EU Structural Funds: Least Developed Regions

Luke Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this debate on an issue that is close to my heart, given the effect of European funding on the highlands and islands over the years. He cited CPMR figures of €13 billion and £11 billion, and as he rightly said, those numbers have been backed up by the House of Commons Library, and may even be an underestimate of the funding available had we remained in the EU. Indeed, if the Government had decided to take a sensible approach, we would still be beneficiaries of that funding.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the least developed regions, which get a bigger share of that money because they have greater need, and about the EU stepping in where Westminster had not. My constituency contains some big, iconic signals of that. Predating devolution, the Kessock bridge crosses from Inverness to Ross-shire, and it would not have been delivered without intervention from the EU. It has been transformational. Similarly, the University of the Highlands and Islands is now a physical entity, and it has helped hugely with some of the issues described by Members today. There is no town, village or community in the highlands and islands that does not show a wee EU sign to explain how it has benefited from that funding over the years. The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about a range of positive and social economic benefits of European funding, and we share that view.

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) asked a question that many of us have asked: why is there no consultation? What is holding up the Government? He raised the important point that we will no longer be a member of the European Investment Bank, and the deficit that that holds. The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) said that people are looking not for a handout but for a hand up, and he listed the criteria. That is where the EU has stepped in in the past. He spoke about a protected allocation of funds, and said there is no reason to believe that that is not what is intended. Let us see the evidence for that; let us see the delivery. There is no detail and, as we have heard, not even a consultation.

The hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) spoke about investment and innovation, business and work skills, youth employment in the Tees valley, and about how essential those things are given this UK Government, and the times of Tory austerity we have been living through. She said that people have no knowledge about what is coming, and with her customary niceness she said that plans are “very light on detail”—I would have used stronger terms, but she is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) said that the way the Treasury looks at funding overlooks rural areas, and that she will be working hard to ensure her party honours that commitment. We need to hear the Minister say that the funding will be fully replaced, and whether it will be included in the spending review.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) talked about the three years of uncertainty that the communities and recipients of that spending have lived through, and she wondered where we will go next. Importantly, she mentioned the positive impact of the funding on disabled people, because often the best of it goes to those who are left behind in the thoughts of Westminster. She spoke about there being slogans from the Tory Government rather than investment, and today the Minister has an opportunity to put some meat on the bones and give the guarantees that everybody is asking for.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the importance of such funding in the shadow of universal credit, and as an MP for a constituency that has seen UC over six years, from pilot to full roll-out, I know that money from the EU is vital to address some of the deficits caused by that programme. Indeed, we share a rise in food bank reliance as a result. She said that funding should be targeted, focused and devolved, but we are still waiting for a consultation.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) talked about how regional equality has dropped, and there are now extra children living in poverty. He asked why in 2019—I agree with this—Westminster still holds all the power. He said that people are fed up to the back teeth with Westminster’s approach, and that we need bottom-up decision making. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) spoke about below-average spending from Westminster. He said that EU funds are fairer, and that there is a better recognition of the issues by the EU. He rightly spoke about the risks of a no-deal scenario.

In the short time that she took to make her speech, my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) spoke succinctly, and rightly, about the real living alarm over the lack of detail about what is coming. Who will be eligible? How will it work? What will it be worth? Will there be—this has been mooted but not explained in any detail—like-for-like funding? Will that guarantee be yes or no, regardless of a deal or the catastrophe of a no-deal hard Brexit? She pointed out, as have nearly all the contributors today, that the funding formula must respect the devolution settlement, and she said that neither she, her constituency, nor her country should be short-changed. We call on the Minister to give those guarantees.

I am grateful to the all-party group for post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas for its reports. It backed up a lot of the comments made around this room. It had lots of submissions, including from the Welsh Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, EHRC, and many educational and voluntary bodies, which all said that budget funding should be

“no less in real terms than the EU and UK funding streams it replaces.”

It pointed out that shares for the devolved nations should not be reduced, and that as we have heard, it should be a devolved matter.

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) rightly asked when we will see action, even just the consultation—that is a pro-Brexit Member asking for that guarantee. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) spoke about the failure of successive UK Governments to address regional disparity, and he mentioned the most centralised political system in the world here at Westminster. I think his four principles are absolutely right: the budget should be no less than it currently is, there should be no competitive bidding, it should be fully devolved, and it must be beyond spending reviews and political cycles.

We have had a promise from the Tory Government, but then delay after delay in getting any information. Evidence from the House of Commons Library shows that we are approaching nearly 300 parliamentary questions, without an answer on any detail of this funding.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a point about European funding being replaced by UK funding. If funding does come from the UK rather than the EU in future, will he commit to all projects being branded as co-Scottish Government and UK Government?

[Drew Hendry]

It would be much easier to respond to that kind of comment if the UK Government had given any details about how this will go forward. While the hon. Gentleman worries about slogans and branding, I worry about getting the detail to explain what communities across our constituencies, including my own, will get from this programme in future. When will we know the detail about what will be spent, who will be eligible, and will it be fully devolved? Once the Minister has answered those questions, we can go back to talking about flags and slogans.

Communities and charities have waited years to find out what will be available post-Brexit. The devolution settlement must be respected. As we have said, since Brexit is distracting the UK Government from doing anything worthwhile at the moment, let us revoke article 50 and get on with doing things properly, which would clear things up right away. Brexit will cost Scottish communities millions, and this particular issue must not add to that burden.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Graham Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman is doing a disservice to local authorities, which have grasped the raised energy standards for new homes over the past few years, increasing them by 30% and saving all our electors, on average, £200 on their energy bills.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of his Department’s progress on delivering more new homes.

[The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)]

The latest figures show that over 222,000 new homes were delivered in England last year—clear progress towards our ambition of delivering 300,000 a year by the mid-2020s. This brings the total number delivered since 2010 to more than 1.3 million.

[Luke Graham]

House building in Scotland has plummeted under the Scottish National party, which, since 2015, has also slashed UK-wide schemes like Help to Buy. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to work with the devolved Administration to make sure that UK-wide schemes are accessible to my constituents so that they do not miss out?

[Kit Malthouse]

As my hon. Friend will know, my writ does not run north of the border. However, I note that in the autumn Budget of 2017, the Scottish Government received Barnett consequentials of almost £1 billion as a result of increased allocations to MHCLG for Help to Buy. I urge him and his colleagues north of the border to keep campaigning—to keep the pressure up—because Help to Buy is enormously popular and is helping many tens of thousands of first-time buyers, in particular, on to the housing ladder. At the very least, they should join him in campaigning for a Conservative victory in the Scottish elections in 2021 to make sure that people will get the homes they need.

Parking (Code of Practice) Bill

Luke Graham Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 23rd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Once again—this is now getting to become a feature—I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) on progressing this Bill through the House with such dexterity, skill and consensus. I welcome the fact that, after today, this will soon become law. I also extend my congratulations to everyone involved, particularly to the Minister, who, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, has been nothing other than consensual, effective and efficient in ensuring that this Bill has got through the House, and to everyone else who was on the Bill Committee with the right hon. Gentleman.

For me, this Bill cannot come soon enough. We need a firm of code of practice that will constrain the worst excesses of these private parking companies. I do not know what Perth has done to deserve the attention of some of the more sharper practices of the parking operators, but for far too long we have been blighted by some of the worst excesses of these parking operators. They almost act, until this Bill, as a law unto themselves. I refer to them as parking cowboys, because that is exactly what they are. They harass and frustrate our constituents and drive tourists away from our town and city centres.

I am sick and tired of receiving emails from people complaining about the behaviour of parking companies, telling me that they will never again visit Perth city centre because of the negative experience they had when they had the misfortune to end up in a car park operated by one of these companies. I have received more complaints about one car park in the city of Perth than about any other issue. That car park is operated by the lone ranger of the parking cowboys: the hated and appalling Smart Parking—I see that many other Members are unfortunate enough to have Smart Parking operating in their constituencies. It has reached the stage where one member of my staff now spends a good part of each day just helping my constituents and visitors to my constituency to navigate the appeals process.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I will of course give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Luke Graham]

I am indeed the hon. Gentleman’s neighbour, and I can confirm that I, too, receive many complaints about that same operator, from constituents in South Perthshire and from people in Clackmannanshire who visit Perth. I therefore want to say how much I support the Bill. Hopefully our staff will soon be able to focus more on the things that really matter to our constituents, rather than having to deal with car parking complaints, which really are the companies’ responsibility to fix.

[Pete Wishart]

I understand totally the frustration felt by the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who have to park in Perth city centre. I hope that we will both see the amount of correspondence we receive in our mailbags on this issue decrease significantly as a result of the Bill.

Another frustration is that Smart Parking is singularly unresponsive. It does not reply to representations from Members of Parliament or have meetings with us. It does not even start to engage with some of the difficulties we identify with its operation. I wish to commend The Courier newspaper in Perthshire for the campaign it has mounted about the situation. One of the reasons I am down here today as the Member of Parliament is the very fine work that The Courier has done on the situation right across Perthshire. I congratulate it on that.

The Bill means that these companies will no longer be able to get away with that type of behaviour. The days when they could distribute fines like confetti, and when they could confuse and frustrate our constituents with their so-called smart technology and poor signage in order to harvest fines, are coming to an end. The Bill is evidently necessary, because self-regulation has been a resolute failure. The toothless regulators, such as the British Parking Association, are singularly incapable of dealing with the sharper practices of the rogue operators.

The British Parking Association actually lists some of the operators as its members. I had a meeting with it this week, and it gave me a copy of its magazine, which includes a list of all its members, and who should be listed there, in bold letters? It was Smart Parking. The BPA does not have the ability to regulate these companies and has shown no sign whatsoever that it is trying to get on top of some of the sharper practices. The BPA gives a veneer of legitimacy to some of the more outlandish rogue operators by including them in their membership, allowing them to continue to operate. The Bill will oblige operators such as Smart Parking to amend their practices.

I want to mention another practice that I have observed in a retail park in my constituency—this is actually worse than Smart Parking. Two private parking companies operate one huge car park at St Catherine’s retail park in Perth. One company circled the car park with signs telling motorists that, if they had the temerity to leave the part of the retail park where they had used a parking space to access shops in other parts of it, they would be fined. It did that, and it actually took photographs of people leaving their car and going into other parts of the retail park where the facilities are covered by another parking operator. That is what it did, and this is the extent to which some of these private parking operators work. It is not good enough, and it has to end.

I want to say to the Minister that I think what he is doing is fantastic. I have seen some of the details he is going to put into the code of practice and I think they are fantastic. I congratulate him on taking the maximalist approach. I think the Government will approach this by ensuring they will do the utmost they can to protect the motorist from this type of practice. They will put in place a set of regulations that will ensure the best result we can get when it comes to these things.

Among the things I want to make a plea for including in the code of practice—given what I have heard from the Minister, I am pretty certain that he will be looking at them—are equipment and technology. We have to make sure that we get the signage absolutely right and that surface markings are clearly identified and regulated properly. There should be clear and accessible displays of the terms and conditions of the car park. We have already heard examples of when that does not actually work. I know that the Government are looking at consideration periods to allow motorists sufficient time to decide whether they would like to park, and grace periods to allow motorists time to pay and leave the car park. All of this would make a real difference to the parking arrangements in our cities and town.

I believe these parking companies intentionally deploy poor signage. The fact that motorists can be fined simply for entering a car park to look for a space is simply and clearly unacceptable. One of the car parking operators in my constituency actually fines people for entering a zero instead of the letter o. Apparently, the smart technology cannot cater for that, but the operator takes no recognition of that when people appeal on such a basis.

Another of my pleas to be included in the code—the Minister may be able to help us with this one—is capping fines, a feature that I think we all agree must happen. The fact that someone can be fined £140, £160 or £180 for parking a car is simply and utterly absurd. I think, and I hope, that this will be addressed. My suggestion is that fines or parking charge notices in private car parks should be no more than those of the local authority. I think it is fair that there is a uniform cost that people pay in any city or town across the country, and I am pretty certain that we will get to such a place.

I know the Government’s intention is to ensure that what are called PCNs will no longer be able to look like fines from the local authority, and that is really important. Will the Minister tell us how this will be done and how he intends to ensure that that happens? Parking companies have to get away from this confusion with local authority penalty charge notices, and they must do so without using the threatening and intimidating language on these tickets.

What I would like to see on such tickets is the full legal basis on which they can be distributed. As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said, this is a contractual arrangement, so they are not fines. If the private parking company is to pursue such a case, it has to take it to the civil court to demonstrate clearly that the motorist has breached the terms and conditions of using the private car park. That should be mentioned on the parking ticket, as issued by the private operator. I think that would be fair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Being a neighbour of and sharing a county with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), it is a pleasure to come here to support him and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) on this Bill. This parking issue affects constituents from not only Perth and Kinross, but Clackmannanshire, on the other side of my constituency, who go into Stirling. They, too, have experienced extortionate fines for very small or misunderstood misdemeanours. Importantly, this Bill corrects a wrong that was identified by Citizens Advice Scotland in 2014 in its “It’s Not Fine” report, which set out how private practitioners need to clean up their act. This is now being addressed and it is great to see a national problem having a national solution in this Bill, with the support of Members from across the United Kingdom.

Budget Resolutions

Luke Graham Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak for the SNP on the final day of debating the 2018 Budget and to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is always a hard act to follow. I hope I might be able to provide some detail on the caution that he was unable to deal with in the time available to him.

Today, we focus on families and communities. Where better to start in that regard than by detangling the Chancellor’s spun lines on family budgets. Pay growth is continuing to falter. We have had the worst decade of wage growth in 210 years, making it easy for the Chancellor to say that a modest rise in regular pay rates is the highest in 10 years. Even if that level were to be sustained—and that is unlikely unless there is a significant change regarding the UK’s productivity crisis—it is unlikely that pay rates will return to pre-crisis levels until the middle of the next decade. No wonder we have growing rates of in-work poverty. This Government are failing to make work pay.

Just take the announcement on universal credit, by which I am bitterly disappointed. It did not live up to anyone’s expectations. It did not match the ambition set by the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) and for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) on work allowances alone. Like me, they wanted work allowances to be fully restored to pre-2015 levels. The Chancellor failed to do that and failed to tackle the other ways in which universal credit is failing utterly. He reinstated just half the cuts to just one part of the cash cow that is universal credit, which the Treasury has milked dry. Indeed, even the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) yesterday welcomed the investment but quickly said that more will need to follow. I agree: very much more will need to follow.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Gray]

I will in just a minute. I shall give way only a couple of times as I am conscious of the fact that other Members wish to speak.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that 2.4 million people are to benefit by up to £630 a year from Monday’s changes. That was pure spin. What she should have said is that those families will be up to £630 less worse off. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions herself said that universal credit is costing people £2,500 a year, and the Resolution Foundation said that that figure applies to 3.2 million households. Even if we are to believe the Prime Minister’s figures, for 2.4 million people the income cut from universal credit will be reduced to at least £1,700 a year. The rest of the 3.2 million households will still see a cut of £2,400 a year.

[Luke Graham]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, who welcomed the Chancellor’s move to increase funding and said that it would make universal credit

“a tool for tackling poverty”

and for easing the burden on low-income families?

[Neil Gray]

Of course, what the hon. Gentleman does not mention is that before the Budget the Joseph Rowntree Foundation was calling for the work allowances to be fully restored to pre-2015 levels, so I shall take what the hon. Gentleman has to say with a pinch of salt.

That cut of £2,400 a year is before we look at the cuts in other areas of universal credit that will swallow up any gains made from the Chancellor’s announcements on Monday. According to the House of Commons Library, the benefit freeze is going to cost low-income families just short of £5 billion next year alone. That one-year cut via the benefit freeze is worth more than the entire work allowance investment announced by the Chancellor for the next four years, which will be worth £3.8 billion. It is your typical Tory giving half with one hand and taking back double with the other. It is not an end to austerity; it continues to ingrain austerity. Little wonder, then, that the Government’s own expert adviser on social security, Sir Ian Diamond, has said that the next phase in the universal credit roll-out could push thousands into hardship or even out of the benefits system altogether. For shame!

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

I rise to support the Budget. I will start with two points on the criticism and rebuttals we have received from the SNP.

First, universal credit has received a lot of criticism. I think every single Member knows that there are improvements to be made to universal credit. That is what the Budget does. It allocates more money to universal credit. It puts the SNP at odds with the chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust, who both recognise the improvements to universal credit, which will help to tackle poverty more effectively.

Secondly, on tax, where the SNP tax changes delivered £20 a year for the most vulnerable, a pathetic 38p a week, our Budget delivers £130 a year, which is £1,200 for the basic rate income taxpayer, helping people who need it most.

The SNP talks about having a different path and attracting more people to Scotland, but here is the interesting thing. They want to bring more people in. I will give them a hint about how to do that: do not tax our doctors, our teachers and our servicemen and servicewomen more than everywhere else in the United Kingdom.

What does the Budget deliver for Scotland and for Ochil and South Perthshire? It gives £950 million extra for the block grant, which is a real and cash increase. It delivers a spirits freeze, which helps companies in Menstrie, Madderty and Kinross in my constituency. It delivers £550 million more for the NHS, which even the SNP recognises is a positive thing and, if devolution works correctly, there will be £43 million more for business rate relief to help our high streets in Crieff and Alloa, £41 million to improve roads across Perth and Kinross and Clackmannanshire, and £87 million more for social care. Those are positive steps in the Budget, and that is before I even mention the £150 million of new money that is being allocated in the Tay cities deal. The Budget will also deliver a crackdown on tax avoidance, including VAT, and measures on the hidden economy and on offshore tax compliance.

Some of the smaller measures in the Budget have been lost. It expands the operations of the British Business Bank in Scotland by allocating personnel on the ground to help our businesses to access more patient capital. In addition, it allocates £1.6 billion to strengthen science innovation, with £235 million for quantum technologies and £20 million for fusion power, which is a subject very close to my heart.

We on the Government Benches want to empower people. We do not want to tie them to dependency. The Budget provides more support for the most vulnerable and more opportunity for all. That is why I support it in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Graham Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Yet again, Labour fails to understand the reason why we have had to make savings—because of its public service delivery failures when in government. Steps such as this Government’s troubled families programme are about preventive work, as we heard earlier, and they are having an impact on our communities.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

T2. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to champion housing construction sector innovation across the United Kingdom, and will he meet me to discuss opportunities to champion such innovation through city deals in Scotland?

[James Brokenshire]

I am certainly willing to meet my hon. Friend, who is right to champion innovative ways in which we can build and innovative techniques within the construction sector. That is why we have the £3 billion home building fund to provide loan finance to builders using those methods, as well as our modern methods of construction working group looking at ways in which that can be advanced.

Open Access Rail Services

Luke Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers]

I am perfectly happy to have diversity of ownership—that is what the free market would most likely deliver. Sadly, the history of British Rail did nothing to encourage my enthusiasm for a nationalised system. Indeed, British Rail ended the direct service to Cleethorpes in 1992.

There has been record investment and record numbers of journeys in recent years. Passenger numbers fell under British Rail but, since privatisation in 1994, the numbers swelled to 1.65 billion in 2015—almost triple the low point of 1982. Although there have been clear failings by Virgin Trains, it is vital to look beyond the headlines. Thanks to the Transport Secretary’s efforts, rail efficiency has been improved, ensuring that passengers and taxpayers get maximum value. On average, 97% of every pound of passengers’ fares goes back into the railway, which is very welcome.

Since Virgin took over its franchise in 2015, it has contributed more to the taxpayer than when the service was publicly run. Refurbished trains, additional services and improved ticketed access are just a few of the benefits that passengers have experienced. Of course, Virgin is not blameless in the debacle, but it is not alone. Network Rail, the publicly owned element of the railways, failed to deliver the promised improvements on which Virgin based its final projections.

I have been reassured by the Transport Secretary’s commitment to a new approach from 2020, with the first regional public-private partnership on the route. The partnership will have one brand, one management team and one leader, which will ensure that it is transparent and accountable to both Parliament and passengers.

A privatised franchise system on the east coast is preferable to the publicly owned system that preceded it. It has also been improved dramatically by the advent of open access operators, which provide constant competition to drive up standards and outcomes for passengers. The main problem is that the rail industry has been reformed to an unsatisfactory halfway house between nationalisation and privatisation. The solution, contrary to what many in the Opposition would argue, is not to nationalise the whole system—the experience of British Rail shows where that will take us—but to push ahead with privatisation and extend the market by allowing open access on other lines which could benefit so greatly from it. The hard left so often tell us that true communism has not been tried, but in actual fact true competition has not been tried on our rail network.

Open access could be a logical component of the Prime Minister’s mission, which she set out at the party conference last year, saying of free markets that she was

“prepared to reform them when they don’t work.”

The rail service is a prime example of a market underperforming. The solution, rather than to take the market out of the picture altogether and reverse all the progress made over the past few decades, is to reform the market, taking on the monopolies so as to expand it and allow it to flourish.

Competition must extend beyond the bidding stage to avoid the winner being granted a complete monopoly. The message to existing franchise operators and bidders should be clear: expect competition in future.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making strong points about competition and bidding. Is it not also incumbent on the Government to refine their bidding process, ensuring better information for potential rail service providers so that contracts may be structured to work for the long term?

[Martin Vickers]

That is an important point. It is essential that we move in that direction.

What has been the impact of competition to date? As I said, passenger journeys have increased by 42% on competitive lines, compared with 27% on those that have no competition; revenue has increased by 57%, compared with 48%; and average fares have increased by only 11%, compared with 17%. The east coast main line has open access operators such as Grand Central Trains and Hull Trains. Other rail lines around the country would do well to replicate that model.

Open access operators take no support from the taxpayer. The open access model creates competition on the line, which has led to fantastic results. In fact, since that has been the case on the east coast, the main line has had the highest satisfaction ratings in the country. The east coast open access operators deliver the very highest rates: in 2015 First Hull Trains and Grand Central each had a 94% passenger satisfaction rate, which was the joint highest score of all operators. That was confirmed in 2016 and 2017 in the passenger satisfaction surveys conducted by the Competition and Markets Authority.

In 2016, the CMA recommended more on-track competition generally, either with much more open access to compete with franchises on the same lines or with multiple operators to provide services in a fully commercial environment. Unlike the CMA, however, the Government are yet formally to declare their support for the principle of extended open access. Perhaps the Minister will take up the offer to do so this afternoon.

Open access competition has led to new routes being opened or reopened. Without open access on the east coast main line, would places such as Sunderland, Hartlepool, Halifax and Bradford have the frequent, direct and high-speed long-distance services from which they now benefit? Something similar desperately needs to be replicated in northern Lincolnshire.

The business community has made its support for open access clear. On services to northern Lincolnshire, the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce stated:

“Hull Trains have done an outstanding job for the city in improving our rail service from a one a day return with the main franchise holder (GNER) some years ago to seven a day now.”

In the north-east, the chambers of commerce have been equally supportive.

Some argue that more open access will reduce the franchise premium. I acknowledge that protection should be offered to the franchise holders given that they pay such a large amount for the privilege of operating services, but I ask the Minister what is more important: the Treasury getting additional resources or the passenger getting better services? Without doubt, we should focus on the passenger.

To conclude, I restate the importance of services into northern Lincolnshire, which have the support of business and of the local community who want the services for leisure travel. As I said, the Government gave northern Lincolnshire the title “energy estuary”. It is an important part of the northern powerhouse, which has focused too much on the north-west and the Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool triangle. An opportunity now exists to provide a boost to the local economy in many of our regions and provincial towns, and coastal communities in particular. I urge the Minister to do all he can to support the requirement for services into northern Lincolnshire. I very much hope that the application to the regulator in the not-too-distant future will be successful.

Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill

Luke Graham Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bim Afolami]

I am aware that many others wish to speak, so I will be brief. Those who are still left in the Public Gallery have seen today the best of Parliament. This is the complete opposite of yah-boo politics. There has been cross-party discussion about a Bill that generally appears to have cross-party support. We should welcome that and welcome the exchange of ideas and views. That does not always happen in this Chamber, but it has happened today.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) said, this is a short Bill. It is clear and to the point, and it deals with a specific problem. When the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) reads Hansard tomorrow morning, she will see many references to her speech, but let me add one more. The disagreement from Conservative Members with certain points she made was not on the substance of the issue, but on the appropriateness of those points in relation to the Bill. However, I am sure that she, the Minister and others will continue to work on this issue, and I think that Members across all parties appreciate her expertise in this area.

One point in particular is worth making. Labour Members have spoken about the spare room subsidy, which is not really the subject of the Bill, but I want to make the point that it is critical to get more social housing built. For the Bill to be effective, we really need as much social housing as possible to be built. If they take a look at the record, as I have, they will see that roughly 2,900 local authority homes a year were built from 1997 to 2010, while under this Government—about half of that time—over 10,000 local authority homes a year were built from 2010 to 2017. Labour Members must look at their own record on social housing, and realise that a lot of the problems we now face are partly down to the fact that they did not build enough homes when they were in office. I know that the Minister and the Government are working on that.

I finish by agreeing with the Minister and other Conservative Members that I do not believe the new clause and amendments are appropriate in this context, and I shall vote against them for that reason.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clause 1, which would have a specific impact on local authorities in Scotland, including in my constituency. I would say at the outset, in relation to the thrust of what was said by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), that I agree about the need for more co-operation across the United Kingdom, and I will come on to that shortly. The difficulty, as shown by the fact that I am the only Scottish MP in the Chamber, is that the Bill is not necessarily the right vehicle to do so, because it cuts across some devolved areas, and I want to go into that in a little more detail.

The Government have a strong record on domestic abuse, and the Bill is a further example of that. We have criminalised coercive and bullying behaviour, and we have made sure that we have domestic violence orders. We currently have an open consultation, which provides the potential for more powers and a greater understanding of other types of crimes, such as economic abuse, that are often unseen. That is certainly the experience of many of my constituents, as many people in public authority have seen.

My knowledge of this matter has largely come from my constituents, as well as from some of my own family experience. Many of my constituents have relationships that span the United Kingdom. Men and women who have had such relationships may have some children in England and some in Scotland, so there is a real need for co-ordination and for a UK minimum standard. I have seen at first hand, in refuges and in my constituency office, the bravery of these women as well as the hardship that they have endured. I know how much of an impact there can be on individual lives, and how much need there is for them to move from one local authority to another, which may not be an adjacent one but a local authority far up the country in Scotland or somewhere in England.

Members have talked a lot about the terrible abuse that women have endured, and we know that domestic abuse has a disproportionate impact on women. It is also important to say, however, that 700,000 men were victims of domestic abuse in 2015-16, and that young people are also victims. When we talk about giving people opportunities in secure tenancies in other local authorities around the country, we need to ensure that we capture everyone, because domestic abuse affects many different types of individual at many different ages.

As I have said, and I will keep my remarks brief, a national minimum is desirable. I very much feel that there are times when we are four nations and many regions, but there are also times when we are one country. On this issue, I believe that having a national minimum would be incredibly desirable. I am very keen to work with Opposition Members, certainly as we examine other pieces of legislation in this place, on having UK-wide frameworks, especially in new policy areas, to make sure that there are UK-wide minimums, even if the services are delivered through devolved Administrations, local authorities or other devolved agencies. I am very willing to help in such a way. Unfortunately, however, as the Bill is targeted at England, making an amendment to loop in what is a devolved area in Scotland—it would have an impact in my local authority and others—this is not the best place to do so. I hope to work with Opposition Members in future to try to develop policies on such minimums.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will continue in the spirit of consultation that she always shows in relation to the devolved Administrations, and perhaps she will consider extending her audit of services elsewhere in the United Kingdom—beyond England to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[Melanie Onn]

I want to assure the Minister that at every stage of the Bill, since I have been involved, I have sought to be constructive in my approach. Having heard the arguments and the Minister’s response, let me say that I do not intend to push new clause 1 or amendments 1 and 3 to a vote. We have made our points as fully as we can—sadly, to no avail—but I do not want to cause any unnecessary delay to the Bill.

On the bedroom tax, however, the Minister’s response was not wholly sufficient to ease the Opposition’s concern about the potential for a damaging loophole to be created, which would be to the detriment of domestic abuse victims. As the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) said, we want a fit-for-purpose policy, and that is what we are all aiming for. I therefore request that the House be permitted to divide on amendment 2, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 1.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

Duty to grant old-style secure tenancies: victims of domestic abuse

Amendment proposed: 2, page 1, line 25, at end insert—

“(2BA) A local housing authority which grants an old-style secure tenancy under subsection (2A) or (2B) has discretion to decide whether or not the maximum rent for the old-style secure tenancy should be determined according to regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/213) as amended by the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/ 3040).”—(Melanie Onn.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Homelessness

Luke Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am perhaps unnaturally excited about taking part in an estimates debate. When I first picked up the estimates document earlier on, I thought that it was a private Member’s Bill speech by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). However, I am genuinely very delighted to take part in the debate, not least because I am a member of the Procedure Committee, which has helped to drive this change in parliamentary practice, alongside my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). It is also because I get to sit alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North, who has the ability to combine the subjects of budgets and procedure, so the stars have truly aligned this afternoon.

I want to focus my remarks on expenditure on housing and the need for another John Wheatley, who is one of my predecessors. The late, great John Wheatley served as the MP for my constituency from 1922 to 1930. Two wonderful things happened in 1924. First, the greatest football club in the history of the earth, Airdrieonians, won the Scottish cup, but, more seriously, John Wheatley was appointed Health Minister and pioneered an enormous expansion of social housing through the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1924. That legislation allowed central Government to provide subsidies to build public housing. It was a small but significant step that saw over half a million council homes built by 1933. Today, sadly, in 2018, the UK still faces a housing crisis, and it is in that regard that I want to address Government policy and spending on housing.

I very much welcome the Government’s signal by renaming—and indeed upgrading—the Department for Communities and Local Government as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I hope that a name change is not all we will see with regard to housing, because what we need from this Government is a radical change on housing policy. I believe, just as John Wheatley did, that everything stems from the provision of warm, safe and affordable housing. That is why I want the Government to spend even more money on housing, and it is why I want them to abolish the right to buy entirely. The two cannot be done in isolation. Without following both policies, we essentially operate with one hand tied behind our backs, as Members in England will know. I am very glad that Welsh Labour has followed the SNP Government’s commitment to abolish the right to buy. I am not sure whether that is official Labour party policy in Westminster, but it certainly should be.

It is important to note that housing is a devolved competence in Scotland. We have now delivered nearly 71,000 affordable homes in Scotland since taking office 11 years ago. Indeed, we have a very ambitious target of building 50,000 extra affordable homes by 2021, 35,000 of which will be for social rent. I saw a number of those at Gallowgate only last week. Because we do not sell off our council housing, that allows us to make a dent in tackling the demand for social housing, which is something that Margaret Thatcher failed at spectacularly. In stark contrast, in June last year The Guardian reported that in England council homes are being sold off almost three times faster than local authorities can replace them, so the Government must do more on housing. It is deeply concerning that the Department has surrendered £742 million to HM Treasury for other housing schemes.

In my remaining 40 seconds, I want to address devolution deals. It is interesting to note in the estimates that other large reductions in the resource departmental expenditure limit include a surrender from the Department to HM Treasury of £74 million that had been earmarked for devolution deals. It has not gone unnoticed in Scotland that the Scottish Government seem to consistently outspend the paltry amounts offered by the UK Government to Scottish regions for regional or city deals. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North shares my disdain for the paltry amount served up, with a shortfall of £250,000 for the Aberdeen and shire city deal. Indeed, my hon. Friends from Ayrshire are still wondering when their growth deal will come. I want to see more support for city deals—

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about shortfalls for city deals. Does he recognise that it is the Scottish Government’s reticence that is stopping money from coming to the city deal for Stirling and Clackmannanshire, as well as the Tay cities deal?

[David Linden]

No, I do not, so I will move on, but I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving at least something to Scotland—an extra minute.

Above all, I want to see a new John Wheatley at the Government Dispatch Box investing in social housing and abolishing the right to buy. If we do that, when we come back to debate estimates on housing expenditure in future years, we will start to see progress—real progress—in tackling the UK’s housing crisis.

Scottish City Deals

Luke Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sweeney]

I do not accept that at all. The high street curve area was protected until June last year, after the change in administration. It was actually Transport Scotland—[Interruption.] No, the planning application was not before that. I am the only Member of Parliament who raised an objection to that planning application, which went to the city council only last month. Crossrail was enabled in the city region development plan, but it was removed from the latest edition of the plan in June last year at the demand of Transport Scotland. That is why a planning application went in that threatens the delivery of the Crossrail scheme, which is a vital project for Glasgow. I urge all Glasgow city region Members of Parliament to get behind it. We need to protect and safeguard the route for Crossrail. It is a critical project that should be funded by the Glasgow city region city deal, and it is another example of how dysfunctional and disjointed the whole administration of the deal has been.

At a time when public money is tight, it is unacceptable that the involvement of two Governments—in Edinburgh and London—can lead to a stalemate in the progress of the Glasgow city deal and a failure to draw up and implement a strategy for investing the allocated funds. The Tories and the SNP must get a grip if our urban areas are ever to catch up with and exceed the ambition of their English peers.

In an evaluation of their progress in 2016, the Fraser of Allander Institute commented that the three city deals that existed in Scotland at the time

“could have an important impact in increasing urban productivity, and increasing the culture of partnership and innovation in these…city regions,”

but “many more steps remain,” and that for cities in Scotland to move forward,

“they need to be empowered—with additional roles, funding and competencies, because they will need and are best-placed to identify their infrastructure investment requirements, especially in transport and housing.”

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

My constituency is not lucky enough to have a city deal yet—they are still under negotiation in Clackmannanshire and, in the form of the Tay cities deal, in Perth and Kinross. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that devolution does not mean separate? Edinburgh should pass more powers down to local authorities and work constructively with Westminster, so that we get more transparency about these deals and actually get the money to the communities where it is needed sooner rather than later.

[Mr Sweeney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which was timely because I am just about to address the question of municipalism in Scotland—a great tradition that is sadly diminished.

To achieve those recommendations by the Fraser of Allander Institute, we need substantially greater powers to act at municipal level, which the Glasgow city deal shows are sorely lacking. It is fair to say that Glasgow has been progressively smothered by the process of devolution in the past 20 years. Edinburgh holds too much power. It sucks up power from other parts of the country, including Glasgow. The SNP has only exacerbated the problem by drastically cutting funding to local government at twice the rate the Scottish budget has been reduced. Rebranding the city council as a city government is just dressing mutton up as lamb, because without any substantive changes to Glasgow’s real political power it is nothing more than changing the letterhead on the city council stationery. We need to appraise honestly how devolution can better support our great cities towards more responsive, representative government, rather than increasingly concentrating power in Edinburgh.

The north of England has been invigorated by a multimillion pound investment and innovative development through its city deals. Historically Britain’s second city, Glasgow is now at risk of losing out in terms of power and investment compared with other big, regional cities in the UK. City regions such as Manchester and Liverpool have made great gains in funding, voice and influence in recent years, including through the introduction of directly elected metro mayoralties. That greater devolution of power is to be celebrated, and Glasgow, which is bigger than each of those cities in northern England, needs to learn from the recent experience of cities such as Manchester to bring more power and investment to our great city. We need to ensure that Glasgow, as one of the greatest cities in the world, and once the fourth-largest city in Europe, has a greater and distinctive voice within the UK. We should be exploring all avenues for how we increase our political clout to improve the lives of Glaswegians.

The city deal appears to be a temporary fix to underlying structural issues for funding the Glasgow city region, which over recent decades has been both ravaged by a decade of SNP cuts and undermined by the Tory break-up of what it saw as a troublesome Labour-led Strathclyde regional council in the 1990s. I hope that the debate will force the Government to provide much-needed clarity on the future progress of the longest-standing Scottish city deal, the Glasgow and Clyde Valley city region deal.

The UK Government need to be proactive in pushing for progress while putting pressure on the SNP Government in Holyrood to deliver their commitments. As has been mentioned in interventions, we need to establish unity of purpose to ensure that the right projects are prioritised so that Glasgow finally gets the vital, world-class infrastructure it needs to thrive as a global destination in the 21st century, without further delay and procrastination. The current deal clearly shows that we cannot trust the UK Government to deliver on their financial commitments, we cannot trust the Scotland Office to show leadership, and we cannot trust the Scottish Government to implement their commitments properly.

Space Industry Bill [Lords]

Luke Graham Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 15th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

As a lifelong devotee of “Star Trek” and an avowed Trekkie, I cannot communicate how delighted I am to speak in this debate. Growing up, I always imagined that by 2018 the United Kingdom would already have a well-established, even thriving, space industry, with regular trips to the moon, Mars, or even galaxies “far, far away.” Sadly, that is not the case and in the absence of Starfleet I have had to join the next best positive forward-looking organisation: the Conservative party. To have the opportunity to help make it so here tonight is very exciting for me and, I believe, for the entire United Kingdom.

It should therefore come as no surprise to anyone that I rise to speak in support of the Space Industry Bill. The Bill aims to establish a new regulatory framework for UK-based spaceflight activities, including the operation of UK-based spaceports and the launch of new space vehicles.

The UK space industry already impacts on many sectors of the United Kingdom’s economy, services and even everyday life. From weather reporting to, as has been said, satellite navigation, telecommunications and financial services, our space industry has positively impacted on all walks of life. In 2016 an assessment by London Economics to the UK Space Agency estimated that over £250 billion, or 13.8%, of non-financial UK industrial activities were supported by satellite services. More specifically, as recently as 2015, income from the UK space industry was estimated at £13.7 billion, the equivalent of 6.5% of the global space economy. With the ever-decreasing cost of small satellites and launches enabling increased usage of satellites, the already substantial economic impact of the UK space industry is only going to increase further.

Even as we speak, a number of potential spaceports and launch companies are developing plans to offer UK launch services, but they currently have no legal framework within which to plan future operations. With the Government aiming to grow the UK space industry to an annual turnover of £19 billion by 2020, and for it to be 10% of the global space market by 2030, the Space Industry Bill represents an opportunity to strike while the iron is hot.

Moving on to the contents of the Bill, as things currently stand neither international aviation law nor space law are suitable for commercial spaceflight in the UK, thus impeding the UK space industry’s development. Indeed, following its review of UK commercial spaceplane operations in 2014, the Civil Aviation Authority recommended that the regulations for spaceflight activities be updated. Therefore, legislation is required to put in place this enabling regulatory framework.

The Bill seeks to address three areas of policy: the promotion of the UK space industry; ensuring the safety of all space-related activities; and ensuring the UK’s international obligations are reflected in UK law. Towards these three objectives, the Bill proposes seven areas of legislative framework, which the Minister outlined earlier.

[Stephen Kerr]

My hon. Friend is about to describe frameworks that apply to the whole of the UK, and what lies ahead of us over the next two days is an outstanding example of why we often need UK frameworks.

[Luke Graham]

I could not agree more; frameworks are very important. As outlined in “Star Trek”, the Federation represents a united principle with very little nationalism present, and I hope that is the future we will all strive for this evening.

There is nothing in essence with which I disagree in this Bill, which is why I support its principles. However, that does not mean that there is not more that can be done. Pre-legislative scrutiny by the Science and Technology Committee, which largely welcomed the draft Bill, highlighted some areas in which the Government could provide more policy detail, particularly environmental protections, delegated powers and the licensing and insurance provisions in the Bill. It also recommended an updated impact assessment, as the previous assessment had not been updated since the Government decided to legislate for spaceflight separately in the modern transport Bill.

I shall therefore highlight two areas of concern which I would like to see addressed, and which hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to; I hope the Minister will respond to the concerns raised in summing up. I note that the Government consider that existing environmental and planning laws provide sufficient protections, but that they were considering adding an amendment which would require licence applicants to submit a noise and emissions assessment during the licence application process. I ask for the amendment to be introduced and to address specifically the environmental concerns raised by the Committee and in this House, so that our national environment can continue to develop, live and prosper for many years to come.

The second area of concern is the lack of a liability cap, and I urge the Government to introduce one. This would bring our space industry into line with those of Australia, France and the USA, which, of course, is the world space industry leader. The purpose of the liability caps in clauses 33(5) and 11(2) is to allow spaceflight operators to obtain affordable insurance. Without it, the prohibitive cost of obtaining insurance for unlimited liability would undermine the growth of the space industry in the UK, which, for me, is the key point of this Bill.

I accept that there is a need for flexibility within the legislation to allow for future technological advancements and changes to the international legal landscape. None the less, I believe there is still scope for some middle ground to be found between the Bill in its current state and increased clarity around the issues I have raised, while still allowing for the flexibility which is required. I therefore ask the Minister to consider the concerns raised by industry and the Committee, and the clauses I have highlighted for further consideration.

I would like to make one final point: with no existing spaceport or launch site in the UK, there is a glaring gap in the UK space industry market. However, this Bill provides an opportunity for Scotland, which is well placed to support, and benefit from, the growth in the UK space industry. Scotland has a strong heritage in the space sector. Companies such as Clyde Space and Spire have helped Scotland to become a hub of space activity, with Glasgow building more satellites in the last two years than any other city in Europe. Furthermore, future space innovations are being created by institutions such as the national Astronomy Technology Centre in Edinburgh and Strathclyde University, while it should be noted that Scotland’s geography is well suited to a number of different launch operations including vertical-launched rockets. The potential to launch satellites from traditional rockets has seen organisations across Scotland develop business cases for spaceports in their regions.

As a proud constituency MP, I highlight the burgeoning aerospace industry in the Kinross-shire area of Ochil and South Perthshire, which I also hope will benefit from investment through the upcoming Tay Cities Deal, making it ripe to maximise the future benefits we hope will come from this Bill.

This Bill is vital to establish the foundation for the British space industry. We have an opportunity to capitalise on our technological edge, leveraging investment from our financial powerhouses in London and Edinburgh to fund companies and infrastructure to bring the UK truly into the space age.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech, and Prestwick is a fantastic site. Does he agree that the benefits of locating a spaceport there would encourage wider infrastructure investment, including in high-speed rail, as well as more connectivity and improved investment into Scotland and the north of England? Would it not be great to have a more connected United Kingdom?

[Bill Grant]

Absolutely. We are well connected by rail and road, but any improvements would be most welcome. We are not an isolated part of the United Kingdom; we are very much connected. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

We also have favourable weather 52 weeks a year, and there are no congestion issues. When we take off to the west, we are across the Firth of Clyde and into the open space of the north Atlantic. If we go east, we find open farmland and we are away across. Prestwick is a wonderful airport, but it could do with more traffic. I am sure that it will get that in time. Success in securing a spaceport operator’s licence will lead to the creation of a further 2,000 jobs and generate an additional £320 million for the UK economy. It will place south Ayrshire—and Ayrshire and the west of Scotland as a whole—at the heart of the global space industry. More importantly, it will attract and retain some of the brightest and best minds in the world to Scotland, UK.

The Bill will benefit Prestwick, as well as other sites with similar ambitions all around the UK. We have heard mention of some of those tonight, and they are quite right to be ambitious, but we are equally ambitious for Prestwick, which is the best site in the United Kingdom. The Bill will allow us to take the next step and bring us closer to operating commercial spaceports. It will unlock untold opportunities and investment into Ayrshire and Scotland, and allow the UK to cement its place as a world leader in space technology. I am delighted to support the Bill’s progress today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kerr]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I agree. It is important to establish a framework in which policy is laid out so that, as mentioned in her excellent speech, investors can have some view of the future and there can be certainty for investment decisions. Going back to what I was saying about the other Bills, it is important that legislation keeps up with the rate of change, and technological change in particular.

Several Members have mentioned the vital importance of spaceports and their location and the opportunity for this country to have satellite launch facilities within its borders instead of sending satellites abroad, and that issue has been well discussed throughout the debate. It is frequently pointed that the United Kingdom has some attractive geographic advantages when it comes to launch facilities. If someone is intent on launching satellites into polar orbit, launching them over an ocean at a good angle is what they are looking for, and Scotland has a good number of ideal locations for vertically launching satellites into polar orbit.

A space race is going on, but it is not the same as the space race of the past; this race is about establishing new spaceports. The competition is not just between locations in the United Kingdom—I totally subscribe to the view that there should be as many spaceports as demand requires—but between the United Kingdom and other northern European countries. This Bill allows the possibility of the UK getting into this game early, getting head and staying ahead.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear me say that Scotland is indeed the ideal location for spaceports, and its candidate locations are competing to become Britain’s first spaceport. In a really good speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) spelled out the advantages of Prestwick, as did the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), and one of the attractive features of the Prestwick proposal, apart from the geographic and meteorological advantages, is the community and cross-party unity on the matter. I cannot think of a more inspirational happening for the young people of the west of Scotland than the announcement of the building of a spaceport in Ayrshire—right on the doorstep of the vast majority of Scotland’s population.

I belong to the generation where the word space immediately conjures up the three-word phrase “the final frontier”, which has been referred to several times, but we are talking about something far more real than the science fiction and television series of my boyhood. As an eight-year-old boy in 1969, I remember watching in wonder at the flickering black and white images on our family television as the astronauts of Apollo 11, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin—names that will live forever in the history of mankind—stepped out of the lunar module and on to the lunar surface, famously taking that

“one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”

It was an exciting time and the possibilities of space exploration seemed limitless, and every young mind in the country was seized with the excitement of that possibility.

Sadly, before I had even reached my first year at secondary school, manned flight to the moon, which was such an exciting prospect, had lost the attention of the vast majority of people. It is sad to say that the only time in recent memory that the British public really embraced, in a popular way, the concept of space exploration was Christmas day 2003, when Colin Pillinger and his team attempted to land Beagle 2 on the surface of Mars, as I am sure we all remember. Perhaps in the best traditions of noble first endeavours, it did not quite come off. Colin sadly passed away without knowing that he had come very near to achieving the objective of the mission.

I am most excited about this Bill, this subject matter and what it does to fire the imaginations of our young people.

[Luke Graham]

My hon. Friend refers to the moon landings in the 1960s. It was a small step for a man, but does he agree that this Bill is a chance to invigorate everyone in our country and to show how much they can contribute not only to the future economy but to the future development of the entire globe?

[Stephen Kerr]

Absolutely. This is about firing the imagination of all of us to the possibilities of space exploration.

I am mindful of the time, so I will press on. The fact is that we need this legislation, because without it we would create real risks for people. We have discussed the economic risk, but there is also the physical risk of injury. The risks of unlicensed or unregulated space activity happening in the skies above us are real. It is essential that we ensure the UK has a licensing regime that enables innovation and entrepreneurship but prohibits high-risk ventures that could do real damage.

With this Bill we are protecting not only the life and limb of our citizens but the communications and forecasting equipment that keep our country moving. There is no real difference between a major motorway that moves people around the country and a satellite that connects two different parts of a business with a high-speed link—they both need protection to ensure that we have functioning national infrastructure. The Bill envisages an uncomplicated process for doing that by allowing for schemes and ideas to be given an indicative rating as to whether they can be licensed simply, thereby allowing everyday activities to proceed quickly, or whether there is a need to alter the programme or plan. The way that will change and update with changes in technology means that what is a high-risk madcap stunt today becomes standard operating procedure tomorrow. We need a framework to allow for such change.

As I mentioned earlier, let us not forget the inspirational and uplifting elements of space travel, and we have heard quite a few references to space tourism and the possibilities it might bring. These are inspiring technologies, not only from the point of view of seeing a large rocket blast off into space but from the results and benefits we will get from such launches. Space radar that penetrates the atmosphere to scan the surface of Earth in huge detail, photographic data at different wavelengths that can tell how healthy crops are and satellites that connect communities around the world are all part of a picture that shows what humanity can do when it puts its mind to something.

We need to travel at great speed to escape the legislative atrophy that often grips us as a nation. We cannot rely on 18th-century legislative engineering to support 21st-century endeavour. We must allow our entrepreneurs and business people not only to see the sky as the limit but to look beyond even that. Our job is to give them the frameworks and the ability to do so, unconstrained by the surly bonds of outdated regulation.

I urge the House to support the Bill.