Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Second sitting)

Richard Burden Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Q 65 We will now hear oral evidence from the Institute of the Motor Industry, the Downstream Fuel Association and the Association of Convenience Stores. We have until 3 pm for this session. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record, starting with Mr Woodall?

Edward Woodall: Good afternoon. I am Ed Woodall. I am head of policy and public affairs at the Association of Convenience Stores, which represents 33,500 local shops and 8,000 forecourt retailers across the UK.

Teresa Sayers: I am Teresa Sayers. I am the chief executive of the Downstream Fuel Association. We represent the non-refining companies and major supermarkets.

Steve Nash: I am Steve Nash. I am the chief executive of the Institute of the Motor Industry, which is the professional body for individuals working in the motor industry.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Q Welcome. I have two sets of questions. The first is probably principally to Mr Woodall and Ms Sayers, and the second is principally to Mr Nash. On the Bill’s provisions on electric charging points, I think it is fair to say that your two organisations have been rather more critical of what the Government are suggesting than a number of others. Can you outline why you think they are going in the wrong the direction with the provisions on charging infrastructure?

Teresa Sayers: First, we welcome the opportunity to comment on the Bill and work with the Government on looking at ways to build up the infrastructure for electric vehicles. I represent four major retailers, and my members already have some provision for electric charging points within their infrastructure.

We believe that the emphasis on petrol forecourts is wrong for a number of reasons, not least because the configuration of forecourts does not lend itself to allowing cars to be placed there for in excess of 20 to 30 minutes. We provide electric charging points, as I say, but they are exclusively in the car parks of our stores and at head offices. We are looking closely at how we can further develop provision along those lines, but we are very concerned about the emphasis on placing them in the forecourt.

Edward Woodall: Also, there is the question of how we define “large fuel retailer” in the Bill to determine whether a retailer has the capacity for electric vehicle charging points on their sites. That is quite a difficult task to deliver in regulation, because this is quite a diverse and different sector. That could take into account fuel volumes and number of sites, and it would also have to take into account size of sites, as Teresa was saying, in terms of having the space for people to charge their vehicles on the site.

I suppose there is also a concern about the desire of consumers to charge in those locations. The Government’s own evidence suggests that 95% of vehicle users currently charge at home; 26% then charge their vehicles in workplaces; and only 12% look to charge their vehicles in public spaces. Would they choose to do that on fuel sites? It is a question; I am not sure. Do the fuel sites have the capacity to deliver in this way? Only 11% of our members have seating areas in their forecourt sites, so what does someone do for the 30 minutes if there are rapid charging facilities on those sites?

There are other logistical issues around whether sites have the capacity to deliver that energy. Electric vehicle charging points will need a direct connection with the grid; obviously, that does not cover all sites across the board. So there is a real challenge in how you define in regulations a large fuel retail site, and whether it has capacity to deliver those services.

[Richard Burden]

Q The Bill refers to “large fuel retailers”. Evidence that we heard this morning rather suggested that what will make or break the expansion of electric charging infrastructure is much broader than motorway service areas. There was a lot of discussion about supermarkets, what to do around on-street parking and smart charging at home. I will press you a bit further on whether your reservations about the parts of the Bill relating to electric charging are concerns about Ministers being given regulation-making powers to mandate others to provide charging points to certain specifications. Or do you basically accept that principle, but think that the provisions are targeted wrongly in focusing on large fuel retailers?

Edward Woodall: The latter. I understand the principle and the objectives, but is it right to focus this purely on fuel sites, when the evidence suggests that consumers are perhaps not looking to go to those sites to charge their vehicles? There is also a concern about whether it matches up with what drivers will do while they are charging their vehicles. It makes sense to have charging points in an area where they might be going to the cinema or the shops, as opposed to having them on a forecourt site, which may not have the space or the retail capacity to deal with that issue.

We also put, in our submission, evidence about ways to incentivise other partners to use this system—for example, changes to the national planning policy framework might give more specific direction on where charging points should go, so that local plans could be informed by that, and capacity could be increased across the board.

[Richard Burden]

Q Can I come to Mr Nash on a different area? In the written evidence you provided, you put quite a lot of emphasis on the importance of training and accreditation for people working on these charging points and autonomous vehicles in the future. Could you say a little bit more about your concerns?

Steve Nash: Absolutely. I think it is worth understanding a little bit about our sector. Everybody knows we have a franchise sector, and we tend to talk about the independent sector, but that is a catch-all phrase. There are about 40,000 businesses in there, ranging from Halfords and Kwik Fit down to a man working on someone’s drive.

Right now, of all the technicians out there working on cars—there are just under 200,000 people we know of, but there are probably quite a few that we do not know of, because they do not necessarily belong to a trade body or anything else—only about 1% are qualified to work on high-voltage electrics. Let us make no mistake about this: you have to be licensed to work on domestic electrics, and I would venture to suggest that the electrics in an electric car are potentially more lethal than the mains. We are talking about direct current—more than enough to fry you—so you do have to be properly trained and know what you are doing. In this sense, a car is not a car, just because it looks like a car. These are the biggest technical changes we have seen for 100 years. This is not an evolution of old technology—this is new technology.

We know that the manufacturers will do what they need to do to ensure that their franchise dealers can cope. Most of them are already using our accreditation scheme to qualify people at different levels, including knowing what you should not do and how to disable the electrics to work on other non-high-voltage systems safely. The higher level is for working on the high-voltage systems.

If you really want these cars to proliferate, there are a couple of problems. One is that right now it can cost you up to 50% more to insure one of these cars, because the insurance industry is quite aware that there is a limited repair market out there. If your car has been in an accident, you need somebody who knows what they are doing to put the thing back together, and the industry is assuming a higher cost because there is a limited repair market. That will continue unless you find a way of engaging the wider market, and the wider market will not readily make that step because there is cost involved, so it becomes a chicken and egg situation.

As I said, there is a very real health and safety issue. You do not see it now, because there are 32 million cars on the road that do not have this technology, and there is plenty to go round in the service and repair market. There are cars that have been around for a while, such as the Toyota Prius models and so on, but we know from our own experience that a lot of the independent guys do not touch those—they pass them back to the dealers—because they do not need that work to make a living. However, as these cars proliferate—and that is everyone’s intention; if you look at the product plans that all of the manufacturers have at all the motor shows, it is all about plug-in hybrids and electric cars, so these cars will proliferate—if you want a competitive market for servicing these cars, you need the independent sector to engage.

To make that happen, first you need regulations to protect people’s safety, and secondly you have to consider using some of the large fund—I believe it is something like £600 million—that has been put aside to help move us in that direction. Some of that money should be directed towards a training fund to help the independents engage in the training that they need to work on the cars safely.

[Richard Burden]

Q Could you outline how it would work? In other words, how would the Government, or whoever, define the vehicles that would require licensed people to work on them, and what things they would need to work on? For example, some might say you should not have to be licensed in order to check the tyres; that is different from working on the electrics. There is potential for this to be a difficult area for definition.

Steve Nash: We have worked very closely with manufacturers to define three levels of accreditation. Level 2 says you can work safely on the passive systems of the car, so you are still going to have steering and suspension. I was going to say brakes, but actually a lot of these cars have regenerative brakes, so even that is potentially risky. The second level of accreditation is knowing how to switch off the high-level electronics and knowing what you should not touch, because there are certain systems on the car that have very high residual currents in them, even when the car is turned off.

Level 4 accreditation is for people who are properly trained to work on the high-voltage systems, which include the control systems and the battery packs. Working with manufacturers, we have refined that to understand that it covers the entirety of their own group of technicians working in their franchise.

[The Chair]

If Members wish to remove their jackets, that would be fine. Let us try to keep questions and answers crisp.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Good. Thank you.

[Richard Burden]

I should declare an interest. I am an honorary fellow of the Institute of the Motor Industry. It is non-pecuniary, but I thought I had better put that on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Q You know that the Bill attempts to strike a balance between, on the one hand, doing enough not to constrain future development—indeed, to facilitate it—and, on the other hand, trying to determine what the schedule describes as an “unknowable future”. Have we got that right, or should we have done more? I draw particular attention to the relationship between connection and automation and the issues of privacy and security of data. Should we do more now, or is it enough that we take powers to do things when we know more later?

Iain Forbes: It is a really important question. The advent of automated vehicle technology will in time require changes to different parts of our regulatory system. We have heard about some of those already today. The trick is to try to find ways of targeting the areas where we think action is necessary now in order to unblock barriers, or where we know technology is near to market. We need to make sure that we have the framework in place to enable the safe use of that technology.

To some extent it is a question that different people have different views on, but we certainly consulted last year with a range of different stakeholders on the areas where they thought action was necessary in order to ensure that the UK was doing the right things to set up a framework. The area in the Bill was the one that stakeholders highlighted as the one that was most important to act on first.

In time we will have to have further steps in the process of getting our regulatory framework ready. In doing so, I would hope to follow the same approach of identifying where the barriers are that need action now and which technologies are nearer to market. We need to make sure that we have the framework in place to enable those.

[Richard Burden]

Q Can I go back to the definition? At the start of the session you said that the thing you welcomed in the Bill was that it would define what an automated vehicle is by whether or not that vehicle was on the list produced by the Secretary of State. Do you think that creating a definition will be simple? Where would autonomous emergency braking come into that? A large number of vehicles might have autonomous emergency braking that one would not normally define as automated vehicles. Nevertheless, autonomous emergency braking, by its nature, will take control of the car and stop it whatever the driver is doing. So would the car fitted with autonomous emergency braking need to appear on that list, because it would

“in at least some circumstances or situations”

be capable of driving itself without having to be monitored by an individual? If it were included, are we saying that this new insurance product that the Bill brings into effect is essentially going to be the norm, not the exception, much more quickly than we thought?

Iain Forbes: Autonomous emergency braking is one of a suite of technologies sometimes referred to as advanced driver assistance systems. The Bill does not seek to set out a regime to manage those systems. It is about automated driving in vehicles where the driver can step out of the loop and does not need to be involved in monitoring the system. The difference between those systems and ADAS systems, as they are sometimes called, is that the driver always has to oversee what is going on in the vehicle. For those sorts of systems we anticipate the current regime being appropriate.

[Richard Burden]

Q Is the boundary between those two as exact as you say? In a sense, with autonomous emergency braking, the driver has to monitor it. Whether the driver is monitoring it or not, that technology will take control of the vehicle.

Iain Forbes: We anticipate the measures in the Bill interacting with other aspects of law, including type approval requirements for vehicles, which will be looking at how different systems should be approved for safe use on the roads in this country. There is a lot of technical work to do to understand what the particular approval regimes will be for different forms of technology, but we anticipate the higher levels of automation that we are targeting in the Bill being different and distinct in the way they are approved from the ABS system that you were talking about.

[Richard Burden]

Q What kind of consultation would you expect the Minister to go through before producing his or her list? At the moment, the Minister has complete discretion. There is nothing in the Bill that says he or she has to consult anywhere.

Iain Forbes: I would anticipate quite a lot of work at international level to set the regulatory framework and technical standards that will underpin the safety framework for approving these vehicles. When that happens, there will be a decision for Ministers to take about how they consult with stakeholders in the UK to make sure that people are comfortable with those definitions before they are transferred into UK law.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Q May I ask a couple of questions relating to the way that you have looked at the insurance? It seems to me that you are treating the concept of ownership as it is today, rather than as it is likely to become; transport is likely to become a service, rather than a commodity. Is that fair?

Iain Forbes: The policy aim of the Bill was to set up a framework that protected innocent victims of incidents relating to these vehicles in such a way that it felt similar to the current framework. We can have a framework around vehicle sale that is based on current patterns of ownership. In future that might change, as you say, in which case we would have to review the framework to make sure that we were making appropriate provision in law to allow people to operate the system safely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

Q May I begin by exploring some of the Bill provisions relating to the relationship between the CAA and National Air Traffic Services? Perhaps we can come on to the issues relating to the air travel organisers’ licence after that. I understand that the proposed changes have been broadly welcomed by stakeholders. I am struggling to understand how significant they are. They change the procedure through which the CAA can modify regulations under which NATS operates. Do we have any sense of how many of them are likely to happen and how often? The impact assessment says that the scale of the issue with which we are dealing is highly uncertain. Can you give us any guidance on the scale of the changes?

Richard Moriarty: The changes are all aimed at modernising our regime. We change the licence periodically: perhaps once or twice every three or four years we introduce a raft of changes, which are mainly to do with the charges that NATS can pass on to airlines and the service standards that it needs to meet. Of course, all of that needs to be balanced, because we need to ensure that it can finance its businesses.

I think it is worth saying, in order to give you comfort, that these measures are almost precisely similar to measures that were passed in the Civil Aviation Act 2012 in relation to our regulation of airports such as Heathrow and Gatwick. My answer to your question is that they are very helpful and to be welcomed. They modernise what is now quite an outdated regime for NATS, and they put NATS on a very similar footing to other regulated entities.

In terms of NATS’s protection, it is important to say that nothing in these changes takes away our primary duty towards the safe system—safety. We also have a secondary duty to make sure that NATS cannot find it unduly difficult to finance its licence for activities. For those reasons, I strongly welcome these measures.

[Richard Burden]

Q Looking ahead to the next few years, for the moment we will be part of the single European sky framework. That, presumably, could bring a number of initiatives under it that would be relevant to the provisions in this Bill. Am I right about that? What could the impact of Brexit be on this area of the Bill?

Richard Moriarty: I fear I would be misleading you to be too precise about what some of those impacts would be, but one thing we have made clear in conversation with departmental colleagues is that we can regulate NATS successfully using our domestic legislation under the Transport Act 2000. This is one of the reasons why we are keen to modernise it in this way.

[Richard Burden]

Q So there should not be any impact at all?

Richard Moriarty: It is too early for me to say whether there would be an impact one way or the other. On the things we most care about—safety—NATS has been able to charge good prices to airlines and provide a good level of service. I am quite comfortable that the regime we would have in the UK based on the Transport Act 2000 would give us sufficient levers, particularly with these modernisation changes.

[Richard Burden]

Q The impact assessment, again, talks about the likelihood of there being what it describes as a “light-touch” review of these new arrangements after five years and “a full review” after 10. I must confess that I could not see reference to either of those in the Bill. What was your understanding of the review arrangements around these changes?

Richard Moriarty: I cannot speak to that specific review, but I think it makes sense to review the powers that have been introduced after the event. We have done that in other arenas, so it is something we would welcome. We can work with the Department on the timing of that.

[Richard Burden]

Q But the principle of a review after a period of time would be something—

Richard Moriarty: I do not have a problem with that.

[Richard Burden]

Q Can we move on to the ATOL questions within the Bill? Can you describe what the changes mean in practice for consumers and holidaymakers?

Richard Moriarty: First, it is worth saying that the changes in the Bill at the moment are enabling provisions, but they are to enable us to implement the package travel directive. There are a number of important and welcome developments from that which will be good for UK consumers. First, the directive makes it much clearer what the definition of a package is. This may seem self-evident to most people but an industry of loopholes has developed over the years. Having clarity on this is a good thing.

Secondly, the package travel directive puts a requirement on member states to have effective regimes in place for insolvency. This is a big step forward compared with where we are today. It is also worth saying—although John may have a better view on this—that this provides a growth opportunity for UK businesses as firms in this country will be able to sell their goods and services into Europe.

John de Vial: We certainly support that view. The provisions in this Bill are necessary and we have no concerns about them as enabling legislation. I agree with Richard’s subsequent points. UK companies can currently sell in other European markets but they are required to license separately and individually in each market to comply with its version and its implementation of the 1990 directive. If we have a regime with the directive to come, which the provisions lay the ground for, and our traders in the UK can use the ATOL system and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy arrangements to comply across Europe, that is a clear advantage for them trading across European member states.

[Richard Burden]

Q Are those companies covered by that protection because they are established in the UK?

John de Vial: By virtue of being established in the UK, you would be entitled to it.

[Richard Burden]

Q Wherever they sell?

John de Vial: Yes.

[Richard Burden]

Q Looking at it the other way round, if there is a company that is established in another part of the European Union but sells into the UK, I understand that the package travel directive would say that the protections that it should offer would be those that would be applicable in that member state, rather than those that would be applicable in the UK.

John de Vial: Yes.

[Richard Burden]

Q Is there any potential downside to that? For any packages sold into the UK by companies established outside of the UK, could the protection be less than it is now?

John de Vial: Not less than it is now—we have that problem today. The current UK ATOL regulations and package travel regulations exempt companies that are compliant elsewhere. We have seen the problem in recent history. Our view is that, to the extent that this new directive is more robust and should raise the bar of implementation and enforcement in other member states, that can only be a good thing.

[Richard Burden]

Q Will it raise it to the level of ATOL protection?

John de Vial: No, I don’t believe it will. I think there are a number of aspects where the ATOL position is superior. The most obvious example is repatriation. The directive requires the costs of repatriation to be protected, so all member states should be doing that. The UK is not unique, but is one of a small number of member states, where organised repatriations—where the customer is, as it were, rescued—is the norm. We do have a superior system in the UK in that sense.

[Richard Burden]

Q A final couple of questions from me, and it is back to Brexit again. A lot of the changes in the Bill arise out of the package travel directive. From what you have said, some of our domestic ATOL protection is superior to what is in the package travel directive anyway, but are there any implications of Brexit for what this Bill brings in?

Richard Moriarty: Regardless of Brexit, this is a set of provisions that we would be supporting. It is worth remembering that 77% of UK consumers choose their holiday in Europe. As John suggested, the position around insolvency protection may not be all the way up to ATOL gold standard, but it will be a lot better, and enhanced by this package travel directive, than it is today. The former directive we fall back on is from the early ’90s, which predates the growth of the internet and people buying their holidays online.

John de Vial: I support that. It is also part of our job, with the ATOL brand and our brand as the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s approved body, to promote the merits of the schemes in the UK with UK businesses, where those exceed the European base level.

[Richard Burden]

Q The Bill provides for an air travel trust to be set up by the Secretary of State, but also leaves open the possibility that that could be split into a number of trusts if circumstances change. Could you tell us a bit about what that is all about and the kind of circumstances?

Richard Moriarty: If I may, I will declare an interest as a trustee of the current air travel trust. The consultations and discussions that the Department has had with the industry and consumer groups have suggested that the position around how people buy holidays could change. They are very keen to have some flexibility. Rather than have one trust hardwired into legislation, they want to give themselves some more flexibility. For instance, one example that has been talked about a lot is linked travel arrangements, where it is not quite a package, but is two transactions for hotel and travel that are very closely associated. In my view, it would be prudent and sensible for Government to have the flexibility to respond to that. It is my understanding that that is why they are taking the enabling provision at the current time. In implementing that, I hope that they will follow the practice that they have followed today: consult with us, consult the industry, do the impact assessment, and so on.

[Richard Burden]

Q I would be grateful if I could explore one other area with you briefly. One thing that raised a number of eyebrows when this Bill was published was the fact that it did not say anything about the regulation or safety of drones. How do you see the existing regulatory framework, and if we were going to look to improve that framework, who do you think should be responsible, for example, for bringing in geo-fencing?

Richard Moriarty: Drones are something that we are spending an enormous amount of time on—getting the balance right between effective regulation to prevent aviation-related risks and allowing this new technology and market to grow. There is an existing set of regulations for both commercial and public operators, but it is worth highlighting two important initiatives that we should all take stock of.

First, the Government are consulting on the future regulation of drones at the moment; we are working with them on that. Also, at the European level, the European Aviation Safety Agency, EASA, is doing some important work, which we hope it will publish in April and which may relate to international manufacturing standards, because things like geo-fencing, which effectively prevents drones flying into controlled space, are only really effective if that can be done through international manufacturing standards. That is one of the reasons why we are keen to see that EASA publication, which is mooted for April, before we decide next steps.

[Mr Hayes]

Q On the issue of penalties in respect of ATOL, you will know that this Bill attempts to amend the Transport Act 2000. In respect of section 225 of the Transport Act 2000, you will also know that there is a responsibility to prepare and publish a policy statement on the use of penalties. How do you envisage these penalties taking shape, and how will you ensure that their use is proportionate?

Richard Moriarty: The first thing I would say is that our having powers to introduce financial penalties for NATS brings us into line with the powers that we have for airports. It also brings us into line with other economic regulatory regimes in energy, water and telecoms, so it brings the regulation of NATS up to the modern standards of the other sectors.

We already have a published policy on how we would go about issuing a financial penalty for the airports. My starting position would be that the policy should be similar for NATS. Financial penalties are rare events in economic regulation: they do not come around too often, and there is a good reason for that. But they are a necessary part of the armoury, if you like, to drive the right behaviours and give a deterrent effect.

We would obviously have a graduated approach to enforcement. That would start off through informal means—conversations with the company, looking to it to put the issue right. If that had failed, we would move on to a more formal footing with them. I tend to think of financial penalties as a bit of a last resort but, as I said, it is important to have them there because it incentivises the right behaviours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

Q Can I ask about rights in the Bill? The big change is that you make the modification and NATS has the right to appeal, as opposed to the co-determination model that we have at the moment. There is also a provision for other parties to appeal, including the owners or operators of aircraft that you consider appropriate and the owners or managers of prescribed aerodromes that you consider appropriate. I am struggling to work out who has got the right to appeal the modifications you make to NATS’s licence. What does prescribed aerodromes mean?

Richard Moriarty: The appeal mechanisms that are being introduced for NATS effectively replicate the same appeal mechanisms that we have for the regulated airports. For instance, an airline can appeal a determination that we make for Heathrow or Gatwick airport. There is an element of consistency across aviation in these provisions. Because NATS provides the London terminal airspace service, it also touches directly on some of the London airports—principally the large ones, but there may be some small London airports in it as well. It is right that the Government has a provision to name those airports, because they will be materially affected by certain decisions that we will take over the settlement that we reach with NATS.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from members of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence, and for their time and co-operation. It has been most helpful. Thank you very much. We are running a little ahead of schedule, so I propose to suspend the Committee until 4.10 pm, as the witnesses for the next panel have not yet arrived.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

Q Why only manslaughter? Why not murder, if somebody has deliberately used a laser as a weapon to dazzle pilots?

Richard Goodwin: If someone said, “Yes, I was trying to kill all the people on that plane and I did it,” then yes, absolutely.

[Richard Burden]

Q Commander Bray, you mentioned that you have written looking for a defined power for stop and search relating to lasers.

Simon Bray: Yes.

[Richard Burden]

Q For that to work, would it need to be predicated on a redefinition of lasers in some way as an offensive weapon?

Simon Bray: Not necessarily, no, in support of this Act, if we had a power—it would be sparingly used—to search individuals for lasers that had been used for the purposes of the offence under clause 22.

[Richard Burden]

Q If lasers were going to be defined in some way as offensive weapons, would the kind of laser need to be defined more closely?

Simon Bray: If some of these lasers were to be classified as an offensive weapon as a matter of course, we could use existing legislation to stop and search for them in any event.

[Richard Burden]

Q But if there were to be a reclassification to make them offensive weapons, would that reclassification somehow need to define the strength of laser involved?

Simon Bray: Yes.

[Richard Burden]

Q At the moment, there is no need to do that because the action of pointing a laser, however strong it is, at a vehicle is the offence. Presumably, without reclassifying them as offensive weapons, if you got your power of stop and search, that would be because of suspicion that the laser would be used for—or had been used for—that purpose. But if you were simply going to say that the possession of a laser could be the possession of an offensive weapon, would that need to define the strength of the laser?

Simon Bray: You would have to have the definition of what is an offensive weapon clearly in the process of stopping and searching or when trying to work out whether it is of that type. You would not know unless you had the laser tested afterwards to see whether it met the criteria.

Richard Goodwin: I am trying to rack my brains about reasonable excuse and lawful excuse, which is in the current offensive weapons legislation—why someone in a park at 10 o’clock at night has a laser in their pocket. I am slightly reluctant to go down the route of power because that is difficult for an operational officer at the time to understand and define. Some lasers come in as one thing and then turn out, when they are tested, to be something completely different. For me it is more about what that person intends to do with any laser, rather than about some of the more high-powered ones.

Paul Watts: It is not necessarily the power that is causing the threat, but the dazzle and the distraction that we spoke about. That effect would come from a very large power range of lasers.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Q Given your point that the power is not entirely relevant because the dazzle is so important, can you talk about the other equipment that exists with lasers today? Surveyors use lasers, and presumably there is a risk, so they must be cautious about how they use them. Driverless vehicles are likely to use lasers in different ways and various autonomous measuring equipment is likely to use lasers. Can you talk about the dangers that they pose and how they might be mitigated?

Steve Landells: Public Health England says that lasers under about 20 milliwatts will not cause any eye damage—so, provided that they are not pointing up in the air, they are not going to dazzle and distract, and they will not cause eye damage if they happen to strike your eye. A normal blinking reaction will take into account a 20-milliwatt laser, but the problem is that the ones we are seeing now are 2,500 milliwatts or 4,000 milliwatts. They are the problem. Depending on the uses that they are put to—astronomers use them as well—and providing that they are at the lower end of the power range, if they are not being pointed in the air with driverless cars and things like that, maybe that is not an issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

Q Are light displays a current issue for pilots?

Martin Drake: Generally speaking, no. The laser displays tend to be very broad beam—there is little collimation to the lasers. Displays tend to be licensed if they are close to airports, and we are usually told when they are there, so that is not really the issue. Paris has a laser that spins around the Eiffel tower, and Greenwich has one that goes up the Greenwich meridian at the moment. Those are not a problem to us at all. They tend to be low-level and pointed down across the heads of the crowd rather than up into the air.

One thing the measure would address is search and rescue. They have a thing called a laser flare, which has a fan of laser that, again, is not well collimated. The search and rescue aircraft can see those things for miles, so if someone is bobbing around in a little dinghy or is stuck on the top of a hill it is really useful. Obviously someone would not be intending to dazzle and distract—they would be intending to be rescued. I think there are legitimate uses that would be absolutely fine.

Steve Landells: Airliners tend to be going into a predictable place, whereas helicopter operators tend to operate in areas where you might not normally expect air traffic. It is probably not such a big issue for the airlines.

Simon Bray: But for people who, for example, have a laser and want to shine it on the clouds, the big question is whether they have exercised all due diligence and taken all reasonable precautions. That is going to be the crux of it at court.

[Richard Burden]

Q May I move on to another subject? In the previous panel I asked Mr Moriarty to comment on the fact that there is nothing in the Bill relating to the regulation of drones. It is an omission from the Bill that has been commented on in a number of quarters. Do the rest of you have any observations on whether the Bill could be usefully extended to say something about drone safety? If so, what?

Steve Landells: From BALPA’s point of view, we would like to see the Bill extended to include drones. The prime thing we would like to see is a mandatory registration process for drones. At the moment, anyone can buy a drone and fly it anywhere, and they do not have to take any responsibility for it. At the moment, if the police find a drone inside the environs of an airport or on the runway, they have no idea who that drone belongs to. We would really like to see a compulsory registration process.

Perhaps before first flight you would have to go online to get an unlock code. During that process we could get exposure to the rules and an online test for a drone operator. That would also mean that the operators would have an idea of what the rules were. A lot of the problems being caused by drones are through ignorance— 17 near-misses were reported between manned aircraft and drones last year—so we need to educate the people flying the drones that there are rules and regulations in place. It is a dangerous thing to do, and we think that a compulsory registration scheme would address a lot of the problems.

Simon Bray: We would not disagree with that. We are mindful that there need to be restrictions around particular locations, as there are currently. However, in the case of aircraft, it matters not hugely where you put in those restrictions; it is the whole bit about the flight paths in and out that we have concerns about.

[Kit Malthouse]

Q I have a couple of quick questions. I was slightly concerned about the definition of a vehicle. In the Bill it says that it means

“any thing used for travel by land, water or air”.

Do you think it might be sensible to extend that slightly to include vehicles that are not used for travel such as bulldozers and very tall cranes in the scope? Does a police horse used for travel count as a vehicle? If a police horse in a public order situation were to be dazzled by lasers, should it be included? The definition is quite specific, so do you feel it might benefit from being widened a little?

Simon Bray: I think it would be worth looking at. Things like police horses could be dealt with in different ways—cruelty to animals, assault of the police officers riding them and so on. It would be worth looking at that to ensure that the definition is suitably inclusive of some of the things you just mentioned.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill

Richard Burden Excerpts

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

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I, too, thank all those hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate: the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), who leads for the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), and the hon. Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)—a self-confessed petrol-head—and the hon. Members for Southport (John Pugh), for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). All of them, in different ways, made highly perceptive speeches and posed questions it will be important for the Minister to pick up in winding up the debate. Indeed, many of them also raised issues that we will need to pursue further in Committee.

We have been waiting patiently, for some months, for the Bill to make its way to its Second Reading, although when we talked about it in the past, it was known as the modern transport Bill. Apparently its name had to be changed because the word “modern” is not considered a parliamentary term. Make of that what you will, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I can understand if the original title created difficulties for the Minister of State, given his love of classics and his disagreements with what he described last year as modernist determinism. Whatever the Bill is called, I can confirm that Labour will not oppose its Second Reading. Indeed, we broadly support its aims. May I add my thanks to the Minister of State for the collegiate way in which he has approached it so far? I am sure that that spirit will continue throughout its Committee stage.

I am sure that the parts of the Bill that will attract most attention, in Committee and during its other stages, and as has happened today, are those concerned with automotive issues. Before I come to those, though, I will say a few words about some of the other things that the Bill covers.

The Bill clarifies the basis on which diversionary courses that are used as an alternative to fixed penalty notices can be charged, and in another section and other clauses it proposes greater use of the private sector to carry out a number of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency’s vehicle testing duties. Both of those changes may make sense, but we will want to be assured in Committee that neither of them will have adverse effects. It is timely to remind the Government of what the Transport Committee and so many others have told them, namely that however valuable diversionary courses are, they are in no way a substitute for the proper enforcement of the laws that we have passed in this place to keep our roads safe, and that cuts of up to a third in traffic police numbers are incompatible with that effective enforcement.

The changes that the Bill makes to the licensing relationship between the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS appear to have widespread support from stakeholders. I hope that Ministers will confirm, in response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State at the start of the debate, that they have no plans to pursue any further privatisation of NATS. There will, of course, be questions to address in Committee about the impact that Brexit may have on the safe and efficient management of our skies.

Likewise, the Bill’s provisions relating to the air travel organiser’s licence arise from a European directive and offer the prospect of better protection for holidaymakers. Again, however, in Committee we will want to press Ministers for more detail, both on that directive and on the implications of Brexit.

I am pleased that the Government are taking action to address the problem of lasers being shone at aircraft and other vehicles. We do not, however, understand why Ministers are not using the opportunity presented by the Bill to introduce proposals to ensure safety and better regulation with regard to the use of drones. I know that they are consulting on that issue, but the timetable for that consultation and for the Bill is entirely in their hands. The Bill could be an important opportunity to sort out that matter, but it has not been included, so we put Ministers on notice that we want them to act. We will pursue that in Committee.

I now turn to those parts of the Bill that deal with automotive technology. We are living through a fourth industrial revolution, which is transforming our horizons in automotive technology and automotive travel. Connected information systems are already starting to enable us to make smart choices about how and where journeys are most appropriately taken by car and when other forms of mobility are more appropriate. There is no more powerful example of why we need to be better at making those smart choices than the 40,000 people who die prematurely every year because of the air quality crisis that is choking our towns and cities, and to which emissions from road transport are a major contributor—a theme that has come up several times during this debate. But the choices we make will not simply be about the journeys for which we use cars or the kind of engine that powers the car. We will also be talking about how and when the driver wishes to be in control of the vehicle, and when to switch control to the technology in the vehicle. It is an exciting prospect, which potentially has huge benefits for road safety. It is also a very challenging prospect, not least in relation to liability when something goes wrong. That is why the Bill is right to mandate insurance for a vehicle when it is controlled by its technology rather than by its driver. As we have heard in many contributions today, however, that equation is far from simple and that aspect of the Bill requires scrutiny.

The problem with the Bill is that Ministers seek to future-proof the legislation by giving themselves very wide-ranging powers not only to determine the rules but to define even the vehicles to which the rules will apply. Of course, none of the technology stands still and it will be impossible to cover everything in the Bill, so we accept that many issues will have to be covered by secondary legislation. But that cannot mean that Ministers should be given a blank cheque. We want to know the criteria by which Ministers will make decisions; we want to know whom they will consult and how; and we want to make sure there are regular reviews of progress on the effectiveness of the measures in the Bill and the rate of technological advance in the areas that it seeks to regulate. If the Bill ends up being behind the curve, and if it leads to spiralling insurance costs for automated vehicles, it will be self-defeating.

The Bill is also right to mandate improvements in the charging infrastructure for electric vehicles across the UK. For that infrastructure to be fit for purpose, moreover, it has to be of sufficient scale, the charge points have to work with a range of different vehicle makes and the pricing has to be clear and transparent. I welcome the fact that the Bill tries to address all those things. Once again, however, it concentrates on giving Ministers powers to develop regulations covering the charging infrastructure through secondary legislation. I can see why an element of that is required to future-proof the legislation, but this cannot simply be blank-cheque land. Ministers need to be clear now that they will carry out meaningful consultation as they devise their plans, and that the plans, once introduced, will be open to the scrutiny they deserve.

Motorway infrastructure is not the only issue, but several comments have been made on Second Reading that deserve attention, not least those about the impact on the national grid of the extension of charging point infrastructure envisaged in the Bill. Expanding infrastructure for charging electric vehicles on motorways is a key part of creating the conditions for many more people and companies to switch to ultra-low emission vehicles in future, but it is only part of the picture. Electric vehicles will be an important part of that future but so, too, as we have heard, will hydrogen fuel cell and other technologies. In the journey towards an ultra-low emission future, intermediate technologies such as LPG are also important. Our infrastructure strategy must reflect all those things.

The capital cost of buying an ultra-low emission vehicle and uncertainty about residual values and battery ranges are significant barriers to more rapid expansion of the market in electric and ultra-low emission vehicles. It will be for the industry to deliver solutions to the technological aspects of those issues, and rapid progress is being made, but Government can help to accelerate the pace of change by encouraging more active procurement of ultra-low emission vehicles by public authorities and putting in place the right consumer incentives. It is difficult to know how the cuts that the Government have made to grant support for plug-in vehicles are compatible with the consumer incentives that are needed.

At a broader level, an active industrial policy is vital to make sure that the UK is in pole position in developing and making the connected, automated and ultra-low emission vehicles of the future, and in creating the highly skilled jobs that a modern economy needs, as well as in boosting the market for the vehicles themselves. If ever there was a day when it was appropriate to emphasise that, it is today, when PSA has announced its purchase of Vauxhall/Opel from General Motors. We cannot afford to relax and let someone else do the driving on that.

We also need a laser-like focus on building our skills base, as people in the automotive industry have urged us time and again. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) was right to emphasise the gender dimension to building such a skills base. Let us remember that we are not only talking about the skills in automotive research development and manufacturing, important though those are. If people need a CORGI—Council for Registered Gas Installers—certificate to repair a gas boiler, is it not time we had proper accreditation of qualifications for maintaining and servicing the new generation of sophisticated, connected and automated vehicles?

This is a worthwhile Bill, but the transition to a low-carbon, low-emission and sustainable future is a journey in itself. The Bill is a contribution to that, but the Government need to do much more to make it happen.

Road Traffic Law Enforcement

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes, I think for the first time. I cannot claim to be a West Ham supporter—I very much hope you will forgive me for that.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

You should claim to not be a West Ham supporter.

[Richard Burden]

I will not rise to the Minister’s bait, even though he tempts me to do so. I congratulate the Transport Committee and its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), on securing this debate and on considering the Government’s road safety strategy and, in particular, the issue of enforcement. I thank the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) for their important contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend’s contribution was remarkable. As he observed, he managed—according to the annunciator—to achieve omnipresence, being here in Westminster Hall and speaking in the Chamber simultaneously.

This is a really important report. We all know—it has been mentioned several times in the debate—that the UK has a proud road safety record. At least, it had one for almost two decades, when deaths and serious injuries fell sharply, but the worrying reality is that since 2010 that progress has stalled. The latest rolling figures show that there has been no reduction in total road deaths and a 2% increase in serious casualties in the past 12 months. Meanwhile, even though a great deal was achieved over those decades, drinking and driving-related casualties have been effectively stuck at about 240 a year since 2010.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, and all hon. Members who spoke, drew attention to the situation regarding mobile phone use at the wheel. I know that at the end of last year the Government introduced more stringent measures on mobile phone use, which are welcome. However, is that really enough when the RAC’s latest report on motoring estimates that almost one in three drivers still thinks it is okay to check their phone while at the wheel? In the way that it was made socially unacceptable to ignore having seatbelts in a car or to drink and drive, we must use every tool at our disposal to change the culture of drivers using mobile phones at the wheel.

Personally, like my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse, I do not doubt the Government’s sincerity on road safety. However, the reality of their record has been one of disappointment in recent years. They are failing on their manifesto commitment to reduce casualties year on year. Some important causes of that failure have already been alluded to. The first, which my hon. Friend was right to mention, concerns road safety targets. They were introduced under Labour, and I have no doubt that they successfully reduced the number of KSIs—those killed or seriously injured. The reduction was about a third. Road safety targets focused minds and attention, and I still do not see the reason and logic behind the Government’s persistent refusal to bring them back. As my hon. Friend mentioned, why, when we support international targets at the UN and European level, do we still reject them as far as our own country is concerned?

We also need to think about whether the Government’s 2015 road safety statement was really up to the mark. I do not think it was. There was no clear statement of resources or guidance for local authorities, and there were no objective measures to improve young drivers’ safety. Throughout virtually all of the last Parliament we were eagerly awaiting a Green Paper on young drivers that never materialised. It was going to be published “next year”, then “at Christmas” and then “shortly”, but then it never came at all. The 2015 statement also had no mention of the “Vision Zero” goal that other countries have adopted—the goal of eliminating deaths as part of a safe systems approach to road safety. As for measures to protect vulnerable road users, we are still waiting for the fully funded cycling and walking strategy that the Government have been promising “shortly”—in their word—for quite an extraordinary length of time.

The fact is that the Government’s approach on this issue has been piecemeal and limited in effect. Central to that failure is the title of today’s debate and the key recommendation underlined by the Transport Committee in its report last year: the question of enforcement. According to the response to my written question on 1 February, official figures show that since 2010 the number of officers outside the Metropolitan police with road policing functions has fallen from 5,337 to 3,436. That is a cut of about one third; it is actually a bigger cut than that identified by the Transport Committee. The Committee is right to say that a combination of education, engineering and penalties is key to improving safety conditions, but also that those things

“must be backed up by effective enforcement with road users knowing that infringements will be detected.”

That brings me to the question of how policing priorities are set and the constraints in that regard. The Government can say that policing priorities are a matter for local forces, and in a sense that is right—it is important that they are set locally and reflect local conditions—but they cannot be in any way meaningful if the police up and down the country simply do not have the resources to deliver the priorities that they want to deliver across the piece.

As the Transport Committee noted in paragraph 7 of the report, road policing is not a nationally set strategic priority, and the variation in strategies appears to be continuing. For example, in quarter 1 of last year, seven forces did not even submit casualty reports to the Government on time, forcing the DFT to estimate the figures. Meanwhile, across the country we have seen fixed penalty notices for mobile phone usage plummet by not far short of 90% over five years. I would like to think that that reflects a sea change in the attitude of motorists to using mobile phones, but I think we know from the RAC report and elsewhere that the reality is likely to be different. In evidence to the Select Committee, the Institute of Advanced Motorists noted that the falling levels of enforcement risk developing a culture in which being caught is seen as a matter of bad luck rather than bad driving.

I therefore ask the Minister to address the question that has been put to him twice in this debate so far. Will he reveal what impact assessment he has done on the effect of falling police numbers on road safety, and if there has been no such impact assessment, will he please undertake one? Can he also assure us that he will speak to his Home Office colleagues to ensure that forces send through accurate and timely casualty reports, which are essential? What meetings has he had with the Association of Chief Police Officers following the report from the Transport Committee and the latest statistics for the number of officers involved in road safety duties?

I have no doubt that every police and crime commissioner and every chief constable in this country wants to see safe roads. I have no doubt that every single one of them wants to devote as many officers as they can to achieving safety on our roads. However, if they do not have the resources to do that, all too often it is road traffic policing that ends up falling off the end of the list of priorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse was right: the Department for Transport has a key role to play if that culture is to be turned around.

There needs to be a cross-Government strategy. It is vital that central Government does not work in silos on this issue and that the DFT steps up to take the lead on how we can ensure that the necessary resources are made available for effective enforcement. I hope the Government will think about how road safety can be integrated into their third attempt at producing a clean air strategy, and will they also think about whether the second road investment strategy can allocate a specific budget to road safety?

I hope that the Minister will address the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside about ensuring that cross-border work on road safety, particularly in relation to the European Union, is maintained at a high level and that Brexit does not jeopardise or undermine that.

Will the Government also think about what levers can be used to incentivise further the uptake of telematics or black boxes and the use of technology to deter mobile phone use at the wheel, which various hon. Members have mentioned? Could the recently published Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, which has clauses on automated vehicles, be used as a vehicle—pardon the expression—for pursuing some of those agendas?

I hope the Minister will recognise, from today’s debate and others, that there is cross-party concern about this issue. I hope he will agree to take full stock of his Government’s road safety approach and recognise that despite their sincere pledges to improve road safety, the strategy is falling short as things stand. This is a cross-ministerial challenge for not only his Department but the Ministry of Justice and, equally, the Home Office. I hope he will ensure that the Home Office, police and local authorities are all on the same page and have the capacity, in practice, to enforce the law as we all want to see it enforced.

I would like to end with four further questions to the Minister on improving road safety. Will he commit to ensuring that all police forces have sufficient support to deliver reductions in all forms of casualties? What work is he undertaking to review the Scottish drink-drive limits that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South mentioned? We need to look at what the impact has been of reducing the limit there and whether we can learn any lessons.

Will the Minister give us a timeframe for when the cycling and walking investment strategy will be published and an assurance that it will have the resources to back it up when finally it is published? Finally, will he listen to campaigners within the road safety community and do what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside has urged him to do, and which I urge him again to do, by reinstating road safety targets? They can perform a valuable role in achieving the vision of nobody being killed or seriously injured on our roads in future.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I am not sure I have served under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I am not a West Ham supporter; I have to put that on the record right away. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing this debate. Before we go any further, I must say that I will relay the comments on road policing to the Minister responsible in the Home Office. I have regular meetings with colleagues in the Home Office. This is very much a cross-departmental initiative, and we have had some very positive moves. I expect to see that continue.

In the Government’s road safety statement in December 2015, we welcomed the fact that the Transport Committee was looking at this topic, and I am happy to reiterate that welcome in today’s debate. This debate is extremely timely. Three weeks ago, my Department published road casualty statistics for the third quarter of last year. The figures for those killed and seriously injured on our roads showed an increase of 6% in the year ending 2016 compared with 2015. That is clearly a move in the wrong direction, and we must not in any way be complacent, but we must also be cautious before jumping to conclusions. There is not enough evidence yet to conclude that the change can be explained by statistical natural variation in deaths over time. I am very aware that we will want to keep that under close review.

We have a manifesto commitment to reduce the number of road users, including cyclists, who are killed or injured on our roads every year. Enforcing road traffic laws to ensure that offenders pay the penalty for their wrongdoing can help to get that statistic on a downward trend again. I was asked whether I met regularly with the police service on the matter, and I do. The police lead is Chief Constable Suzette Davenport from Gloucestershire. I have also written to each of the forces around the country about their reporting, so I am happy to give confirmation right away on some of the questions asked.

[Richard Burden]

Before the Minister leaves the question of the police, I accept and am pleased about what he said before—that he will talk to his Home Office colleagues—but he was also asked a direct question on at least two occasions today about whether he had undertaken any review of the reductions in police numbers devoted to road policing and the impact on road safety. If he has not undertaken any such review, will he do so?

[Andrew Jones]

We look at all the ingredients that combine to influence road safety. On penalties for use of mobile phones, for example, it was highlighted that the number of penalties issued had fallen significantly—that is a fact—but during that time the number of people who have suddenly lost their lives in incidents in which handheld mobile phone use was considered a factor has remained exactly the same. The figure has been consistent. That tells us that mobile phone use is an ingredient, but that there is no direct causal link between one fact and another—a number of factors are in play. Do I think that enforcement matters, however? Yes, I do. I agree entirely with the principles of education, engineering and enforcement. Are we reviewing that? Yes, it is one of the many ingredients that we review constantly.

To go back to the big four, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, the most common traffic offence is indeed speeding. We know that excessive speed kills, and I agree with the Select Committee that cameras are an important and effective technology in detecting speeding offences. We use technology in every other part of human life, so why on earth would we not use it in something as critically important as road safety? I occasionally get letters saying, “We need to remove cameras. They are an infringement of civil liberties”, or that we are unfairly targeting motorists. That is absolute nonsense. It is, however, for local authorities and local police forces to determine where cameras should be sited for their best effect.

The best effect lies, I agree, in getting drivers to respect the speed limits, not in simply generating revenue. Where a camera generates significant ongoing revenue, the local safety partnership should be asking why and whether, for example, the speed limits are clearly signed. The Government are not generally in favour of hypothecating tax revenues—we are no different from Governments of all colours over many years—but, having said that, we are working to hypothecate the vehicle excise duty to Highways England and the road investment strategy. There is not, however, a parallel between hypothecating speed fines and road safety.

I agree that there is a high level of compliance—the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) called it “obedience”, but it is compliance. That is the word we are looking for when we see the use of average speed cameras, because a marked change in driver behaviour results. That is a personal observation. He also asked if we had information from communities on local camera use and so on. I do not have that information, but I will see whether we can find some. If we can, I will share it with the hon. Gentleman.

Drink-driving is clearly a critical issue. We certainly take seriously the threat that all dangerous drivers, including drink and drug-drivers, pose to the safety of other road users. However, I must be up front and say that we have no plans to change the drink-drive limit. The rigorous enforcement of the limit and the serious penalties for drink-driving in this country are a more effective deterrent than changing the limit. We may have a higher drink-drive limit than other countries, but we also have a more successful culture of enforcement and of removing the issue than other countries.

It is also fair to recognise that we have made other changes. We changed drink-driving legislation in April 2015 to require high-risk offenders to undertake medical tests before they are allowed to drive again. We have also removed the so-called statutory option that allowed suspected drink-drivers the choice of an evidential breath test or a specimen of blood or urine, which afforded the potential for people to sober up during the time lag between the two. That option has now gone. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) is correct in saying that the average blood alcohol level for those stopped and convicted is not in the 50 to 80 mg category, which represents about 2% of those stopped. The average is in the 150 to 180 mg category. The people causing drink-drive problems pay absolutely no regard to drink-drive limits; they just do not think that the limits apply to them. The limits are not the issue here.

The Select Committee report did not explicitly consider drug-driving, but the Government’s response did, noting that drugs in a driver’s bloodstream can pose as much of a danger as alcohol. We have provided £1 million to police forces in England and Wales to support drug-driving enforcement. The evidence so far is that it has been highly successful, and for 2016 we are expecting an eightfold to tenfold increase over the previous year. When the data come out, we will be able to confirm that properly, but that is the indication thus far. We have some time to go before we get the final data, but it is clearly a successful policy.

The anecdotal feedback from police services around the country is that it has been a great addition to their toolkit, and that they have used the drug-driving laws to disrupt far more criminal activity, such as drug-dealing rings, tackling the drivers to take the rings out of circulation for a period. That is interesting. It is not exactly why we introduced the drug-driving rules, but it is a welcome side effect nevertheless. In March last year, just as the Select Committee report was being published, we launched a THINK! campaign to educate people about the dangers of drug-driving and send a clear message that it is unacceptable. A point was made about social unacceptability. We want drug-driving to be as socially unacceptable as drink-driving. We as a society are a little further back on that journey, but it is clearly the direction that we want to go in. I want everybody to know that the consequences for drug-driving will be serious.

We talked a little about mobile phone use, particularly under the heading of distractions. I know that the Select Committee welcomes the higher penalties that Parliament has approved for drivers who use their mobile phones. Whether they are calling, texting or using an app, motorists caught using a handheld device will receive a fixed penalty notice of £200 and six penalty points on their driving licence. The changes will come into effect next week, on 1 March, making it one of the toughest fixed penalties. Drivers risk losing their licence after two offences, totalling 12 points, and new drivers who reach six points in one offence will lose their licence right away and have to retake both theory and practical driving tests. Such penalties will be effective only if drivers believe that an offence will be detected.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse asked whether fixed penalty notices were still appropriate. Our police service has operational independence. It is fair to say, though, that the Government would like more fixed penalty notices to be issued, particularly at the start of this major change to the penalty regime, so that the heavy penalties are understood and widely communicated and are used to effect behaviour change, because that is what this is about. If people see others losing their licences, it will effect a behaviour change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

It is certainly true that we need to make the transition to low-emission vehicles affordable. We are not in the business, as a Government who champion the cause of ordinary, hard-working people, of penalising people to the point at which they cannot go about their lives or access employment and other opportunities in a way in which the whole House would expect, so it is absolutely right that we take a measured view. Having said that, we have to make more progress, and being measured does not mean being complacent. As I set out earlier, we will make that progress, and we will change minds and behaviour through what we do.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Following the Transport Committee hearing earlier in the week, am I right in thinking that Volkswagen situation now denies any wrongdoing in the UK but still feels obliged to fix 472,000 vehicles, with another half a million remaining to be looked at? The company says it has provided the Government with all the information requested, but the Minister denies that, and it is refusing to publish the report it commissioned from its lawyers, Jones Day. The Minister told the House in November that there would be a “steely fist” in his “velvet glove” if Volkswagen did not meet its obligations, so will he tell the House what that steely fist will actually mean and what he will actually do when he meets VW again next month?

[Mr Hayes]

First, to establish the detail of what Volkswagen has and has not done, and what the Government have asked it to do, it might be best if I let the hon. Gentleman and the House have a copy of the letter I have just written to Mr Willis, which sets out how and where Volkswagen has not done what the Government have asked. Secondly, as I said a moment ago, I am determined to use every avenue to pursue the interests of the consumer. The Secretary of State and I will travel to Berlin to meet German counterparts to have discussions because much of the evidence lies there, where the tests were done. Yesterday I met the legal representatives of the consumers who are moving a private prosecution against Volkswagen. I will leave no avenue unexplored and no stone unturned. My steely fist is now a galvanised steely fist.

Aviation Security (Reasoned Opinion)

Richard Burden Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 General Committees

[The Chair]

I thank the Minister. We now have until 5.35 pm at the latest for members of the Committee to ask questions. Members, at my discretion, can ask more than one question in an exchange.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and to serve alongside the Minister. We were just saying that the last time I did so was on the Infrastructure Bill, which went on for a great deal longer than this debate will.

I have a few questions. First, the Government’s explanatory memorandum, the Minister and the Under-Secretary in the other place, Lord Ahmad, have all said that there have been improvements in the European Civil Aviation Conference’s common evaluation process in recent years. I would be grateful if the Minister can outline those improvements and how they address some of the issues that the regulation is intended to address.

Secondly, both the Government and the European Scrutiny Committee expressed concerns about the impact that this regulation could have on the ability of member states to implement higher standards and more stringent measures on aviation security equipment. I am not entirely clear whether that is a theoretical concern or whether it is based on any evidence. Are there any examples of similar regulations that have caused that to happen?

Thirdly, since the publication of the European agenda on security, have the UK Government been consulting with other member states on aviation security equipment? Does that have any significance for the European Commission’s argument for this proposal on the subsidiarity principle? There may be a link between my first question and my third.

Fourthly, as the Minister is aware, the European Commission drew up five policy options in its impact assessment for this proposal. It would be useful to know the Government’s position on those five options.

[Mr Hayes]

On the third question—to maintain the Committee’s interest, it is important that I mix up the order of my answers—it is certainly true that the UK Government have enjoyed close co-operation with other European countries on aviation security. Indeed, by necessity, our approach to aviation security is pan-national, and not just with European countries. The Home Office has worked with countries from around the world that are important destinations for UK travellers to improve airport security, including by sharing equipment and expertise where appropriate. In specific relation to the proposal, we have worked with other members of the EU. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton mentioned France. France is known to share our view on the proposal, and it is likely that other countries will, too. I will not go exhaustively into the process that will now enjoin the European Union as a result, but it is likely that a considerable number of countries will try to ameliorate, mitigate or block the proposal. Indeed, France is already actively, in the way the hon. Gentleman mentioned, doing what we are being asked to do today.

In answer to the first question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, which was on the development of standards, I mentioned ECAC and the role it has played over a considerable time. We have succeeded in developing standards that essentially do two things. Actually, they do three things—I am receiving advice, which I will use to supplement what I am saying, as Ministers always should. You know that, Mr Hanson, from your time as a distinguished Minister in the Home Office.

The first thing the standards do is take advantage of cutting-edge technology. In practice, that means we are trying to detect more things more accurately. The read-out from the latest scanning technology is clearer. It is designed to detect smaller items that might be concealed about someone’s person or in their baggage. In essence, it is about having a speedier, more effective process.

Secondly, the process produces fewer false alarms. False alarms are important in this area, because they delay the process and the alacrity necessary for the efficient practice of airports. Having fewer false alarms reassures people about the certainties in the system. If there are many false alarms, that undermines confidence on the part of airport staff and others that the system will deliver when it needs to.

Thirdly, co-operation in the scientific community among security experts in both the private sector and the public sector is facilitated by the ECAC process. Discussion at Government level and at primary source level—if we think of the technologies, the scientists and the businesses as primary sources of the equipment—is facilitated by the process. Improvements are being made, is the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s first question.

The hon. Gentleman’s second question was about why the proposal might do harm. The risk is that, at its worst, it could force us to accept technology that does not detect the latest threats. If we moved away from the ECAC system, which is essentially what the proposal means, we would be transferring power to the Commission under the guise of that slightly Orwellian term, “harmonisation”. I have a very balanced view of the EU, as members of the Committee know—I take an immensely reasonable position—but when it comes to the EU, that term is usually a proxy for taking power.

Under the guise of harmonisation and with the delegation of responsibility to individual member states, it is not inconceivable that we could end up with equipment that was less effective than it needed to be. I am concerned about that. I do not say that it is a likelihood, but it is a possibility under the proposed regime. Fundamentally, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. ECAC seems to be working well, so it does not need to be changed. As I said at the outset, the provision seems unnecessary.

Was there a fourth question? If so, what was it?

[Richard Burden]

The fourth question was about the policy options that the Commission is looking at.

[Mr Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he said, we have worked together before. There are options to try to mitigate the provision. He will be as familiar as other members of the Committee with how the process works in Europe. There will be continuing discussions before the provision gets to the point of being implemented. If it were to be implemented, that would be at least two years down the line. The question that has not been asked—almost the question that dare not speak its name—is, what will happen to this proposal in relation to Brexit? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says he is coming to that, and I have rather unkindly anticipated his next question.

To be frank, I cannot see us implementing this proposal and we will do all we can not to do so. If we could not mitigate the proposals in the process that we will now endure and if we could not build a sufficient blocking minority among other nations—which I think we probably could—I suppose it would be theoretically possible that we might end up having it forced upon us for a very short period.

My real anxiety, however, which will be spinning through the hon. Gentleman’s mind at the moment, is what happens to other European countries. Even if we were not part of this scheme—if ECAC is undermined by this—we might all in the end be losers. It is in the interest not just of our country, but of all the countries of Europe, that we affirm our support for the existing arrangements, which seem to me to work well. The frank answer is that we will oppose this proposal at every turn and try to stop it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

Hon. Members could be forgiven for thinking that the regulation before us might be regarded as a bit dry. I guess it is, but the issues behind it—the Minister made this point—are undoubtedly important. As a country, we face significant threats to security, particularly in aviation. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton, who is a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, referred to the attack on Brussels airport, which gives us all pause for thought, as does what happened to flight MS804.

It is important that the EU, the UK Government and the aviation industry all work proactively and in co-ordination to address the challenges we face in aviation security. That, of course, includes some common basic standards internationally, and probably at EU level as well. It is also important to understand and to ask the question put by both the Minister and the European Scrutiny Committee about the appropriate mechanisms for doing that—how, in practical terms, we spread best practice.

That is something I saw for myself during a visit to Gatwick airport in November last year, and it was more about the monitoring than the equipment itself. A new system had been introduced at Gatwick, where the monitoring of security scans as the hand luggage went along the conveyor belt was done remotely in a different room, without the distraction of being done there and then by airport staff. They were convinced that that led to better monitoring of the screen.

The people at Gatwick were also convinced that the new system made for a better customer experience, because those who were looking at the screen were uninterrupted and those getting bags off, on and through were concerned about the customer experience. I must admit that I was pretty convinced by that. The discussion I had with staff at Gatwick was how that kind of experience could be spread to other airports.

Turning to some of the concerns that have been raised about the proposal, I acknowledge and note the concerns of the Government as detailed in the explanatory memorandum, as well as those of the European Scrutiny Committee. As the Minister has said, there have been similar concerns in other member states—in France’s National Assembly, for one. The concern is that, if this measure went through as a regulation, rather than a directive, a voluntary agreement or whatever else, it would prevent or undermine the ability of member states to apply stricter measures than the common basic standards.

We have similar concerns. First, it is unclear whether the proposal would restrict the ability of member states to judge the adequacy of security screening equipment, particularly in response to specific security threats. Although all member states face threats, not all of them face the same threats at the same time, so it is important that member states are able to introduce more stringent measures and higher standards in response to new intelligence or technological developments. In any case, that would go beyond the minimum legal standards that the proposal would introduce.

In an accompanying factsheet, the European Commission tried to allay such concerns:

“This proposal does not limit the possibility for any EU Member State to apply more stringent measures for performance requirements as envisaged in the currently applicable EU aviation security legislation.”

The Commission said on the record that the proposal will not restrict more stringent measures being operated. It would be useful if there were more explicit clarification on what is theoretical and what is real. We all agree that it would be wrong for anything to undermine the ability of member states to adopt more stringent measures. The question is, would the measure actually do so?

There were also concerns about the consultation that the Commission undertook and the absence of a consultation in the UK. The European Commission conducted a consultation between March and June 2013, and it received responses that it suggests expressed general support at that stage for a legislative approach—option 3 of its five options. That consultation is now well over three years old, and there have obviously been a lot of developments since then, not least in technology. The Commission’s proposal claims that

“the results of the public consultation can be considered as representative since all the main stakeholder groups responded”,

but the consultation had only 37 respondents across all European member states, eight of which were from the UK.

I appreciate that there has been no formal consultation in the UK, but the Government’s explanatory memorandum states that there have been informal discussions with stakeholders. It would be useful to know whether those discussions identified an industry opinion about the proposal. I would appreciate it if the Minister addressed that point, and I would be obliged if he explored options for a more formal consultation on the issue with a wider section of the industry. That would help to identify whether the production and procurement of aviation security equipment is principally seen as an issue for the airports, the airlines, the handling companies or the manufactures. Further, if the Government are to explore options for action with other member states, rather than accepting EU-wide regulation, what action are they going to take?

As the Minister predicted, I turn to the elephant in the room: the UK’s intended departure from the EU. If and when Brexit happens, it will be important to know not simply whether the regulation will have gone through by then, but what the situation will be concerning spreading best practice and adopting international co-operation over best practice for aviation security equipment. There will still be a need to ensure compatibility and higher standards in other countries and between countries. Recent security scares and concerns have not been chiefly about safety in the UK. They have often been about security and safety elsewhere, and about bags and other items of equipment going from one place through a second place to a third place. There is a real issue that came up in the aftermath of MS804.

There were a lot of concerns among trade unions involved in aviation and elsewhere that, if there is inadequate security and screening at a departure airport and the flight connects with another flight, at that middle airport is that bag going to be screened and, if so, by whom and to what standard?

If there is any doubt about the answer to that, the need for common standards that ensure there is, one hopes, a higher but at least an adequate level of screening at every airport from which the plane departs, through which it goes and where it connects, is more important than ever. More work needs to be done in this area to achieve greater equivalence. Aside from any faults it may include, the regulation at least tries to present a way to discuss and explore that pressing issue.

Therefore, I repeat my last question to the Minister: what do the Government believe should happen to address that problem? I understand his concerns and those of the European Scrutiny Committee about the proposal as a regulation, but would those apply if it were a directive or if one of the other European Commission options were adopted? If and when the UK does leave the European Union, what is the future of ECAC? What is the future for that international co-operation to ensure that passengers and aviation and airline staff are kept as safe as they can be?

I note the concerns expressed by the European Scrutiny Committee and the Government about article 4 of the proposal, but I hope the Government will take on board the other concerns I have outlined, and begin to address the need for improvements and stakeholder consultation, as well as greater equivalence expressed as levelling up of aviation security standards across Europe, and indeed further afield.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman has raised three or four important points and it is important, because of the significance of this subject, that I address them. He is right that aviation security is a matter of profound concern to us all. I do not need to rehearse the events of recent years but it is very clear to members of the Committee and clear more widely that it is vital that we are as sure as we can be about safety and security at our airports. The Government are absolutely committed to that aim.

The hon. Gentleman is right, as I said earlier, that this has to be considered pan-nationally. The nature of the business we are in, travelling from one place to another, means the point at which someone arrives is as important as the point of departure. To that end, the Government will continue to work with countries across the world—not just across Europe—to maintain and raise standards.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the real chance of this proposal from the European Commission having a deleterious effect on our ability to do the things I have just described. Let me be clear that the proposal is that each member state will be required to designate a body severally, with responsibility for approving the compliance of equipment that is used in the delivery of EU security rules by issuing an EU type approval certificate on the basis of prototype testing.

Once a state has granted type approval to a manufacturer for a particular model of equipment, that would then be valid throughout the EU. The manufacturer would then issue a certificate of conformity to accompany each new piece of equipment. However, the proposed new regulation’s article 4, to which I draw the attention of the Committee, appears to override that provision on internal market grounds by expressly prohibiting member states from imposing “additional requirements” in respect of any equipment that has been approved by any other EU member states under the proposed regime. For the benefit of Members who do not have the text in front of them, the article states:

“Member States shall not impede the making available and/or putting into service of any equipment which is accompanied by a valid certificate of conformity issued in accordance with Article 5”—

which I mentioned a moment ago, and:

“They shall not impose additional requirements in respect of such equipment.”

That is not what happens now. ECAC devised and delivered a baseline standard, and countries across Europe are able to build on it. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is absolutely right that we maintain those baseline standards, and that we do more as necessary. As I think he said, it is also right that different countries do different things at different times, because not only does the technology change, but the threat is dynamic.

Our fear is—although legally this is not absolutely clear, to be honest—that it is possible that the measure could have the disadvantageous effect mentioned by the hon. Gentleman as a question, and to which I alluded earlier.

[Richard Burden]

I understand what the Minister is saying, but I still put that against the assurance of the European Commission in the quote I cited. The Commission seemed to be saying—certainly its impact assessment stated this—that the proposal would allow producers to market and sell their products throughout the European Union once certified by one member state. It does not state, as I understand it, that therefore any airport or member state has to buy those products when it has more stringent requirements of its own.

[Mr Hayes]

It does not say that—the hon. Gentleman is right. It does not oblige member states or particular airports to buy that equipment, but given that what applies at the moment is that we have the baseline standards that I outlined, and some countries and airports choose to do more, it is hard to know what advantage this proposal brings. At the very least, it is unnecessary, and perhaps worse, it may be undesirable. That brings me to his second core point, about consultation.

The consultation conducted by the Commission was on general principles, not on the specifics that the hon. Gentleman has, with his usual keen eye, drawn to the attention of the Committee. Those general principles, rather than a specific proposal that could have been considered, are things about which we can all largely agree, frankly, so I would not put much weight on the consultation that the EU has so far enjoined. The specific concerns highlighted by the European Scrutiny Committee only really came to the notice of Members of this House or of other legislatures in Europe when the proposals were published in detail recently. That is why it is good to have this debate now, and it is why the Government have had only an informal consultation.

The hon. Gentleman asked, thirdly, about the future of ECAC. I think that there is a future for it, not least because its members value it. Turkey is a growing aviation power, and ECAC provides a forum to draw it into selected discussions. The worldwide character of the threat to aviation means that ECAC can and more especially should continue to play a key role, but it is certainly true that its position would become less significant—not insignificant, but less significant—were the new powers to be taken by the Commission, which is in part why I do not want them to be taken.

As I have said repeatedly, although perhaps this is indicative not so much of my Euroscepticism, which has more recently become extremely fashionable among the great and the good—or at least among the good—but more of my conservativism, we do not need to do things that we do not need to do. If things are working well, we do not change them—and that is not necessarily about political conservatism, but a slightly more cultural affair, Mr Hanson, which I say to reassure Opposition Members and others who might be listening.

The hon. Gentleman is right to ask his questions about consultation, the future of ECAC and the detail of the proposal. The reason that the French have taken the stance that they have—I suspect that they have enjoyed similar conversations, discussions and debates to the ones that we are now enjoying—is that the proposal is, at the very least, shrouded in uncertainty, doubt and scepticism. On that basis, and given the moderate and modest way in which the European Scrutiny Committee has gone about its work, it would ill behove us not to listen carefully to its advice on this occasion and support the motion.

I cannot end—you might be pleased, or sad, to hear, Mr Hanson—without a reference to Keats, since the shadow Minister challenged me to refer to him at the very outset of the sitting:

“Happy is England! I could be content

To see no other verdure than its own;

To feel no other breezes than are blown

Through its tall woods with high romances blent”.

On this occasion, England, Britain, the United Kingdom, is happy with the existing arrangements, and we should stick with them.

Airport Capacity

Richard Burden Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I will start with the point about the announcement. You know, Mr Speaker, how seriously I, as a former Leader of the House, take such issues. You will also be aware that this matter is highly price sensitive. Indeed, when the Airports Commission published its initial reports, they were launched in a way—they were announced at the start of the morning—that was consistent with a market announcement. That is the approach we have taken with this announcement. I have come to the House at the earliest opportunity to make a statement, and I will take all the questions that Members have for me.

On the timeframe, the hon. Gentleman asked me what we have been doing for the past year. We have been doing precisely what he asked about: working on the issue of air quality. Today and over the coming days, we will publish additional material so that Members, the public and others who are interested will be able to scrutinise in detail the work we have done and the route we have followed to reach this conclusion. Given the particular importance of air quality, he would expect us to make sure that we had done the additional work to satisfy ourselves that this can be done in line with what we all accept are our necessary priorities for reducing emissions levels.

The hon. Gentleman talked about what will happen during the coming months. As I said earlier, yes, there will be a full and proper consultation. That consultation is set out clearly in statute—[Interruption.] Despite the murmurings of Opposition Members, the consultation is set out in an Act that Labour rightly passed to improve the process of going ahead with such a national project. That is the process we will follow. We will do so in as timely a way as we can, but we cannot short-change a process set out in primary legislation.

On the capacity challenges here and now, there is absolutely nothing to stop new routes being set up tomorrow. We have capacity at Stansted, and new routes have come into Heathrow and Gatwick in the past 12 months. We are not preventing the airports around London that still have capacity—

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

You’re not doing anything!

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman talks about not doing anything. With respect, the Opposition do not appear to understand that the airports themselves go out to sell opportunities around the world and bring in new routes. The leaderships of those airports sell Britain as a great destination to fly to and do business in. They will carry on doing that.

There are clearly some big surface access issues to address in connection with this new scheme. However, I remind the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) that we are close to completion of Crossrail, which will make a major difference to connectivity to Heathrow, we will shortly be starting improvements to the M25 between Heathrow and Gatwick, and the new Thameslink routes are due to open in about 18 months’ time, which will significantly improve links to Luton airport. Things are already happening to improve surface access links to our airports.

Climate change is a very important issue that we take very seriously. I was delighted by the agreement reached at the International Civil Aviation Organisation summit in Montreal recently, which sets a way forward for the aviation industry with international agreement. That is a significant step forward. We agree that a significant challenge remains that we must monitor very carefully, but the Airports Commission said very clearly that the expansion could take place and we could meet our objectives. That is what we intend to do.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned sustainable fuels, and good work is being done on those, by Virgin in this country, for example, and by airlines around the world. The technology will improve as the years go by.

The hon. Gentleman asked what we are doing on air quality. I agree with him that it is a bigger issue for our country, affecting very many of our urban areas. It requires a broad-ranging response to deal with it through clean air zones, as set out in our national air quality strategy, and other measures that we are working on that go beyond that strategy and continue a process of improvement over the coming decade.

I said in my remarks that I would consult on a noise authority and that we would bring forward plans for airspace modernisation. On regional connectivity, I am happy to restate our commitment to hon. Members from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, northern England and the south-west. We are very clear that this expansion must include binding provision for links to those parts of the country. This has to be a benefit to the entire United Kingdom and it will be. On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, Heathrow airport is committed to ensuring that the project will be built using UK steel.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

As I informed the House a few moments ago, I met BALPA earlier this week. It has come forward with issues about laser pens. There is a bigger problem with laser pens, and much more evidence about the way in which they have been used. It is illegal to shine them in someone’s eyes, and there have been more prosecutions, but I am willing to take further action once we have reached agreement on the best way forward.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, you may recall that this time last month, I asked the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), when, after three years of working groups, we would be told what the Government were going to do about the danger of drones to civil aircraft. His answer, you will recall, left us none the wiser.

This week, things became even vaguer when the Minister appeared to say in a written answer that he is not even going to consult on anything until the European Aviation Safety Agency has decided what to do. That is all happening at a time of reports that drones might have hit a civil aircraft, and of drones being banned over London altogether when President Obama was in town. Other countries have already brought in registration schemes and other initiatives, so when are we going to see some clear proposals from the Government, without having to wait for a US President to come to town?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Part of the point was made by the hon. Gentleman in his question when he said, “it might have been”. Governments do not legislate on what might be; they act on what the dangers are. As I have said, we are in discussions with the airline pilots’ union BALPA, as well as the CAA, about the right way to develop this. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that all drones should be banned completely, I should point out that the Labour party never thought about when it was in office.

Aircraft Noise

Richard Burden Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

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

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing the debate and, indeed, on how he introduced it. The matter is clearly of concern to many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. If I got my calculations right, 15 right hon. and hon. Members from the Back Benches have spoken today in interventions or speeches, which underlines that point.

Noise from aircraft operations is a real source of tension between airports, authorities, airlines and local communities. It is not only the annoyance or disruption, important though such things are, but the genuine public health concerns about ongoing exposure to aircraft noise. A report published in January this year by the Aviation Environment Federation drew on evidence accumulated over the past 20 years to highlight noise exposure and the way in which it can impact on someone’s quality of life. Some studies go further and draw links to the possibility of many serious long-term health problems, to which many hon. Members referred: my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and the hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) and for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani). All that shows that we need more research to understand in more detail the many variables at play.

Addressing the question of noise is part of a much wider aviation puzzle, the pieces of which we need to join together. Challenges are coming to a head: noise challenges; modernising outdated airspace regulation; improving service access; promoting cleaner and greener aviation; and meeting various environmental challenges. The elephant in the room, relevant to all those things, is the question of airport capacity—the point made by the spokesperson of the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry).

Last year, the Prime Minister promised a response on the airport capacity question before Christmas. The hon. Gentleman speaking for the SNP made the point that the reasons for the delay might have been political—heaven forfend that any of us have that thought! The point is that when the delay was announced the Government at the time said they wanted time to consider the recommendations and the report of the Environmental Audit Committee. They are valid questions, and I wonder why the Government were not already asking them, between the publication of the commission report last summer and the announcement, or non-announcement, just before Christmas. I want to ask the Minister what work has been done since the Government delayed their decision to ensure that we get a decision this summer? Will he confirm that the Government will make a decision this summer, or could things take even longer?

We have been clear about the four criteria against which we will assess a decision, whenever the Government announce it: how it addresses airport capacity; how that works in relation to carbon obligations; local noise and other environmental impacts; and how the rest of the UK, not simply the south-east, will be affected. The third test relates directly to what we are talking about today—noise. The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling was right to say that the debate today is not about the decision between Gatwick and Heathrow, but whichever is chosen the noise and air quality impact on communities must be addressed. My worry about noise is that all written questions that other Members and I have tabled on the issue seem to receive a stock response from the Government—that they are conducting an ongoing review of their airspace and noise policies. That is fine, but we need to know what it involves. Are the Government in touch with the World Health Organisation to take account of health guidance, and what is their current thinking about the Davies commission’s recommendation on a ban on night flights? The messages coming from Heathrow and some airlines have been that they do not feel night flights can be ruled out, for all sorts of reasons, including connectivity.

[Andy Slaughter]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. He may have seen that the question was raised in the other place earlier in the week about when the independent aviation noise authority recommended by the Airports Commission would be set up. The reply from the Government was, “We are not going to do anything until the decision has been made.” That is a lacklustre approach.

[Richard Burden]

My hon. Friend is right, and I will say a couple of words about the noise ombudsman, as it is sometimes referred to, in a little while.

The Government have commissioned Ipsos MORI research on public attitudes to aviation noise. If that is to inform the public debate, it needs to be published. My question to the Minister, again, is when it will be published.

I also want to ask the Minister about airspace redesign, a theme that has come up several times in the debate. Future approaches to the best use of airspace, bearing in mind changes and advances in technology, should inform issues of where to put new runways, and how they should be used. However, even without any airport expansion, the UK needs to modernise its outdated airspace management, in line with the EU single European sky programme. The benefits of doing that are obviously big, but the question is how we are to find a balance between dispersing routes between a number of corridors or concentrating on a number of routes. Either option has pros and cons for communities, and those that are negatively affected must be fairly compensated. However, whatever is done, a decision must be made. We have seen that trust can drain away when trials come out and people do not know what is going on. NATS, the Civil Aviation Authority, airports and communities need clear signals as to what will happen about airspace operations.

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Gentleman is a fellow Birmingham-based MP. Does he acknowledge that there was no compensation for people following the airspace changes—nor, indeed, following the runway extension?

[Richard Burden]

The right hon. Lady makes a valid point. The point I am making is that going forward we need a more comprehensive approach to such things. In appearances before the Transport Committee in February the Secretary of State and Department for Transport officials promised to publish a consultation on future airspace “soon”. What they would not say was whether the delay—and possibly further delays—in looking at expansion would lead to further delay in looking at airspace management. How soon is soon? What timetable is the Minister working on?

Whatever the Minister’s answers to the other questions that I have put to him both today and in writing, I must put it to him and the Government that delays, and the fact that there are difficult questions ahead, should not mean there is nothing we can do now. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith made the point correctly that an independent aviation noise authority could be established now, to act as an impartial mediator between airports and communities and help to restore trust and deliver the future of airspace operation. Nothing more is needed before that can be done. Sir Howard Davies and the Environmental Audit Committee endorsed the idea, and if the Minister endorsed it today it would certainly have the Opposition’s full backing, so let us get on with it. Will he do that?

Making use of existing capacity would also alleviate pressure on airspace. A key to utilising capacity is improving road and rail access to different international gateways in the UK. It is the Airport Operators Association’s top priority for 2016 and would bring about environmental and noise improvements around airports. Will the Minister back our calls for the National Infrastructure Commission to look at surface access to the UK’s international gateways?

Finally, I want to put it to the Minister that it is important to work with industry on the issue of noise. The Sustainable Aviation group has produced an aviation noise road map showing how aviation can manage noise from aircraft operations between now and 2050. It emphasises the importance of improving airspace structures and operational procedures, but also points out, importantly, that a key is future aircraft and engine technology. The noise road map shows that, unless that new technology comes on stream and is used, noise output could double, even without expansion, in the coming years. What are the Government doing to encourage innovation, as well as the take-up of lighter, smaller aircraft such as the Boeing 787 and A350? Retrofitting noise-reducing devices to older fleets is also critical, and I think that the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling mentioned that. How are the Government promoting that? Does the Minister know what proportion of aircraft at each UK airport have not yet had such devices installed? If he does not know, when will he find out, and what will he do to put such measures in place?

I look forward to the Minister addressing those points. Vital questions have been raised today. At some point down the line the decision on expansion will come. It would be very useful to know when, but, irrespective of that, when will decisions be made on the various questions that I and other hon. Members have raised today?

GPS and Heavy Goods Vehicles

Richard Burden Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) on securing this important debate. Before I address the points that have been made, it is worth recording that our thoughts are with the people of Brussels today. The security services have been bracing themselves for such an event—I guess all of us have—but when it does happen, it does not shock or affect us any less. This is a debate about transport and how we get about, and it is significant that today’s attack was about hitting the ways in which we get about. It was about hitting airports, metro stations, people trying to get to work, and people trying to see friends and families. We must have resolve, because it is no accident that terror tries to hit our ability to see each other, which is vital to society’s functioning. That is why terrorists must not succeed.

To return to the subject of today’s debate, the hon. Gentleman made some excellent points. He showed that he has a knowledge that well surpasses mine about, as he described it, the wizardry involved in GPS and other satellite navigation systems. Not only is he familiar with the high-tech end of it, but he was able to use the word “map”, which we do not do enough.

Other hon. Members made important points about the impact on their constituencies. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) mentioned something that I did not know about; he said that the problem has actually affected a Harry Potter set. If that is the case, it is certainly serious. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) also made some really important points. I welcome the Minister to the debate. I know roads are not her normal area of responsibility, but I have no doubt that she will respond to the debate in detail. I have a sneaking suspicion that she might even say something about how this problem affects her own constituency.

Our freight and logistics sector keeps the shelves in our shops stocked, and, in a literal sense, drives economic growth. Our lorry drivers in particular deserve to be commended for that. There are not many other occupations in which someone’s place of work means they are unclear about where they are going to get their next meal, where they will next sleep, and even when they will next get to use the toilet. We have heard today about the chaos that has been caused in Sandwich and in other parts of the country, often due to the inappropriate use of the wrong kind of GPS systems, which can have far-reaching consequences not only in the south-east but across the country. The problem not only puts the health, welfare and safety of drivers at risk but, as we have heard, can be a blight on the lives of residents in urban and non-urban areas alike, on the experience of other road users and on businesses.

The problem reflects the much wider challenge of better connecting our roads and vehicles using technology. Technology and innovation are important keys to better, smarter, greener motoring and road transport. To achieve that, we have to get the system working together far better than it is at the moment through information sharing, and enforcement has a role too. We need to consider the wider factors that contribute to congestion everywhere. I will come on to the factors that specifically affect South Thanet and Kent.

[Royston Smith]

We are talking now about sat-navs in HGVs, but eventually we will have driverless cars. That is the way we are going. All vehicles will depend on sat-navs, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is really important to sort this out sooner rather than later?

[Richard Burden]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. I say that with my other hat on, because as well as being shadow Transport Minister, I chair the all-party motor group. The expansion of technology in the automotive industry has made us talk about the extent to which information systems are attached to motor vehicles, but given the way things are now moving, it might be more accurate to talk about motor vehicles being attached to information systems. That could apply to other modes of transport as well.

Technology is certainly changing the game as far as safety standards in the freight sector are concerned. The quality of bespoke HGV sat-navs, where they are used, offers everything from digital route shaping and traffic updates to active lane guidance and HGV-tailored road information. That is a good thing, but given the sheer volume of HGV traffic passing through places such as Sandwich, it is clear that top-of-the-range HGV-specific sat-navs can be really important. The hon. Member for South Thanet was right to pay tribute to the Freight Transport Association for promoting the use of such systems, but not enough drivers rely on such equipment. Too many HGV firms and drivers rely on generic sat-navs or free-to-use options.

It is important that Ministers consider the extent to which drivers take up bespoke sat-navs and what can be done about that. As the hon. Gentleman said, there was a sat-nav summit in 2012—I cannot remember the name of it, but he mentioned it—and it was not clear what flowed from that. I am concerned about the apparent absence of objective targets or a means of assessing the take-up of bespoke systems, which makes it difficult to track progress. It will be important to work with sat-nav manufacturers and the other technical companies involved to improve the accuracy of all the systems on the market. That was started in 2006 under the previous Government, as I think he mentioned, but progress has not been as fast as it should have been and certainly has not kept pace with the technology.

As the hon. Gentleman said, lobbying for better data sharing with manufacturers was included in Kent County Council’s freight action plan of 2012. I have a question for the Minister about that. What are the Department and Highways England doing to support local authorities in their communications with mapping and technology companies, to ensure that lorry-appropriate routes are better ingrained in as many sat-navs as possible—hopefully in all of them? With better information on all map applications, we will go some way towards improving the spread of knowledge.

We also need to look at some of the wider factors that I have referred to. Highways England must play a leading role in promoting joined-up thinking between local authorities, the emergency services and others. Unfortunately, recent incidents on the M5 and M6, where there were avoidably long closures of the whole road, show that things are not up to scratch in that respect at the moment. Without such strong partnership working and live information sharing through road signage, HGV drivers will inevitably make their own decisions, including about diversions.

A second question for the Minister, therefore, is what lessons her Department has taken from recent motorway closures about improving live traffic updates and the management of such incidents. I ask that because of a worrying response that I received to a recent parliamentary question, from which it appears that only half of all local authorities have a major incidents contingency plan in place with Highways England, a year on from its establishment. Surely sorting that out should be one of its priorities. Can the Minister get to the bottom of that, or ask her departmental colleagues to do so? Will they also find out why in so many places a course of action has still not been established for managing HGV traffic and other road users in the event of a motorway closure?

It is important for local authorities to have plans, but also that they should have the resources to enforce them. In a written answer last July the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), made it clear that all other traffic management policies, including issues to do with HGVs and sat-nav devices,

“are the responsibility of local traffic authorities”

and the police. Does the Minister share my view that following last week’s critical Select Committee on Transport report on road traffic law enforcement, there is a need to think again about that approach? The report found that the reduction in the number of offences being recorded does not represent a reduction in the number that are actually being committed, and that if enforcement of road traffic laws is to be effective, the decline in the number of specialist road policing officers must be halted. I look forward to the Government’s response to that report.

Concerns about traffic enforcement bring me back to the specific enforcement issues and other factors that affect the south-east and Kent. During a recent visit to talk to businesses in Kent, I heard at first hand about the traffic chaos that accompanied 32 days of Operation Stack last year. It was made clear to me that support and assistance from central Government are essential. That echoed what the Opposition have been saying consistently: this is not just an issue for local authorities, the police and others in Kent. Keeping the roads clear through Kent is an issue of national importance, and the Government’s preparations should reflect that.

I was therefore astonished to read late last week a written answer from the Department for Transport confirming that the Home Office will not provide any additional funding to avert a repetition this year of last year’s chaos. That is despite the fact that the police and crime commissioner for Kent stated in a press release in August that the Government had given her assurances that funding would be available. My question to the Minister—if she does not have the answer today, perhaps she will ask her colleague the Roads Minister to write to me—is whether the PCC for Kent was wrong about the assurances she said she was given in August, or whether that was a broken Government promise.

The situation certainly does not bode well for this year. Ministers have not satisfied anyone about what they are doing in the short term to prevent a repetition this year of last year’s scenes. There are plans for lorry parks and for improvements to slip roads at junction 10a, but they will not help this year. They are for future years. Without additional central Government assistance, it seems that the region is being left to handle congestion on its own. It cannot be said that last year was exceptional. HGVs are already being turned away from existing lorry parks, so how likely is it that the effect will be drivers rerouting back along roads and parking at inappropriate places? I asked the Roads Minister about his action plan for that in Transport questions recently, and I did not get any clear answers.

That issue is relevant to the debate, because the key point is how we ensure that traffic keeps moving through Kent. What is the Department doing to ensure that all road users, particularly HGV drivers arriving at cross-channel ports, know where to find the live traffic information they need, particularly at times of major snarl-ups such as the summer months? If there is a particular problem with drivers coming in from across the channel, how is the Department working with other countries, and road haulage companies in those countries, to make sure that all HGV drivers know of the routing restrictions in the south-east? How can technology be used to assist in that process as quickly as possible? Is Highways England reviewing again any short-term management techniques such as contraflow, with more notice for people to prepare, so that safety concerns can be addressed? Have the Department and Highways England talked to ferry companies about making the best use of their capacity in the event of lengthy episodes of congestion?

It is clear that the GPS problem that the hon. Member for South Thanet has rightly raised today exists not only in his area but throughout the country. It is an important issue that ties in closely with fundamental questions about the Government’s wider policies on HGVs and traffic management. They have serious questions to answer about technology and about how they can get hold of the problem. How can they expect existing laws and rules to be enforced if local authorities and the police do not have the necessary resources? How proactively will they promote the partnership working between local authorities, the police and the private sector that all hon. Members know is vital, particularly when we know that even on the issue of major incident contingency plans, Highways England has not yet reached agreement with more than half of the local authorities involved? There are serious questions to answer about the specific factors of congestion in the south-east that I have mentioned today, but there are wider issues as well, and I hope that the Minister will clarify some of them. Doing nothing is clearly not an option.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

I do not believe that we have the statutory power to do so currently. Again, this is one of those slightly concerning paths down which to go, but I can certainly look to see whether anything has ever been proposed for the statute book on that basis. We talk about technology, but it is not in anyone’s interests, including those of a fleet manager, to have an HGV trying to force itself down a road. It will be entirely obvious if an HGV is trying to do that long before the problem arises and any responsible fleet manager would then communicate with that driver and say, “Where do you think you’re going? This is absolutely not appropriate.” Again, I think that we need to use the technology as the solution to some of these issues, while recognising the problems related to the technology.

[Richard Burden]

The Minister is right that there is no easy or off-the-shelf solution to this problem, but it seems to me that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) made an important point that is worth considering. While it may not be appropriate to make the use of satellite navigation systems mandatory inside HGVs, if HGVs have a system in operation, should they not be required to have one that is fit for purpose, so that this becomes a compliance issue to do with having the right kind of system, rather than making it mandatory to have a system in the first place?

Cabin Air Safety/Aerotoxic Syndrome

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Mr Hanson, I welcome you to the Chair. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on securing the debate, as well as to my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) and for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), who supported him in his application to the Backbench Business Committee. I thank that Committee for granting this very important debate.

I also thank all hon. Members from both sides of the House who have contributed today. I counted 12, taking into account interventions and speeches, which shows the importance that Members attach to this issue. We heard speeches from the hon. Members for Crawley (Henry Smith) and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), as well as from my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who both brought scientific expertise to the debate, which was very welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central spoke with a lot of personal knowledge of this issue from her involvement in the aviation industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) spoke with a great deal of passion. Like my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, he emphasised the importance of trade unions being able to bring these kinds of issues to the House’s attention and talked about that being an important part of democracy.

The aviation industry and the aviation sector is a key pillar of our economy, but it is more than that, even though that is important enough in its own right; travel by air has made our world a smaller place. It fosters direct face-to-face contact and understanding between peoples across the globe in a way that no other mode of travel ever has. That is why it is right that we pay tribute today to those who work in the civil aviation sector, on the ground as well as in the air.

However, this debate really does raise genuine welfare concerns, particularly for cabin crew and pilots: some of the people on whom we rely to get comfortably and safely to our destinations. Their work, as many hon. Members have said, is far from easy. Fatigue is regularly among the top concerns of staff in the air, and we know that that is an underlying but ever-growing problem. We also appreciate the impact that their work can have on their family life.

Despite all those pressures, however, what is clear is that air crew do the job because they love it, and two such people were Richard Westgate and Matt Bass. I want to join the tributes to their families and to Unite. I declare myself a proud member of Unite and draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is right to recognise that parts of the media have tried to move the issue up the public agenda. It has received attention from, for example, BBC’s “Victoria Derbyshire” programme and ITN’s “Tonight” programme.

All those people and institutions are right in saying that key unanswered questions remain: on research into air fume events, monitoring and detection systems, and awareness, education and diagnosis of symptoms. The Government’s responsibility is to do all they can to ensure the safety of passengers and crew alike. The existence of regulators is important, but does not take away that overall responsibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said, we know from the asbestos issue that what authorities often believe for a long time to be the case does not always turn out to be correct.

We know that many modern aircraft use bleed-air systems—that has been referred to many times in this debate—to supply air to the cabin, but we also know that faults with engine seals and seepage can lead to contaminated fumes containing toxins. What is not crystal clear is the implication of short and long-term exposure to contaminated air and its links to aerotoxic syndrome which, given the range of systems, is clearly difficult to diagnose. However, there are some things we already know. The coroner’s report on the death of Richard Westgate recognised:

“symptoms consistent with chronic exposure to organophosphates.”

We know that Matt Bass shared similar symptoms. The inquest into his death is ongoing. We also know that Unite is pursuing some 61 individual cases. The question is real: is aerotoxic syndrome an occupational illness?

A number of Members today have drawn attention to reports and position papers produced by the Committee on Toxicity and how its findings have been interpreted. There is a clear distinction between saying there is no evidence of aerotoxic syndrome, as some suggest, and saying that there is not enough evidence to prove that link. As Professor Alan Boobis, the Committee’s chair, said in his interview on ITN’s “Tonight” programme last year:

“We made proposals for research that could be pursued…as far as I know, no one came back.”

The Association of Flight Attendants also called for further research in its critique of the committee’s 2007 report, in which it stated that

“there is a need for a large scale sampling study.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde rightly called for an independent inquiry to get to the bottom of these things, and that call has been echoed by others. The Minister will no doubt say that the UK is supporting an international approach for research through the European Aviation Safety Agency. That is important, and I understand that the agency will publish a preliminary report in the autumn. It is also important to know exactly what that is about and who is doing it. I understand that the agency has contracted out the work; in that context, will the Minister confirm the independence of the bodies commissioned to do that study and who was consulted on the choice of contractor? If he does not have the information now, I understand, and perhaps he will write to me.

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I follows on from four pieces of research in the UK, most notably that by Cranfield University, so it is not as if we have not already carried out a lot of work in the UK.

[Richard Burden]

I am grateful to the Minister for that information, but I want to press him on EASA’s study and its remit. His letter in November 2015 to the Chair of the Transport Committee suggests that EASA is currently looking at what equipment should be put in place to undertake cockpit and cabin air measurements in future and will report in the autumn. That is important, and I will come back to it in a moment. I shall be grateful if the Minister will confirm whether the current EASA project has any remit to survey existing evidence from inquiries and studies—he mentioned some of them—whether from the UK, from other parts of Europe, international or in, for example, Australia.

Those inquiries and studies of air cabin safety have happened already. If the EASA does not have a remit to look at those other studies and can look only at monitoring for the future, should the Minister not ensure that someone is doing that work already? If it is happening, that is great, but it would be useful to know who is doing it. If it is not happening, why not? A number of hon. Members have mentioned the importance of the precautionary principle, which we need to apply in this case. The state has a duty of care.

On research, I have been told that no toxicity studies have reflected the real-life atmospheric pressure and temperature levels of planes at altitude. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central made this point. To me, that says that we simply do not know the synergistic effects and impact of prolonged exposure. Understanding that is critical if we are to establish whether this is an occupational disease. Will the Minister tell me whether I am right and, if I am, who will do that study and who will put in place those tests on aircraft in flight?

Whatever else is or is not being done, it seems from what the Minister said in his letter to the Chair of the Transport Committee in November 2015 that EASA is looking into the use of monitoring equipment, and that is important. It is vital to improve the data available for research. There are already legal requirements for cabin air to adhere to set levels of, for example, carbon dioxide and other toxins, but without appropriate detection equipment in place how do we know whether those standards are being met? Will the Minister say whether systems are available that could be put on aircraft? If there are, why are they not on aircraft and what can we do to ensure that that happens from now on?

No one denies that the fume events occur, but we do not know the true extent to which contaminated air incidents happen, as we have heard time and again today. Without monitoring, it is up to aircraft crew to report incidents. As was also said today, it is down to the noses of air crew. That makes it equally important that they receive adequate awareness training to detect leaks, whether by smell or other means. It is not unreasonable to suggest, as various hon. Members have, that pilots and cabin crew may be reluctant to report, particularly in the highly competitive environments in which airlines now operate, what they suspect could be minor instances, especially given the possible implications for airlines and perhaps for their own professional interests.

The 2008 ASA critique of the Committee on Toxicity also noted that the rate and reliability of reports coming in were flawed. So what steps are the Government taking with the regulators to ensure that awareness training is in place and that reporting is expected and enforced?

Finally, on the types of aircraft, what guidance does the Minister have on whether certain aircraft are particularly susceptible to fume events? In line with the precautionary principle that Members from all parties have said we need to adopt, where there is now bleed-free architecture available, what steps can we take to ensure that all future aircraft built adopt that technology? I am glad that the Minister asked his civil servants whether there was any link with cabin air in the design of the 787 Dreamliner. They told him that the design was about efficiency, not cabin air. I am sure it was partly about efficiency, but will the Minister go back to them and ask them to check whether representations were made and whether the Federal Aviation Administration talked about air quality in cabins being a factor in the design of bleed-free engines?

I hope the Minister will address the questions that all hon. Members have raised today. We owe it to Richard Westgate and Matt Bass, and to their families. We owe it to cabin crews and pilots themselves. Because all of us are in this category as well, we owe it to the travelling public, the passengers. We need to get to the bottom of this without further delay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

That is a very reasonable point to make. The findings have been made by professional toxicologists, whose job it is to analyse the effects of toxic compounds in a variety of locations, including the workplace. I shall come on to talk about the number of so-called fume events, and I have some evidence from the CAA to put it in context.

[Richard Burden]

I understand the reports that the Minister refers to. I do not know whether he saw, as I did, the interview that Professor Boobis gave to the “Tonight” programme, when he was at pains to say that the Committee on Toxicity was not saying that cabin air was safe when the incidents occurred. He went on to say that it had made proposals for further research that could be pursued; as far as he knew no one came back to the committee. Has that been followed up?

[Mr Goodwill]

Research is ongoing, not least through the European Aviation Safety Agency, but the levels of OP concentration in situations where no fume event has occurred—which have been measured widely—have been found to be no greater than they are in this Chamber or any domestic location. They are very small background levels, as one would expect. Particularly given the sensitivity of some of the testing that can now be carried out, it is not difficult to find OPs almost anywhere.

As a toxic mechanism for the reported illnesses was found to be unlikely, a nocebo effect was considered a plausible alternative explanation for the symptoms. A nocebo effect can be defined as a detrimental effect on health produced by psychological or psychosomatic factors—for example where a subject develops symptoms as a reaction to a situation that he or she perceives as dangerous or hazardous. However, neither option could be proved beyond doubt given the available data; but we know that the nocebo effect happens in other circumstances. I hesitate to give this example from my own experience, but when I was a child my mother would serve us a cooked breakfast and after we had finished she would say, “I hope those sausages were all right. They were well past their sell-by date,” and one felt a feeling in one’s stomach. It is not the same thing, but it shows how psychological effects can pass into physical effects. That is one of the theories put forward by the scientists looking at the matter. The nocebo is an established psychological and medical situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I am certainly happy to interrogate the CAA on its interpretation of the rules on COSHH. I am well aware of the operation of the regulations; as a former road tanker driver, I know all about COSHH regulations. But of course aviation is an international business and aircraft are not necessarily within our jurisdiction as they are flying, so it is important that we have international agreements. Indeed, many aircraft that carry British nationals are flagged to other countries around the world, and therefore we need to ensure that their standards are as high as ours and that work can be progressed internationally.

[Richard Burden]

I will add to the interventions now, so that the Minister can get them out of the way in one go. Could I press him a little more on the business about EASA? If I understood him correctly just now, he was saying that EASA was looking at the research that is available. The letter that he sent to the Transport Committee, as I understood it, suggested that EASA was looking not at that, but at the future of monitoring equipment. That is very important, but my question stands: who is looking at the body of research that is already there, nationally, in Europe and internationally, pulling it all together and seeing whether any action can be taken on the basis of what we already know?

[Mr Goodwill]

Certainly the UK has looked at the studies that have already taken place. Indeed, many of those were initiated in this country by the previous Labour Government. But we are obviously very keen to look at how we can work to get further information. In terms of the EASA research, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, due to the unpredictability and rarity of fume events and due to the international nature of the aviation industry, it is the Department’s view that an international approach to any future research investigations would be appropriate. The opportunity to collect data from a broader sample base than is available in the UK alone would lead to a higher probability of more meaningful evidence being collated. The Department therefore wrote to EASA with those views in March 2014.

EASA did launch in the spring of 2015 a preliminary in-flight cabin air measurement campaign. That will develop a methodology and put in place adequate equipment to perform cockpit and cabin air measurements. The results of that campaign, which will be used to prepare for an envisaged large-scale project in the future, are expected in autumn 2016. The Department will follow with interest the progress of that work; indeed, I will update the hon. Gentleman when I get further information.

At national level, the aviation health unit within the medical department of the CAA will continue to monitor issues relating to cabin air, as part of its wider role as specialist adviser to the Government on aviation health issues.

As I said, EASA has launched preliminary work, and we hope to carry that further. I point out that the UK is not the only country in the world conducting research in this field. For example, the German authorities, as well as the country’s biggest airline, Lufthansa, have conducted similar research projects to the ones mentioned here, and they have arrived at the same conclusions. That is not to say that the industry is complacent—far from it. New technologies for improving the filtration and monitoring of cabin air are emerging all the time, and as we have discussed, there is a particular aircraft type, the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner, that uses a different source of air, although it must be noted that the equivalent Airbus aircraft, the A350, uses the conventional bleed-air system for cabin air sourcing.

The aviation industry is aware of the concerns that have been raised and is continuously reviewing the current practices, as well as developing options for future improvements. The Government are working together with the industry to support that momentum. The joint Government and industry funded aerospace research and development programme, supported by the Aerospace Technology Institute and Innovate UK, is supporting projects in related areas, including air and oil systems, electronic technologies and system health monitoring, all of which will lead to enhanced cabin air quality as one of the outcomes. The Aerospace Technology Institute is currently working with industry to launch further projects in these areas.

In 2013, industry and Government, working together through the Aerospace Growth Partnership, made a joint funding commitment worth £2.1 billion in total for aerospace research and development over seven years. That was protected, and extended by an additional £900 million over six years to 2025-26, in the spending review in 2015. The industry has committed to matching the investment from the Government in this area. The industry certainly understands the importance of research and development aimed at improving overall safety. However, for the industry to drastically change the way the aircraft are air-conditioned or, indeed, to change the lubricants, there would have to be clear evidence that shows that cabin air quality is harmful to crew and passengers. The current practice of using air from the compression stage of the engine—bleed air—has been shown to be an effective, fuel-efficient and reliable way of providing air to the cabin.

I hope that I have demonstrated that the issue is taken seriously by all parties involved. However, as it is a complex issue with little evidence to show that a change is needed, it will take time to find new and innovative solutions that would be accepted by all. We certainly need to co-ordinate international research and I will raise that with the CAA at our next meeting. I will also discuss the issue with the British Airline Pilots Association, although I have to say that the issue has not necessarily been very high on its agenda at some meetings I have had with it. Maybe debates such as this will further raise awareness among those who work in the industry.

Finally, I urge a note of caution on the precautionary principle. I was a member of the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and, very often, the precautionary principle was used as a way of taking action on something for which there was no supporting evidence. I cite the case of phthalates used as a softening substance in PVC for medical uses and for things such as babies’ bottles. The outcome of making a change based on no evidence other than some very limited migration evidence actually resulted in products that were not as suitable and could have jeopardised people’s treatment. We need to be very careful about using the precautionary principle. We need to look at the actual evidence. I am pleased that research has been carried out, and more research will be carried out.

Once again, I stress how seriously I take the issue and how important it is that we get more evidence. I thank the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde and for Brent Central, and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) for securing the debate and for providing us with the opportunity to discuss this important and, to many, very personal issue.