Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Kane Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Wendy Morton)]

I have spoken to my hon. Friend several times, including recently, about that scheme, and he is a keen campaigner for getting faster and more reliable trains from Clacton to London. We want to provide as much certainty as possible on rail enhancements, and we will set out our plans, including our proposals on Haughley junction, in the upcoming update to the rail network enhancement pipeline.

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

It is my great pleasure to welcome the Secretary of State to oral questions today, because he was absent without leave last time, and he is missing in action when it comes to aviation. He mentioned the chaos over Easter and the jubilee weekend, but he did not hold one meeting with aviation bosses during that time. Now EasyJet, among others, has announced that it could cancel 10,000 flights in the next three months. The Secretary of State needs to step up to the plate. He needs to go to the Prime Minister, knock on the door, and clean up the mess.

[Grant Shapps]

I am not sure what the question was. During the last oral questions, I was taking on the UK presidency of the International Transport Forum, which is the world’s most important international transport body. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that a Secretary of State should be doing that, he is very mistaken indeed.

Draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) and Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Law of the Sea Convention) Amendment Order 2022

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Rees. I hope that you will allow me to take a liberty in welcoming the pupils and teachers from Dobyns-Bennett High School in Tennessee in the United States. They are most welcome today, and are now formally recorded in Hansard as having been here at the Houses of Parliament.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Mike Kane]

The purpose of the instrument is to ensure that anyone polluting from a hovercraft is indictable and, as the Minister said, to bring hovercrafts under the same governance as ships for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

As a young man on family visits to Ireland, I was always fascinated to watch the Seacat take off from Holyhead to Dun Laoghaire, as we caught the far less exciting, and to my mind quite mundane and pedestrian, ferry. The hon. Member for Meon Valley has pre-empted the next part of my speech. The hovercraft that runs between Ryde on the Isle of Wight and Southsea in Portsmouth claims to be the last remaining commercial hovercraft in the world, so I am grateful to the Minister for making clear that that hovercraft is not affected by the instrument.

Since Sir Christopher Cockerell invented the hovercraft by experimenting with, I believe, an empty tin can and a vacuum cleaner pack in the late 1950s, the hovercraft has had a mixed history and mixed usage—hon. Members cannot say that they do not learn things from my speeches. Hovercraft have been useful for the military, as they are amphibious. They cross sea, land and sand without the need for a port or pier. However, they are very heavy users of diesel and their popularity has waned over the years.

Hovercraft are reputed to be heavily polluting feats of engineering and, as we all agree, we have an ongoing need to reduce pollution and emissions from the maritime sector to protect the environment and the health of our nation. As I said earlier, we do not have a particularly thriving or large hovercraft industry. I was therefore a little perplexed, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South, to see the order before the Committee today. However, the Minister has explained why that is the case.

Will the Minister update us on exactly how many pieces of maritime legislation are delayed? What stage in the process are they at and when will they be brought before the House? It is my understanding that the Department for Transport set a target of dealing with delayed legislation by the end of 2020. We are now halfway through 2022. I am told that some of the legislation has been delayed for six years, so any clarification we could have here today, or in writing, would be much appreciated.

As a nation, we are no longer the force in international shipping that we once were. It is hugely regrettable, but we could once again be such a force. We have the skills and the knowledge in this country to decarbonise the maritime sector and to clean it up once and for all. To achieve that, we need to show true commitment to the maritime sector and to those engineers, marine technologists, academics and businesses that are committed to doing it, many of whom the Minister has met, as have I. They need the Government’s help to achieve it. Industry cannot do this alone.

In 2020, the Government set out “Maritime 2050” and its clean maritime plan, which I was reading just yesterday. It states that, by 2025, the Government expect all vessels operating in UK waters to be

“maximising the use of energy efficiency options.”

This is an admirable hope, but quite vague. I am keen to hear from the Minister what progress has been made to ensure that this hope becomes a reality. It also states:

“The UK is building clean maritime clusters focused on innovation and infrastructure associated with zero emission propulsion technologies, including bunkering of low or zero emission fuel.”

This is the ambition for 2025, which is two and a half years away. Will the Minister update us on the progress and financial commitment the Government have made on those developments so that we can ensure they are on track?

I, too, noticed on reading the explanatory memorandum that there was no consultation on this matter. In the context of the horrendous backlogs of legislation and the small size of the industry, it feels somewhat as though we are tinkering around the edges. I say to the Minister and to the Department that we need to set our eyes on the horizon, the world as it is now and the world as it should be. We could be doing more, and we could be doing it faster.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Kane Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to shadow Minister, Mike Kane.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Minister and I both know that the quickest way to decarbonise the air around our nation’s great airports is to implement the airspace modernisation programme, which will allow for better take-offs, better landings, more efficiency and the ending of stacking. The good news is that guidance was issued in May—three years ago. Does the Minister want to take a punt on when the Government will implement it?

[Trudy Harrison]

I think it best that the hon. Gentleman has a meeting with the Aviation Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts)—specifically on that point. As for how we will decarbonise the aviation sector, again we are not short on ambition, nor on progress. We have rolled out the “Green Fuels, Green Skies” programme, and we continue to work with aviation manufacturers and airports to ensure that we decarbonise the aviation sector.

Vehicle Tampering Offences

Mike Kane Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate Gareth James on securing 112,000—is that right?—signatures on the petition in order to get this debate. That is no mean feat in itself, so my congratulations go to him, and to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), who I think looks very young indeed; he should not disparage himself. In fact, I might check out after the debate what moisturiser he uses. I congratulate him on bringing the petition to us in Parliament today. My congratulations go also to the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) on a very elegant speech. I thank him for all he does for the APPG for motorsport.

We then heard a passionate speech from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). I am a big fan of the hon. Member, as he knows. We are both big Cobden fans, for different reasons possibly, but I would never describe the hon. Member as being 2 feet to the left in any situation at all, and perhaps particularly in a car. He made a great defence. As somebody who cycled here today on a Brompton—Brompton is a proud British manufacturer—I may have some different views about how sometimes I am close passed and the possibility that my life may be prolonged by speed limiters. As I canvassed yesterday in a tight marginal seat between Labour and the Conservatives in Brooklands, Trafford, I was sickened by seeing exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) pointed out—adjusted cars doing 60 to 80 mph down a road with a 30-mph limit and with modified exhausts banging out. The antisocial behaviour that that brings to our estates is appalling. I remember the Secretary of State going on the record about how he does not like that type of thing, either.

[Mr Steve Baker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his compliments. I was once very nearly run down in High Wycombe by somebody doing just what he has suggested: they were in a modified car and going far too fast in town. Such people need prosecuting. In the case raised by the hon. Gentleman, if they are doing 80 mph where there is a 30 mph limit, they should be going to prison. I am very clear about that. I just wanted to ensure that we all understood one another.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I am grateful to the hon. Member. I love motorsport as well, and I love classic cars. There is nothing better than jumping up on my NorthRoad cycle—those bikes are produced in my constituency—cycling the 10 miles to Tatton Park, the Cheshire County Council and National Trust park, watching a traditional car show there and seeing the pride that people have in those cars. We do not want to see anything that would stop that.

[James Sunderland]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his very eloquent and pragmatic speech; it is resonating with me. Does he agree that when it comes to the cars themselves, the issue is not necessarily the cars; it is the way in which they are driven? Therefore, what we need to do is to go after those who are driving irresponsibly, making noise, breaking the law and breaking the rules, rather than going after legitimate vehicle owners, who just want to look after their vehicles.

[Mike Kane]

We should not be going after legitimate car owners, who take great pride in their cars, but with 40 million vehicle licences on UK roads, this plague of antisocial behaviour with these modified cars is absolutely sickening. With tens of thousands of police cut in this country, and a decimation of community policing, we now cannot police these hooligans driving their cars in the way they do. There is a philosophical debate to be had, but something needs to be done. We need to be tough on these people who are plaguing our communities.

Last year, the Government consulted on modernising vehicle standards, specifically looking at new measures to tackle tampering with vehicles. This petition came about almost immediately, with 112,000 signatures, and it managed to unite motorcyclists, classic car owners and motor racing aficionados with one voice. Despite the DFT stating that it did not intend the proposals to prevent motorsport or people repairing classic cars or motorbikes, it is keen to ensure that no businesses engaged in those pursuits are negatively affected.

The proposals seem to be a broadly positive move from Government to tackle tampering, which we know has impacts on safety and the environment. Of course, we support ensuring that emission standards are met and cannot be worked around. However, we also know that some modifications can negatively affect the safety and health of the vehicle owner, its occupants, other road users and the wider population, and that some tampering activities that prevent a vehicle’s emission system from operating correctly, such as the removal of the diesel particulate filter from a vehicle’s exhaust, can significantly increase harmful pollutant emissions, and sometimes be used as a weapon as these hooligans pass cyclists and let out a load of smoke—gassing, I think it is known as.

However, we know that the motorsport community have concerns about restoration, repairs and legitimate improvements, and their voices must be heard. The Government have said that it is not their intention to target these legitimate improvements, yet there has been no detail about how they would ensure that that will not happen. We know the consultation ended in November 2021—over six months ago—and we have not heard since that time what the Government intend to do.

I have a few questions for the Minister. When will the consultation response be published? When will the Government think about bringing legislation forward? Collectors and businesses in the aftermarket industry are being left in the dark, and we need to shed some light for them. Will changes apply retrospectively? What sort of alterations will be considered tampering? Will it just be ones that impact emissions and noise, or are wider proposals on the cards? How will they work with the motorsport and restoration industry? What steps are the Government taking to engage with stakeholders who have legitimate concerns over the changes? I would welcome answers from the Minister on this important debate.

A5 in the Midlands: Improvements

Mike Kane Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. Before the debate started, you reminded us of the famous folk song about the A5. I have the answer—it was Christy Moore, with “Go, Move, Shift”:

“Born in the middle of the afternoon

In a horsedrawn carriage on the old A-5

The big twelve wheeler shook my bed

You can’t stay here the policeman said…

Go, move, shift”.

I win the brownie points on that quiz of yours, Mr Hosie.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

And now can we get back on topic?

[Mike Kane]

I will, Mr Hosie.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on securing the debate about an issue on which he has campaigned for some time. It is of huge importance to his constituency, and to that of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans)—what an impassioned plea he made! The hon. Gentleman was like some latter-day Henry Tudor on Bosworth field: ending the Plantagenet dynasty, slaying Richard III—the last King to go into battle—and making a plea for investment in his constituency. His was an eloquently framed speech.

There is a vast amount of consensus on the need for more action to be taken, and I hope the Minister will consider all points raised today. As has been pointed out, the A5 is a strategic route that generates about £22 billion each year. It brings huge benefits to the UK economy and not least to the regional economies in the midlands. It is a vital road corridor that connects businesses with ports, airports and motorways, and it supports major employment sites such as Magna Park and the MIRA enterprise zone.

I am acutely aware of the ongoing capacity issues on the A5 in the region. Although the pandemic has altered commuting patterns, congestion on the A5 in the midlands still averages approximately 25 seconds per vehicle per mile, I am told. On some sections congestion is even more severe, reaching over a minute and a half per vehicle per mile at some points.

As hon. Members have said, the cost of congestion is plain to see. It causes undue stress and, as the hon. Member for Bosworth said, a lack of happiness—although I have never heard about that in the context of a road—because of the extended journey times for motorists. It also contributes to increased carbon emissions and poor air quality for local residents, which I see all too often in my constituency around the M56.

Furthermore, research shows that traffic in the UK costs the economy billions of pounds every year. National Highways and the Department for Transport have highlighted the severe congestion issues on the A5 and identified the need to improve traffic flow. However, that is not being backed up by real action; hon. Members representing their constituencies in the midlands will be disappointed by the lack of progress on increasing capacity on the A5.

RIS2, running from 2020 to 2025, had committed to widening the A5 into a dual carriageway from Dodwells island to Longshoot, but, in a hammer blow to the local area, those plans were scrapped last year by National Highways and the Department. National Highways has said that the improvements will be considered in the context of wider proposals in RIS3 to improve capacity on the A5 from Hinckley to Tamworth.

In the meantime, congestion on the A5 remains at significant levels. Motorists will rightly question why they must wait until 2025 for funding to improve the traffic flow even to be considered. That is just one of a number of potential improvements to the A5. For example, the hon. Member for Bosworth told us that his constituency has Britain’s most bashed bridge—the alliteration trips off the tongue whenever he says it, and he raises it time and again.

Many Members will be eagerly anticipating the publication of RIS3 and hope for a coherent strategy to tackle congestion on the A5. However, given the broken promises so far, commitments may have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Wider investment is needed in our road network, not just to tackle today’s congestion, but to future-proof our major corridors. National Highways has projected that traffic on its roads will increase by 20% between now and 2050, but there is a complete lack of planning to prepare the strategic road network for the capacity that is needed.

We have to face this challenge together as the nations of the United Kingdom. I have not checked with the House of Commons Library, but I believe there are now about 40 million licensed vehicles on our roads. The figure has almost doubled in 30 years. At some stage, we have to make a decision. Yes, we have to help car drivers, but we must address how Government can begin to tackle that growth. We cannot continue with such vehicle numbers on our ever-shrinking highway network. It is important to lay that out.

Labour supports investment in our roads. Under this Government, the state of our roads has rapidly deteriorated. The issues discussed today are examples of wider endemic problems. From our country lanes to motorways, our road network has suffered more than a decade of under-investment. We need only look at what happened to highways maintenance funding last year: the Government slashed it, on average, by 22% across England. In the west midlands, the cut was even steeper. For instance, Government funding to pay for pothole repairs fell by a staggering 27% in the region, the second biggest cut in England.

We are now seeing the long-term nature of the cuts to road funding. Many local councils have been told that they can expect the cuts to their road maintenance grants to be embedded for the remainder of this Parliament. Last year, the annual local authority road maintenance survey found that it would take 11 years to clear the maintenance backlog, if local authorities had the funding and resources to do the work.

Labour has committed to rebuilding the infrastructure our communities depend on, as part of our contract with the British people. That starts by fixing the mess on our roads. We will invest in our strategic road network and our local roads alike to build a transport network that is fit for purpose, both now and in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Kane Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I commend my hon. Friend for the work he has been doing in that regard. We are very keen to ensure improvements and we will make sure that we continue to work with National Highways to try to provide those.

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

As you well know, Mr Speaker, I am a lifelong member of the Fianna Phadraig Irish pipe band in Wythenshawe; it is my great honour to stand at this Dispatch Box and wish one and all a very happy St Patrick’s day. I am looking forward to getting home this afternoon and joining my comrades to entertain the masses of Manchester.

Worrying news has just broken that P&O Ferries has been called to port as DP World, its owner, seeks the long-term viability of the ferry company. Major disruption is expected. Can the Secretary of State update the House about any discussions that he has had with DP World or P&O Ferries about any potential redundancies, and the fact that we do not want any crews who are made redundant to be replaced by foreign cheap labour?

[Grant Shapps]

It was remiss of me not to acknowledge St Patrick’s Day and Purim. Both are fun and enjoyable festivals, and I know that Members on both sides of the House and people throughout the country will be enjoying them.

On a much sadder note, I am concerned about the news that is breaking on P&O Ferries. I understand that it has temporarily paused its operations, which is causing disruption in the short straits between Calais and Dover, and at some other ports. I am working with the Kent resilience forum, and I have just instructed its members to become intricately involved, along with other partnerships. I will be taking further steps later today, which will include ensuring that my officials engage in urgent discussions with P&O about the situation, which is of particular concern to its workers.

Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2022

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 General Committees

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

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

I feel the hot breath of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West on my neck, so happy St David’s day to you all. St. David was canonised by Pope Callixtus II in 1123. I doubt he had to get up at 9.30 to attend one of his synods to discuss airport slots, but genuinely happy St David’s day to everyone.

Around two years ago, the country was paralysed by the coronavirus pandemic, and after a considerable effort to repatriate Brits abroad, the business and leisure market and the aviation industry were effectively grounded. For two years the industry has struggled without a sector-specific deal. The Minister and I have had that discussion previously and we disagree about what the package should have looked like, but we move on today.

I believe that the Government’s approach of tinkering around the edges has led to many jobs being lost and many businesses in the sector burning through cash reserves daily. But we digress. The skies are reopening, although more slowly in the UK than in the rest of the world, and we now need to ensure that the sector is able to recover and support itself again. It is absolutely crucial that we protect what we have.

Slot rules are important in ensuring competition for routes, and in turn give passengers more choice and can lead to better fares for them. Smaller regional airports that do not have incumbent carriers are often able to make slots available for airlines, particularly new entrants to the market, offering good deals for travellers and allowing the regions to open themselves to new visitors and opening the rest of the world to those living in our regions. It should be a win-win situation, but that is currently not the case for all airports and operators.

The advisory note to the SI talks about a consultation that took place over a four-week period between November and December last year. However, three weeks into that consultation the rules changed again and the industry once again plunged into confusion with travellers and industry not knowing where the goalposts had moved to and when or if they would move again. That uncertainty led to bookings dropping off a cliff for the Christmas period. It is not acceptable for that to keep happening to the third biggest aviation sector in the world. We need more certainty in the future.

At the time when passengers were unable to fly without expensive testing and potentially expensive quarantine to follow it was nonsensical for almost empty flights to take off to satisfy grandfather rights to slots. We have seen recent news reports stating that airlines have operated thousands of ghost flights from UK airports during the pandemic—32 airports around the UK had flights of less than 10% capacity. An average of 25 such flights operated every single day throughout lockdown, totalling just under 14,500 over an 18 month period. I am aware some of those flights were carrying cargo and some were repatriation flights, but not all, and it would be disingenuous to imply that they were.

We all agree the industry must improve its green credentials, and I have grave concerns that the insistence of using any fixed percentage of slots makes a mockery of that aim, particularly if the process is being used by incumbents to hoard slots and to monopolise routes. When demand was low due to Covid, slot exemptions were the right thing, but now as demand grows again, that prompts the question ‘Should airlines be subject to competition through slots rules?’ Obviously it remains important to provide some consideration for markets that have yet to reopen or are still severely restricted such as east Asia or other long-haul routes.

I undertook some research of my own with the industry and operators, and the findings suggest that slots are still very contentious. Their allocation must be resolved in an equitable way that enables operators to recover while remaining committed to a green recovery. The environmental impact of those ghost flights is something which concerns me gravely and will continue to do so. By reducing the 80:20 rule by just 10% to 70:30, the Government could still be complicit in multiple flights taking off with many empty seats, seats that could have been sold at a reduced price at least to ensure that UK residents get some benefit from those tens of thousands of empty seats.

The last time we debated this matter I asked the Minister whether the Government would be dynamic and responsive enough to reassess the situation as the skies reopen and received assurances that there would be flexibility. I trust that is still the case. Another ask we have is that Government commit fully to funding the airspace modernisation scheme. A one-year commitment cannot really be classed as a commitment when it comes to doing something so vital that would reduce the need for stacking, enable point to point operations and increase capacity in our system. Indeed, that lack of ongoing commitment could be classed as further tinkering around the edges. What the industry needs is commitment to it, to show it that despite being left for almost two years without a sector-specific deal it is not treated as an afterthought by the Government.

The Opposition have been broadly supportive of a slot ratio and will continue to be so, but we have slots because of our lack of runway capacity and airports. That has not been addressed. The Prime Minister has tinkered around the edges, both in his current role and as Mayor of London, without addressing that fundamental problem, and it is one that our competitors are addressing. It would be great to resolve the issue of slots permanently and equitably, and move forward to a greener, cleaner strategy, but that is not for us today.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the terms of the instrument only apply temporarily until 29 October 2022. That is why the Government say that they have not prepared a full impact assessment of the SI. May I ask the Minister through my hon. Friend to clarify what will happen after 29 October 2022? Will we simply revert to the previous position? If a new permanent regime is proposed, will the Minister commit to providing the House with a full impact assessment?

[Mike Kane]

I note my hon. Friend’s points and I will leave the Minister to respond to them.

We are considering this SI in a liberal democracy in which I can directly ask the Minister questions and hold him to account. Not all countries can do that today. I want the Minister and the House to know that the Opposition support the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport to ground Aeroflot and to ban the use of private Russian jets in this country. Will the Minister think of further ways in which we can do more? I note the article in today’s edition of The Times that speaks of banning Russian ships and cargo vessels from entering any UK ports. We will not have any truck with this dictator, Putin. Our quarrel is not with the Russian people, but with their current leader.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Kane Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

I assure my hon. Friend that the Department continues to work closely with rail operators, as we work through mitigating the impact of staff absences on rail services. I assure him that the current temporary rail timetable is exactly that—temporary—but it is providing passengers, especially the country’s key workers, with certainty, so that they can plan as much as possible, with the confidence that we want. I really hope that as staffing pressures start to ease, alongside passenger demand increasing, we will see those rail services, which are key, starting to increase accordingly.

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

I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) a speedy recovery from covid.

Rail commuters in towns and suburbs across the land did their patriotic duty: they stayed home when asked by the Government at the start of the pandemic. They were told after that that if they did not go back to work, they were shirkers. Then, before Christmas, the Government asked them to stay home again. Now, on their return, they find that fares, including on South Western Railway, have risen by nearly 4%, on a reduced service. Do this Government take rail commuters for fools?

[Wendy Morton]

We absolutely do take passengers—[Laughter.] We absolutely do take passengers very, very seriously. I assure the hon. Gentleman of that, and I am not taking any nonsense such as the language he is using, not given the amount of support that this Government have shown to the rail industry throughout the omicron situation and the covid-19 pandemic more broadly.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Having failed to secure a sector-specific deal from the Treasury, the industry is recovering much more slowly than our international competitors, and now we have the spectacle of an unholy row between airlines and airports on landing charges. With the new rules on slots, we have the prospect of planes flying empty or with half loads. Industry leaders tell me that the Secretary of State has been missing in action, but he has been busy shoring up the beleaguered Prime Minister’s whipping operation—we would like to thank him for that. Is it not time for the Secretary of State to step up to the plate when it comes to aviation?

[Robert Courts]

The Secretary of State and all members of the Government have been in constant contact with the aviation sector, and it is through that that we have been able to tailor our response. We have given £8 billion of support to the sector. The airport and ground operations support scheme is on top of that, and there is the aviation skills retention platform. The Government wholeheartedly support the aviation sector, particularly in getting it flying again.

Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill

Mike Kane Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 28th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Browne]

I completely agree. I declare another interest. I used to be Europe editor of The Times and I lived in Brussels for many years. I used to drive around across borders. If you drive for a couple of hours from Brussels you get into Luxembourg. Another half an hour and you are in Germany. Within 10 minutes, you can drive between France, Germany and Luxembourg: you are crossing borders the whole time. From that point of view, one can understand why one would want some co-ordination between insurance policies and so on. In the UK, we are an island. That is a very different position and different motoring rules apply. Often, the EU would have motoring rules, for example regulations on child seats in cars, that might have made sense if one lived in Luxembourg and drove into Germany and France every day and would not want to have the different regulation of child seats. In the UK, however, there is no particular reason why we should have the same regulation for child seats in cars as there is in, say, Poland.

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

We drive on the left.

[Anthony Browne]

We do. Clearly, people do drive from what is now the EU to the UK, but the volume of traffic is very low.

I want to raise a point about why we ended up with this European Court of Justice ruling. As a Europe editor of The Times, I wrote various think-tank reports about EU regulations and structure. I advised the Government and was involved with European law-making for about 20 years. In the Lisbon treaty, there is the principle of subsidiarity. We do not talk about it much in this place. When Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, she talked about it and everyone scratched their heads saying, “What is subsidiarity?” The basic principle is that one should make laws at a European level only where necessary, for example on cross-border issues such as pollution or trade. I cannot see any argument for why the insurance of golf buggies needs a pan-European law.

--- Later in debate ---

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

What an excellent finish to the contribution from the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning). I will get on to the £50 bonus in a few moments.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on securing progress for his Bill and on selflessly putting himself forward to be the Brexit dividend Minister. No wonder he has been mounting a full-throated defence of the Prime Minister on the news channels over the past few days. Those things are possibly connected.

The hon. Gentleman did a good job of explaining the background of the Vnuk case and its consequences for motorists here. I thank him for that good explanation. I did not agree with everything he said but people will look back at the Hansard report and say it was a good contribution.

As has been made clear, we have operated under the scheme set out in the Road Traffic Act for many decades. It is proportionate and it works, although that is not to say we should not revisit it from time to time. The Government have intended to overturn Vnuk for quite some time. The cost of uninsured drivers is currently met by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. The Government have estimated that the implementation of the ECJ ruling in the Vnuk case could cost policy holders £1.227 billion, or an average rise of around £50 for 25 million customers. I think that figure is right, but I will come back to it, if I may.

[Sir Mike Penning]

I say respectfully to the shadow Minister that that cost is being met not by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau but by motorists in this country. That is probably very important.

[Mike Kane]

It is indeed met by motorists, who are hard pressed in this cost of living crisis.

A few people veered slightly off the highway in the debate. There were terrific contributions from the hon. Members for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb), for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), for Dudley North (Marco Longhi), for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne). I would love to talk about subsidiarity well into the night and juxtapose it with the principle of solidarity that the European Union was founded on—that is not a remainer case; it is just a great debate—but that is not for this place today.

Churchill said that a fanatic is someone who will not change their mind and cannot change the subject. We have seen a bit of that today. From some Government Members we have seen what I would call hubris—they are glad after the fact. Ask Odysseus how that worked out; I would be careful with it. The right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead hit the nail on the head: there will be no £50 dividend. I shall say why—and I am going to veer off course.

There is an £11 billion pothole-repair backlog in this country. That is what is driving up motor insurance, because most damage is done by potholes. The Secretary of State for Transport has cut pothole-repair funding in Hertfordshire by 23%. The area represented by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) in Cumbria has the most reported potholes in the land. For the last 40 years—during which the seat belt rules have applied—the number of fatalities on our roads has gone down and down and down. In 2020, the number rose by 5%: we have reversed a 40-year trend. That is what will have an impact on people’s motor insurance, for sure. The £50 deficit—the “Brexit deficit”—is a complete misnomer. It will not affect motor insurance one bit. I think that that is what the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead was referring to, but let us see the insurers put that £50 in their policies! I doubt we will see that happen any time soon.

I could carry on, and name other factors that will have an impact on motor insurance—[Interruption.] It seems that Members do not want me to do that, but let me briefly talk about the highway code that we are implementing next week. There has been no promotion of it—absolutely nothing. The Government’s transport team are saying that they will get round to that in February, way after it has happened. We have major changes coming. What will that do to the accident ratio in the next few months, and what will it do to motor insurance payments? The cost of living crisis has been mentioned a great deal. How will the hike in national insurance payments affect the crisis that our people face? How will the depletion of our gas storage affect it?

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to veer off track ever so slightly. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wellingborough on the Bill, but it is clear that there is much more work to do. We need to ensure that people who have to drive can afford their motor insurance and can afford to drive safely, and we need to look at the whole picture, in the round, of the damage being done to road maintenance and road safety. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about that.

Draft Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 (Airspace Change Directions) (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Regulations 2022

Mike Kane Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2022 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I note that I am beginning to see more of the Minister in these Committee Rooms than I actually see my wife! I will try to make amends for that in the next few days. I mean no offence to the Minister. As much as we all like him, we are back here again in Committee debating a statutory instrument; I am almost getting déjà vu.

The CAA regulates the UK’s aviation sector. Its primary duty is to maintain a high standard of safety in the provision of air traffic services. That is, of course, something that we are keen to maintain. The regulations set the formula for working out what penalty should be paid by any airport operator, any air navigation service provider or any other person or body concerned with functions engaged with air navigation. I welcome them, but wish to put on record that over the past two years the aviation industry has been desperate to understand the formula used to work out what is in store for it. I appreciate that it is an ever-changing landscape—or airscape—but the impact on the sector has been huge, and I ask the Minister to consider that going forward.

The ATMUA Act gives the Minister powers to direct those concerned with air navigation to co-operate with the airspace modernisation programme. That is really important. As I have often said, we have an analogue airspace in a digital age, and it is vital that we modernise it to ensure that it is fit for the modern age. Doing so will add a sense of confidence to the aviation sector as it comes out of the pandemic and the problems it has had for the last two years.

The Minister is right to say that this issue is about not just safety, but the environment as well. I grew up under the flightpath of Manchester airport in Wythenshawe in my constituency. I remember in the ’70s and the 80’s the BAC One-Elevens, the Tridents and the Concordes. I even saw the space shuttle do a low pass on a jumbo jet. We could not hear ourselves think. Fortunately, in this country we have an industry—with Rolls-Royce and all the other providers—that has improved our aircraft to the nth degree to make them of lower emissions and lower noise. We have to keep that going. We are the third-largest aviation sector on the planet, and we need to keep that up.

Previously, one single airport declining to take part in the programme could delay the whole programme, meaning that others in the sector could not benefit from the opportunities afforded by the scheme. The powers afforded under this statutory instrument would enable the Secretary of State to direct co-operation or eventually impose financial penalties, which I am pleased to see are proportionate to the turnover from the previous year of the business concerned. As I have previously said, income and turnover have been much lower than average due to the pandemic, so it is right to apply this formula. I am also pleased that financial penalties will be a last resort. Let us do this by carrot, rather than stick.

I note that rather than a full consultation there has been an agreement on the wider policy framework. I am keen to be kept up to date with reviews on the monitoring of these new powers and penalties. The Opposition are happy to support the regulations.