National Policy Statement: Airports

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pre-empting some of the remarks that I will make in my speech later, but as a Manchester MP, I thought I should speak for Manchester airport on that point. Manchester airport refutes the figures in the forecasts, because it believes that it will exceed those passenger numbers even before the Heathrow expansion is on stream. The hub argument is not the right argument to make for Manchester, because most of its connectivity involves direct flights. There are other reasons that Greater Manchester MPs have come together to support this proposal, but that particular argument is not the one to make.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am not going to stop interventions being made, but they must be short if we are to get through all the speakers.

[Chris Grayling]

We want to ensure that passengers who are flying to a hub airport from points in the UK can do so through a UK airport and not, for example, through a middle eastern hub. Manchester airport is a great success story and, on behalf of this country, I am hugely proud of how much it has achieved. I have been trying to work with the management of Manchester airport to help it to win business internationally, because I think it has a great model that it could take to other countries. I think that this will be a win-win. It will be a win-win for the north of England, for Manchester, for Liverpool, for Leeds, for Newcastle, for Edinburgh, for Glasgow, for Aberdeen, for Dundee, for Belfast and for Newquay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call Andy McDonald, I warn Members that we will start with an eight-minute limit but it will soon drop to five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call Greg Hands to speak, with an eight-minute limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call John McDonnell. The time limit will go down to six minutes after John McDonnell.

Transport Secretary: East Coast Franchise

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this very important debate.

We have had a to-ing and fro-ing about the merits of nationalisation, the merits of privatisation and all the rest of it, but what has struck me about the debate is the hypocrisy, I think, that I have heard from many Opposition Members. It is a strong word, used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his opening remarks—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Let me just say that “hypocrisy” is not a word that we would use against fellow Members, as we are all honourable Members. I am sure you would like to withdraw it.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I will withdraw it, although if you were to look at the record, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would see that the word had been used earlier in the debate, so I was just repeating it, but we will leave it there.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

If I might help, I was not here earlier, and I can only make a judgment on what happens when I am in the Chair. I am sure you would respect that.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Thank you very much, Sir, for your very mild and modest rebuke.

I find it extraordinary to hear speaker after speaker look to the network in France, in Germany and in other countries and say that things are operating well there, when clearly, if one understands anything about the EU competition policy or the single market, the whole drift of EU regulation in the rail network has been away from the nationalisation that has been lauded by Opposition Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Everyone in this Chamber realises that the franchise system is not perfect, and I freely admit that. However, compared with what was operating before under the nationalised system, we have seen massive improvement in terms of investment and a doubling of passenger journeys since 1995. Under the old system, one of the principal jobs of the Government was, in effect, to manage this huge industry. Half the Secretary of State’s time was spent talking to the unions about the wage bill. There were civil servants running the network who were not rail professionals. The shadow Secretary of State said that we need to get more professionals running the system. His proposed solution to that was to nationalise the entire network. That is essentially giving control to the man or woman in Whitehall, who, despite their qualifications and skills, are simply not rail professionals; everyone can see that. It is extraordinary to say that we need more rail professionals to handle the network and operate the system, and then to say that the Government should nationalise the whole thing. There is an inherent contradiction in that.

When I entered this House, I was very lucky to serve on the Transport Committee for three years. We covered a great deal of ground in that time. We went to the EU—to Brussels—a number of times. It is really disappointing, frankly, to see that the debate has regressed since I served on that Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). All parties in this House were broadly in agreement with the franchise system. The debate was about how we were to manage that system and how the franchises should operate. People have mentioned the Brown recommendations, the majority of which, as I remember, were supported by the Committee. We were moving forward. There was political consensus in this House and across the country.

Now, we are faced with a radical Marxist, or whatever you want to call it, party—[Interruption.] I am sure you would not call it that, Mr Deputy Speaker. We can call it lots of things. We are confronted with a party that is openly suggesting that nationalisation is the answer. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State says, “The public are agreeing with us.” The polls on aviation showed that only 18% of the public believed in privatisation at the time, but we privatised it anyway and it was incredibly effective. The reality of British Rail and a nationalised network is not the fantasy described by Opposition Members.

I want to make some specific remarks about the east coast rail franchise. It is absolutely the case that this has been a very difficult franchise. It has had recurring difficulties in terms of revenue projections, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said. Those projections would have been difficult under any administrator—any form of ownership. There are serious questions to be asked about the nature of the shareholders’ guarantees and the nature of the public sector liability. However, to suggest that the answer is to nationalise the entire network, which I believe was in Labour’s manifesto, is really, I am afraid, a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Unfortunately I am going to have to drop the limit to four minutes to get all Members in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At 10 minutes past 3 this afternoon, just after the Secretary of State for Transport left the Chamber, he issued a press release on plans to tackle poor performance at Northern Rail. I wonder whether the Secretary of State, who is almost back in his place, has indicated any intention to make a statement to the House allowing right hon. and hon. Members to question the Government on those plans, which are of huge significance to many of our constituents.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have certainly not been given any notification that the Secretary of State wants to come back at this moment, but there is a good chance tomorrow morning at business questions, when I have no doubt you will be able to raise this again.

Royal Assent

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967 that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Data Protection Act 2018

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018

Smart Meters Act 2018.

I should also like to announce to the House the deferred Divisions result in respect of the Question relating to the Somerset West and Taunton (Modification of Boundary Change Enactments) Regulations 2018. The Ayes were 298 and the Noes were 17. Of the English Members voting on that Question, the Ayes were 270 and the Noes were 14, so the Question was agreed to.

In respect of the Question relating to the Somerset West and Taunton (Local Government Changes) Order 2018, the Ayes were 298 and the Noes were 17. Of the English Members voting on that Question, the Ayes were 270 and the Noes were 14, so the Question was agreed to.

In respect of the Question relating to the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole (Structural Changes) Order 2018, the Ayes were 293 and the Noes were 19. Of the English Members voting on that Question, the Ayes were 265 and the Noes were 16, so the Question was agreed to.

In respect of the Question relating to the draft Dorset (Structural Changes) (Modification of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) Regulations 2018, the Ayes were 294 and the Noes were 19. Of the English Members voting on that Question, the Ayes were 266 and the Noes were 16, so the Question was agreed to.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Allocation of time motion: House of Commons & Carry-over motion: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & 2nd reading & Allocation of time motion & Carry-over motion & Money resolution
Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely perceptive point and I completely agree with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) was talking about the investment figures, and sometimes there are intangible benefits that are not always captured in an economic forecast. I hope that the Government are looking at that and looking at how we can maximise what my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) describes. Loneliness is a real scourge and when people who live in London can get on a train and go to Birmingham, or vice-versa, and people can to go from Birmingham to the north, they can explore new parts of our beautiful country. We can also reduce the carbon footprint that would come from their getting on an airplane. Let us have more staycations. Let us explore our country, because we are blessed in our island nation with some of the most beautiful landscapes. Sometimes that tourism benefit is lacking from our debate. How much better it would be if we could encourage holidays at home and boost the tourism—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am trying to have the debate at least somewhere in scope, and I am sure the hon. Lady wants to get back on track —excuse the pun.

[Rachel Maclean]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise for deviating a tiny bit off the track.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) said in his extremely eloquent speech, it is impossible to build a major infra- structure project in any country without it having some impact on people, but we have to make sure that it is managed sensitively, that people are treated well and that their voices and concerns are heard. I hope that the Government reassure us that that will be done properly.

Infrastructure underpins our productivity. There is a strong push in our country towards devolution, and investment in high-speed rail is critical to that. Will the Minister say how this project will link to the devolved combined authorities agenda? I am close to the West Midlands combined authority—Redditch is a constituent member—where the Mayor holds powers over transport. It is important that HS2 links to transport in the mayors’ regions so that we have an integrated solution to local transport issues. I have campaigned vigorously for better links between Birmingham and my town of Redditch, and I shall continue to do so. I hope that we see a push on that as capacity is freed up when the express trains leave the lines, thereby freeing up more scope for faster and better express services from secondary hubs into the main cities.

We in the west midlands are leading on jobs and growth. We have a booming economy. We are creating more jobs and more businesses are starting in our area than in any other part of the country. Redditch is on the edge of that, but we benefit from it and we want to harness it. We want our region to take control of our own destiny, as do, I am sure, colleagues from across the country. This high-speed rail project and other infrastructure projects will enable us to take charge of our own destiny and live our own lives and will encourage prosperity for all our constituents.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I suggest we start with a 12-minute time limit on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think I need to help a little. Sit down, Mr Brown. I am not quite sure whether a debate on the number of MPs in Scotland has any relation to electric vehicles. I call Alan Brown—stop enticing them.

Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 2, in page 1, line 13, at end insert—

“(4) The Government must publish a review within one year of this Act receiving Royal Assent on the impact on UK consumers using EU-based companies affected by changes to consumer protection introduced by this section.”

This amendment requires the Government to review the impact of provisions under this section to ensure that they are not adversely affecting UK consumers using EU-based companies.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 1 stand part.

[Karl Turner]

The amendment would require the Government to review the impact of clause 1 to ensure that it does not adversely affect UK consumers using EU-based companies. Essentially, the clause updates ATOL—the air travel organisers’ licence—to ensure that it is harmonised with the 2015 EU package travel directive. The provision therefore extends ATOL to cover a wider range of holidays and protect more consumers. UK travel companies, we are told, will be able to sell more seamlessly across Europe, as they will need to comply with protections based not in the country of sale, but the country in which they are established. Those are the objectives that the Government seek to achieve. There is no difference of principle between the Government and the Opposition on this matter. Indeed, it is due to the package travel directive that it has been necessary to put such a provision into the Bill.

However, we seek clarification on some issues, which was why we tabled amendment 2. The amendment would provide a guarantee that the Government will review the impact of the ATOL revisions to ensure that they do not adversely affect UK consumers using EU-based companies. The whole idea of the clause is to improve the range of protections available. The broad substance of the changes to ATOL are necessary and are broadly welcome. As I said, they will harmonise UK law with the latest EU package travel directive, and that should have many benefits. A wider range of operators, including more dynamic package providers, are likely to be covered by the changes. That will hopefully bring protection to many more UK holidaymakers who are not covered under existing ATOL provisions.

For UK travel companies, standards will have to be in line with those of the country in which the company is established, rather than the place where the company sells the holiday. That should mean that companies established in the UK can sell far more seamlessly across Europe by simply adhering to the widely respected ATOL flag. However, the changes at the EU level could have adverse effects for UK consumers who purchase their holiday or travel from EU-based travel companies, rather than British companies that sell into other European countries.

Amendment 2 would address that issue. The changes made through the directive will now mean that EU-based companies selling in the UK will have to adhere to ATOL-equivalent insolvency protections laid out in the member state where the business is based. In practice, that could lead to unintended consequences and, more significantly, costs for UK consumers. Processes and timescales for recompense may be distinctly different from what many travellers would expect under the current ATOL provisions, which are in many ways regarded as the gold standard.

The impact assessment warns:

“If consumers purchase a trip from a business established elsewhere in the EU and the company becomes insolvent there may be some costs to the consumer of processing a claim with a non-UK insolvency protector.”

Based on the latest Civil Aviation Authority figures, this will affect not just a relatively small number of holidaymakers. If this goes wrong, more than 500,000 passengers could be compromised, so a significant number of people could be adversely affected. It is therefore important that the Government take steps to anticipate and prepare for any possible negative impacts.

Amendment 2 would achieve that by requiring the UK Government to monitor the impact on UK consumers using EU-based companies. That would help to inform whether the UK Government should consider issuing further guidance, or co-operating with consumers and member states to ensure that protections are adequate.

The changes envisaged by the clause clearly make sense and are in line with what is required under the package travel directive. There is no doubt that when UK-established companies are selling into other countries, the consumers in those countries will have the benefit of the gold standard of ATOL protection. However, we are concerned about the protection given by EU-based companies selling in the UK. We hope that it will be equivalent to that under ATOL, but it will be subject to the rules and regulations of the EU country concerned. We are nervous about whether UK holidaymakers could lose out, so we are asking the Government to consider the issue and to monitor the situation properly.

As with so many other things, the environment is changing, particularly in relation to Brexit. ATOL will still be there post-Brexit, but we will explore possible changes when we discuss the next group of amendments. The package travel directive will no doubt still be there for those states that will still be members of the EU. What is uncertain at this stage is what the interface will be between the two things post-Brexit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford]

I do recall mentioning in the Chamber the last time we discussed the Bill that I chaired the negotiations on the package travel directive in my previous role.

My right hon. Friend refers to the technicalities of the amendment. Of course we should continue to review the impact of the changes on British consumers, because the Bill means that the ATOL guarantee will cover companies based in the UK, not companies selling into the UK, so it would not, for example, have caught the Low Cost Holidays situation last year.

On the technicalities of the impact assessment, if we read the underlying package travel directive, member states in Europe are not due to implement—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Vicky Ford]

rose—

[The Chairman]

Order. It is one thing to intervene, but another to make a speech. Please, if the hon. Lady needs to do that, she should do it over a couple of interventions. When I stand and say, “Order,” she should please sit down. I do not want to stop a new Member; I want to try and help you, but you have to help me as well. If you need to come back, I am sure the Minister will give way again.

[Mr Hayes]

I am extremely grateful, Mr Hoyle.

I will address my hon. Friend’s remarks later in my brief speech. She is right, of course, that it is too early to know how the package travel directive will lead to changes in purchasing behaviour across borders. That was a point that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East made, too. We hope—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Well, okay. I am being persuaded to do so by popular demand and acclamation.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The Minister says “by popular demand”, but those Members were not here when he first started. He has had to wait until now.

[Hon. Members]

Start again!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I do not know whether anyone else wants to—

[The Chairman]

Order. The danger is that someone might blow out that light. Come on, Minister.

[Mr Hayes]

I just wondered whether anyone else wanted to intervene in a similar vein.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend and Lincolnshire neighbour, as a Transport Minister, has been diligent in attending to the concerns of my constituents about the infamous Bull Ring bottleneck in Horncastle, where the A153 and A158 cross. Has he paid the same diligence, care and attention to this Bill, such that he is able to reassure the Committee that the amendment is not to be passed and that we must keep the Bill as it is?

[The Chairman]

I have been quite generous to Members coming in late and intervening. If you are going to intervene, let us have short interventions.

[Simon Hoare]

It was short.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman]

Mr Hoare, I assure you that I do not need any advice. I remind the Minister that there are others who wish to speak, including on his own Benches.

[Mr Hayes]

Then I will draw my remarks to a gradual conclusion. I have already brought my introductory remarks to their conclusion, and I am now moving to the main thrust of my response to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister is being a wee bit disingenuous here—

[The Chairman]

Order. That is not a word we would use, and I am sure the hon. Lady can think of something much more pleasant. The Minister is a nice man, after all, and I do not believe he would mislead the House.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister is an eminently sensible man, but the point is that I can only wonder why he is resisting yearly reviews which he has told us already happen. If they already happen, why not write them into this piece of legislation, if for no other reason than to reassure passengers as we face a post-Brexit world? I know he is an honourable man, and I urge him to reconsider and accept the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

‘(8) Regulations under subsection (6) may not be laid before Parliament until the Secretary of State has published an assessment of their impact and has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the definition of “Air Travel Trust.””

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to undertake an impact assessment and launch a consultation before bringing forward any regulations to amend the definition of Air Travel Trust under this Act.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 2, line 10, at end insert —

‘(8) Before laying regulations under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must publish a full impact assessment and consult on the proposals.”

This amendment would require the Government to undertake a full impact assessment and consultation before bringing forward regulations to create any new air travel trusts through an affirmative resolution.

Clause stand part.

[Patricia Gibson]

Amendment 1, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), would require the Government to undertake a full impact assessment and consultation before introducing any regulations to amend the definition of air travel trust under the Bill. Clause 2 requires that—[Interruption.]

[The Chairman]

Order. There is a lot of conversation. I really am struggling to hear, and I am not sure whether the mic is picking up this speech. Would hon. Members please have their conversations when they have left the Chamber?

[Patricia Gibson]

Clause 2 requires only that the Secretary of State has an affirmative resolution from each House of Parliament, but that is not enough. The Government should be required to conduct a proper consultation and assess the potential impact of any proposed changes to the ATOL scheme and air travel trust that they intend to introduce through secondary legislation. Any proposals must be fully transparent, and consumers and businesses alike must be formally consulted in the process to allow for proper scrutiny. We trust that the Minister will accept that and our reasons for tabling the amendment.

Chris Gibb Report: Improvements to Southern Railway

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is sponsored by the RMT, so can you advise the House on whether she should declare an interest when speaking on this matter?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is up to each individual Member to note whether they have an interest or not. To be quite honest, I have no knowledge of whether any Member is sponsored by a trade union under the present legislation.

[Chris Grayling]

Since last year, we have worked to sort out some of the underlying problems with the management of this railway line, joining up the operations of the track and trains, spending more money on infrastructure, and helping to contribute to a better performing railway. Performance has been rising steadily since the start of the year. Chris Gibb rightly identified a range of problems—I have said to the House that we are working to try to solve those problems—but he was absolutely clear that the principal cause of the disruption experienced by the constituents of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and others was industrial action by the unions. He said that passengers would have experienced a relatively normal service had that action not taken place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

It is worth reiterating that the one thing Chris Gibb was excluded from investigating in his report was industrial relations. He was not allowed to go into it, but he did say that in recent times it had been the single greatest cause of short-term inconvenience. In the section titled “How did the system get to this point?” he clearly says:

“However I do not believe any single party have been the cause.”

On behalf of passengers, I beg that we get beyond the finger-pointing, the “he said, she said” of this debate. Let us all act with a degree of humility. Every single party bears a responsibility for where we are today, from the unions to the franchises and the Government. Can the Secretary of State please accept his own responsibility, act with humility and say what he—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. You all want to speak, and I am not getting at anybody in particular, but all I will say is that if we have short interventions, everybody will get to speak. We have a very long list to get through.

[Chris Grayling]

The point is simple. We are talking about where we are now. Two weeks ago we had a railway that was performing much better and a service that most users said was much better than it was last year. We had a joined-up management structure for track and trains operating out of a centre at Three Bridges. We had a programme of ongoing spending to try to remove the perennial breakdowns, signal failures and points failures that cause frustration. All that was moving in the right direction, and then, lo and behold, unnecessary strike action is threatened and work to rule is taking place against things that the unions have already been doing for the past six months, that have been working well and that have been delivering improvements. That is where we are now. We had something that was getting better, after a lot of work by a lot of people. It is a tragedy that we now seem to be taking a step backwards. It is not necessary.

If the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) wants this railway line to get better, he should please say to his friends in the union movement, “You do not need to do this. It is not necessary, it is the wrong thing to do and it must stop.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Can I just say to all Members, apart from the Front Benchers to come, that I am working on six minutes? I am going to introduce a time limit of six minutes.

Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have another maiden speech. I call Bill Grant.

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

A simple nod of the head would suffice, but the Minister said it with eloquence and charm to which he is no stranger.

The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M).

[Mr Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]

[The Chairman]

I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England may vote on the consent motion.

Resolved,

That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of, and schedule to, the Bus Services Bill [Lords]:—

Clauses and schedule certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence

Clauses 1, 3 to 7, 9 to 14, 16 and 18 to 22 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Bill as amended in the Public Bill Committee (Bill 158) including any amendments made on Report.—(Andrew Jones.)

Question agreed to.

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.



Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Monday last week I asked for an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 24. I do not seek to reapply for that debate, but last week Mr Speaker said that he would

“hope and anticipate that the usual channels would find time for it to be debated.”—[Official Report, 20 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 655.]

Business collapsed at 4.35 pm last Tuesday and it is finishing at 7.43 pm tonight. This is completely illogical to me and to everybody else watching elsewhere. Can you advise on how I could get a debate on the significant concerns that I still have about the Tories’ two-child policy and rape clause before it is implemented in 10 days’ time? If now is not the time, when is?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a matter for the Chair but it is a matter for the Government. The main thing is that it is definitely on the record, and I would hope that the usual channels would have picked up on the comments that have been made.

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th March 2017 Commons Chamber

Although I entirely share my hon. Friend’s view, I think we are in danger of—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are also in danger of talking about criminal law. I know that the hon. Gentleman is very good on the detail of the Bill, and wants to return to it.

[Philip Davies]

You are exactly right, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was sidetracking myself. Let me return to the principle of retrospective legislation.

The Alan Turing (Statutory Pardon) Bill is, in many respects, from the same stable as this Bill. During its very short and sweet Third Reading in the House of Lords, the great Lord Tebbit made a pertinent point. He said that he had “no intention of obstructing” its progress, but added:

“As it continues on its journey towards the statute book, though, there is something that should be said. As we know, Mr Turing committed, and was convicted of, an act that would not be a crime today. So have many others, and many other crimes have been committed similarly. I hope that the Bill will not be used as a precedent. Even more, I hope that we will never seek to extend the logic of the Bill to posthumously convict men of crimes for acts that were not criminal when they were committed, but would be if they were committed today. There is a dangerous precedent within this Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 October 2013; Vol. 748, c. 1584.]

I think that the warning given by Lord Tebbit then is very relevant to the Bill that we are discussing today, and that is the particular issue that I have with it.

[Philip Davies]

I do accept that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I hope you are not going to enter into a debate on this.

[Philip Davies]

No, I am not going to defy your ruling in any way, Mr Deputy Speaker; I would never do that, as you well know.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Chope will always try to lead you off your objective, and we do not want him to do that.

[Philip Davies]

I suspect that you are right about my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, Mr Deputy Speaker; he has been leading me astray for many years now.

The serious and relevant point that I want to make is that the principles in many respects remain the same. I accept that there is the difference in terms of the criminal law that my hon. Friend outlines—and that you outline, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point I was trying to make—perhaps in a ham-fisted way—is that the principles are similar in terms of retrospective legislation and whether we should go down that route.

In conclusion, I support the Bill and am all for changing the law on this, and I still maintain today that this law that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury is rightly dealing with should never have been the law; it was an absolute outrage that it ever was the law of the land, and I am all for changing it. But I am concerned that there might be, not necessarily unintended consequences, but unintended precedents set by trying to change it retrospectively.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

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

[Mr Hayes]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It will probably be done overnight.

[Neil Parish]

I am sure that it will, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have every faith in the Minister. Speaking as his former Parliamentary Private Secretary, I am absolutely certain that he can achieve this—probably through his PPS. No, I must not say that; I was only being facetious.

Charging points are necessary, but we must also ensure that fast charging points are available. We do not want to leave our cars charging for a long time; they need to be charged reasonably quickly.

Clause 9 gives the Government power to require operators to provide an appropriate uniform method of accessing public charging points. People need to know that their vehicles fit the chargers. I hope that the Government will take that opportunity. There are currently myriad charging structures, memberships and prices. Clear and uniform charging structures, so that the public can plan their bills and do not feel ripped off, will boost electric vehicle take-up. Clause 10 makes it a requirement for large fuel retailers to install electric charging points. That is a common-sense change, which we have been calling for since last year. We will never boost electric car numbers to diesel or petrol levels until we have parity in refuelling infrastructure. Are there enough incentives for large garages to provide charging points when they like to sell us petrol or diesel?

Clause 11 is particularly important. It requires public information on the availability of public charging points. We need a public awareness campaign on exactly where the electric charging points are. The public need to have confidence that if they buy an electric car, they will have charging points in the vicinity. This is absolutely fundamental.

Clause 12 sets the minimum standards for charging points, including the ability to transmit data to the user, energy efficiency requirements, and the ability for data to be accessed remotely. It is a good start, but I would like the clause to go further: I would like to see minimum charging speeds as a requirement for new charging points. We need more rapid DC charging points that can charge a car to 80% capacity in 30 minutes. I am sure that the Minister is more than capable of that. This will help EVs to properly compete with petrol and diesel vehicles. I hope the Minister will consider this change, because until we can charge our EVs quickly, we will not be able to cover the distances, and that is partly what stops people getting electric vehicles. I also say to the Minister that ULEVs currently make up only 6.3% of the Government car service fleet, so the Government must get their own house in order.

The Government have the laudable aim that every new car in the UK should be an ULEV in the next 25 years. The Business Secretary says that he wants Britain to be the world leader in EVs; this is a big step in the right direction. We should be bold with our electric charging infrastructure and give the public the confidence to buy an electric car. The tangible benefits are within our grasp, and I look forward to backing this Bill in the Aye Lobby this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am terribly grateful that the hon. Gentleman is giving me the opportunity to reply, but he is assuming a level of ownership of today’s vehicle that is simply not relevant. If one looks at a vehicle as a means of transportation and sees it more in the form of a train, one sees that Mr Deputy Speaker uses a vehicle to get him to the airport and then gets out and gets on his plane, and somebody else gets in the vehicle and goes all the way back to Lancashire. Lucky Lancashire, to have spared the use of two cars.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The good thing is that I do not have a plane, either.

[John Pugh]

We invented the train some time ago; there are trains available, even in Lancashire. My fundamental point is that electric vehicles are probably a less flexible technology than either the internal combustion engine or the hydrogen fuel cell, and the technology is wholly inapplicable in the case of heavy goods vehicles, in which they surely do not have much of a place. Even if I am wrong about that, there are some legislative problems if we anticipate a silent city of electric vehicles moving about at pace and the hazards that that may present for pedestrian safety.

What would prevent drivers of ordinary cars from bullying autonomous vehicles in the knowledge that they must give way? They might cut out at junctions, as I believe they already intend to do. What responsibility does a driver or owner have when he initiates a journey? He may be tempted to plan a journey much longer or more hazardous—for example, at night—than he previously might have done, or more frequently than if he had to drive himself. Would he have to nominate a co-pilot, and what would be the safety protocols there? Can the roads cope with possible additional vehicle use? People have anticipated elderly people who had given up using their cars returning to them, and the use of cars by disabled people becoming far more common.