Draft International Organization for Marine Aids to Navigation (Legal Capacities) Order 2022
Robert Courts Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear masks and to maintain distancing as far as possible, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the estate. That can be done at the testing centre in the House, or at home. Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Officials in the Gallery should communicate with the Minister electronically.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft International Organization for Marine Aids to Navigation (Legal Capacities) Order 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mrs Murray. May I wish you and all Members a very happy new year?
The draft order will allow the UK to recognise the International Organisation for Marine Aids to Navigation and to assist in its transition from the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities, known as IALA. In other words, we are dealing with a transition from an association to an international organisation.
I will highlight a significant statistic in a moment, but before I do, I will explain a bit about what IALA does, which is of crucial importance. The organisation is perhaps not as well known as it ought to be, but it is vital to maritime safety and, through that, to the prosperity and security of the UK. The association’s aim, as set out in its mission statement, is to co-ordinate
“the continuous improvement and harmonization of marine aids to navigation and related services to the benefit of safety of navigation, efficiency of shipping traffic and protection of the environment.”
That is vital structural background work for maritime.
We need only reflect on the fact that 95% of the UK’s import and export tonnage is transported by sea to realise how important IALA’s work is to the UK. The UK was a founding member when the organisation was established in 1957 as a non-governmental, not-for-profit, consultative, technical organisation. It brings together marine aids to navigation authorities, manufacturers, consultants, and scientific and training organisations for all parts of the world, and provides a forum for the exchange of views, expertise and experience.
The UK’s maritime heritage and leadership through the illustrious general lighthouse authorities—Trinity House, the Northern Lighthouse Board and Irish Lights—means that it has been able to assist IALA in its many significant achievements to date. To give an example, hon. Members may not be aware that as late as the 1970s, there were more than 30 different buoyage systems in use worldwide, and many of them had conflicting rules. As those systems are critical to maritime navigation, having conflicting rules was a significant barrier to maritime safety. Where are buoys put? What colour should they be? What are they marking? Those are all basic questions on which there were heated debates at the time, and that is what IALA sought to put right.
Imagine the captain of a vessel entering unfamiliar waters or approaching a new port, without any worldwide standard for the meaning of buoy markings. That lack of a standard had tragic consequences for vessels trying to navigate the world: ships ran aground, or worse, by missing a buoy or not understanding its importance. The need to consult and to have an internationally recognised system was clear, but reaching agreement was really challenging. Sadly, a series of wrecks in the Dover strait in 1971 defied all attempts to mark the shipping lanes, and that galvanised discussions.
If I may, I would like to spend a moment explaining what happened in 1971, because it will help Members to understand more clearly the importance of IALA and what we are trying to do today. On 11 January 1971, the Panamanian tanker the Texaco Caribbean was on a ballast voyage from the Netherlands to Trinidad. She was struck by a Peruvian freighter in thick fog. That freighter had ignored the shipping lanes in the Dover strait and taken the shorter way along the English coast. The Texaco Caribbean exploded, split in two and sank, releasing 600 tonnes of bunker and ballast. Eight sailors lost their lives. The British coastal authorities responded by placing three vertical green lights on the site to warn other ships of the presence of the wreck.
However, the following day, the West German freighter Brandenburg hit the wreck of the Texaco Caribbean and sank a few moments later, so quickly that lifeboats did not have time to arrive. Only 11 out of 32 crew members were rescued; the bodies of seven crew members were found, and 14 remain missing. A lightship and five light buoys were added on the site, but on 27 February, the Greek vessel Niki, sailing from Dunkirk to Alexandria, ignored the warnings and collided with the sunken wrecks. The tanker Hebris was in the area at the same time. Its crew saw the Niki sinking, sent radio messages and came as quickly as they could, but by the time they arrived, there was nobody left; the Niki had gone down with her entire crew. There were now three wrecks, which were clearly a serious hazard for passing ships.
A second lightship and about 10 more buoys were added. Within two months, British coastal authorities had had to report 16 ships for having ignored the lightships and the buoys. Happily, there were no further incidents, but clearly this was a dreadfully tragic series of events. It was those three shipwrecks, one after another, that galvanised the importance of IALA’s work following 1971. Developing a consistent buoy system has been IALA’s finest piece of work to date. The 30-plus previous buoyage systems were consolidated into the single IALA maritime buoyage system, which was completed in 1976 and adopted by the International Maritime Organisation in 1977.
I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to explain the background, because I want everyone to understand how important this area is and what we are looking to do today. The UK has been a leading light in IALA throughout its history and through the development of that new buoyage system. This is a fast-moving area, and we should not underestimate how difficult it is, particularly when we have things such as the new electronic aids to navigation; the transition from filament bulbs to LEDs; the use of new power sources, such as solar, which is clearly happening now; and autonomous vessels. All those things have safety ramifications that IALA has to address, and it is doing so. The UK’s background, which is frequently tragic but clearly also very constructive, helps us to assist not only our own traffic but the rest of the world’s, using our experience to make a safer maritime world, and that is why the order before us is so important. IALA’s work is of increasing importance.
In 2014, IALA’s general assembly voted to move it from a non-governmental organisation to an inter-governmental organisation, or IGO. The importance of that is quite straightforward: at the moment, IALA has bodies such as Trinity House as part of it, but it would like to have governmental impact too, for a number of reasons. Becoming an IGO will help IALA to be a peer to bodies such as the International Maritime Organisation and to have input from Governments and states. In many parts of the world, the equivalents of Trinity House or the Northern Lighthouse Board are Government bodies, so it is important that Governments are represented too.
This change will mean that the importance of the safety of life at sea, a responsibility that is held by Governments, is properly understood and valued as part of the international regime. It will also ensure that all coastal states around the world understand the importance of this work; IALA’s becoming an intergovernmental organisation will underline that. The change will put IALA on the same standing as organisations that have already taken the path of becoming an intergovernmental body, such as the IMO, the International Hydrographic Organisation and the International Telecommunication Union. There is a clear driver for that, and that is what we seek to do.
The convention that we seek to ratify through this Order in Council will require the new IGO to have legal capacity; that is what we are concerned with here today. That will enable it to enter into contracts, to acquire and dispose of property, and to institute legal proceedings. That is the background; that is what we are seeking to do.
The procedure—the process that we have to follow—stems from the International Organisations Act 1968, which allows Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to confer legal capacity upon this new IGO, and that is what the draft order does. It will enable the UK to become a member state of the new IGO when it is established, which will enable the UK to ratify the convention as soon as possible and, of course, allow us to maintain and enhance our influence once the IGO is created.
I want to highlight to the Committee that despite the change of status, there will not be a change in IALA’s aim. IALA will remain a consultative, technical, not-for-profit organisation. This measure is about broadening participation to include Governments and states rather than just national bodies such as Trinity House. It will lead to an enhancement of safety by further harmonising the safety measures that IALA has been working towards so far.
Of course, maritime safety is a reserved matter, but in any event we have undertaken consultation with the devolved Administrations, and they are all supportive of ratification by the UK as soon as possible. Furthermore, members of the Red Ensign Group of British shipping registers have also been consulted, and they have confirmed that they are content for the UK to continue to represent them at the new IGO, as we do in the current organisation. In other words, therefore, we will continue to represent the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies as well.
In summary, IALA’s work remains critical to the UK, and the move to an IGO will just enhance its status and the importance of the advice and service that it provides. To highlight that, and to reinforce the UK’s strong links to maritime safety and to this organisation, the Government would like the UK to be one of the first states to fully ratify the convention, sending a strong message about our commitment to IALA and our support both for it and for maritime safety. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting the draft order.
Robert Courts
I am grateful to both the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon for making those points.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East went back even further in history than I did, and I congratulate him on doing so. That was particularly appropriate given that the Niki, the third of those tragic shipwrecks, was going to Alexandria on that tragic voyage. He is right to draw attention to the importance of wreck marking and lighthouses throughout history. He is also right to highlight the importance of the environmental aspect. I did not focus on that particularly—I focused on the safety of life at sea—but he is right to draw attention to it, because there are serious environmental impacts of any shipwrecks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon is right to draw attention to the two systems, IALA-A and IALA-B, and I am grateful to him for bringing his yachting expertise to the Committee. In fact, the entire purpose of what we are trying to do is to broaden participation, with a view to having an internationally recognised system. Clearly, no state can be compelled to join in, but we will always encourage our international partners and work with them to do that. The shift from a non-governmental association to an intergovernmental organisation, which we are carrying out today, will assist us in that aim.
Working with other coastal states to further harmonise the measures that are in place is entirely the aim of IALA, which we seek to support. While I cannot give any promises or indications of what other states may wish to do, clearly we will continue to co-operate with them in any further harmonisation of the safety measures that my hon. Friend quite rightly draws attention to and asks for. That is something that we will certainly continue to do. I am grateful to him for raising that point, and I am grateful that the UK will be able to quickly ratify the convention, which will be vital in demonstrating our support and illustrating the esteem in which we hold IALA as well maritime safety more generally.
The Committee will know from previous debates—I am grateful to the shadow Minister for always having assisted me in underlining the critical importance of maritime workers to our country—that, despite being an island nation, we can sometimes be a bit sea blind, and that we do not always recognise the continued importance that the sea has to all of us. Whether we go to sea or not, the lives that we lead are facilitated by those who do.
Chief among those are our great, historic general lighthouse authorities—Trinity House, the Northern Lighthouse Board and Irish Lights. I hope you will indulge me, Mrs Murray, if I take a second to offer the thanks of the House to all those organisations. They go above and beyond every single day, in the most challenging of conditions, to ensure that our maritime navigation aids remain operational. I have seen at first hand the extremely challenging work that they do in very difficult environments, particularly in the teeth of a pandemic, and we all owe them our thanks. Together with our Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the marine accident investigation branch, they are recognised around the world for their high standards, professionalism, knowledge and expertise. It is vital as never before that the UK continues to contribute its expertise on the global stage. This order will help us to do so.
The Chair
I could not be more supportive of the Minister’s final words. I think we all recognise the massive contribution of the people that he mentioned to this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Civil Aviation Authority 2021: Progress Report
Robert Courts Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
During the passage of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 through Parliament, Ministers confirmed that the Civil Aviation Authority’s annual progress report on the airspace modernisation strategy would be published, and a copy placed in the Libraries of both Houses accompanied by a written ministerial statement.
The airspace modernisation strategy sets out, through 15 initiatives, ways and means of modernising airspace, initially focusing on the period until the end of 2024. The initiatives include airspace design, operational concepts and new technology.
Six of the 15 initiatives are assessed as on track, and five initiatives require further work. The delayed timescales of delivery against the original plans set out in the airspace modernisation strategy have predominantly shifted because of ongoing recovery of the aviation industry from the covid-19 pandemic.
Four initiatives will need further legislation on performance-based navigation and air traffic management—core elements of the airspace modernisation strategy. The Department for Transport will be taking legislation forward this year to ensure continued progress to the overall airspace modernisation strategy programme.
Key areas of progress have been noted within free route airspace (initiative 2), remobilisation of the future airspace strategy implementation south and north airspace change programmes made possible by Government funding (initiatives 4 and 5) and initiatives 9, 10 and 11 on aligning air traffic provision with international standards, review of airspace classification and electronic conspicuity respectively.
There has also been progress with the Airspace Change Organising Group submitting iteration 2 of their masterplan—which will set out where airspace changes need to be co-ordinated and developed—for assessment by the CAA.
Chapter 2 provides an update from the co-sponsors on policy and regulatory process, with a particular emphasis on stakeholder engagement activity undertaken as part of the airspace modernisation strategy refresh and the reintroduction of the airspace modernisation strategy support fund. Strategic risks have also been flagged within this chapter, predominantly concerning future delivery model, financing, and resourcing of the modernisation programme.
Chapter 3 provides updates related specifically to activities under the airspace modernisation strategy, undertaken within areas of particular interest from the general aviation and communities stakeholder groups.
I will place a copy of the “Airspace Modernisation - 2021 Progress Report” in the Libraries of both Houses.
Attachments can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2022-01-06/HCWS520/
[HCWS520]
Oral Answers to Questions
Robert Courts Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
Government guidance to local authorities on developing bus improvement plans includes advice on park-and-ride services, as set out in the national bus strategy.
Theresa Villiers
In London, suburban tube station car parks are important park-and-ride facilities, encouraging people to get on the public transport network, so will the Government exercise their powers under section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to prevent the Mayor from shutting down these facilities in Cockfosters and High Barnet and to ensure that these station car parks remain available for people to use?
Robert Courts
The Secretary of State has indeed received a number of applications submitted by Transport for London under section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to dispose of operational land at London underground stations. These are considered carefully on a case-by-case basis, but my right hon. Friend’s views have been heard very clearly.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
As announced in October’s spending review, during this Parliament the Government are investing over £5 billion in highways maintenance—enough to fill in millions of potholes a year, repair dozens of bridges, and resurface roads up and down the country.
Mr Baker
I am grateful for that reassuring answer, but I am sorry to report that in High Wycombe there are all too many jarring potholes, and a number of our surfaces on important junctions are now breaking down to the point that they are dangerous to motorcycles. Is it not absolutely vital that councils are properly funded and equipped to keep our roads safe?
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend is quite right. Potholes are a menace to all road users, particularly motorcyclists. That is why the Government are working tirelessly to remove them from our roads. The Government’s decision to provide local highway authorities with a three-year highway maintenance funding settlement will enable them, in line with good asset management planning, to proactively plan their maintenance and pothole repair programme more effectively. I am sure that that will bring results in Wycombe.
Giles Watling
I thank the Minister for his answer. It takes an hour and a half by train to do the under 70 miles to Clacton, and we rely on our roads to prosper. We in Clacton often feel overlooked. I would like the Minister to come down to our sunshine coast, where he will see that we need better roads. Does he believe that transport links, particularly in coastal communities, should be the focus when it comes to levelling up?
Robert Courts
Coastal communities such as Clacton are part of this nation’s soul, and this Government are committed to such coastal communities and to levelling up across our Union. I can assure my hon. Friend that this Department works closely with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ensure that coastal communities recover from covid-19 and to help them to level up. Of course, that includes transport links.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The road across Hammersmith bridge has been completely closed since April, causing congestion, chaos, pollution and danger across Putney. Can the Minister confirm whether there will be funding in the Transport for London settlement for the repair and renewal of Hammersmith bridge, whether there will be funding for Hammersmith and Fulham Council and whether the Government will provide the additional funding to reopen Hammersmith bridge?
Robert Courts
That bridge is of course owned by the local Labour authority. The Transport Department has been stepping in to help, but I would urge the hon. Member to continue engage with her local authority to ensure that the repairs take place.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Following the Chancellor’s U-turn on sector-specific support, the sector hardest hit by covid is aviation, with the UK sector’s uneven recovery being the slowest in Europe. Understandably, omicron may now wipe out Christmas travel, so does the Secretary of State agree that the sector needs support now, whether it through furlough, grants, or route development funds? We need to see that the Government understand the urgency of the situation, including by their extending the terms of the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme so that it covers aviation and travel businesses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the aviation sector has benefited from approximately £8 billion of support from the Government’s cross-economy measures. We are just about to announce the third iteration of the airport and ground handlers business rates support scheme to help with fixed costs. We will continue to listen to the sector to understand how best it may be supported.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Draft Merchant Shipping (control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediments) order 2022
Robert Courts Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members that they are expected to wear face coverings at all times, unless they are speaking, and to maintain distancing, as far as is possible. This is in line with the current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give one another and our members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Members should email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk, and officials in the Gallery should communicate with Ministers electronically.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments) Order 2022.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. Hon. Members will realise that the purpose of this order is to give the Government the powers to implement in UK law the international convention for the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediments. If I may, I will call that “the convention”, for the purposes of succinct speech. I will just tell the Committee a little about what this is about, to try to make it a little more straightforward and understandable.
As hon. Members will realise, ships are an essential part of the global economy in moving goods around. In the course of moving around, ships, which clearly carry cargo, rely on the use of ballast water to maintain stability when they are not fully loaded. Large container ships take on many thousands of tonnes of water to act as ballast. That ballast can maintain thousands of microscopic organisms, which can then be carried around the world to new destinations by the ship. Clearly, if those organisms were to survive and to establish themselves in another ecosystem, they could cause great damage to it. That is something that the convention is intended to deal with. Hon. Members may have heard of the case of the Chinese mitten crab, which caused great destruction when it was transported from one part of the world to another. We are dealing here with everything from small to larger species. Shipping, which takes approximately 90% of the world’s commodities around the globe, estimates that it is responsible for moving 3 billion to 5 billion tonnes of ballast water, so it is a highly effective and worrying vector for the transport of species. That is what we are dealing with—the mischief that we are trying to counter.
This order relies on powers in section 128(1)(e) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and was laid before the House on 4 November 2021. The order, which I hope will be approved by the Committee, contains powers to make a new statutory instrument under the negative resolution procedure next year. This order does not make the provision; it will give the Government the ability to make the regulations. That is quite an important point to look at. What we are discussing today is the use of this order to give the Government the power to make the implementing regulations—the law that we really want—rather than the details and implementation of the convention itself.
I will give the Committee a bit of detail about the convention. It was adopted by the International Maritime Organisation in 2004 and it entered into force internationally on 8 September 2017. It clearly aims to counter the mischief to which I have referred—to prevent, minimise and ultimately eliminate the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens through the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediments. It does that by prohibiting the discharge of ballast water and sediments unless they have been managed in accordance with the convention requirements.
The United Kingdom has not yet ratified the convention. Hon. Members will of course have noted that the convention was brought into force four years ago and they may be asking why we have not done this already and why we are only now seeking powers to implement the convention. The reason is that the UK, in consultation, so industry and Government together, had some concerns about the sampling and analysis aspects of the convention. Delaying ratification of the convention allowed those concerns to be addressed. They were addressed, and the UK rescheduled ratification and implementation of the convention to allow amendments to the convention to enter into force. That having happened, the Government made a commitment to accede to the convention in 2020. There has been another delay to allow resource reallocation for covid reasons—the Committee will understand that—but none the less we now put this back on the agenda. The Government feel that the implementation of the convention is an important step to ensure that the UK and its waters are protected from non-native species.
There has been a consultation. After the convention was negotiated at the IMO, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which played a big role in that negotiation, has also consulted. It issued an FAQ—frequently asked questions—document to assist industry. There has been a 12-week public consultation.
The use of the order we are considering today is slightly technical. I will try to take the Committee through it in straightforward terms. The convention cannot be implemented in UK law unless the Government are given the powers to do so, which is what we are asking for today—that is what the draft order is all about. The power that we are asking for comes from section 128 of the 1995 Act, which allows Her Majesty the Queen to make Orders in Council for the purpose of implementing any international agreement ratified by the UK that relates to the control of pollution from ships.
The draft order will authorise the making of regulations by the Secretary of State to give effect to the convention, once the UK has ratified it. Section 128 allows for an order to be made only in respect of a convention that has been ratified. Therefore, we cannot make our implementing regulations without the powers that the draft order will give us, but we must have already ratified convention before we can make the order. I understand that the next available Privy Council date is in March.
The regulations must be made within three months of ratification. That is what article 18(3) of the convention states. The Government therefore intend to ratify the convention in the weeks before the draft order is submitted to the Privy Council, which will mean that the regulations are made in the requisite time.
To summarise what we have to do, and why it is a bit complicated, we in the House of Commons have to debate the draft order. If approved, it has to go to the other place and they have to debate it, and that process takes time. Assuming approval in both Houses, the United Kingdom may then ratify the convention and lay the Order in Council, which will give us the power then to make the regulations to bring the substance of this law into force before the end of three months after ratification.
I hope that explanation is clear, with the necessary amount of detail for the Committee to understand what we are dealing with today, but without being too technical. It is an important draft order. We need to ratify and implement the convention for reasons of environmental protection. I hope that what we propose is straightforward and meets with everyone’s approval.
Robert Courts
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech. I join him in paying tribute to the souls who were lost in the collision between Scot Carrier and Karin Hoej yesterday. I also pay tribute to the Swedish and Danish coastguards and their search and rescue services, which have done so much to help. The incident is a vivid reminder of the perils faced by all those at sea.
I also join the hon. Gentleman in recognising the extraordinary work that seafarers of all nationalities undergo day in, day out. As we exchange gifts at Christmas time, we ought to pause for a moment and think about how those gifts got there. While we enjoy Christmas with our families—I hope—those who brought those gifts to us may not be doing so with theirs, and are undergoing great peril. The work that they do for world trade is absolutely critical. We are helping them, on a global basis, to do that work in a cleaner and greener way.
The hon. Gentleman asked about enforcement. The convention’s legal sanctions were established by parties to help it to deal with the violation of the requirements. A number of new criminal offences have been introduced, and who the liable party is will depend on the offence. Those offences are investigated by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, however, and sanctions, which include improvement notices, prohibition notices, detention or prosecution as a last resort if necessary, are applied as appropriate.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about training. Clearly, there is a really important training requirement for all work done at sea. The measures are intended to include a number of management plans, which I would expect to be within the normal training regime of shipping lines. It would be their responsibility, but I will ensure that I write to him with a full answer on where the training responsibility lies, so that we are absolutely clear about that.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for this important order, and I hope that I have dealt with all his queries satisfactorily. The order deals with an important environmental matter and I hope that the Committee will support it.
Question put and agreed to.
National Lost Trawlermen’s Memorial Day
Robert Courts Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on securing this important debate on the creation of a national Lost Trawlermen’s Memorial Day. Fishing and the courage of fishermen are woven deep into the fabric of this nation. Perhaps too few are truly aware of the dangers that fishermen face to put food on our plates, or of their place in our maritime history, serving our nation in peace and war to keep this country fed and protected.
I was particularly struck by the hon. Gentleman’s speech. More than 6,000 fishermen from Hull have lost their lives in the past 100 years, either through fishing tragedies or when their vessels were engaged in wartime service. More than 1,200 fishermen working from Hull died in the first world war; 300 Hull ships were used as minesweepers and for searching for submarines, and by the end of the war, only 91 Hull-owned ships were still afloat. Between 1939 and 1945, 191 trawlers from Hull were taken into military service, and 96 of them were lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) is right to say that this sacrifice and this service are nowhere near well enough publicised. The work of the Royal Naval Patrol Service and others ought to be remembered by all of us in this House and across the nation.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on securing this debate. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the number of people who are in the Chamber for this Adjournment debate tonight, representing all parts of the United Kingdom, just goes to show how much we owe the fishermen who have been described tonight? I should also like to add my thanks, through the Minister, to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for visiting my constituency earlier this year and for signing the book of condolence in Fraserburgh. I think they both found it quite touching that such a memorial already existed, but I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that a specific day for recognising our fishermen is a worthy cause.
Robert Courts
I warmly agree with everything my hon. Friend says. We have heard moving speeches from Members on both sides of the House. The support from all parts of the United Kingdom and all political parties makes very clear how important this matter is to the entire country, and I commend all hon. and right hon. Members for having taken part and having made their contributions so movingly.
We have been hearing this evening about sacrifice and service. That tradition continues to this day and is likely to continue through the challenges of the covid pandemic. It is absolutely clear that we all owe a debt of gratitude to those we have lost. I start my thanks by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East for having secured this debate, and to his constituents, who commemorate the memory of those lost trawlermen already at the annual Lost Trawlermen’s Day held locally in Hull.
If I may, I shall take a moment to recognise that this country owes a debt of gratitude to all those who work in perilous working conditions—not just fishermen, but all those who work at sea to keep our critical supply chains moving. A timely reminder of this is the collision that took place early this morning between the UK-flagged Scot Carrier and the Danish-flagged Karin Hoej in Swedish territorial waters near the Danish island of Bornholm. The detail of the incident is still emerging, and I hope the House will understand that I must not comment further until the maritime accident investigation branches have concluded their investigations. What I can say is that I extend my thoughts and prayers to the families of all those seafarers who are still missing, and my very best wishes to all those involved, including those from the Swedish and Danish search and rescue services who have been responding to this incident today. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I thank them and salute them.
I must praise the critical role that the families of fishermen in Hull have played. Their work is the foundation stone on which we are building and improving fishing safety. Following the tragic loss of 58 lives on three fishing vessels—the triple trawler tragedy from Hull at the start of 1968—the campaigning of the headscarf revolutionaries led by Lillian Bilocca, Christine Jensen, Mary Denness and Yvonne Blenkinsop resulted in the first steps in improving fishing safety. They were all fishermen’s wives. How extraordinarily moving and poignant it is that we have in the House my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who added her devastating personal loss to the debate today. We thank her and salute her for her passionate work on fishing safety, ongoing for so many years.
Members were all as struck as I was by the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) about the hush of cold silence that descended over the town when a trawler was lost. The determination of the headscarf revolutionaries to see full crewing of ships, radio operators on every ship, improved weather forecasts, better training for crew and more safety equipment led to the publication of the Holland-Martin trawler safety report in 1969. At that time, more than 60 fishermen a year were being lost. As we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), each one of those represents for their families mourning that never ends.
In 1975, we saw the first significant regulations introduced for fishing vessels of 12 metres and over. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East said, the introduction of the regulations is a testament to the work of the headscarf revolutionaries and those who supported them, and I pay tribute to them.
Fishing has changed since the 1960s and 1970s. When the Holland-Martin report was published, we had a sizeable deep water fleet; now our vessels tend to be smaller. Actual trawlermen, as the technical phrase is, are fewer, but the danger to those who fish commercially remains, albeit in different forms. I welcome the opportunity to recognise and highlight the real dangers that fishermen face every time they go to sea, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) rightly said, to provide food for us.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on securing the debate. As, I think, the only current Member of the House who is married to a fisherman, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his kind words in suggesting that all fishermen need to be remembered, not just those who work on large boats. My husband works on an under-10 metre vessel. There is a bit of déjà vu because I mentioned it in my maiden speech, but we can send them out on a calm clear day, and then the weather turns and we do not know if they are going to come home safely or not. They can call you and say, “It could be two hours before I get back,” and the worry is very palpable. So I thank my hon. Friend for his words and hope that the memorial day will connect everybody in the country to their fishermen and their coastal communities, and to the dangers involved in bringing food to their tables.
Robert Courts
I thank my hon. Friend very much for that intervention. She really brings home to us all the importance of what we are discussing. I very much hope that this debate and the idea the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East has had will help, as she says, to connect people. Perhaps that is the point the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood was making as well—about connecting people to an understanding of what others do in order to bring food to them. They both make that point exceptionally well and I thank them for doing so.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point of connection and for reflecting on the contribution of our fishing industry during times of conflict. It is worth remembering that we have just seen the passing of the last man who was part of the Shetland Bus, Jakob Strandheim. That still lives very strongly in the communities I represent in Shetland, but as we get further from the memory of what they did, acts of commemoration like this will be all the more important.
Robert Courts
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I thank him for making that point. He is absolutely right that the memories of the sacrifices made by communities runs deep, but we must not be complacent. Those extraordinary acts of sacrifice, through the sheer passage of time become something we have to redouble our efforts to remember. There are those we have lost, but also, as we have heard, those currently working in what is a uniquely dangerous industry.
I believe there is merit in exploring further the idea from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, supported by so many Members across this House, of a national memorial day dedicated to those who have lost their lives. Consequently, I have asked my officials to explore the proposal further. I would like it very much if the hon. Gentleman and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken were a part of that engagement as we consider the proposal further.
Mrs Murray
I am really pleased to hear those words from my hon. Friend, because there are so many people in my position, but they have no grave to visit, no body to bury, because some fishermen are lost at sea, never to be seen again. To give them a day when they will be able to pay tribute to their loved ones is very, very important thing. Believe you me, I know. I am one of the lucky ones.
Robert Courts
I thank my hon. Friend for making the point so beautifully, so poignantly, so eloquently. All I can do is pay tribute to her again for her fortitude and for her passionate campaigning. I hope very much that she will take part in the work we do as we explore the proposal further. I am glad that it may offer her, and others like her, comfort and solace.
I hope the House will allow me, while we remember those we have lost, to say a word or two to focus on what we can do to make the industry a safer working environment for the men and women working in it today and in the future. The 1980s, 1990s and 2000s saw new requirements to improve safety. For example, we now have basic safety training for those who want to work on a fishing vessel. Skippers must have certificates of competency. We have better health and safety requirements, such as the need to assess risks. We have seen the progressive introduction of new standards for smaller fishing vessels. Those changes have had a significant impact on fatalities in fishing, which have reduced from 60 a year in the 1960s to an average of six in recent years, as we have heard. Of course, that is still too high. It is true that the numbers fishing at sea have reduced by about 45% since those days, while fatalities have reduced by 90%. That must show that the safety changes have had an impact.
While that is a massive improvement on where we used to be, sadly this year we have seen the loss of 10 fishermen to date. No one should lose their life to provide food for our plates, so there is more to be done to make fishing safer and to protect those who choose to work in this historic industry. After all, fishing remains the most dangerous industry in the United Kingdom. On average, there are approximately 53 fatalities per 100,000 in fishing, set against 0.5 per 100,000 for the general workforce. For us, this continued loss of life is unacceptable. To think otherwise would be a betrayal of the memory of those we have lost over the years.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) told us so movingly, the loss of life continues right up to today. The loss of the Nicola Faith on 27 January 2021 resulted in the loss of Alan Minard, Ross Ballantine and skipper Carl McGrath in the Colwyn Bay area of north Wales. Again, this matter is still under investigation by the marine accident investigation branch. While I can say nothing further, I of course send my condolences and thank my hon. Friend for his moving contribution.
What more can be done? Do we accept that fishing is dangerous and the loss of life therefore inevitable? My Department and I do not believe that to be the case. I say that as someone who reads all the marine accident investigation branch reports before they are published. I am determined that more can be done.
We should be encouraged by what has been achieved in Iceland. In the 1980s, it experienced on average more than 12 fatalities a year in its fishing industry. From 2017 to 2020, there were none. Our fishing industry can be safer. That is why the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the Sea Fish Industry Authority and the national fishing federations, partnered together in the Fishing Industry Safety Group, have the aim of eliminating preventable fatalities by 2027.
We know that in the UK, based on the investigations undertaken by the marine accident investigation branch, there are three main causes of fatality: people going overboard, vessel stability and personal accidents. The MCA and its partners are working tirelessly to address those challenges. I will say a word or two about each, if I may.
Starting with going overboard, ideally not going overboard in the first place is the best option. To help fishermen think about how not to go overboard, in 2018 new health and safety regulations were introduced that require risk assessments. Risks that might cause someone to go overboard now have to be recorded alongside steps to prevent it happening, or at least to reduce the chances. The new requirements cover everyone on board, not just those under contract.
Where the risk of going overboard cannot be eliminated, people must wear a personal flotation device. The industry has been working hard for many years to get fishermen to wear personal flotation devices. Seafish and the national federations have provided more than 8,000 devices free to crews, particularly those on small fishing vessels. We have heard from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) how valuable that is and the massive difference it has made in his constituency. I thank him for his work, as well as other Members who have helped spread the word about personal flotation devices around our coasts and in their constituencies. Excellent work is being done by the RNLI and Seafish through practical demonstrations at environmental pools around the country.
Even with the great work that is going on, sadly we still see regular fatal incidents where fishermen enter the water and are found not wearing a personal flotation device. When the encouragement, training and guidance fail, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, as the regulator, can use its aerial surveillance capability to check that personal flotation devices are being worn when the risk of going overboard has not been eliminated, and it can take action.
I will say a word about vessel stability. Requirements have existed for larger fishing vessels since the introduction of new rules in 1975 as a result of the work of the headscarf revolutionaries, but no such requirements existed for small vessels, making up the majority of the fleet. Unlike going overboard, which normally involves just one person, capsize can be a sudden and catastrophic event that ends the lives of everyone on board. The loss of vessels such as the Stella Maris, the JMT, the Purbeck Isle, the Sarah Jayne, the Nancy Glen and the Heather Anne, to name but a few, led to the introduction in September of new stability requirements for smaller vessels.
We heard of the importance of safety and newer vessels and new safety requirements from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and he is right. Just last week, we saw the launch of the latest phase of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s “Home and Dry” campaign, with videos on how to conduct tests and avoid compromising a vessel’s stability. Since 2008, the MCA has invested more than £3 million to support training in stability awareness and other safety skills. It is anticipated that, next year, the MCA will consult on introducing mandatory stability training.
Although stability nowadays is a problem for small fishing vessels, the working environment of a fishing vessel, with the dynamic movement of the vessel and equipment, means that accidents for those on board are all too common. Despite the challenging working conditions, accidents are not inevitable. The good maintenance of equipment, safe operating systems, regular review of those systems and following good safety behaviours can reduce or eliminate the risks, whether someone is working a machine on land or fishing gear at sea. I am heartened that the industry has developed a free online safety management system that helps to achieve those things. I encourage all those fishing commercially either to adopt that system or develop their own in line with the MCA’s maritime guidance note covering the topic.
Mrs Murray
Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to his predecessor, who worked with me in 2011 to try to introduce safety stop buttons for deck equipment, which was one of the things that was entirely responsible for my late husband’s death?
Robert Courts
Yes, I wholeheartedly pay tribute to my predecessor for that work and to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall for her passionate advocacy of that critical step. Thank goodness that is one step we have been able to take, but there is so much more to do, and I look forward to working with her and others on that.
Changes can take time to have an effect. Although we can introduce new requirements, have more robust enforcement, develop training, give guidance, run publicity campaigns and provide funding, ultimately, safety is the responsibility of the owners of the vessel on which people work and, undoubtedly, those on board. We must always remember those who, sadly, have died while fishing, and there is no better way of remembering than by looking to the industry to eliminate all preventable deaths in future. We should follow the lead of the headscarf revolutionaries by bringing together people with all groups, not just in Government, who can influence and drive change in the industry.
Ultimately, although the Government can support initiatives and introduce new requirements, only those involved in fishing can prevent further fatalities and we will need to work with them to help to improve their safety. However, we will not sit back and wait to see whether safety improves. In the new year, I intend to write to all hon. Members with constituency fishing interests. I would like to explore this and use their unique insight and knowledge gained through their work in their constituencies—their thoughts and ideas on what they, their constituents and others can do to improve safety in this critical industry.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response to everyone tonight; it has been exemplary and we really appreciate it. He understands where we are all coming from. In my village of Portavogie, which I represent, we have a memorial—a statue of a fisherman in a sou’wester as he steers a boat. It epitomises and captures the feelings of us all in the area. I had a brother who fished on the boats and I have lost some dear friends over the years, so I understand the issue.
It is really important for the hon. Gentleman to get all the viewpoints, not just of those who are here, but of the fish producer organisations that have the knowledge of the local communities who have lost their loved ones. We can feed all that into the process. I think he is saying that that is what he wants to do, and if that is the case, that is the way forward.
Robert Courts
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. That is indeed what I should like to do. I have been very struck by the tragedies about which I have read and heard since I have been fortunate enough to be in this post, and I should very much like to seek the aid of hon. Members such as him to ensure that communities, representatives, and indeed everyone who wants to feed in their views to assist this can have those views heard. Driving down those unnecessary fatalities is a goal towards which we can all strive, and of which we can be proud. It would be a fitting achievement, and a fitting tribute to all those who have lost their lives.
Let me end by leaving one thought with the House. Over this winter, if any of us or any of our constituents—anyone watching this debate—turns in for a late night after a fish-and-chip supper in a warm pub, deep in landlocked safety, I hope we will take a minute, just once, to tune in to the shipping forecast, with its calm gale warnings, and will think of those at sea, risking life and limb that we might be in bed, safe and warm and fed.
Question put and agreed to.
Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021
Robert Courts Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing. I also remind them that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 0000).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Fovargue. May I start by apologising to the House for having to bring this legislation back? On 20 October, a Committee considered three statutory instruments on heavy commercial goods vehicles. Today’s order relates to the second of them. This legislation underpins what is known as Operation Brock, which is the multi-agency response to cross-channel travel disruption. I very much regret to inform everyone that an error occurred in the drafting of the legislation as passed. It is a technical definition that requires correction.
Paragraph 2.7 of the explanatory memorandum explains what has taken place: the amendment to the definition of
“the relevant class of road”
was not made correctly. We seek to amend this.
If members of the Committee would like to understand the issue in more detail, they may turn to article 2(2) of the order. The words between “means all” and “other than” were omitted in the law as passed and we need to insert them. I apologise unreservedly for this. One of the Government’s lawyers had a personal emergency at a crucial time of the legislation and a version of the legislation was passed that contains this error. It ought not to have happened. We are reviewing procedures to make sure that it does not happen again, but I wanted to start by being entirely frank and honest to the Committee about what has taken place and saying that we need to put it right.
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) took the three statutory instruments through on 20 October. This legislation was first put in place in 2019 as preparation for a no-deal departure from the European Union. It has been amended on a number of occasions since then. Operation Brock, as the Committee will know, is an alternative to Operation Stack. It allows trucks on cross-channel journeys to be queued on the coast-bound carriageway of the M20 between junctions 8 and 9 when there is serious disruption at the ports, as hon. Members who represent that part of the world will be well aware. The contraflow on the London-bound carriageway keeps the M20 open to other traffic in both directions, with access to the junctions.
As I say, the error that has occurred is in the second of the three orders, the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2021, which amended the original Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) Order 2019. When Operation Brock is active, the 2019 order restricts cross-channel heavy commercial vehicles from using local roads in Kent, other than those that are on the approved Operation Brock routes. The error that has been introduced is to the definition of the roads, which can be found in article 2(2) of the order before us. The error does not prevent the Kent Resilience Forum from initiating Operation Brock. Indeed, it has not been necessary to implement it in the relatively short period since the legislation was made, but the error would affect the extent of the enforcement powers that the police would have to use against heavy goods vehicles using specific roads to avoid the Brock queue.
In short, the police need powers to stop lorries rat running in order to avoid the routes they are meant to be taking. If the Committee is minded to approve this change, we will put right the error in the legislation. Again, I apologise for the mistake and that further legislation has been necessary. Operation Brock is an essential part of traffic management to mitigate any disruption of the short straits, and correcting the mistake will ensure that the legislation works as intended, and as the Committee that approved it on 20 October intended.
Robert Courts
I thank all hon. Members for their points, which I will take one at a time. The hon. Members for Ilford South and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North both made points about HGV drivers. I will not go into great detail because it is slightly off topic, but I would point out that the Government have taken decisive action on that. The Department for Transport alone has taken 30 measures and they are having an effect already. We have taken decisive action and we are seeing those measures take effect.
These are contingency measures, but working closely with local authorities, Kent Resilience Forum and those at the borders to make sure we have a smooth flow is what we do on a day-to-day, monthly and ongoing basis. These are contingency measures, because sometimes events take place that are outside the control of any of us. A good example is covid and the covid measures. It is important that we are able to ensure the smooth flow of traffic and to protect the people of Kent and their quality of life at the same time.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet asked about the powers that are available. A £300 fine is available to the police if drivers do not use the intended roads. That is, in essence, what we are putting right today—ensuring that they have those powers. That is why the roads are specified in the definitions I pointed to in my earlier remarks.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford asked about the use of the word “replacement”. He is quite right; I said “alternative” and he asked me to use “replacement”. These measures do replace Operation Stack, and he is quite right to ensure that we have clarity on that. He also asked me to take away the points about making sure that signage is adequate. I will take that away and talk with the noble Baroness Vere, as I will his point about overnight parking to ensure that his residents are protected. I will go away and have those conversations and report back to him.
I think I have covered all the points made by right hon. and hon. Members. I reiterate my apologies for having to trouble members of the Committee with this statutory instrument, but I hope they will join me in supporting it.
Question put and agreed to.
Transport
Robert Courts Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy
Are trade unions involved at any of the Jet Zero Council discussions?
Robert Courts
The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and I am grateful to her for it. I have a great deal of sympathy with people who ask for the membership of the Jet Zero Council. We have to have a finite number of people on the council, simply because it is a technical body and has to be able to produce results, but trade unions are involved in the sub-groups, which I will spend a moment talking about, particularly to put right some of the misunderstandings.
[Official Report, 21 September 2021, Vol. 701, c. 84WH.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts):
Errors have been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).
The correct response should have been:
Robert Courts
The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and I am grateful to her for it. I have a great deal of sympathy with people who ask for the membership of the Jet Zero Council. We have to have a finite number of people on the main council, simply because it is a technical body and has to be able to produce results. Trade unions are also not currently involved in the sub-groups, which I will spend a moment talking about, particularly to put right some of the misunderstandings.
Airport and Ground Operations Support Scheme
Robert Courts Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings and to maintain social distancing as far as possible, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and staff plenty of room when seated and when entering and leaving. Please can Members send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the motion in the name of Grant Shapps relating to airport and ground operations support scheme winter 2021-22 renewal that this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, sums exceeding £30 million with an estimated total sum of £44 million, to be made available, through the extended airport and ground operations support scheme announced in the Budget, to eligible commercial airports and ground operators to compensate for the continuing damage caused by covid-19 to the aviation sector, on the basis of business rates liabilities or covid-19 losses, whichever is lower, from October 2 March 2022, subject to certain conditions and a cap of £4 million per eligible company.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Nokes. I would like to update Members on the evolving situation regarding the omicron variant. As right hon. and hon. Members will have seen, the Government have taken steps to ensure the safety of the country. As of Sunday morning, 10 countries are on the red list. Scientists at the UK Health Security Agency are monitoring the development of this new variant closely, and laboratory testing is underway to assess its transmissibility, severity and vaccine susceptibility. The results of those investigations will determine any further public health actions, which may be necessary to limit the impact of the new strain.
Travel guidance has been updated, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office continues to offer tailored consular assistance to British nationals in-country in need of support overseas. The managed quarantine service is running for new arrivals from countries on the red list. We continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations in order to have a uniform approach, although they are, of course, responsible for administering and implementing their own regulations.
Notwithstanding the emergence of the omicron variant, it is important to note how far we have come since May, when the Committee was last together to consider the matter that concerns us today: seeking Parliament’s consent to use powers in section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. I began my speech in May by remarking that the Committee was considering this matter at what is one of the most challenging—if not the most challenging—periods faced by this industry and our country. We still find ourselves in those difficult, strange and testing times, particularly in the context of the aviation sector, which I have the honour to serve as Minister.
We have seen enormously positive change since we met in May, with restrictions now significantly relaxed and the transatlantic corridor finally reopened after an unprecedented 18-month closure. The industry is emerging from a situation in which it has been heavily impacted. Despite these positive developments, the sector enters a winter season that even in pre-pandemic times would have come with challenges. With consistently lower passenger numbers year-on-year, the winter represents the most challenging period for what is a highly seasonal sector in any event. Airports and ground handlers have long relied on strong summers to offset weaker winters. Due to the pandemic, where airports and ground handlers have largely seen two consecutive loss-making summers, with demand at less than 50% of 2019 levels, there simply has not been that fruitful period to provide liquidity to tired airports and ground handlers through the testing winter months.
As I have mentioned, there is a continued watchful eye on the emergence of new variants and how they will impact the recovery we have seen thus far. In this challenging time, when the financial foundations that underpin the sector and its recovery continue to face challenges, the Government recognise the need for protection—both in the short term, to ensure the continuity of the operation for essential services, passengers and freight; and in the longer term, to ensure the endurance of the sector and the preservation of aviation capacity and connectivity, which is so important to the our shared objectives of building back better and levelling up the country. This is particularly important as we consider the impact of the Union connectivity review, which was recently published by Sir Peter Hendy.
As I have mentioned, it is right that we continue to support the aviation sector at this highly challenging time. It is one of the sectors that have been hardest hit by covid-19. We want to provide a funding and liquidity bridge to take the sector through the winter, and unlock the stability and prosperity that summer 2022 offers. That is the reasoning behind the Chancellor’s announcement of the renewal of the airport and ground operations support scheme in the autumn Budget. The renewed scheme will, subject to the House’s approval, be a continuation of crucial support to the sector. Eligible commercial airports and ground handlers will be able to access a grant up to the equivalent of their business rates liabilities or covid-19 losses—whichever is the lower—from October 2021 to March 2022, up to a per-claimant cap of £4 million, subject to certain conditions.
The extension of the six-month airport and ground handlers support scheme, or AGOSS, which I initially announced a year ago in November 2020, represents a vital tool to support the sector through the challenges of the winter before the summer peak of 2022, which offers the prospect of the sector finally regaining stability and pre-pandemic prosperity.
To continue to provide that fundamental financial relief, the Government intend to use the powers laid out in the motion, under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. That Act requires Parliament to provide its consent to use those powers where a project will exceed £30 million. We estimate that the total sum of relief provided under the scheme will be around £44 million.
As I have said in my brief remarks, it is clearly crucial that we continue to guarantee the future of our essential aviation infrastructure to support our sector’s recovery. I therefore ask that the Committee supports the motion.
Robert Courts
I very much appreciate the points that the Committee has made today, and I will answer them briefly, if I may. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and I have sparred across the Chamber on many matters over the course of the past year or so. Although we do not always agree on everything, there are some things we really do agree on, and the real importance of the aviation sector to this country is certainly one of them. We also agree, of course, about it becoming a more sustainable industry, and he knows I will point to the Jet Zero Council and the other work we are doing as proof positive that that is taken seriously by the Government as well.
We will continue to consider how the industry may best be supported at what we all accept is a very challenging time. The hon. Gentleman will know that I will refer to the approximately £8 billion of support that the sector has received from the Government and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley says, this is the latest instalment of that—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that this support is significant.
Turning to my hon. Friend’s points, he raised the question of PCR tests. I understand that that is an extra challenge for the sector, but it is simply so that we can have the genomic sequencing we need so that we have the data. In three weeks’ time, that will be reviewed—but, as a responsible Government, we keep all our policy under review at all times.
More broadly, regarding the motion itself, we have a recovery and we have made great steps, as I said at the outset, but we still need to be cautious. That is the reason the Government have taken these steps, but the sector’s recovery remains fragile because of previous restrictions we have had to impose, and there is a challenging winter period coming up. While demand is recovering, it is still suppressed, and that is why we offer this support to secure jobs, maintain cash flow and safeguard vital infrastructure, in order to provide the conditions for the sector to bounce back into the future. I commend the motion to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Pedicabs (London) Bill
Robert Courts Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for promoting the Bill and for her extensive campaign to bring it before the House, as she has done on a number of occasions. This is an extremely important matter.
Pedicabs are currently unregulated in London. They are the only form of public transport that is unregulated, despite having been on the capital’s streets for approximately 30 years. Transport for London estimates the number of these cabs on the streets of London to be about 400, but other estimates go up to about 1,400. The Government fully support the Bill.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I had understood from talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) earlier that I was going to have a chance to contribute to this debate, because I objected to her Bill in the last Session, on the basis that it looked as though—
Oral Answers to Questions
Robert Courts Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
Glasgow airport is engaged in the airspace modernisation programme, and is working with the Civil Aviation Authority and the Airspace Change Organising Group to develop its proposals.
Margaret Ferrier
With COP26 kicking off this week, the environmental impact of flying is at the forefront of many attenders’ minds. What assessment has the Minister made of the environmental benefits of potential airspace changes?
Robert Courts
UK airspace is among the most complex in the world, but it has not been modified significantly since the 1950s. Airspace modernisation will enable us to have more direct, quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys, and will harness new technologies such as performance-based navigation. As set out in the “Jet Zero Consultation”, the Department’s analysis shows that
“Moving to best-in-class aircraft, operations and airspace modernisation could deliver 25-36% of CO² savings by 2050”,
bringing benefits not only for the hon. Lady’s constituents but for the whole United Kingdom.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that Rolls-Royce is now developing an aviation jet engine that will run on 100% sustainable fuel? When that happens, will it not show that flying can be not only fun but clean?
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am aware of that engine that is being developed; in fact, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went to see it only this week. There are a number of exciting technologies with new aerospace advancements including sustainable aviation fuel that will deliver precisely the guilt-free flying that my hon. Friend refers to.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
We have an analogue airspace system in the digital age; the Minister is right in what he says. With the better ascents and descents of planes and the elimination of holding patterns, we will not only improve noise abatement but cut carbon emissions by up to 26%, as he rightly said. This is the lowest of the low-hanging fruit when it comes to the climate crisis, so can the Minister tell us what he is personally doing and how he is talking to the industry to unlock the funding we need to enable this programme to continue?
Robert Courts
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There are a number of aspects to decarbonising aviation. There are the existing efficiencies as well as sustainable aviation fuel and the £180 million that we have recently announced on that. Then there is the longer-term but still rapidly advancing technology that was referred to earlier. He is also quite right to talk about airspace modernisation, and the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, which was put through in the last Session, was a major part of that. It gives the Government extra powers. After the pause that took place during covid, we have given £5.5 million for the future airspace strategy programme, which is taking place as we speak.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I agree entirely with you, Mr Speaker, and observe that it is not only ironic, but totally counterproductive that a Member of Parliament who wished to ask Ministers about carbon is prevented from doing so by protesters purporting to care about carbon. I will do my best to answer my hon. Friend’s question, anticipating what he might have asked. I anticipate that he would have asked me, on behalf of his constituents in Windsor, about Heathrow expansion. He would have expanded on the carbon cost of a third runway, which is what is set out on the Order Paper. Of course, Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, which will need to meet strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change. He is right to raise those questions. Clearly, the aviation sector has a big part to play in delivering the UK’s net zero commitment. Were he here, I would hope to be able to reassure him that we are continuing, through technology and aviation, to look for ways to reduce the carbon footprint of aviation, to ensure that we can transition to guilt-free flying. We will be setting out the final jet zero strategy early next year, which will show how we can support the benefits of air travel and the opportunities that aviation decarbonisation can bring to the UK. I say to the whole House and to everyone who is concerned about this issue that it is emissions, not flying, that is the problem.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Adam Afriyie
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is very seldom that I become furious, but I am absolutely apoplectic about missing my question this morning due to those reprobates outside who are doing their cause no good whatsoever. I was sitting in my electric vehicle—I know the Secretary of State has one as well—coming here with the sole purpose of putting pressure on the Government to reduce carbon emissions from aviation from Heathrow airport, so it is absolutely bizarre that they should have blocked that question. My question now, which I will slightly rephrase, is: given that aviation is one of the greatest contributors to CO2 emissions, do the Government have any plans to continue to put downward pressure on CO2 from aviation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I am very glad to see my hon. Friend here fighting for his constituents, as ever. I am glad that he made it in past the protestors to make that entirely forceful and appropriate point on their behalf. He is right to acknowledge that aviation is one of the harder to decarbonise sectors, and clearly it has to make a big contribution. The Government are working very hard to make sure that the carbon emissions in aviation are reduced, through technology and innovation, because we wish to see guilt-free flying. We have consulted on the “Jet Zero” strategy. Next year we will publish the final “Jet Zero” strategy, which will explain how we can keep the benefits of air travel and the opportunities that it has for the UK while ensuring that it is done on a vastly reduced carbon emission basis.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Since City of York Council barred blue badge holders from accessing our city centre, it seems also that the Government are delaying implementing fully accessible transport. We heard earlier about the five-year delay on audio-visual for buses, but also, in commissioning active travel schemes, the Government are not making them accessible either. Will the Minister talk to the companies that are putting in place e-travel active travel schemes to ensure that they have an accessible form of vehicles as well so that we can increase motability for disabled people?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Making aviation net zero is clearly a big challenge. Earlier, the Secretary of State said that it is not flying that is the problem, but emissions from aircraft that use fossil fuels. Will he meet me to discuss ideas around synthetic fuels that scientists from the University of Leeds have brought to my attention?
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The new agreement between the Department for Transport and Greater Anglia on running the railways in East Anglia has omitted the previous commitment in the franchise to reinstate through-services from Lowestoft to Liverpool Street. Greater Anglia has agreed that it will look at that over the next six months. Will my hon. Friend work with it and me to see whether it is possible to do that?