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.