Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Philip. I thank colleagues for being here to scrutinise the Bill.

I am delighted to present a Bill that will help support our thriving and dynamic space sector. We all benefit from the services provided by satellites; paying for our morning coffee using a contactless payment, Google Pay or even with cash withdrawn from an ATM would not be possible without satellites. Satellites provide precise references for navigation, communications to remote places, and pictures of our changing planet—not to mention the support they provide for the defence and security of the UK. Satellite data, space technology and space applications are used to enhance our everyday lives.

The space sector is hugely valuable to the UK’s economy. It is worth over £17.5 billion and directly employs more than 48,000 people; it also supports 126,000 jobs across the supply chain. The UK is already one of world’s strongest centres of advanced satellite manufacturing. Thanks to this Government it is now possible to launch satellites from UK spaceports, rather than our relying solely on overseas spaceports to launch UK-built satellites into orbit. Last year the UK made an historic first launch from UK soil, by Virgin Orbit at Spaceport Cornwall. In December, SaxaVord spaceport in the Shetland Islands became the UK’s first licensed vertical-launch spaceport, with more spaceports to follow. New launch companies such as Orbex and Skyrora have built factories in Scotland, creating hundreds of new jobs—ready to take advantage of the new opportunities that the Government have created.

Let me explain the purpose of the Bill, why I think it is important and how it will benefit our space industry. Before a company can operate a satellite in orbit or carry out a launch mission from the UK, it must first obtain a spaceflight operator licence under the Space Industry Act 2018. The licensing process ensures that spaceflight activities are undertaken safely, securely and in accordance with the UK’s international obligations. Under United Nations space treaties, it is the state that is ultimately liable for any damage or injury that may be caused by their space activities, even when undertaken by commercial space operators.

The Space Industry Act contains provisions to help mitigate potential costs to UK taxpayers arising from UK commercial spaceflight activities. They include requirements for operators to hold insurance, and—under section 36 of the Act—to indemnify the UK Government and other named public bodies against any claims brought against the Government or body in respect of damage or loss.

It is recognised, however, that placing unlimited liability on commercial space activities would be a barrier to operating in the UK. Other space nations, such as France and the United States, limit liabilities or provide a state guarantee for the launch activities that take place from their territory. The 2018 Act contains powers to specify in a spaceflight operator’s licence a limit on the amount of an operator’s liability to indemnify the Government and other public bodies. Current Government policy is that the regulator should use those powers to specify a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability in the licence, so that no operator will face unlimited liability. This is essentially a form of risk sharing between the commercial operator and the Government.

The policy is set out in guidance, and I understand that all spaceflight operator licences issued under the Space Industry Act to date contain a limit on the amount of an operator’s liability. However, the industry has made clear, in response to consultation and in other forums, that it would welcome the legal certainty that they will not face unlimited liability when launching or operating a satellite from the UK. I believe that setting such a clear requirement in law would provide UK industry, and those looking to invest in the UK, greater certainty and would carry more force than reliance on policy statements and guidance. The Bill will provide that legal certainty, by amending section 12(2) of the Space Industry Act so that spaceflight operator licences must specify a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability under section 36 of the Act.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes the case for his Bill very eloquently, and I fully support it. Has he had any indication of how much the space industry might grow, once we have put these measures in place? He has already mentioned the large figures involved in the space industry’s operations across the whole country, regardless of where the launch capacity is, but it would be interesting to know how much more the sector could grow if his Bill is enacted.

[Mr Lord]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention and firm support for the Bill, which has cross-party support. The relevant Departments of Government and the space industry itself are still working on the figure, but it is thought to be to the tune of £10 billion or more over the coming years. This Bill is a small but important measure to ensure that our thriving space sector grows and flourishes further into the future. With that, I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)]

It is an honour to serve under you, Sir Philip. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woking for promoting this short but incredibly important Bill. I also commend the eloquence of his speech. He made all the points that I would have made. I have a speech here, but I will not go through it all; not only has he made all the points but on Second Reading we had a prolonged debate in which the issues were covered extensively. I covered all the points that the Government want to make and can declare that we fully support the Bill.

Before I conclude, I want to answer a couple of points. It was lovely to hear the excitement of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor; I loved his description of the Bill being the last piece of the jigsaw being put in place. It very much is that. We now have a comprehensive set of legislation and regulation for the space industry, which I am sure will grow fast. I was looking for the information about how much it is going to grow; we do have a forecast somewhere. I will get back to my hon. Friend. At the moment, we know that 48,000 people are employed in the UK space industry, but that number will grow rapidly. There is a huge opportunity.

On my hon. Friend’s question about liability, I should say that that is set by the regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, under something called the modelled insurance requirement process; if he wants more detail on that, he can write to me and I will give him it. Basically, this is done on a case-by-case basis, depending on the type of spaceflight being undertaken. In the case of insurance for satellite orbital operators, for standard orbital missions there is a flat-rate liability limit of £51 million. I think that answers all the questions, but as I set out on Second Reading, there are no amendments and the Government fully support the Bill.

[Mr Lord]

The Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor was absolutely correct, and I have further details in front of me that I am very happy to share with my hon. Friend. I am extremely grateful to all colleagues for attending and for the cross-party support that I have received. As the Minister said, we had a full Second Reading debate; it was wonderful to have you participating in that as well, Sir Philip. Without further ado, I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 23rd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am delighted to be here to introduce a Bill that will help to support our thriving and dynamic space sector. It will amend section 12(2) of the Space Industry Act 2018 to make clear in legislation that all spaceflight operator licences must specify a limit on the amount of the licensee’s liability under section 36 of the Act.

The 2018 Act enables commercial spaceflight activities, which include launching a spacecraft and operating a satellite in orbit, for example, and other activities such as the operation of a spaceport and management of a range, to be carried out under a licence in the United Kingdom. The 2018 Act sets out the broad licensing and regulatory framework for carrying out such activities and is underpinned with more detailed provisions in the Space Industry Regulations 2021.

United Nations space treaties place obligations and responsibilities on states for activities in outer space. In particular, UN space treaties make states liable for damage or injury caused by their space activities or those of their nationals. Section 36 of the 2018 Act requires persons carrying out spaceflight activities to indemnify the UK Government and a number of named public bodies against any claims brought against the Government or bodies in respect of damage or loss arising out of, or in connection with, those spaceflight activities. However, that is subject to any limit on the amount of an operator’s liability specified in their licence, except in prescribed circumstances, such as where the operator is liable in respect of gross negligence or wilful misconduct.

The 2018 Act currently provides powers for the regulator to specify a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability in their licence, but the Act does not make it mandatory. Currently, section 12(2) of that Act provides that an operator licence may specify a limit on the amount of a licensee’s liability to indemnify under section 36, but this contrasts with regulation 220 of the Space Industry Regulations 2021 made under powers in section 34(5) of the 2018 Act, whereby an operator licence must specify a limit on the amount of a licensee’s liability for damage or injury to third parties. It also contrasts with section 5(3) of the Outer Space Act 1986, which regulates UK nationals, Scottish firms and bodies incorporated under the law of any part of the UK that carry on space activities from outside the UK. These require a licence to specify the maximum amount of the licensee’s liability to indemnify the Government under section 10 of that Act.

Through responses to the Government’s consultation on spaceflight liability, insurance and charging, the Government are aware that operators holding unlimited liabilities could be a barrier to conducting spaceflight activities from the UK. The same consultation confirmed that other launching nations limit liabilities or provide a state guarantee for spaceflight activities conducted from their territory.

Current Government policy and guidance is that all spaceflight operator licences will contain limits on the amount of the operator’s liability and the amount of insurance that they are required to hold, so that no operator will face unlimited liability. However, industry operators continue to lobby for legislative certainty and have raised that, for spaceflight activities in the UK to be commercially viable, there needs to be a clear mandatory cap on the amount of liability to indemnify under section 36 of the 2018 Act.

The Bill will provide legislative certainty by amending “may” to “must” in section 12(2) of the 2018 Act, so that an operator licence must specify a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability under section 36. The Bill makes a small amendment to section 36(3) of the 2018 Act. The proposed amendments to the 2018 Act will meet a key ask of the space sector on regulatory improvements to provide assurance to investors that limits on the amount of an operator’s liability will be included in licences. The Bill will also address a recommendation made by the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform.

There has been parliamentary scrutiny. The Science and Technology Committee raised the question of operator certainty on liability caps in its second report of the 2022-23 Session, “UK space strategy and UK satellite infrastructure”, published on 4 November 2022. The Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform considered current requirements and viewed them

“as discouraging investment and making the UK uncompetitive”.

Recommendation 15.1 was to

“Amend the Space Industry Act 2018 to cap liability and indemnity requirements for licence applicants to launch and operate satellites from the UK.”

There has also been consultation. On 13 October 2020, the Government published a consultation on spaceflight liability insurance and charging. Respondents raised concerns about the wording of section 12(2) of the Space Industry Act 2018, under which a licence only “may” contain a limit of liability with respect to claims made under section 36 of the Act. On 5 March 2021, in response to the consultation, the Government said in their regulations and guidance on spaceport and spaceflight activities:

“If another suitable piece of primary legislation is brought forward, the Government may seek to amend the wording in section 12(2) from ‘may’ to ‘must’.”

We all benefit from the services provided by satellites. We might pay for our morning coffee using contactless payment, Google Pay or even cash withdrawn from an ATM; none of that would be possible without satellites. Satellites provide precise references for navigation, communication to remote places, and pictures of our changing planet, not to mention the support they provide to the defence and security of the United Kingdom. Satellite data, space technology and space applications are used to enhance our everyday life.

The space sector is hugely valuable to the UK’s economy. It is worth over £17.5 billion and directly employs more than 48,000 people. It supports over 126,000 jobs across the supply chain. The UK is already one of the world’s strongest centres of advanced satellite manufacturing. Thanks to this Government, it is now possible to launch satellites from UK spaceports, rather than relying solely on overseas spaceports to launch UK-built satellites into orbit. Last year, an historical first launch from UK soil was made by Virgin Orbit at Spaceport Cornwall. In December, SaxaVord spaceport in the Shetland Islands became the UK’s first licensed vertical launch spaceport, with more to follow. New launch companies such as Orbex and Skyrora have built factories in Scotland, creating hundreds of new jobs, ready to take advantage of the new opportunities that the Government have created.

In preparation for this debate, I have been asked questions by several Members, and I will address those now. I have been asked what effect the Bill will have on public expenditure, and I can assure the House that it will not entail any additional expenditure, as the amendment is in line with Government policy. I have been asked whether there are any transitional arrangements. There are not. Clause 2(3) provides that the Bill will come into force two months to the day on which it is passed. Transitional arrangements are not required because no licences have been granted that do not have a limit on liability specified in them, by virtue of the Government’s policy on limiting liability.

I have been asked whether I have ensured compatibility with the European convention on human rights. As this is a private Member’s Bill, no statement of compatibility is required. However, as recorded in the explanatory notes, the Department for Transport considers that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention. I have been asked whether it is compatible with environmental law. Again, as it is a private Member’s Bill, no statement under section 20 of the Environment Act 2021 is required, but as the explanatory notes say, the Department for Transport is of the view that the Bill does not contain provisions that, if enacted, would be environmental law for the purposes of section 20.

This is a narrowly focused Bill addressing what the space sector has asked for. I hope that no further amendments will be tabled, as it would be a shame to be unable to progress or deliver this key ask from our increasingly important space industry because of amendments or additions.

Let me give a final summary of the purpose of the Bill, why I think it is important and how it will benefit our space industry. Before a company can operate a satellite in orbit or carry out a launch mission from the UK, it must first obtain a spaceflight operator licence under the Space Industry Act 2018. The licence process ensures that spaceflight activities are undertaken safely, securely and in accordance with the UK’s international obligations. Under United Nations space treaties, the state is ultimately liable for any damage or injury that may be caused by its space activities, even when undertaken by commercial space operators.

The Space Industry Act contains provisions to help mitigate potential costs to UK taxpayers arising from UK commercial spaceflight activities. That includes requirements for operators to hold insurance and, under section 36, to indemnify the UK Government and other named public bodies against any claims brought against the Government or body in respect of damage or loss. It is recognised, however, that unlimited liability on commercial space activities would be a barrier to their operating in the United Kingdom. Other space nations, such as France and the United States of America, limit liabilities, or provide a state guarantee for the launch activities that take place from their territory. The Space Industry Act contains powers to specify in a spaceflight operator’s licence a limit on the amount of an operator’s liability, in order to indemnify the Government and other public bodies. Government policy is that the regulator should use those powers to specify a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability in the licence, so that no operator will face unlimited liability. It is essentially a form of risk sharing between the commercial operator and Government. This policy is set out in guidance, and I understand that all spaceflight operator licences issued under the Space Industry Act to date contain a limit on the amount of an operator’s liability.

However, the industry has made it very clear, in response to consultation and in other fora, that it would welcome legal certainty that it will not face unlimited liability when launching or operating a satellite from the UK. Setting that clear requirement in law would provide UK industry and those looking to invest in the UK with greater certainty, and would carry more force than reliance on policy statements and guidance. This Bill will provide that legal certainty by amending section 12(2) of the Space Industry Act, so that spaceflight operator licences must specify a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability under section 36 of that Act. As such, the Bill will provide a vital further boost to our burgeoning UK space industry. I am particularly mindful of the benefits it will bring to growing and innovative companies such as Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd on the Surrey research park, many of whose past and current employees live in my constituency of Woking.

Our UK space industry is thriving, but this measure is vital to secure an equally exciting and dynamic future. It is companies such as Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd —just outside my constituency, and many of whose employees live in my constituency—that will benefit. Other firms, large, medium and small, will grow in the UK and come to the UK if this measure is passed. To ensure that exciting and dynamic future, I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lord]

I thank honourable Members on both sides of the House for attending the debate and for their support. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) , who so ably and knowledgeably chairs the all-party parliamentary group for space. In his wise and interesting speech, he touched on many things, but in particular how important the growing space industry is and can be to our financial and insurance sectors. I thought that was a very interesting point to bring out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) made a passionate and eloquent speech, particularly pertaining to how the space industry is already changing Cornwall for the better, adding to the Cornish economy and with huge amounts of scope for future growth and engagement. I was particularly taken by her points about how schoolchildren and students are being enthused by the space industry. I thank her for her support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), in a very witty and engaging speech, alighted on a number of interesting and important points, but particularly how our legal services industry—the legal sector—can and will benefit from a growing space industry. I am also extremely grateful to the shadow Minister and the Minister for their support for the Bill. As we would expect, they were masters of their brief and spoke with great insight, but also enthusiasm, about this growing industry and the help that the Bill will give it. For that dynamic, innovative and growing future for our space industry, I urge the House to support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I do not know if that makes you a space lord now, Mr Lord, but congratulations.

Airport Parking Charges

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered airport parking charges.

Drivers are being forced, tricked or directed to pay extortionate amounts to drop off or collect passengers at airports. To make matters worse, two thirds of the UK’s busiest airports have put their prices up. Of course, airports are entitled to charge when the land is privately owned, but the taxpayer has already paid for the road up to the airport. Yet the signposts do not send the driver to a safe and free place for drop-off or collection. No-stopping zones on the roads leading up to the airport mean that the principles of choice and safety are not obvious. That means that drivers are being deliberately exploited.

Airports must be required to offer drivers a free and safe place to drop off and collect passengers, and, where they do, that must be clearly signposted on the approach to an airport. Although it may seem that there are craftily many different options for parking at airports, given the pressure of traffic, it is chaotic and stressful for drivers to locate the correct one.

The increasing number of train strikes mean that many passengers depend on a friend or relative to drop them off at an airport. As a result, those drivers suffer, rather than the actual holidaymaker. In that sense, the drop-off charge is a small tax on generosity. Failure to signpost free options effectively means that drivers are at risk of breaking the law either for stopping on a nearby roundabout or for dropping someone off on a red route leading up to the airport; such routes are rightly enforced for reasons of security. Indeed, drivers caught stopping on those red routes are fined £100.

In 2019, the Parking (Code of Practice) Act received Royal Assent, promising greater regulation to prevent motorists from being treated unfairly by private parking companies. Airports were considered as part of the code of practice. However, this June, the private parking code of practice was temporarily withdrawn,

“pending review of the levels of private parking charges and additional fees.”

It would be welcome if the code of practice brought greater clarity and consistency to airport parking charges to better regulate the industry for both airports and motorists, which I believe the Government have a duty to do.

Ironically, the Civil Aviation Authority, in its review of market conditions for surface access to airports, claimed that environmental factors played a part in airport parking decisions. The Airport Operators Association, which represents over 50 UK airports, claims that high airport parking charges are there to force consumers to travel to and from airports sustainably. Nice try, but everyone knows that aeroplane journeys emit far more carbon dioxide per passenger than cars over set distances. Who are airports trying to fool by claiming to be going green by charging higher parking fees to deter a few short car journeys while air travel accounts for 2.5% of global CO₂ emissions?

It is right that the Government encourage people to use public transport, which does not incur a drop-off fee. However, with the looming threat of militant unions striking, would you really rely on public transport to get to the airport on time, Mr Stringer?

Last week, I met Nicholas Lyes, head of roads policy at the RAC, who informed me that in theory, some airports provide free drop-off options. However, Heathrow and Gatwick airports, which used to provide free drop-off points, now charge £5 to enter the drop-off zone by the terminal. Imagine if people knew they had a choice—which they do not. On top of that, at Gatwick, people are then charged £1 for every minute over and above the allocated 10 minutes at the drop-off site. To enter through the barrier—again, with no choice to escape—find a parking space, park, unload baggage, say goodbye, and exit through the barrier all within the allotted 10 minutes seems optimistic for anyone, let alone those who are elderly or families with young children. Most expensive of all is London Stansted, which charges £7 for just 15 minutes’ parking and £25 for more than 15 minutes in drop-off zones. In the case of Exeter airport, there is no free option at all. Do the Government really expect someone to throw their loved one out of the car miles away from the terminal in order to avoid being fined?

With flight delays becoming increasingly common, those collecting family and friends who must find a place to wait could end up paying through the nose through no fault of their own. The UK Civil Aviation Authority has recorded that in 2022 the average flight delay has increased to 25 minutes per flight, up from 15 minutes in 2019. At Bristol airport, those giving a lift to friends and family are required to pay £5 for just 10 minutes to drop off or collect them. That fee increases to £7 for between 10 and 20 minutes, and £20 for between 20 and 40 minutes. That seems excessive for someone who is merely trying to collect someone whose flight has been delayed for half an hour, yet drivers collecting passengers from delayed flights are left with no viable alternative.

Recent airport staffing shortages have also led to lengthy delays of several hours at passport control in airports such as Heathrow and Stansted. With delays at airports becoming increasingly commonplace, those collecting passengers are left unsure of how long they will be required to wait—what initially seemed like a 10-minute wait might quickly become an hour. Where are those people supposed to wait that does not charge extortionate prices?

Additionally, not all taxi drivers are exempt from the charges. In the event of a long delay, a taxi driver on a pre-booked job might see his profit completely slashed because of the waiting times, meaning that through no fault of his own, he would have done better to have stayed at home. Bristol airport is one of the very worst offenders, using vans with cameras to follow drivers and try to levy fines for stopping, irrespective of how confusing that airport’s signage is.

Airports are exploiting their own regulations just as rogue parking firms used to. Drivers are forced to find the nearest free drop-off zone, which of course is impossible, as those zones are hidden. Where airports provide free options they tend to be far away from the terminal, and a shuttle bus to the terminal is not always provided. As a result, passengers with mobility issues or heavy bags are bound to struggle. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that, allegedly, the free option for drop-off at London Heathrow is located far away from the terminal, in the long-stay car park? I suggest that if someone were driving into an airport and looking for a place to park for a short amount of time, the long-stay car park would be the last place they would look. Passengers are then expected to take a shuttle bus to the terminal, only adding to their stress and to the extra time needed to catch a flight. I know that many airports are struggling for money, but do the Government think it is right that they attempt to hoodwink airport visitors to make up for it?

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and for his very powerful words on the subject. In Woking, we have both Gatwick and Heathrow within a reasonable distance, and I have had a lot of correspondence from constituents about the removal of free drop-off parking. I am also a great supporter of aviation. During covid times, I helped my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) with his excellent efforts to support the aviation industry—both airlines and airports. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) said, airports have had a difficult financial time, but will he look to the Minister and, indeed, to airports to ensure that when we reach a new normal—as things might not go back to where they were before covid—that airports reinstate free drop-off parking, so that this ridiculous removal of any sort of free parking does not continue?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who quite naturally has delightful constituents who generously want to take their friends and family to and from the airport. Of course, that may not be an option for people who live further away. He is right to speak up for those people and insist that normality, which we all now enjoy, is returned to on parking as quickly as possible. When I finish this last blast, I know the Minister will do all he can about the theft from these poor, innocent and good people, who are just trying to do the right thing. That is why I believe it is essential that airports provide free and safe drop-off and pick-up points for motorists, as well as clear and helpful signs.

The Department for Transport must make it clear on approach roads where these free and safe options can be found. The Government need to ensure that the road tax payer has the right to remain on public roads, which we have paid for, rather than be herded onto private land where we are exploited. No amount of hand-wringing is acceptable, otherwise airports will continue to close. The greenwash, fudging and theft are wrong, and I know the Minister will do all he can to correct that as soon as possible.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) on securing the debate on airport parking charges and delivering his asks with his usual robust purposefulness. I recognise that the issue will be of interest to many people who use our airports, in particular those travelling abroad again for the first time to see friends and relatives or go on a much deserved holiday. I have listened to and had the opportunity to speak to my hon. Friend. I have certainly taken into account his comments and will try to address most of them.

I will say at the outset that, in years gone by, I was involved in many consumer campaigns with Which? on the benefits of free access to airports and other transport modes. I agree that it can be frustrating when we use something that was previously free and then it is charged. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord) said, while many of these charges came in during the covid period, many had actually been planned in advance around the sustainability point and decarbonisation. I will touch on that later in my speech.

Increasingly, we are seeing airports transform into regional transport hubs that support multiple businesses, labour markets and population centres. They provide significant economic benefit to their local areas, and reliable and efficient surface access connections play an important part in achieving that. I am pleased, as I hope we all are, to see an increased demand for aviation and air travel as the sector continues to recover from the covid-19 pandemic, and I certainly recognise the contributions of both my hon. Friends on what they did to make that happen. It is important that we aim to balance the sector’s recovery with the UK’s environmental goals, as I touched on previously. We therefore expect that airports, through their surface access strategies, set targets for sustainable passenger and staff travel to the airport. These targets should, where possible, meet the ambitions set by Government and be monitored by their respective airport transport forums.

[Mr Lord]

I am rather disappointed in the Minister’s opening remarks, which seem to be on the side of the airports on sustainability grounds. When a family is going on holiday, perhaps with a frail elderly person or someone who is disabled, does it make any sense to have to go to the long-stay car park, unload all the baggage and try to get the disabled or frail elderly person on to the bus—only to have to do it all again on the way back? That is not right. I was not aware that the airports were thinking of introducing this pre-covid. The letter that I got from Heathrow when I wrote on behalf of constituents placed the main emphasis on the financial shortfall over covid and said that the airport therefore needed to introduce the measures. I am surprised that the Government might support that.

[Huw Merriman]

I am sorry to be a disappointment to my hon. Friend. The situation we have is that unlike, for example, our rail provision, airports are private organisations and there will be a direct contract between those using the airport and the airport operators—it is down to them. I have indicated my sympathy as regards the requirement to put charging in. Heathrow’s expansion is predicated on its ability to reduce air pollution; that is one of the key issues in allowing Heathrow to expand. What the aviation industry and the airport operators are doing is responding to the need to reduce the carbon emission footprint around the airport. That is one such measure.

Drop-off and parking arrangements at most airports are subject to contractual agreements between airport operators and car park companies. Those arrangements are covered by consumer laws. Most airport websites contain information on the drop-off and car park options available at the airport, and recommendations on the best options depending on length of stay. I will go on to talk more about signage and information shortly, because that was one of the key requests from my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire.

Most airports in the UK choose to charge a premium for drop off at their terminals. I understand that Cardiff, Bristol and Birmingham airports, all of which are closer to my hon. Friend’s constituency, charge fees for the use of drop-off zones. I recognise that the introduction of a charge for dropping off passengers, when it might have been free of charge previously, may be frustrating to some motorists. However, the provision and charging of car parking at airports, including drop-off charges—this comes back to the point I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking—is a matter solely for the airport operator, as a commercial business, to manage and justify.

The arrangements for drop-off charges at airports are not a tax on the motorist; they are a contractual arrangement between the airport, the car parking company and the driver. That is the same as the different charges for the use of short and long-stay car parks, which can be located further away from the terminal buildings. It is a choice that the driver can make when planning their trip to the airport, but I recognise that some people have more choices than others because of mobility. I recognise the points that have been made about that.

[Mr Lord]

I have two points. On the point the Minister just made, normally a service provider will provide a service for which they charge. There is no service being provided. We just want an area where we can drop off our passengers. To go back to the earlier point about sustainability and air quality around Heathrow: if that was a main driver, should not electric and low-emission vehicles be able to drop off for free?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions should be short and to the point.

Surrey: M25 Noise Pollution

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered M25 noise pollution in Surrey.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I am delighted to have secured this debate.

The issue at hand is a simple one. Between junctions 10 and 11 on the M25, the surface of the motorway consists of concrete blocks. The concrete surface itself is noisy, and there are gaps between each of the concrete blocks that constitute the road. The repetitive buffeting that occurs as a vehicle’s tyres pass over these expansion joints adds substantially to the overall noise levels. Take it from me, Sir Gary, it is unpleasant and noisy to drive on, and it causes noise pollution for several thousand of my constituents who live in Byfleet, West Byfleet and Pyrford. The noise is so loud and incessant that it can regularly carry for up to 3 km or so, but when the wind is in certain directions, it can also affect those who live up to 4 km away.

The noise is, of course, also heard by residents living and working near the M25 in the neighbouring constituency of Runnymede and Weybridge. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for his diligent work and support on this important matter, and to his predecessor, the right hon. Philip Hammond, with whom I have also liaised closely on this in previous years. I also acknowledge the work and campaigning of the key members of the M25 J10-11 Action Group, who have highlighted this matter very effectively since forming their group in June 2019, and the leadership of that organisation by Councillor Amanda Boote, who has brought formidable amounts of drive and energy to that role.

Some 20 years ago, the then Labour Government announced their commitment to replacing or overlaying all concrete main roads with lower-noise materials by 31 March 2011, irrespective of maintenance needs. Sadly, during a subsequent Labour Government’s spending review—in 2008, I believe—it was considered that that commitment was no longer affordable, presumably due to fiscal tightening in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis.

Since then I have been told by Highways England and by Ministers that, while they appreciate the concerns of residents, there are currently no plans to resurface the 7 km section of the M25. They have assured me and my constituents that they are looking for ways to improve the situation, and Highways England has recently done work to repair failed joints in the concrete carriageways.

However, it is clear to all those who use this section of the M25 that the driving experience is still unpleasant and noisy, and the feedback so far from local residents is that the work has not made an appreciable difference to the overall noise levels for surrounding communities. At one point in our recent correspondence, Highways England told me that it does not now resurface a concrete road unless it is strictly needed from the point of view of driving safety, and that in the case of the M25, with continued maintenance, it did not expect the road to need resurfacing for many years to come.

But what about the lives of residents who have to put up with these unacceptable noise levels? Why should residents be kept awake at night? Why should residents not be able to enjoy their gardens in summertime or even be able to open their windows? What about the impact on teachers and children, who cannot help hearing this noise in their schools? Mrs Letitia Mackie, the deputy head of Byfleet primary school, told me the other week:

“Byfleet primary school lies directly beside the M25, at a stretch where the concrete is in place. Our children and families live within the catchment area for the school and many of their homes are very close to the M25 as well. The sound of the vehicles rumbling over the concrete can be heard in our playground and on a windy day it tends to be even louder. However, at night the sound carries much further and many of our pupils speak of not being able to sleep, or having a disturbed night, every night. Sleep is a major factor in growing up to be healthy and strong, and we are very concerned that some of our children have had this sleep disruption all of their lives. How has this affected their ability to learn and what are the long-term health issues that they may face? It is a serious limiting factor in our aim to enable each child to reach their full potential.”

Those are wise words, expressing genuine concerns.

Surely something must be done about this issue. Doubtless the cost of resurfacing this section of road will be high, but I am confident that that cost pales in comparison with the damage that this section of road is doing to the lives of thousands of my constituents and their children.

Last month, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and I joined members of the M25 J10-11 Action Group to deliver a petition signed by over 3,000 local residents to No. 10 Downing Street. The petition is not asking for every motorway section in the UK to be resurfaced and nor is it asking for the other concrete sections of the M25 to be resurfaced where there are no built-up or residential neighbourhoods nearby. However, it is petitioning for the carriageway between junctions 10 and 11 to be resurfaced properly, so that residents and pupils can enjoy their lives without this incessant noise.

The petition read as follows:

“The petition of the residents of Woking declares that the resurfacing work and noise reduction must be carried out on the M25 between junctions 10 and 11…further that these residents, children attending local schools and people who work in the area have been and are currently adversely affected by the ever increasing volume of traffic and continued deterioration of the original surface; and acknowledges that an online petition for drivers has collected a significant number of signatures calling for the resurfacing of the road. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Transport and Highways England to fully resurface and significantly reduce the noise levels on the M25 between junctions 10 and 11.”

On 3 March, I received an answer to two written parliamentary questions, which I believe is the most recent formal response on this important matter that I have received to date from either Ministers or Highways England. The reply from the Minister who is here today—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst)—read as follows:

“Highways England is aware that noise is an important issue for residents living next to the M25 motorway between junctions 10 and 11, and is actively looking for ways to improve the situation.

Work to repair failed joints in the concrete carriageways was completed in November 2019 and this should help to reduce the noise level.

There are currently no plans to resurface the carriageways on this section of the M25, but there is a trial to test materials and techniques which could help to reduce noise and improve the performance of concrete surfaces which is currently being carried out on the M1. The trial includes measurement of the noise reduction achieved and the rate of deterioration of the different treatments and is anticipated to continue until 2022. The results of this trial will help Highways England to decide how to manage concrete surfaces on its roads in the future, including this section of the M25.”

It is hugely disappointing to me that the Government and Highways England seem to have set their face against an acceptable resolution of this matter within the next year or so. I hope that the arguments set out in the petition and put forward by me and my colleagues in this debate can lead to the urgent work that I believe is required. After all, we have been waiting since the millennium for an initial Government promise on this matter to be fulfilled, and the long-suffering residents of the areas most affected have had to put up with this noise since the opening of the M25 in 1986.

If urgent action does not prove possible, I would like a firm undertaking from the Minister that this issue will be fully sorted out within 12 months of the results of those tests on the concrete surfaces of the M1 being completed. That is a reasonable request to make on behalf of those residents whose quality of life has been blighted for the past 34 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lord]

I thank the Minister for responding to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and I would very much like to take up her offer of exploring the potential solutions and reiterating the challenges and problems with the roads Minister, so I look forward to that meeting. I was encouraged, and even tantalised a little, by what treatments might be being tested. I hope that they can bring some succour and an end to the worst aspects of the problems that my constituents have faced over many years. I also thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for speaking, I think, broadly in support of my constituents and for recognising the challenges that they face.

I would particularly like to offer warm thanks to my friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. It was a great pleasure to go with him and some campaigning constituents to take the petition outlining these problems right to the door of No. 10 Downing Street—to the heart of Government. If I may say so, he is already a great champion of his constituents. I very much look forward to working with him in the months and years ahead on this and any other issue that affects both our constituencies.

Thank you, Sir Gary, for your chairmanship. I look forward to battling on for my constituents on this important matter in the months and years to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered M25 noise pollution in Surrey.

Taxi and Private Hire Licensing Reform

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend has anticipated the point that I was about to make. Clearly, capping the number of private hire vehicles would not be appropriate in every town or city in the UK. However, the Mayor of London and Transport for London have made a compelling case to enable Transport for London to use a cap if that is deemed necessary and appropriate. Although I hear the objections from some parts of the industry, particularly those using vehicles with lower emissions, it is not just about the emissions of those vehicles. If those vehicles are clogging up the streets of London and the gas-guzzling lorries or other polluting vehicles are pumping out toxic fumes, that congestion is as big a contributor to poor air quality as those individual vehicles. For the first time in history—although perhaps not even the last—we have a former Mayor of London in No. 10. I hope that he will not be there for too long, but while he is, I hope that the Prime Minister, based on his experience as Mayor, might look on that proposal favourably. We have a huge area of consensus and a huge opportunity to legislate with cross-party support, so I hope that the Minister will give us some good news about how the Government will respond to our pleas for urgent action.

I want to raise a related issue, particularly in the light of Transport for London’s decision to grant a two-month licence extension to Uber: namely, the conduct of that operator. I recently met with Uber in London for the first time in many years. I also met with Uber when I visited its headquarters in San Francisco with the all-party group on the fourth industrial revolution, which is reflected in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am not from the luddite wing of the House of Commons; in fact, I have yet to find the luddite wing. [Interruption.] It is being suggested that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) might fit into that category. I think that is rather uncharitable and would never let it be said.

I have no problem at all with the way in which technology is going to change our society. Technological change is inevitable—it is coming; it is happening—but let me say to this Minister in particular, who is often at the cutting edge of political thinking on the centre right of British politics, that we have to think carefully about how we respond to this technological revolution, which is going to change the landscape of this country in terms of our work, our interactions, our relationships and our relationship with the wider world.

It is particularly important to learn the lessons of what we got wrong with globalisation. Just as globalisation has been a fantastic force for good in the world, bringing about peace and prosperity and lifting millions of the world’s poorest out of poverty, we cannot be ignorant of the fact that it has had enormous downsides, which have led to rapid deindustrialisation, the hollowing-out of towns and cities and the degradation of people’s working conditions and quality of life. Our failure— by which I mean the failure of the champions of globalisation—to recognise those downsides and mitigate them has led to a huge backlash, which is upending the peace, prosperity and stability that we have enjoyed in western liberal democracies since the end of the second world war, whether it is the referendum result to leave the European Union or the election of Donald Trump as the President of the United States of America. There may be something ironic about a global movement against globalisation, but it is none the less there, and if the champions of globalisation had recognised the downsides and worked with those communities to ensure that everyone reaped the benefits, our politics, our country and our world would be in a better place.

We are now on the cusp of a new technological revolution that offers enormous opportunities for how we live, work and relate to the wider world, but there are downsides, and we see that in the case of Uber. Sure, people find it convenient to call Uber at the touch of a button—I should add that they will also find it convenient to call an iconic licensed London taxi at the touch of a button—but it cannot be right that a multinational corporation based in San Francisco that is effectively a glorified minicab app can undercut other competitors in the industry through aggressive tax avoidance, by not recognising their workers as employers, with standard employment rights, terms and conditions, by not paying them their fair share and by playing fast and loose with passenger safety.

I recognise that Uber has taken some steps, following rigorous enforcement from Transport for London, to clean up its act. It is now subjected to an additional 20 licence conditions on its London licence. However, I am afraid to say that it still has to be dragged through the courts to recognise basic employment rights and conditions. When it floated, its own report to the Securities and Exchange Commission said:

“Our workplace culture and forward-leaning approach created significant operational and cultural challenges that have in the past harmed, and may in the future continue to harm, our business results and financial condition.”

It mentioned in that report its

“focus on aggressive growth and intense competition, and…failure to prioritize compliance”.

Whether Uber is having to be dragged through legal action to comply with data standards and to give drivers access to the data they have requested, or whether it is being dragged through the courts by trade unions and Uber drivers—I really do pay tribute to GMB and United Private Hire Drivers—I am afraid that it is not yet acting in the way I would expect a forward-thinking, forward-looking, responsible technology provider to behave. I therefore hope that Transport for London scrutinises very carefully the case for renewing Uber’s licence.

Let me conclude on that point by saying this. If a licensed London taxi driver had breached their conditions in the way that Uber has, or if the minicab office up the road from my home had flouted its operating conditions, they would have lost their licences, and they would no longer be operating. We cannot send a message to big multinational corporations that we deem them too big to fail. It is important that the Government and Transport for London hold Uber rigorously to account.

I hope the Minister will take those messages on board. The taxi drivers, minicab drivers and Uber drivers I represent are looking to the Government to make sure we have a level playing field, fair competition and a diverse taxi and private hire industry in this city and in other towns and cities across the country that works in the interests of drivers and passengers and that, most of all, prioritises safety. That is what is at stake here.

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

In Woking, our Woking Street Angels have an informal arrangement with our licensed taxi drivers. If people are the worse for wear late at night—normally on a Friday or Saturday evening—the taxi drivers will take them home. My taxi drivers—many are from the Muslim community and do not drink themselves—often do not charge those customers or get any reimbursement. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in thanking all those licensed taxi drivers across the country who go above and beyond on behalf of the community?

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful for that intervention, because it speaks to the generous hearts of taxi drivers and minicab drivers. We will see that reflected again when licensed London taxi drivers ferry some of our veterans from the big railway terminals and bus terminals across London to take part in Remembrance Sunday.

The great licensed black taxi is an iconic feature of our capital city. I think that it has a bright future. I think that it will survive every technological trend coming. It may well be the only driven car in a city with driverless cars. That is because people value the knowledge of London and the skills that licensed taxi drivers bring, and they love seeing the black taxi on the streets of London. We can have a competitive, but most of all a safe, industry in this city and in towns and cities across the country, but it requires the Government to act—and to act soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (George Freeman)]

It is a great pleasure and privilege to open the batting in my new role as Minister for the future of transport with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, as umpire, even if not before a packed Chamber—I am more of a night watchman covering for the Minister for taxi regulation.

I thank the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) for his kind words, and I congratulate him on his assiduous pursuit of this issue in his time in the House. I know how strongly he feels and how widely he is respected across the House for his work, particularly through his chairmanship of the all-party group on taxis, of which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are also a supporter. I know that you have taken a close interest in the issue.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate at the perfect time, as the Government are thinking about their legislative programme. I am particularly delighted to be responding on behalf of my noble Friend the taxis Minister and in my capacity as Minister for the future of transport—a new role at the Department for Transport—responsible for using our research and development budget, procurement and regulation to drive decarbonisation and digitalisation and to tackle disconnection in the Department.

As this debate and the hon. Gentleman’s work have shown, the 360,000 licensed taxi and private hire drivers in England play an important role in our transport system, meeting those journey needs that mass transit does not. They help people to reach shops and vital services and they get people home safely at night. As he and others highlighted and attested, they often offer those services to communities free of charge—gratis.

Taxis and private hire vehicles provide a particularly important service for disabled passengers, supporting their independence, allowing them to get to work, shop and visit friends and family—things that most of us are lucky enough to be able to do without a second thought. We know that disabled passengers make twice as many taxi and private hire journeys as non-disabled passengers. For those reasons and many others, the Government want the sector to thrive so that it can continue to meet the public’s needs and expectations.

There is clearly a problem. We agree with the comments made tonight and those made elsewhere in the House that the legislation that governs the taxi and private hire vehicles sector needs reform. That has been driven by a series of issues: the pace of innovation in mobility; the out-of-date nature of some of the legislation; the urgency of the decarbonisation, digitalisation and automation revolutions; the safety of passengers; and the need to ensure accessibility for those who suffer from disabilities.

[Mr Lord]

Woking has introduced some class-beating emissions standards for vehicles. I am sure I am not alone in hoping the Minister might give some comfort to other towns and cities that they will also be able to have clean air from their taxis in the years ahead.

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will touch on that later. Part of my work on the future mobility zones is to drive the power of future mobility to help support clean air.

The use of apps to book vehicles is increasingly popular with passengers and this, perhaps more than any other factor, has thrown into sharp focus the fact that legislation drafted in the 20th century for private hire vehicles, let alone Victorian taxi legislation, has not kept pace with technological change and progress in the sector. As with other forms of licensing, the sector is licensed at a very local level, with 284 licensing authorities in England setting the standards they feel appropriate for their area. Unlike other forms of licensing, however, those that are licensed are by the very nature of the trade mobile and so will occasionally operate outside the area that granted the licence.

The increased use of technology has also added to the complexity by making it far easier to book a private hire vehicle, thereby fuelling an increase in the number of licensed vehicles across England in recent years. Numbers are up by more than 58% since 2005. This growth has been driven primarily by an increase in private hire vehicles, which today make up over three quarters of the total. The sector is clearly providing a service that passengers value, but the level of this increase does raise serious issues.

Let me now say a word about what the Government have done, and what we will do. We have recognised the issues relating to the regulation of the sector. As the hon. Gentleman said, the previous Minister of State convened the task and finish group on taxi and PHV licensing. I echo the thanks of others for the work done by the members of the group, particularly its chair, Professor Mohammed Abdel-Haq, who is with us this evening. The group considered submissions, and took oral evidence, from a wide range of stakeholders over a number of months.

Professor Abdel-Haq managed to draw out a commendable amount of consensus among group members, but the report also includes annexed contributions from individual group members, which identify the often complex areas of disagreement. A notable example is the question of what approach should be taken in tackling the issue of cross-border or out-of-area working. As I have said, this trade is mobile, and authorities do not have complete control over the drivers and vehicles that operate in their areas, which means that authorities with higher licensing requirements have concerns about the potential migration of their private hire vehicles to other authorities.

The Government welcomed the report in their response earlier this year, and made a commitment to legislate on a number of key matters: national minimum standards, national enforcement powers and a national licensing database. I believe that, taken together, those measures would enable passengers—wherever and whoever they might be—to know that their driver had passed a nationally agreed safety standard, and was working with robust oversight.

In the meantime, the Department is making full use of the tools that are currently available to shape and influence, doing what it can to support licensing authorities in the use of their extensive existing powers. In particular, passenger safety remains in the forefront of our minds. I know that many licensing authorities have learnt lessons from some of the previous licensing failures mentioned by the hon. Gentleman: Rotherham, Rossendale and Southampton—to name but a few—have reviewed their licensing functions, with a focus on robust safety measures. However, we must ensure that those lessons are clearly and strongly disseminated across the country, and that all licensing authorities have that focus.

Earlier this year, the Government consulted on draft statutory guidance for local authorities in England and Wales, describing their view on how taxi and PHV licensing powers should be used to safeguard children and vulnerable adults. The draft was the subject of extensive engagement, including a review by the task and finish group. We received more than 500 responses, very largely in support of the proposed measures, but also making valuable suggestions for improvement. Consultation serves an important purpose in securing wide and expert input, and that will be reflected in the final version of the guidance, which I am delighted to confirm will be issued very shortly. Licensing authorities will be required by law to have due regard to the guidance in formulating and implementing their licensing policies, and the Department will monitor its use and impact.

Baroness Vere, the Minister responsible for taxi and private hire vehicles, and I, as Minister for the future of transport, are well seized of the potential for technological innovation in transport to change the sector and fuel demand, and the likelihood that it will continue to blur the lines between different modes and challenge existing regulatory structures. As the Government said earlier this year in our response to the task and finish group report, in our work on the future of mobility we will consider how we can support new technology and innovation through regulatory frameworks. I am delighted to have this opportunity to announce to the House that I will shortly be launching a very wide consultation on the future of mobility, which will look into how existing and future transport systems can interact. In the long term, as part of our future of mobility review, we will consider how to introduce a regulatory framework which recognises the changes that the sector has undergone and can adapt to innovation.

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is meeting the taxis Minister shortly to discuss these issues, and that, as I have said, he has raised them at a time when the Government are pulling together their final plans for the Queen’s Speech; it has been announced that it will take place on 14 October. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman in any future discussions.

Question put and agreed to.

UK Flight Ban: Sharm El Sheikh

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I would like to thank Mr Speaker for granting this important debate. I take a particular interest in the matter as a co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Egypt. It is a privilege to serve alongside some excellent officers and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the other co-chairman.

In November 2015, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, took the decision to put at ban on UK flights direct to Sharm El Sheikh airport following the terrible loss of a Russian plane on 30 October that year. He declared that the UK would work with the Egyptian Government and aviation authorities to ensure that Sharm El Sheikh airport was safe before relaxing the ban. Following an inspection from the UK’s Department for Transport, a 25-point plan was drawn up to ensure the safety of the airport. The Government of Egypt and the hotel industry in Sharm El Sheikh has invested around £20 million to implement all 25 points listed. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has also issued official guidance that identifies the resort as in the green category, which means it is a very low-risk area. Yet despite the assurances from the Department for Transport and our Foreign Office, and with the UK’s 25-point plan now fully implemented, Sharm El Sheikh airport remains closed to UK flights.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Does it not come as a great surprise to my hon. Friend that the ban on flights to Tunisia, which is immediately opposite ISIL- infested beaches in Libya, was lifted, whereas the Sharm el Sheikh ban has not been lifted, although it was British expertise that helped to restore that airport to its current excellent status?

[Mr Lord]

I agree with my hon. Friend. When the all-party parliamentary group on Egypt, of which the right hon. Member for East Ham and I are co-chairmen, visited the country recently, it was instructive to note that virtually everyone we met was aware of the continuing UK ban. Parliamentarians, Ministers and business people obviously knew that the UK was now encouraging tourism back to Tunisia, and they took it as a bit of an affront that we were not helping Egypt in a similar way. Given that the UK’s 25-point plan has been fully implemented, they find it very disappointing that Sharm El Sheikh airport remains closed to UK flights. The UK is now unique in being the only European country to operate such a ban: every other country in the EU allows flights to Sharm El Sheikh. The ban has had a significant economic impact on the resort’s tourist economy, which is highly reliant on the UK tourism trade. Hotels are operating at only 35% of capacity.

I understand that security experts in the UK and Egypt now agree that Sharm El Sheikh has one of the world’s most secure airports. In 2016, after three trips to the town, Sir Gerald Howarth, then an MP and chairman of the APPG, told UK travel companies that representatives of the Department for Transport had told him that they felt that the conditions to enable flights to resume had been met. To meet those conditions, Egypt has spent more than £20 million on improving security at the airport, replaced outdated equipment, trained 7,000 staff using the UK aviation security firm Restrata, run rigorous background checks on current staff, laid off more than 40% of the original staff and introduced a new biometric ID system for all airport employees. The Egyptian authorities have also invested £26 million in security at tourist hotspots and hotels across the nation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My parliamentary aide had the holiday of a lifetime in Sharm El Sheikh; after all, it was her honeymoon. I join the hon. Gentleman in highlighting the great bonus of the flights to home-grown tourist operators. If it is safe to do so, we should request their restart. We should encourage the Egyptian Government to continue their great protections for the human rights of Christians and those of other faiths, and ensure that the economy of Sharm El Sheikh can be reinvigorated and rejuvenated as a result of tourism from Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole.

[Mr Lord]

I agree with every single point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Strategically, Sharm El Sheikh is one of the easiest tourist destinations to make secure, as it is only accessible either by air or by a single road, via a tunnel. These two entry points ensure that the area is easy to secure.

Before the flight ban, roughly 1 million British tourists visited Egypt each year, benefiting the economy by a minimum of £500 per tourist. At a conservative estimate, tourism was worth £500 million. Now only 350,000 British tourists are visiting annually, which represents a vast loss to the Egyptian economy. The number of British tourists flying to Sharm El Sheikh itself dropped from 900,000 in 2014 to just 231,000 in 2016.

The impact on the local economy is acute, with 70% of the dive centres in the Red sea area closing down by early 2016 and a further 20% no longer operating to full capacity. Things are now getting a little better owing to the reinstatement of flights by all other countries, but the impact on the local and national economy is still very significant. Tourism accounts for about 6% of Egypt’s GDP and employs 12% of the population.

The ban has also had an impact on the British economy, with UK airlines losing significant revenue, which they have sought to regain primarily by shifting flight capacity to the western Mediterranean. The recent collapse of Monarch airlines has very largely been attributed to the UK ban on flights to Sharm El Sheikh, and other airlines such as Thomson and Thomas Cook have also reported losses due to that ban.

The ban may also impact the UK economy in the long term. In PwC’s latest authoritative report on the global economic order, Egypt is moving up the rankings, thanks to the wider economic reforms of President Sisi and his Government, and Egypt is a valuable trading partner for the UK, as our trade envoy there will attest.

UK companies currently invest more in Egypt than the rest of the world put together, but on that recent trip to Egypt by the APPG, every single Egyptian businessman and politician was palpably upset, and indeed rather mystified, by the continuing UK flight ban and said it was a very real impediment to the good relations that ought to exist between our two great countries.

In summary, I would like to tell the House of early-day motion 468, recently tabled by myself and my co-chairman, the right hon. Member for East Ham, because it summarises this whole issue well, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply to its points:

“That this House welcomes the successful implementation of the UK-Egyptian joint action plan and substantial investment in upgrading security at Sharm El Sheikh airport using UK expertise in transport and security services; understands that Sharm El Sheikh airport is now considered by Department for Transport officials as one of the safest airports in the world; further notes that the UK Foreign Office safety categorisation for Sharm El Sheikh is green meaning that it is assessed as safe; acknowledges the reinstatement of flights to Sharm El Sheikh from other European countries including Germany, Italy and Belgium and the resumption of holiday flights from the UK to Tunisia; and calls on the Government to review the situation urgently, taking account of updated security advice and to consider lifting immediately the ban on flights from the UK to Sharm El Sheikh.”

The early-day motion has had good support from across this House. I urge the Government to consider it carefully, and to come back to the House with a positive response.

Heathrow Expansion: Air Quality

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hayes]

Yes. Among my many responsibilities, although I know that Members in this Chamber think that they are too few, are big roads, and the M4 is indeed a big road. However, it is important to point out that in any expansion that takes place at Heathrow, a range of transport connections would be considered. I know that Heathrow is considering how people would get to and from the airport. That will not just be by car. The hon. Lady will know that about 45% of people currently make their journey to and from Heathrow by private vehicle, but that number is not fixed in stone. One would hope that—indeed, I would expect it to be so as part of this package—all kinds of innovative solutions will be delivered as to how people can get to the airport efficiently.

Therefore, I do not want to prejudge that issue and I certainly would not want either to say anything that contradicted the answer that the hon. Lady received last week, because the question then was not posed to me; I think it was posed to the Secretary of State. I reassure the hon. Lady that we are broad-minded about the means by which people get to and from Heathrow and the effects that might have on local people.

Let me make my last three points, because I promised 10 points and so far I have delivered only seven. The Government have also made it clear that we must tackle noise and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham is also concerned about this. We will also meet our obligations on carbon. On noise, Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd has committed to a ban on scheduled night flights of six and a half hours, more predictable periods of respite for communities and new and binding noise targets.

Ninthly, the Government’s announcement was just the beginning, as I said, of the process, as the preferred scheme will now be subject for consultation through a draft airports national policy statement that will follow in the new year. Of course, that is something to look forward to after the excitement of Christmas.

Finally, it is important to point out—I know that my hon. Friend is very conscious of this and I thought she deserved an answer on it—that the Government accept the recent High Court judgment that more needs to be done to improve the nation’s air quality. That does not apply simply to airports; I am looking at a range of transport modes, as she will doubtless appreciate. I can tell her that the Government will produce a revised plan by 31 July 2017 and my team in the Department for Transport are beavering away and working with other relevant Departments to make sure that the plan meets all the necessary requirements.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I think I have only two minutes left, but what a delight it is to give way to my hon. Friend.

[Jonathan Lord]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Many experts, commentators and indeed Members of this House feel that the air quality projections made to date have been somewhat fanciful, including a large dose of wishful thinking. Can he reassure us that there is anything in the next year’s worth of consultation that will be more robust, and that the Government will take note of what many experts are saying?

[Mr Hayes]

I can give an absolute assurance that while I am the Minister of State at the Department for Transport all that we do will be studious and robust, and that includes the considerations of the kind that my hon. Friend has identified. It is important that we do the work to produce an evidential argument and also articulate that argument in a way that sends the public a very clear message—this Government are serious about transport and about wellbeing. All that we do in the Department, while I have influence over it, will be gauged by wellbeing and the effect that it has on the national interest and the common good.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the effect on air quality of proposed Heathrow airport expansion.

Weymouth to Waterloo Rail Line

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing this debate on the important issue of rail services between Weymouth to Waterloo. As he mentioned, we had a very fulfilling and useful working session earlier this afternoon, which was attended by some of our other hon. Friends in the Chamber. It is telling that so many right hon. and hon. Members are here today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord), who represents an important constituency on this line. In all such debates, we hear a lot of joined-up support from MPs representing people living in towns, villages and cities right the way along the relevant routes, and I shall go on to address why that is so important.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I join my hon. Friend the Minister in congratulating our hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing this debate and everything that he said, but will the Minister indulge me and reiterate that she supports the large improvements that will be required over the years to come at my station in Woking, which is on the line?

[Claire Perry]

Indeed; I would be happy to support that. I was going to come on to say that the Weymouth and Waterloo termini are at either end of the south west main line. That line has the third-rail system, which is rather old electrified technology, and we know that that is one reason why its trains run more slowly than on lines with overhead technology. My hon. Friend raises an important point. Ultimately, the aspiration is to bring all electrified track up to the state-of-the-art level, which would include the investments that he references.

As we heard, journey times on the line are anywhere from two hours 40 minutes to three hours. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset came to see me well before the general election to discuss the idea of upgrading the electrical supply along the line to provide a power boost. Some work has been done and, as he rightly said, it is difficult to see the cost-effectiveness—the business case—of those specific investments. As he is a person who does not give up easily, he therefore turned to option 2, which is the idea of connecting that line with the one running through Yeovil, thereby allowing a diversionary route that, of course, would benefit stations in Yeovil and Salisbury, which are represented by hon. Friends in the Chamber. That proposal is interesting, and we had an excellent session this afternoon to run through what would actually need to be done to deliver the journey time improvements that we want. We want to deliver the increased frequency and decreased journey times that would deliver the economic benefits about which we have heard a great deal.

As we know, this is a vital franchise area for the country. Waterloo is the busiest station in the UK. This franchise carries millions of people every year, which was why we announced this year that we would have a franchise competition with a view to getting a new operator in place for 2017. This is a fortuitous time to be discussing infrastructure, because the franchising opportunity gives us a chance to look at what we really want to achieve for the whole of the south-west network. There are proposals to introduce faster trains, and perhaps diesel or bimodal trains, which might be something that bidders come back with to deliver improvements to journey times overall.

There is also the question of how to get investment for infrastructure. My hon. Friend spoke about this, and I am always amazed by how expensive it is to do things on the railway. However, we are talking about a small set of projects—this is not something of the scale of the Great Western electrification. We have clearly signalled our desire not to route all railway investment through Network Rail, but to use the train operating companies as the commissioners, as well as the operators running on the network. We have an example of that, because FirstGroup is already taking the lead role in the Selby to Hull electrification project.

While we are going through the franchise process, there is an opportunity to engage with the bidders and determine their appetite is to deliver improvements. Of course, the question is: what is the cost to them? My hon. Friend is right that one cannot set out the business case without knowing the cost. In all honesty, I do not want to burden Network Rail with any more projects at the moment, given its enormous challenge of delivering the projects that we have already set out, but I will discuss with my officials a way of trying to get a better analysis of at least what the range of costs might be for these improvements. We can then start to build a case that takes account of those costs and examines the benefits that improvements to journey times and greater connectivity could deliver.

What was so refreshing in today’s meeting—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, as well as others who attended—was that we had the local enterprise partnerships and local councils present, as well as MPs assiduously representing their constituents. All were thinking about how this network might look for the region, and that is the way to crack the investment conundrum. I have become aware that it is often surprisingly difficult to generate a business case for transport investment. The Jubilee Line extension, High Speed 1 and the M25 were all things whose benefits people in my position many years ago had to struggle to get recognised.

If we start to bring in the broader benefits, such as the housing that these transport improvements could underpin, the businesses that would move to the area and the local growth that could be unlocked, we could really start to capture the value that transport investment can bring. The right way to do that is to engage from the bottom up with the local enterprise partnerships and the council, which can then pull through investment for the benefit of their towns, cities and region.

I therefore urge my hon. Friends, working with their LEP and local council colleagues, to get this issue into the consultation for the franchise, which will run until 9 February. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset is not going to come up with a wish list. Any proposal will be targeted, but we could look at that as something that could be put into the franchise competition for the bidders. Then, by the way, we would be starting to get some competition around the bidding process, which could only be to the good.

In the longer term, as I said, there is an aspiration to improve the electrification right along the line, but we need to be in the business of the delivery of infrastructure. For too long, many Governments have been in a “jam tomorrow” place. Now, we have a fully funded list of improvements and projects that Network Rail will deliver over the next four years, after which we can start to bring together the investment horizon for the future.

What is so refreshing about this debate and the amount of work that went into preparing all the documents that my hon. Friend brought to our meeting is that we are not only spending a record amount on the railways—it is the biggest investment programme since Victorian times—but spending it in the way that most benefits local communities. The investment is being not pushed out by the Department for Transport, but pulled out by those in the regions, because without good transport investment, it is not possible to grow a local, regional or national economy.

I commend hon. Members for attending the debate and speaking so passionately for their railways, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset for all his work. I undertake to consider whether we can come up with a way of getting the numerical range to which I referred so that we can at least start to have a more detailed conversation as the franchise period progresses.

Question put and agreed to.

Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Vehicles

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which highlights the fact that so many authorities are responsible for licensing, and the complexity of various initiatives taking place. I understand that the Law Commission will examine certain aspects of regulation, but he makes an excellent point about the need for best practice to be applied across the country. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response and his thoughts on the balance between localism and trying to tackle a national concern.

My view is that it would be unfair to expect drivers to bear the cost of CCTV, particularly if the price of the equipment remains in the hundreds of pounds. I do not expect public money to be made available in these straitened times, but I do know that in 2006 Bedford borough council worked with Bedfordshire police to use some of the proceeds of crime moneys to implement CCTV in a pilot scheme at low or no cost to drivers. In Leicester, funds from the tackling knives action programme have been used. In other local authorities, advertising on cabs has been enabled to fund the cost of CCTV. I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of the more widespread use of proceeds of crime moneys for this purpose.

I mentioned the lack of statistics on crime. I always think that if we do not track something, we will find it hard to make improvements. Therefore, will the Minister work with the Home Office to track more formally the statistics on criminal attacks on private hire drivers, including aggravated racial abuse? Will he also comment on whether he will seek opinions from the private hire and taxi trade as input to the Prime Minister’s alcohol strategy? Unfortunately, so many of these incidents of crime correlate with alcohol and drug misuse.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I commend the work of Woking street angels in my constituency, and similar street angels across the country, and also pay tribute to the licensed taxi drivers who have an arrangement with the street angels to take drunk and incapacitated passengers safely home, unless they are potentially violent, in which case the police are called. The drivers sometimes do that at no cost to the passengers. Is that something that my hon. Friend would like to see in more parts of the country?

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are many excellent initiatives in towns across the country. They have recognised the problem of growing levels of alcohol abuse and the late night trade generally. We see organisations such as street angels working with the police, local authorities and taxi companies to ensure that towns do not suffer as a result of people staying out too long and that they get home safely. That relates to the point the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made about the importance of local initiatives being given a national profile so that we can make changes all the way across.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) enables me to segue over to talk about the safety of passengers. It is a sad reflection on the taxi industry that, despite the significant efforts made by local authorities, which he mentioned, any cursory review of local newspapers will readily identify cases of assault—frequently sexual assault—of passengers by taxi drivers. That is the flipside of the issue of vulnerability. There is the vulnerability of drivers who are on their own, perhaps with cash, and the vulnerability of people being driven home on their own. In 2002, the Metropolitan police estimated that in London alone 214 women had been raped or sexually assaulted in such circumstances in the preceding year. The figure fell to 93 by 2009 but has recently increased.

There is a range of initiatives that national Government and local authorities are taking to reduce risks to passengers. I will not dwell on those in too much detail, but a particular issue I want to highlight for the Minister is the limitations and availability of publicly held data that might be useful in reducing offences against passengers. There are currently 384 licensing authorities in the UK, each of which will have its own policies on the collection of data on drivers, such as their Criminal Records Bureau checks, and on their vehicles, and each authority will have its own rules about sharing that information. As we know, information is power, and that power ought to be available to passengers, should they wish to have it, when they hire a cab. It would provide reassurance to know that the vehicle and the driver are properly licensed.

Am I safe? is a service that currently operates in more than 50 towns and covers 10% of the UK population, but it reports that local authority information gathering is patchy and that the timeliness of updates varies. I do not know whether that application is the best, but I believe that it makes sense to make this regulated information more accessible and more accurate. Therefore, I ask the Minister for his views on the value of a national registration database of private hire drivers and licensed vehicles and, more broadly, his comments on the need for rigour in data collection and CRB checks.

Often, in towns and villages throughout our country, the only public transport option for getting back home after a night out is a cab—a private hire vehicle or hackney carriage. It is time for the Government, notwithstanding the Law Commission’s review of legislation, to come forward with some initiatives that will make our private hire and taxi sectors a respected part of our transport system—a status that they and we, the public, deserve.

Cycling

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing this debate and on his excellent introduction.

In September 2008, one of my Woking constituents, Nicholas Wright, was killed following a collision with a heavy goods vehicle in London. His mother recently wrote to me, saying:

“He was on his bicycle cycling, as he did every day, from Waterloo Station to the City where he worked as an IT project manager… He was an experienced cyclist and a volunteer Advanced Motorist Supervisor. Had the lorry been fitted with a mirror that allowed the driver to see directly down in front of his lorry, the death of my son would have been avoided.”

What an awful waste of a young husband, father and loving son. His family still miss him terribly and his wife, Caroline, has been in touch with me in support of the cycling campaign run by The Times. The untimely death of Nicholas Wright is, of course, reminiscent of the dreadful accident that befell Mary Bowers of The Times.

I am delighted by the huge amount of support that campaign by The Times has generated and we should study carefully the 7,000 stories about cycling in this country that have been given to that campaign, to see what first-hand guidance they can give us as we try to make cycling much safer. I broadly welcome most of the key points of the “Cities fit for cycling” manifesto developed by The Times. I was going to quibble with just one of those key points, but I do not think that I have the time to do so.

I want to pick up on the point made by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and say that this issue is not just about our cities. Some of the most dangerous roads for cyclists are our rural roads. I do not know what is currently in the Highway Code or the advice given to learner drivers, but we should treat cyclists—wherever possible and particularly on our rural roads—as if they were a young girl on horseback. Cars should slow up and not try to overtake if there is traffic coming in the other direction. So long as the visibility and sightlines are right, they should pull out slowly and purposefully and go into the opposite carriageway if there is nothing coming in the other direction. Our cyclists, particularly our young cyclists, deserve no less.

I am proud to represent a constituency—Woking—that has made outstanding progress on encouraging cycling in recent years. More than 26 km of off-road network has been added in Woking since 2008, including a substantial route along vast swathes of the Basingstoke canal towpath, thus demonstrating that it is often possible to open up significant new routes, even within highly built-up areas. In addition, I look forward to the culmination of the Hoe valley scheme, which the Prime Minister visited recently. Basically, that scheme aims to take lots of homes out of the local flood area, but there will also be new homes, including affordable homes, and new parkland, which will have terrific new off-highway cycling routes.

Many colleagues have said that the promotion of safe cycling is crucial. In Woking, we have had special activities such as “neon nights”, which are supervised evening cycle rides to promote the use of high-visibility clothing and lights, encouraging cyclists to be seen and to be safe.

I started my contribution on a very sombre note, but let me end on a light one. I very much enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), who talked about being a fat man on a bicycle. My younger brother—he is younger than me, but the same sort of age—was getting corpulent a few years ago. Within a year, he had successfully competed in L’Étape, which as I understand it is a stretch of the Tour de France that amateurs can ride. So I say to my hon. Friend, “Set your sights high, my friend”, and if he succeeds in riding L’Étape, perhaps we can go on a tandem together, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) talked about, but I would first like to have proof beyond all shadow of a doubt of his stability and fitness for purpose. Given that proof, I look forward to that prospect and perhaps we can do it in aid of charity.