about 300 low and zero-emission vehicles into commercial fleets across the UK.

[Mr Speaker]

One rather wonders whether the results of the trial were communicated to the right hon. Gentleman’s hero, Cicero.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

The Minister says that he wants to see emissions reduced in all types of vehicles, so will he explain to the House why just 160,000 of the polluting cheat devices in Volkswagen cars have been remediated out of the 1.2 million cheat devices that are currently on the roads in the UK? At this rate of reparation, it will take three years to clean up Volkswagen’s dirty diesel cheat devices.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Lady is right. Volkswagen needs to do more, which is why I am going to meet its representatives at the beginning of next week to tell them exactly that. I insisted that the company paid £1.1 million, which we received on Christmas eve—I demanded it as a Christmas present—because that was the money that taxpayers had to spend as a result of the emissions scandal.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

I am sorry to say that, since Transport questions began, news broke in my constituency that another person has lost their life as a result of a fatal car accident. I hope that the Minister and the House will join me in offering condolences to the family and friends of the victim.

I welcome the fact that the Government will be doing an awful lot more to encourage the use of ultra-low emission vehicles. However, councils such as mine want to introduce a low emission zone, and they will struggle to introduce electric car charging points and new enforcement cameras without planning and regulatory changes. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that these issues will be at the top of his agenda with the Department for Communities and Local Government?

[Mr Hayes]

To start with—road safety is a concern of the whole House. My hon. Friend was right to mention the tragedy that he did.

Charging points are vital. One of the great challenges for industry and Government is to ensure that there are adequate numbers of charging points across the whole country. That particularly applies in rural areas such as the one I represent. There may be a need for legislative change to that effect, and we are considering that. We are introducing a modern transport Bill, in which we will address the issue of charging points.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Will any Volkswagen executives face criminal damages here for the diesel emissions scandal?

[Mr Hayes]

I hold no candle for those businesses that do not do right by consumers or, by the way, by their workers. The actions that have taken place in the United States, which I guess is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to and the actions that are being considered by Volkswagen customers oblige the Government to think again about what further steps we can take, and we are doing so. I have not ruled out a further investigation. I will discuss that with the Secretary of State and raise it with Volkswagen at the meeting I described.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Constituents tell me that one of the barriers to their buying electric vehicles is the complexity and variety of public charging facilities, which require them to carry numerous cards and forms of payment. Does the Minister have any plans to bring some regulation to this market to simplify it and make it more accessible and to encourage more people to purchase electric cars?

[Mr Hayes]

Indeed. Was it not Ronald Reagan who said that the future does not belong to the fainthearted? We must be big-hearted and far-sighted in respect of electric vehicles, and that does mean more charging points. We will create a regulatory regime sufficient to provide those charging points and, therefore, to assuage the public doubts to which my hon. Friend has drawn the House’s attention.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Despite all the inducements, only 3% of new car sales are of electric cars. Should the Minister be doing more to encourage liquefied petroleum gas switching or hydrogen fuel cell cars?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman will know about our Go Ultra Low campaign, which is match funded by industry, and which is designed to encourage the kind of learning he described. We need to persuade people that that switching is desirable. It is partly about charging points, partly about battery reliability and partly about people simply knowing that electric vehicles can be good for them. We will continue that campaign in exactly the spirit he recommends.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

The VW emissions defeat device cynically deceived 1.2 million vehicle owners in the UK, and I declare that I am one of them. I am delighted that the Minister is going to have VW in next week, because drivers in the UK are being tret unfairly compared with VW drivers in the US. In the absence of any action by the Government so far, UK motorists are having to pursue private group litigation against VW. I want the Minister to understand how badly let down UK VW drivers feel because it appears that the Government are letting VW off the hook, although I hope that that is not the case. Will he, even at this late stage, offer support to the motorists in the UK pursuing their own action?

[Mr Hayes]

Yes. I am actually on the same page as the hon. Lady. By the way, I am glad we have moved on from the belligerent bombast of earlier—I do not think it did the Opposition any favours—and she makes her case reasonably. There is a case for further steps. That is partly about the retrofit described earlier by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), it is partly about the payment of taxpayer money I described, and it is partly about the consumer. We should consider further steps and, having considered them, take them as and when necessary.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

14. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of road infrastructure and capacity in the north-west.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

The Government recently published three strategic studies into long-standing transport challenges in the north-west and have committed to major investment based on the findings. Highways England’s route strategies —by the way, I set up Highways England on my last visit to the Department—have assessed the performance of the strategic roads network and the pressures it faces. Three strategic studies relate to the north-west. Refreshed versions, drawing on the evidence submitted by local stakeholders last year, will be published, and I think they should be published soon, so let us make it March—we will publish them then.

[Conor McGinn]

In 2014, the roads investment strategy proposed nine new projects in the north-west, but, to date, the plans for just one of them have been announced, while the Government spend six times more on transport infrastructure in London than in the north. How does the Minister think the whole northern powerhouse thing is going, because, when it comes to transport, like much of the traffic in St Helens, it seems to be going nowhere and not very fast?

[Mr Hayes]

I do not think that is typical of the hon. Gentleman—at least, I hope it is not—because he is being ungenerous and, to some degree, might I say, not admitting all he knows. For surely he will know of the A570 linkway, valued at £3.2 million—that is in St Helens, by the way. He will know of the Windle Island junction improvements, valued at £3.2 million—again in St Helens. He will also know of the Newton-le-Willows interchange, valued at £14.4 million. We are not only acting in the north-west but in his constituency, and he does not want to tell us about it.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

rose—

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

It is the surface of the roads in the north-west within the existing infrastructure that worries me; it is a bit like driving on the surface of the moon at times. Where county councils fail to tackle the problem of the plague of potholes that besets motorists in the north-west, will the Minister be imaginative and look at ways whereby district councils could bid for the money that the Government make available so that they can tackle this problem?

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend is right that the noise and disturbance from poor road surfaces has a significant effect on the journeys of those who use cars and trucks. As he knows, I have been in the north-west in a vehicle with him—an open-top vehicle, I hasten to add—waving to his constituents. I know how important road surfaces are, so I will certainly look at his suggestion, not only for the north-west but across the whole nation.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

T2. Will the Minister of State’s inspirational words about beauty be matched by the deeds of Highways England?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

It does not surprise me that my right hon. Friend has drawn attention to my rapturously received and beautifully articulated speech on beauty. He is right to say that we now need action. We have established a design panel at Highways England, and in a few weeks’ time we will produce a new design guide. It will dismay all the crass modernists and harsh brutalists, but it will delight all those who believe that our public infrastructure can be stylish and elegant as well as deliver the necessary utility. My role is only this: to rediscover the age-old golden thread with which all of that will be woven.

[Mr Speaker]

Almost as stylish and elegant as the right hon. Gentleman, I do not doubt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

T6. The excellent report “The Free Ports Opportunity”, written by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), sets out the possibilities for UK ports to become free ports, post-Brexit. It estimates that that could create 86,000 jobs in the UK. Will the Minister of State outline the possibilities for ports such as that in Newhaven in my constituency to become free ports, post-Brexit?

[Mr John Hayes]

I have with me the report to which my hon. Friend refers. It is an excellent piece of work, and I have already arranged to meet its author. I initiated the maritime growth study when I was last in the Department, but it is time to refresh that. It must be a living document. As part of that exercise, we will consider the role of ports now that we are freed from the clutches of the European Union. My ambitions are, as ever, measured and modest: I seek nothing more than for Britannia to rule the waves.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

T4. Ministers will be aware of the comments in Public Health England’s recent alcohol evidence review that drinking alcohol up to England’s drink-drive limit increases the risks of fatal accidents by 13 times. We have the highest drink-drive limit of any country in Europe expect for Malta, so will the Government look again at reducing the limit as a matter of urgency, in line with the views of the Police Federation, the RAC, the House of Lords, the Fire Brigades Union and 77% of the public?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

A start has been made in the first road investment strategy on upgrading the A47 from Lowestoft to the A1. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that he will work with me and other East Anglian colleagues on the second road investment strategy to ensure that this good work continues.

[Mr John Hayes]

My hon. Friend will know that we managed to achieve what he wanted in respect of the bridge in his constituency, but he is right that we need to do more in respect of RIS2. To his customary eloquence and commitment he has added prophetic powers, because just this morning I am writing to all the colleagues he describes inviting them to participate in that process. This will be for the people and shaped by the people’s representatives.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

T8. The A75 in my constituency benefits from Euro-route designation. Will the Secretary of State assure my constituents that he will support the continued designation of Euro-routes after the UK leaves the European Union?

UK Maritime Industry

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to hear that I will have a fair bit to say about national minimum wage and national living wage enforcement, because that is something that has come very much to the fore this year. It came to my attention in particular through the detention of the Malaviya Seven in Aberdeen and its sister ship, the Malaviya Twenty, in Great Yarmouth. Those ships have been detained by the International Transport Workers Federation as a result of non-payment of the crew’s wages. The ownership of the ships is being contested—the case is winding its way through the courts. I am afraid I have to say that the willingness of the shipowners in those cases to leave the seafarers they employ effectively destitute does them no credit. Sadly, it does not reflect particularly well on the wider industry, either.

Where we have seen some progress—the Seatruck case—is however perhaps the low-hanging fruit. As I see it, that is just the tip of the iceberg. As we speak here in London, there are non-domiciled seafarers, principally Filipinos, working out of Scottish ports, being paid significantly less than the national minimum wage but still having retained by their employment agents—also domiciled outside the EU and also principally Filipinos, I am told—some 32% of their wages in respect of UK tax and national insurance. In some ways, that illustrates the absurdity and inadequacy of the current enforcement arrangements. If these men are not here working as part of the UK, why are they paying UK taxes? If they are here working as part of the UK, why are they not given the protection offered to other UK employees and workers?

The more I find out, the more it seems that the situation facing many seafarers working on ships that in some cases have not left UK waters effectively for decades is just as bad as the situation that led the previous Labour Government to set up the gangmasters licensing system. It may be that at some point we will have to take a similar approach on the position of seafarers.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

I intervene because it is so often the case that there is not sufficient time at the end to answer all the points made in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman is striking a chord with me, with which I have considerable sympathy, as he will know from our work together in the past. We will do more on this—he can be assured of that—and I hope to say a little more about that at the end.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am immensely grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I know he has a personal and political commitment in this regard and I am delighted that he was able to offer us that assurance again.

This is not just about the treatment of Filipino seafarers; there is also an effect on UK seafarers. First, because of such employment practices, UK seafarers are excluded from employment opportunities that would otherwise be available to them. That also drives down wages for those who are employed. I am told that Stena Line, the largest UK employer of seafarers, cut the hourly rate of pay for ratings employed seasonally—from June to September—from £8.31 to £7.20, which is the minimum wage rate. That is a graphic illustration of the direct impact on UK seafarers.

The situation has a context. For the Government’s purposes, that context is the maritime growth strategy that they commissioned in 2014. That was a good, comprehensive piece of work, and it was welcomed. If anything, it was somewhat overdue, coming the best part of two decades after the previous piece of work had been done. It made a number of recommendations. The most important was that leadership was required from both Government and the industry, including though a more commercial and responsive UK maritime administration within Government and an industry-led promotional body, with more proactive action to replenish and develop the skills needed to maintain our position as a world-leading maritime sector and effective marketing by the industry and Government of what the UK maritime sector has to offer both domestically and internationally to be strengthened.

I could probably do 90 minutes on the maritime growth strategy alone, but in view of the number of others who wish to take part in the debate, I will concentrate on the one aspect that, to my mind, is probably the most significant: training of seafarers. The Minister will know that since the turn of the century, we have had the SMarT—support for maritime training—scheme, which currently holds something in the region of £15 million. The British Chamber of Shipping tells me that it is looking for a doubling of that. I hope the Minister will look at that, because in terms of Government expenditure that is of course a significant ask, but it could bring significant rewards. I hope, though, that when the Minister engages with the industry in respect of that ask, he will not be shy about attaching some strings to any increase in funding.

I am told that a year’s guaranteed employment is on offer for those who are trained as officers under the scheme. That of course would tackle one of the major difficulties that I hear about consistently from constituents who work in the industry: that officers in particular are trained under SMarT scheme funding, but there is no employment for them once they qualify. There has to be a little more detail. We have to do more than simply extend the cliff edge out by one year, so that a situation in which we currently have training followed by no employment does not then become training followed by one year’s employment followed by no employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Turner]

I absolutely agree.

The port services regulation is threatening future investment in the sector as well as jobs. It has been opposed by British port owners, trade unions and Government and Opposition Members. It is unwanted, unworkable and, simply put, unacceptable for the UK. The large dark cloud in the sky relates to whether the UK will be affected by the regulation between now and when we leave the EU.

Today the Minister of State for Transport said at Transport questions:

“we are freed from the clutches of the European Union.”

Before Christmas, the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, held an evidence session with the Minister. It was then unclear whether the regulation would enter into force before the UK had formally left the EU. It was also unclear whether—heaven forbid—a transitional agreement between the UK and EU might mean that the regulation could apply to us, even though we had left. Is the Minister now saying that these uncertainties are settled, because that does not seem to be the view of the European Scrutiny Committee? Is it possible that the new regulations can commit us before we leave the European Union, and we will then have to change things back?

[Mr Hayes]

Disraeli said:

“Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.”

So let me utter a few new words. I have opposed the port services regulation since I first heard of it. We will vote against it. We will record our vote against it. When we do so, we will show why. It will take two years, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to come into effect. It is not for me to anticipate when we will leave the European Union, but I want nothing to do with the port services regulation, and I do not want our ports to have anything to do with it either.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

I absolutely agree. I am pleased to have that promise. Throughout the referendum I argued that there were many opportunities to be found in the uncertainties that leaving the EU could bring. However, I am not willing to accept the uncertainties that the port services regulation brings. It jeopardises our maritime industry on such a great scale that it must be avoided by all available means. I am fully aware that the Government do not intend to provide a running commentary on ongoing negotiations, but there is one thing we must fight for as we negotiate leaving the EU, which is for the UK to be wholly exempted from the EU’s port services regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

With great pleasure, Mr Walker. As I looked around the Chamber during this debate, I felt spoiled for choice because so many of my favourites are here. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) springs to mind, as does the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) and, not least, yourself, Mr Walker.

Among those favourites stands proud today the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who introduced the debate. He worked with me in Government and I know that he cares as passionately as I do about this subject—unsurprisingly, given the people he represents. When he introduced the debate he was right to emphasise the significance of the maritime sector to our economy, as well as to his constituents. The sector contributes £13 billion to the United Kingdom. It supports more than 100,000 jobs in thousands of different businesses. Just as much as that, and perhaps more, it is an area in which Britain—indeed, the United Kingdom—stands proud, because the quality of what we do in the sector is world renowned and widely admired across a range of services.

As has been said repeatedly, this is not the first time that I have done this job; it is my second visit to the Department for Transport as Shipping Minister. By the way, all ministerial jobs are visits—no more than that—as it is very important to recognise. None the less, when I was there the first time I initiated the maritime growth study to which the right hon. Gentleman and others have referred. He was very generous about it too, if I might say so. The reason for the study is that it seemed really important that we had a stocktake of our maritime circumstances and our maritime future. However, since then we have had the debate on the European Union. I will not digress by saying that the result was, for me, a dream come true, but it certainly changes our maritime future. It is therefore important that we review that growth study. I have put into place a stocktake of the study itself, which is currently taking place, so that we can consider its very helpful recommendations in the context of Brexit.

[Melanie Onn]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman—my dueting partner on occasions—for giving way.

[Mr Hayes]

I wasn’t going to mention it.

[Melanie Onn]

I just share it widely. On the point about embracing that opportunity, as he sees it, the Minister will be aware that the Humber is the UK’s busiest trading port. That is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) will be equally as proud of as I am. It really is critical to hundreds of directly employed jobs and thousands of indirectly employed jobs as well. There is a sense that ports and maritime have been somewhat left behind in the past. Is part of this opportunity about putting ports at the heart of industrial strategy for the UK going forward?

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, that is a very well made point. The hon. Lady is right to say that we perhaps understated the significance of the maritime sector. This is a point that the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for maritime and ports and former Shipping Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, made in his contribution and has made previously. Part of the role of the Shipping Minister is to champion the sector; to speak loudly and repeatedly about its significance. The hon. Lady is right that it does not just affect the places where our ports are situated; it affects the whole of our economy. Some 95% of the goods that we purchase from abroad, and the things that we send to foreign countries, go through our ports. As the representative for Grimsby, she will know how important that is.

[Albert Owen]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I will give way in a second. By the way, I am going to visit Grimsby soon and will have a look at the port. Now I will give way to another of my favourites.

[Albert Owen]

I was a bit disappointed that I was not listed among the Minister’s friends earlier on. There is a serious point that I want him to answer. Now that we have talk of an industrial strategy, will the Minister, who is in the Department for Transport, liaise with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that both Departments know about this so that we have joined-up thinking when we talk about ports being the catalyst?

[Mr Hayes]

We are already doing that, but these debates must have a purpose, so I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I will personally meet Ministers on exactly the issue he has raised, and in the fashion that he has described. It is important that the industrial strategy takes full account of the significance of the maritime sector, as has been said. As he spoke earlier I thought to myself for a moment, given our great history, that he has forgotten more about energy than I have ever known, but then I thought, as a former Energy Minister, that was a tad too self-deprecating.

Let me highlight the key issues that have been raised, which fall into the following categories. First, there is the maritime growth study, which I have mentioned. That was a very important piece of work and I am immensely grateful to Lord Mountevans for leading it and to others who took part. It provided a series of recommendations that will inform future policy, but as he and others acknowledged, it must be a living document. The great risk with such exercises is that the document is published, the work is done, there is a great furore around its publication and then a year later people think, “What on earth was that study?” In order to give the document continuing relevance, it needs to be regularly updated, which is precisely what I am doing through the work I just described.

The points made about the flag—as highlighted by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass)—and tonnage tax should be pertinent to that review of the study. We can do more with tonnage tax, particularly on recruitment and training, and we need to do more, as has been acknowledged by the Government and those with whom we work, to make the flag more attractive. There has to be an offer in respect of the register that goes beyond simply raising the flag and includes a range of services that we can provide to make it more attractive. We are committed to that.

Secondly, the issue of ports was raised. We may have emphasised ports insufficiently. At the risk of adding contumely to our affairs, I disagreed to some degree with the Opposition spokesman on this issue; the ports are perhaps the best example of how private organisations investing heavily, being responsive to changing circumstances and being very efficient and competitive, compared with their European counterparts, can make a significant difference to the sector. The fact that we have private organisations—not wholly, but for the most part—running our ports is testament to what can be done when private and public interests coincide.

However, we should not be complacent. The shadow Minister is right that we need to look at the new challenges that our ports face, because they work in an extremely dynamic sector and more can be done to support them. We certainly should not have the port services regulation. As I made perfectly clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, we will not have it as we do not want it and will fight it at every opportunity.

The third issue that was raised was skills and recruitment. I share almost all the views that permeated—indeed coloured—this debate, begun by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I think that we are doing too little on recruitment and that we need to do more on skills. As Members will know, I was the apprenticeships Minister when the coalition Government first came into office. I am proud of our work on revitalising apprenticeships, but I take the point that was made. More can be done, and in my discussions on the industrial strategy I will raise the continuing importance of training in this sector. We need to recruit and train more British seafarers. It is as simple as that. Throughout this short debate Members have made the point that there has to be a career path for those seafarers. It is not enough simply to recruit people at different levels; there has to be a career path so that people can build their life in seafaring. That is a good thing and something of which we should be proud.

[Albert Owen]

The Minister made two interventions on earlier speakers, and I am really pleased that he has now taken two interventions from me. Sea cadet units across the United Kingdom were a fertile breeding ground for people for both the merchant navy and the Royal Navy. Will he do more to train youngsters up in those facilities? He will also be aware of early-day motion 516, which has been suggested by the unions. Will he work with the unions and others to ensure that we have a proper campaign for skills and safety at sea?

[Mr Hayes]

Indeed I will. I recently held a roundtable meeting, which the unions attended, on precisely those matters. I have discussed recruitment with the trade unions, and I welcome the excellent briefing produced by my trade union friends. When I first became a Minister, I said to my officials, “I want to meet the unions regularly,” and they looked slightly nervous about it. During the course of those meetings, a union representative—I will not say who—said, “We never got this much out of Labour.” I can assure the hon. Gentleman—and particularly the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who called for this specifically in his contribution—that I will continue to work with the trade unions in exactly the way in which he has described. It is vital not only that we recruit people, but that we train them appropriately and allow them the kind of career opportunities that he called for.

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister commit to meeting a group of cross-party MPs, along with the RMT representatives, very soon to see what progress he has made following this debate?

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, I am happy to do that, perhaps under the auspices of the all-party group, which I have already met, but I am happy to meet again. That would be a useful vehicle for precisely that kind of discussion.

The fourth area that the debate touched on—this was referred to by a number of hon. Members—was what might be called the welfare and conditions that prevail in the maritime sector. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the conditions are appropriate. Some alarming claims have been made today, which I take very seriously indeed, particularly if people are not being paid the appropriate wage and if the circumstances and conditions in which they are working are not adequate. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) about the need to attract more women and getting the conditions right to allow us to do so. I hear what has been said about the importance of safety, and that is a fundamental concern for all of us who care about the sector. We will take this further. As a direct result of the debate—perhaps it will happen in the discussions that were just described—I am very happy to consider what more the Government must do. The work I am doing on the maritime growth study should fill some gaps and allow us to consider what more can be done on recruitment, as well as how we can approach skills in a fresh way and how the terms and conditions that apply across the industry can be improved.

The debate has served a useful purpose in allowing me not only to be the champion of the maritime sector, but, I hope, to be able to emulate the best of my predecessors, such as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, and leave some kind of legacy. I want to do that on behalf of our ports and the towns in which they are situated, our ship owners and our shipbuilders—we build ships and boats in this country, and shipbuilding is something of which we should be proud too—and fundamentally and most of all, what is dearest to my heart, on behalf of our seafarers.