Vehicle Emissions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I wish to inform the House that the Government have now concluded the Vehicle Emissions Testing Programme and we have published our findings.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport informed the House on 10 November that we had established this important programme following the revelations that Volkswagen had been using software in their cars which caused the engines to behave differently during emissions tests compared to real world driving. Not only has this caused disruption and distress to the 1.2 million Volkswagen Group users in the UK, it showed a lack of regard for the serious health consequences of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions and caused significant damage to the trust consumers have placed in car manufacturers across the country. It was vital that we immediately started a UK investigation into whether other manufacturers were using equivalent prohibited devices and more broadly to better understand why emissions results in the real world were significantly different from those tested under laboratory conditions.

Our testing programme was designed to test a range of the best-selling passenger diesel cars. We selected an independent and representative sample of vehicles to test in a variety of conditions using the latest technology. We appointed Professor Ricardo Martinez-Botas, of Imperial College London, to provide independent academic oversight of the work.

Importantly, the tests have not detected evidence of test cycle manipulation strategies as used by the Volkswagen Group from other manufacturers. However, tests have found higher levels of NO emissions in test track and real world driving conditions than in the laboratory for all vehicles, with results varying significantly between different makes and models.

Although the progressive tightening of European emissions standards has substantially reduced harmful pollutants from vehicles, existing laboratory tests designed to ensure these emissions limits are met have been shown to be inadequate. However we have already secured a tough new real driving emissions test in EU legislation. From next year, vehicles will have to meet emissions limits in real driving conditions across a wide range of typical operating conditions. This will improve consumer confidence in manufacturers. The results from our testing programme further confirm that the UK was right to push for the early introduction of these tough new limits.

Even before the introduction of the new limits, we are urging manufacturers to introduce new technologies to reduce emissions sooner than the new EU regulations require. Some manufacturers have announced that they intend to make changes to vehicles already in use, to improve emissions, and will offer this to customers on a voluntary basis. We welcome this and encourage action from other manufacturers.

We will continue working to ensure that the new rules for real driving emissions and type approval are robust, deliver the expected outcomes and that manufacturers behave consistently. In addition, this year the Department for Transport will be establishing a new programme of market surveillance testing which will seek to ensure that products entering our markets fully comply with the law.

I am appearing at the Transport Select Committee’s inquiry into vehicle type approval this afternoon where I will be happy to explain these findings further.

I have placed copies of this report in the Libraries of both Houses.

Attachments can be viewed online at:

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-04-25/HCWS700.

[HCWS700]

Aircraft Noise

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) suggested that we might need the wisdom of Solomon. I cannot claim to have that, but I am wise enough not to stray into the area that the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), encouraged us to stray into. I shall focus on the issue of noise, if I may.

I want to assure the House that the Government are acutely aware that noise is a major environmental concern around airports. We know that communities feel strongly about the issue. I remind the House that, as set out in the aviation policy framework published in 2013, our overall policy is

“to limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise”.

How we define the word “significantly” is important, and I well understand the points that have been made about background ambient noise in more rural areas. In accordance with the aviation policy framework, we will continue to treat 57 dB as the average level of daytime aircraft noise that marks the approximate onset of significant community annoyance. That does not, however, mean that all people within that contour will experience significant adverse affects. Nor does it mean that no one outside the contour will consider themselves annoyed by aircraft noise. We are looking at the matter, and our consultation later in the year will consider policy in that area and particularly what it means for airspace change. Our overarching policy on the issue of noise remains as I have set out, and I think that the House will agree that it is the right approach to take.

We have a strong aviation sector here in the United Kingdom, and we should be proud of it, but we want to ensure that it does all it can to reduce the effect of noise on communities. I know that airports and other stakeholders, such as airlines, the CAA and NATS, all realise the importance of tackling noise if the industry is to continue to grow. The Government, too, have a role to play, which is why we set noise controls at Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted to balance the benefits of aviation with the burdens they place on communities.

Aircraft noise is a difficult issue, as we have heard, and when changes take place, they can lead to less noise for some but a worsening for others. It can be particularly difficult for people who experience a noticeable change in noise, and it presents formidable challenges for those responsible for decisions. I am aware that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, and in others, people will have experienced changes in noise in recent years because of changes to where aircraft fly.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, a recent change to the joining point for aircraft approaching Gatwick from the east has created concerns for some residents. That change affected the point at which aircraft join the instrument landing system that leads down to the runway. Although that will have meant that some people have experienced fewer aircraft, for others it will have led to an increase in noise as a result of a narrower and more concentrated swathe on the final approach. As he will be aware, the Government believe that it is usually better to concentrate aircraft over as few routes as possible in order to minimise the number of people affected. That has been Government policy for many years and works well for many airports across the country.

Our current policy makes it clear, however, that there may be instances in which multiple routes, such as those that can offer respite for communities, can be better. The Government believe that those decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, with local communities informing the process where possible. I understand that in this instance, as the change was not to published airspace routes, communities were neither informed nor consulted before it occurred. For aircraft arriving in the UK, there are no set routes leading to the final approach. That is because arriving aircraft approach UK airspace in a random pattern and then have to be sequenced for safe operation by air traffic controllers. The change that took place in 2013 was to the procedures that air traffic controllers followed. It was therefore not subject to the Civil Aviation Authority’s airspace change process, which needs to be followed when changes to airspace routes are proposed and requires consultation. Although there is no suggestion that NATS, Gatwick or the CAA acted improperly when making the change, as I have said, I believe that communities should be engaged when such changes are made.

I turn to one or two points that were made in the debate. My hon. Friend talked about changing the angle of approach. At the end of March, Heathrow airport trialled a 3.2° descent, but of course that requires significant pilot training and safety tests. As some airports trial that, more can follow. We need to look at pilot training and plane technology, and the report following that trial is expected over the summer. Having flown the 747 simulator into Heathrow at various descent angles, I can well understand some of the issues involved—in particular, the kinetic energy in a plane when it arrives on a steeper descent. That requires training, and there are noise issues when planes get nearer to the airport as greater braking power is needed. However, the descents are certainly not the same as I experienced when being taken into Kandahar airport some time ago.

My hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge and Malling and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) both referred to the lack of a night flight ban at Gatwick. The Government recognise the impact of noise disturbance at night and, for that reason, set night flight restrictions at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick. The current restrictions end in October 2017, and we will consult on future arrangements later this year to ensure that the cost and benefits of night flights continue to be balanced.

My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham asked why stacking could not be done out at sea. The Gatwick arrivals review has recommended that holding areas should be enabled over the sea. Gatwick has accepted that, but it will take some years, as it will require widespread airspace and procedural change. Gatwick will be conferring with the CAA and NATS on that particular issue.

A number of Members raised the issue of the health effects on people on the ground. I have visited schools in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and experienced the noise at first hand. I had a briefing earlier this week from the Aviation Environment Federation, which presented some very important research—not least from Imperial College, a well respected institution—on the effects on cardiovascular disease and other diseases.

The basic structure of UK airspace was developed more than 40 years ago and since then there has been a dramatic increase in the demand for flights. The future airspace strategy, which is being led by the CAA, is crucial to ensuring that the industry is efficient and can minimise its overall environmental impacts. The plan is to modernise UK airspace and deliver our contribution to the European Commission’s single European sky by 2030—the date by which we feel we should be able to do that. It is an ambitious plan designed around the use of modern technology, including more precise navigation.

Performance-based navigation can vastly improve the accuracy with which aircraft can fly a designated route, and airspace systemisation will mean that they follow a more predictable route, reducing the need for interference from air traffic controllers. That will not only make air travel safer but reduce emissions and journey times. It will also offer the chance to reduce noise for communities around airports by allowing routes that can accurately avoid built-up areas and maximising the rate at which aircraft can climb or descend. For those benefits to be realised, however, we need to ensure that when those essential changes take place, they work for communities as much as possible.

My officials are constantly reviewing Government policies on airspace and aviation noise. One thing I have asked them to consider is whether we can ensure that communities are informed and, when appropriate, consulted when such changes are to be made. They have also been working to deliver the right policies by engaging with all stakeholders, including representatives of local communities. I know that they have found that engagement valuable in ensuring that communities’ interests are represented, and we will continue that dialogue when refining our policies.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the Minister for his promise to consult communities. Should the Government be inclined to go ahead with runway 3 at Heathrow, will they consult the 300,000 residents of west London and beyond who would be affected? Those people are not currently affected by aircraft noise to the same extent as they would be in that situation.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

May I ask the Minister to bear in mind that he needs to leave some time for the mover of the motion to sum up?

[Mr Goodwill]

Thank you, Mr Howarth.

Of course we will consult in that case.

The Government want to maximise the benefits from a strong aviation sector; it is good for the economy, bringing investment and employment to the UK and wider benefits to society and individuals. However, the Government recognise that that needs to be balanced against the costs to the local environment that more flights bring, with noise being a prime example. I thank the Members who have taken part in this debate; it has been useful to inform the Government of people’s views, and I look forward to hearing the summing-up by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons & Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

I say thank you, because the change is a positive step, but I wonder why it is has happened. We obviously do not oppose it, and are pleased that it will be made tonight, but let us shine a light on it, and get a bit of the transparency that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth was talking about a few moments ago. TfL fought for more than five years to retain the clause, so why is it disappearing now?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I reiterate that the Department supports TfL’s commercial programme. We want TfL to maximise its unique position to ensure that its assets generate revenues to their greatest potential. Giving TfL greater financial flexibility will provide it with the opportunity to run its business in a more efficient way, to the benefit of taxpayers and fare payers. For those reasons, the Government continue to support the Bill and do not support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), which would generally have the effect of watering down the Bill.

[Ruth Cadbury]

That aim is creditable, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) gave a number of examples of where he has concerns about TfL’s ability to negotiate effectively and to make the best of its opportunities. The Opposition have some concerns about the private sector’s ability to pull the wool over the eyes of public sector bodies—even those as large and experienced as TfL.

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I may be a bit old-fashioned, but I quite like a principle called democracy. London has devolution of power, democratically elected Mayors and other democratically elected members around the city. Giving people the power to make decisions is something that we should do around the country. We should trust the people to elect the right individuals and then trust them to make the right decisions.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Goodwill]

I will probably regret it, but I will.

[Andy Slaughter]

I take slight exception to the term “watered down”. I could have gone on longer, but I thought I had explained pretty fully that this is about not watering down but strengthening the Bill—putting in exactly those democratic elements that the Minister says he wants. I ask him to explain in detail why he objects to the majority of the amendments standing in my name, which simply do what he says: give a surer footing to the Bill.

Separately, on my important amendment 7 and what the Minister says about that, I should say that watering down has been done already by TfL, which has withdrawn the two substantive clauses to the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Her Majesty’s Government believe that, rather than strengthening the Bill, the hon. Gentleman’s amendments have the effect of watering down the Bill’s provisions or making it more difficult for TfL to use them.

I also note the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) to remove clause 5. The clause would have enabled TfL to join with others in setting up limited partnerships. However, it had been amended, following scrutiny of the Bill by the Opposed Private Bill Committee, to provide that the Secretary of State must consent to the formation of the limited partnership by way of an order debated by both Houses. Given the burden that that would have placed on both Parliament and my Department, and the fact that it would have made it difficult in practice for TfL to enter into any limited partnerships, we support the principle of these amendments. I understand why they have been tabled and support them, perhaps slightly reluctantly.

We have already spent a lot of time talking about these amendments—indeed, we have spent a lot of time talking about this Bill altogether. I will therefore quickly conclude my remarks so that we can make progress.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I think it is fair to say that this Bill has had an arduous journey through both Houses; a petition to introduce it was presented to Parliament on 29 November 2010. Plenty of people have aged during its passing—some of us visibly. One who has not is my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter); I pay tribute to him as he has clearly improved the Bill during these lengthy discussions. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for their contributions tonight.

Let me take a little time to deal with the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has tabled, as they deserve detailed responses. New clause 1 would ensure that neither TfL nor any subsidiary of TfL would be able to

“lease land to third parties which:

(a) has been used in the preceding 10 years,

(b) has been considered by TfL in the preceding 10 years as suitable, or

(c) is adjacent to land in use or in use in the preceding 10 years,

for the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers.”

That would safeguard significant, useful land from being leased to developers for private profit at the expense of public transport passengers—those who rely on London’s transport system in their everyday lives. However, it would not prevent land from being sold; TfL already holds the power to do that.

The new clause would also compel TfL, or any subsidiary of TfL, to carry out “a public consultation” before entering into a contract involving the development of land for anything other than the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers. A process of consultation before using TfL’s land for anything besides transport services is very important, to make sure that local communities have their views and voices heard. The development of land should come from the bottom up, rather than the top down, and with the backing of local people. One need only look at the Earls Court development, for which TfL leased out its assets, to see why my hon. Friend believes that prior consultation before lease and development is so important.

Let me turn to clauses 3 and 4. An insertion to subsection (1) of clause 4 that the consent of the Mayor may be granted to a subsidiary of TfL only after the Mayor has consulted, and published a report of such consultation with, a variety of bodies, including the London Assembly and the London boroughs, is surely welcome. Discussion and collaboration with a range of stakeholders will ensure that a balance between public and private interest is retained. Similarly, the insertion into clause 3 that TfL must consult the Greater London Assembly and publish the report provides greater accountability and transparency. That is important, although we must also beware that the measures imposed on TfL do not become draconian.

A balance must be struck between scrutiny and freedom, and while TfL must act in the public interest, it should also not be restricted more unfairly than other public and private sector bodies. We are sympathetic to the aims of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith. He, along with other Members, has campaigned tirelessly to ensure that this Bill provides the best outcome for Londoners. We are grateful that these amendments will give Ministers and the Bill promoter the opportunity to discuss further provisions in the Bill and to alleviate any remaining concerns, and I welcome their thoughts on that.

Let me turn now to the vexed question of the removal of clause 5, which I understand will happen and which we advocated. Undoubtedly, it was the most controversial element in the Bill, which in our view would have risked TfL entering into opaque limited partnerships. It is quite understandable that, although the clause has been withdrawn, some of my hon. Friends still have reservations about certain elements of this Bill, which is why they have a continuing desire to tweak its text—not least because of the bitter experience of the Earls Court development, to which frequent reference has been made tonight.

With TfL potentially morphing into the role of property developer, I quite understand why my hon. Friends remain concerned and seek reassurance on how new powers will be used. Even without clause 5, these are still significant changes, with significant implications for local councils and communities as TfL comes to exercise these new powers. However, we are pleased that, following the strong objections from Labour Members expressed in previous debates, clause 5 is to be withdrawn.

I must also mention the context against which this Bill has come to fruition. Transport for London recently said that, from 2019, its objective is to cover all of the operational costs of running the tube and bus networks in London through non-Department for Transport grant sources of income. It says:

“We have planned for some time to achieve operational breakeven by running our business more effectively and efficiently.”

That operational independence—for want of a better word—is happening far sooner than anticipated. TfL says that its overall income is being reduced by £2.8 billion over the period to 2020-21. Its resource grant from central Government, worth around £700 million annually, will be completely wiped out by the end of the decade. I would like to stop momentarily and point out, as I have done previously, that this means that London will be the only major European city transport network that will operate without an operational subsidy from Government. The Campaign for Better Transport put it succinctly:

“Almost nobody anywhere in the world runs a sizable public transport network without”

subsidies.

It could well be said that this Conservative Government are cold-shouldering our capital’s transport system. TfL is keen to limit the damage.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about subsidies from the Government. Does he not agree that these are subsidies from taxpayers? They are paying for the subsidies.

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is a fine distinction. Most of us understand that the reason we pay our taxes is for exactly the kind of high quality transport system that a capital city such as London needs, and it is a huge risk that this Government are taking. The Government are forcing TfL to limit the damage, and they are using ingenious means and utilising existing assets to do so. The Budget indicates that there will be a move towards the full retention of business rates by local authorities, and we welcome the ability of local councils to have control over funding, but this is uncharted territory and we should be in no doubt about the risks to our transport system in London—risks that are a direct consequence of the political choices of this Government.

We want TfL to be modernised and to become a highly efficient public sector organisation. TfL has been making savings, some very difficult and controversial, but in its annual budget in 2014, TfL said that it is

“becoming progressively more difficult to achieve this without compromising our core services.”

This pattern of cuts is visible not just in the capital, but across the country. Cuts to local authority budgets have been extreme, leading the Local Government Association to point out that even if councils stopped filling in potholes, maintaining parks, closed all children’s centres, libraries, museums, leisure centres and turned off every street light they would not have saved enough money to plug the financial black hole they face by 2020. Department for Transport resource funding has been cut by 37%, from £2.6 billion in 2015-16 to £1.8 billion in 2019-20, representing a real terms decline of 71% since 2009-10.

Let us consider the fact that last year a record 8.6 million people were living in London. By 2030, that figure is predicted to reach 10 million. That is the pressure under which TfL finds itself. We are not ideologically opposed to TfL’s maximising the value of its assets to increase the revenue seized by the Treasury. They do what they have to do, and using resources efficiently is important to keep our capital city running.

On Second Reading, my hon. Friends and I expressed concern about certain measures in the Bill, including clause 5, which we have discussed. We are happy with the principle and understand the necessity of TfL’s having greater commercial freedoms, but the implications of those so-called freedoms were problematic. The controversial Earls Court development, a joint venture between TfL and the private developer Capital & Counties, set a worrying precedent for further public-private partnerships. Clause 5 would allow TfL to enter into limited partnerships with private property developers. Those partnerships are vague in legality and opaque in accountability.

I said on Second Reading that we must consider carefully the long-term impact of introducing powers to enter into those partnerships. We are reassured both by the fact that TfL has noted those concerns and by its decision to table amendments to remove clause 5 and references to limited partnerships from the Bill. It is encouraging that our opposition to that problematic part of the Bill was taken into account, and we are pleased with the outcome.

I also spoke on Second Reading about the importance of putting public needs above private profit. Property development to increase TfL’s revenue must not happen without the backing of local communities—those who are affected most directly. Those who bankroll projects should not subsequently be able to steamroller over local people. TfL is obliged to obtain the consent of the Mayor to dispose of an interest in land by sale or by granting a long-term lease. If that land is operational or has been in the previous five years, the Secretary of State for Transport must give his or her consent. It must be noted, however, that that did not prevent the unhappy saga around the developments at Earls Court from unfolding. The balance between the provision of affordable homes on the one hand, and maximising revenue to reinvest in transport, is an extremely significant and fine political judgment. We will be watching closely to ensure that proper balance is secured.

In conclusion, as clause 5 has been shelved, I think we are all hopeful that TfL can now move forward. We are keen to see how TfL uses its commercial freedoms to develop and improve the transport network that keeps our great capital city moving, but we will be watching closely to ensure that profit is used to benefit the public, and not the other way round.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on taking this Bill to Third Reading. I have listened with interest to the contributions of Members on both sides of the Chamber.

The outcome of the 2015 spending review means that TfL will need to find further savings and look to maximise its commercial income in the interests of both the taxpayer and the travelling public. That is why I welcome the principle behind the Bill. It will enable TfL to use financial practices and mechanisms to release greater value from its assets and financing arrangements. In short, it will maximise its unique position to ensure that assets generate revenues to their greatest potential. I understand from TfL that the Bill could realise in excess of £50 million in immediate benefits by improving its hedging power, enabling it to borrow money in a more cost-effective way and allowing it to make the most of its assets.

For all those reasons, the Government support the Bill and I look forward to seeing it finally receive Royal Assent.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Business Plan)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I am pleased to announce the publication of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s (MCA) business plan for 2016-17.

The business plan sets out:

the services that the agency will deliver and any significant changes it plans to make;

the resources the agency requires;

the key performance measures, by which its performance will be assessed.

This plan allows service users and members of the public to assess how the agency is performing in operating its key services, managing reforms and the agency finances.

The business plan will be available electronically on gov.uk and copies will be placed 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/2016-03-23/HCWS644

[HCWS644]

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Reimbursement of local authorities for expenses and lost business rate revenue resulting from HS2—

‘(1) The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Transport shall conduct an assessment of costs incurred by local authorities that arise directly and indirectly from the construction and future operation of HS2, including staff costs, and shall ensure that such additional funding as is required to reimburse local authorities for those costs is made available.

(2) To the extent that such additional funding is not made available through service level agreements, the Secretary of State for Transport shall make the additional funding available through other means of local authority funding within six months of the end of the relevant financial year.

(3) The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government shall appoint an independent auditor to assess the extent of any shortfall in local authority revenue attributable to closure of or movement of businesses and consequential diminution in business rates.

(4) The Secretary of State for Transport shall establish a mechanism whereby any such shortfall shall be made good within six months of the end of the relevant financial year.’

This new clause is intended to give statutory enforceability to the Department for Transport’s intention to reimburse local authorities for costs consequential on the construction of HS2, and to ensure that there is compensation for lost business rate revenue.

New clause 2—Reimbursement of local authorities for damage to highways resulting from HS2 construction—

‘The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Transport shall conduct six-monthly assessments of the amounts required to repair and make good highways in each county following construction of HS2 Phase One, and shall ensure that such additional funding as is required to meet those amounts is made available to local authorities.’

This new clause is intended to give statutory enforceability to the Department for Transport’s intention to reimburse local authorities for highways repair costs consequential on the construction of HS2.

New clause 3—Amount of funds allocated to the Business and Local Economy Fund and Community and Environments Fund—

‘The Secretary of State for Transport shall allocate a sum of £150,000,000 to the funds established to support business and local economy and community and environment initiatives to mitigate and address the effects of HS2 construction.’

This new clause is intended to increase the amounts allocated by the Department for Transport to the Business and Local Economy Fund and the Community and Environment Fund from £30m to £150m.

New clause 4—Compensation procedures—

‘(1) The Secretary of State for Transport shall ensure that included within contested valuation procedures for claimants under statutory or discretionary HS2 compensation schemes are processes for valuation by a valuer with knowledge of local markets.

(2) The Secretary of State shall ensure that all compensation applications are acknowledged within a period of two weeks and responded to substantively within a period of ten weeks, failing which the application will be deemed accepted.’

This new clause is intended to insert procedures for valuation by local valuers in disputed compensation cases, and to seek to ensure timely responses to compensation applications.

New clause 20—Public Sector Operators—

‘(1) Section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 (c. 43) (public-sector operators not to be franchisees) does not apply in relation to the franchisee in respect of a franchise agreement—

(a) which relates wholly or mainly to the provision of one or more Phase One of High Speed 2 passenger services, or

(b) which relates wholly or mainly to the provision of one or more other services for the carriage of passengers by railway where—

(i) the services run wholly or partly on the route of Phase One of High Speed 2, and

(ii) the services are likely to be subject to substantial disruption because of the construction of Phase One of High Speed 2.

(2) The following may in particular be taken into account in determining whether, for the purposes of subsection (1)(b), services are likely to be subject to substantial disruption—

(a) the frequency with which the services are likely to be disrupted,

(b) the duration of the period in which the services are likely to be disrupted (and, in particular, its duration relative to the length of the franchise term),

(c) the severity of any likely disruption.

(3) In this section—

“franchisee”, “franchise agreement” and “franchise term” have the meanings given by section 23 of the Railways Act 1993 (designated passenger services to be provided under franchise agreements).’

New clause 21—Financial Reports—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on expenditure under this Act in relation to each financial year.

(2) Each report must contain details of—

(a) expenditure incurred during the financial year to which the report relates (with capital and resource expenditure specified separately in relation to construction and other activity under this Act and in respect of each head of expenditure referred to in section 1(4)(a) to (c) of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013);

(b) the extent to which expenditure incurred during that year represents an overspend or underspend as against the budget for such expenditure for the year;

(c) the likely effect of any such overspend or underspend on a total budget of £55.7 billion in 2015 prices (which includes construction and the cost of rolling stock);

(d) total expenditure incurred under section 67 up to the end of that year;

(e) sums or assets received in that year in connection with expenditure incurred under this Act, including in relation to section 48.

(3) In this section, “financial year” means—

(a) the period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and ending;

(b) each subsequent period of 12 months.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay each report under this section before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of the financial year to which it relates.’

New clause 26—Protection of business continuity by extended notice of entry in the case of vulnerable businesses—

‘(1) If an operator of a business or undertaking believes that the business or undertaking’s continued operation or profitability would be vulnerable if inadequate notice is received of the planned exercise of powers under sections 4, 5, 6, 12 or 15 of this Act and the associated schedules, the operator may notify the Secretary of State of this belief.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “inadequate notice” means a period of notice that would not provide a reasonable amount of time for the business or undertaking to relocate to a new premises and refit that premises to a reasonable standard before the exercise of the powers.

(3) Upon receipt of such notification, the Secretary of State must facilitate a dialogue with the operator in relation to timing and funding of business relocation, and required notice periods, and shall consider the reasons for the operator’s belief.

(4) Unless the dialogue provides a satisfactory resolution within three months of initial notification—

(a) a 12-month minimum notice period shall apply for the exercise of powers mentioned in subsection (1) in relation to the relevant business or undertaking; and

(b) the early compensation payable to the operator shall be 100%, not 90%, of the estimated relocation costs, and such compensation shall be payable in full, nine months before the anticipated relocation date notified by the operator.”

New clause 27—Report on classification of HS2 as England-only project—

‘Within 3 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on—

(a) the classification of HS2 as an England-only project for the purposes of Treasury expenditure, and

(b) how much extra money Wales would receive in terms of Barnett consequential money as a result of such classification.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on reclassifying HS2 as an England-only project for the purposes of calculating Treasury expenditure through the Barnett Formula and how much more money Wales would have received as a result.

New clause 30—Community detriment fund—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must establish a community detriment fund.

(2) The community detriment fund will provide an additional source of funding to communities, supplemental to that available through the community and environment fund.

(3) The community detriment fund will be available to address adverse impacts of HS2 construction on communities, including but not limited to impaired accessibility, diminution in availability of community amenities, and physical effects of construction.

(4) A principal objective of the fund will be to remove the need for formal compensation claims and to provide an expedited means of claiming funding for detriment.

(5) The fund will be available only to address adverse effects on communities, not impacts on individual households, businesses or undertakings.

(6) Among the measures that may be considered as available for funding to address detriment shall be transport facilities such as shuttle services.’

New clause 32—Review of fairness of rural support zone compensation—

‘The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the reasons for situating the boundary of the Rural Support Zone in west London which shall be laid before both House of Parliament within three months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent.’

New clause 33—Compensation—

‘(1) Within three months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report responding to a review of compensation applicable to those affected by HS2 Phases One and Two which shall by then have reported in accordance with directions already issued.

(2) The review shall consider the following—

(a) whether a compensation framework based on a property bond system could be an equally or more effective means of compensating those affected by blight from HS2 construction and operation while maintaining a functioning property market, having due regard to demands on public expenditure and investment;

(b) whether the current rateable value limit for compensation and blight claims by owner-occupiers of business premises should be abolished or amended;

(c) whether loss payment ceilings are fair and appropriate;

(d) whether a higher proportion of advance compensation for relocation than the current 90% should be payable in certain instances;

(e) whether the time limits for claiming compensation where no land is taken should be re-evaluated;

(f) the position of those affected by blight caused by HS2 whose property is subject to mortgage and who may find themselves unable to remortgage or in a position of negative equity as a result of such blight;

(g) whether those considering a claim for compensation should receive advance payment of fees for professional advice.’

Amendment 15, in clause 48, page 18, line 8, after “considers” insert

“having regard to the relevant development plan,”.

[Mr Goodwill]

I must confess that I feel like a queue-jumper, because I added my name and the Government’s support to new clause 19 and amendment 15 only last night. I will be brief, because I know that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) will want to expand on them and to explain why his case was so convincing and compelling. It is another example of how our new railway will be delivered not only on a cross-party basis in this House, but with the support of the great cities of the midlands and the north.

I welcome new clause 19 on vocational qualifications. I strongly believe in the importance of ensuring that we utilise the opportunities that HS2 will create for skills and jobs, which is why we have invested in the National College for High Speed Rail. New clause 19 will further bolster the importance of delivering skills as part of the development of HS2. As such, the Government support it becoming part of the Bill.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I know that he needs to get on. Does he agree that it is important that the National Construction College and the Construction Industry Training Board are closely involved in this skills initiative?

[Mr Goodwill]

Indeed, I look forward to being in Doncaster soon with the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), the Opposition Chief Whip, to cut the first sod in that project. It is important that we look at skills across the board. The college’s hub and spoke arrangement will enable other educational establishments to engage fully and will allow for other qualifications.

Similarly, I welcome amendment 15 from the Opposition. It relates to clause 48, the purpose of which is to ensure that the regeneration opportunities presented by HS2 are maximised in a timely manner. It is a backstop power and we expect that local authorities will lead such opportunities using their existing powers, but in the event that development is impeded we will have the ability to step in to ensure that development progresses. It is important that such development takes into account relevant development plans. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) tabled the amendment, and I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to support it.

Turning to the other proposed changes, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has proposed several new clauses and amendments. She has been a tireless advocate for her constituents affected by HS2. However, all her points have been considered before, at length, through the Select Committee process, parliamentary debates, and the many parliamentary questions she has asked my Department. The process has delivered clear benefits to her constituency, including a 2.6 km tunnel extension, meaning that almost 86% of the route in her constituency is tunnelled, with the rest in a cutting. Her constituency has also benefited from the removal of an area of sustainable placement at Hunts Green and more noise barriers along that cutting. I acknowledge the points made but do not believe that new clauses 1 to 4 should be added to the Bill.

New clause 20 deals with the nationalisation of rail services, an area of ideological difference between the Government and the Opposition. I am therefore unlikely to convince them on it, and, I suspect, vice versa. It is clear to the Government that the franchising process delivers better services, better value for money and a better railway. Since privatisation, the rail industry has been transformed, with the number of passenger journeys more than doubling over the past 20 years. We believe this remains the right approach overall for Britain’s railway.

In any case, the new clause is unnecessary, as under the existing legislative framework it is possible for the state to operate rail services, as happened temporarily on the east coast main line. It is possible, and indeed quite likely, that the state might run HS2 initially, to prove certainty on operation and passenger numbers, but for the long-term successful future of HS2 a privately operated franchise is the best way forward.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is giving a pretty fair assessment of how he sees this proceeding. The new clause provides for a permissive power, meaning that it would simply be available going forward. The proposal has been mirrored in previous legislation, such as that dealing with Crossrail, so what is the Government’s objection to a permissive clause of this kind?

[Mr Goodwill]

I thought I just said that this power is already available and therefore this is a superfluous new clause and we do not need it to give us these powers. I very much doubt Opposition Members will agree with my view that nationalisation of the railways is not the way forward, so stuck as they seem to be in the 1970s, but I hope I may have provided sufficient explanation as to why this power is not required.

We have given consideration to the other proposed new clauses and amendments. Although I understand the importance of some of the issues raised, I do not believe they belong in the Bill, as they have already been considered during the Select Committee process. To conclude, in order not to take up any more time than is necessary, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be able to support the inclusion of new clause 19 and amendment 15, but I urge them to not to press the other proposals, which I do not believe are required.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this important debate and play a part in this Bill’s progress. We fully appreciate the importance of this vital piece of infrastructure and the benefits it will bring to our country for generations to come. It is not common to find such consensus in this House, but I am pleased that both the Government and the Opposition understand the need for this high-speed railway. HS2 was, of course, the brainchild of the previous Labour Government, but I readily acknowledge the work that the current Government have done in progressing the project. It is to be very much welcomed for the country that we have such consensus across the House on such important national infrastructure projects.

In that same vein, I shall discuss new clause 19, which stands in the name of the Minister, as well as in my name, those of some of his colleagues and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). It deals with vocational qualifications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Gentleman’s point about inaccurate assessments is, I am afraid, repeated throughout dealings with HS2. This is a particularly bad example. The Woodland Trust petitioned HS2 for a minimum planting ratio of 30:1 to compensate for the fact that irreplaceable habitats will be lost, and the planting of 2 million trees along the wider route is just the starting point. I would have hoped that that could be put in the Bill, which would have made the provision legally binding and ensured that at least some structured replanting and maintenance took place.

[Mr Goodwill]

May I underline our commitment to no net environmental loss and our commitment to plant 2 million trees, which will be managed to the best arboricultural standards? One of the problems that we had with the assessment of ancient woodland was getting access to land to carry out such assessments, because some landowners would not grant us access. That will not be a problem with further phases, because we have taken those powers as part of the Bill.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. I wish I could take it at face value.

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. Quite frankly, the fact that anybody actually says they would replace ancient woodland just shows the ignorance of some of the people dealing with this matter.

[Mr Goodwill]

rose—

[Mrs Gillan]

The Minister is determined to get in again. As we have not heard a lot from him, I will give way.

[Mr Goodwill]

May I just make the point that translocation of ancient woodland soils is recognised by Natural England as an important mechanism for aiding the creation of ecologically valuable woodlands? If properly planned and undertaken, that can be an important element of compensatory measures, where the loss of ancient woodland is unavoidable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

Given the lack of time, I shall speak only to amendment 16, tabled in my name, which seeks to give statutory protection to Wormwood Scrubs common. I should really say “more statutory protection” because, as metropolitan open land and strategic defence land, it is already protected by an Act of Parliament. More importantly, it hosts an extraordinary range of sports and pastimes. Thousands of disabled children ride at the pony centre every year. An organisation called the Friends of Wormwood Scrubs is seeking to protect its 200 acres of semi-wilderness, which form a substantial proportion of my constituency—an area in which open spaces are at a premium.

However, in the time since HS2 was proposed, we have been asked to put a viaduct across it, and we have been told that it could be turned into formal gardens and that it could be amenity space for the luxury flats being built around the HS2 route. We are now being told that it will be a transit way for hundreds of thousands of people to walk across, which would essentially destroy this London landmark forever.

Although I clearly will not today get the protection that I am seeking, I thank the Select Committee for recognising my representations and acknowledging that they were my only representations. I say to the Government and to HS2 Ltd that it will be a crime if this open space is despoiled over the course of the development.

I wanted to make some more general comments as I think my constituency will see more development than any other. I will not say that I am as adversely affected as other hon. and right hon. Members, and some of the development is of course welcome, but if I am able to catch your eye on Third Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can perhaps make some of those points then. I entirely support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) said about the effect on their residents and businesses. As they used to be my constituents, I mention the residents of Wells House Road, Midland Terrace and Stephenson Street, whose homes will be blighted for many years to come and will be entirely surrounded by HS2 works.

I could have tabled something similar to new clause 22 asking for the Old Oak Common development to be regulated, but that should not be necessary because the London Sustainable Development Commission is there to deal with such matters. At the moment, however, it is not working. I hope that it will work under a new Mayor, because we currently have unregulated development on the site and a huge opportunity cost, which is not allowing for proper exploitation of and investment in that land.

[Mr Goodwill]

The new clauses and amendments principally concern environmental issues, which the Government take very seriously. The Bill and the environmental minimum requirements establish robust environmental controls that have proved to be an effective mechanism on other projects, such as Crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link. In addition, many of the new clauses and amendments relate to issues on which we have already provided assurances through the Select Committee process. Some comments were made during the debate, not least from the Opposition Front-Bench team, about those assurances not being worth the paper on which they were written, but they are commitments made to Parliament by the Secretary of State and are enforced by Parliament. The process worked well for Crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link, so we do not need a belt when have more than adequate braces—or “gallusses” as we call them in my part of the world. The Select Committee process led to nearly 400 alterations to the scheme and provided some 1,600 assurances and undertakings to those affected by HS2.

I specifically want to touch on new clause 22, relating to the development of an integrated station at Euston, and I was pleased that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) managed to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. We share an ambition for the integrated redevelopment of Euston station and assurances have been provided to the London Borough of Camden. Indeed, I recently met the leader of the council to discuss such matters. Work is already under way regarding the commitments given in the assurances to Camden, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority on the overall integration of works at Euston and the co-ordination with Crossrail 2. I can also confirm that funding is available to progress initial feasibility work for the preparation of an outline masterplan for Euston station, which includes the classic, Network Rail element of the station.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the Minister inform the House how many conventional platforms will have to be sacrificed at Euston to accommodate HS2?

[Mr Goodwill]

We have made it quite clear that phasing the development of the high-speed platforms at Euston will give us the opportunity to carry out some of that work, and we have changed the phasing to make it possible to operate other services into Euston. Indeed, we estimate that around a third of HS2 passengers will alight at Old Oak Common and use the Elizabeth line to access central London or Heathrow. While I recognise the desire to highlight the importance of such issues through new clause 22, legislation is unnecessary for Euston when progress has been and is being made.

Transparency was mentioned by several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), and we have appointed a residents commissioner to hold HS2 Ltd to account for how it communicates with residents and have committed to appoint a construction commissioner to deal with complaints that cannot be addressed by HS2 Ltd and its contractors. I hope that also reassures my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve).

On the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty review group, we have already committed to establish a Chilterns AONB group.

[Mr Grieve]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Goodwill]

I must make progress because we have only a minute left. On residential demolitions, we have committed to, and are progressing with Camden Council on, the replacement of all lost social housing in Euston as a result of HS2. On the prohibition of vehicles, an issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, the Bill already requires local authorities to approve local routes, so the amendment on that is unnecessary.

Many of the proposed new clauses and amendments would duplicate existing obligations already made to Parliament, and I do not believe it necessary to include them in the Bill. I therefore urge hon. Members to reject the proposed new clauses, new schedules and amendments.

[Mrs Gillan]

In the light of the unsatisfactory reply from the Minister and the fact that he has relied again on saying that his appointees are adequate for the scrutiny of this project, I will have no other choice than to push new clause 8, which deals with the office of the HS2 adjudicator, to a vote. As for new clause 6, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Points of Order

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Lady’s interpretation is correct. I always think that it is important for our proceedings to be intelligible to people beyond this place, so let it be stated on the record that these exchanges have not eaten into the time available for debate at all. They have obliged the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is about to present his ten-minute rule Bill, to wait patiently before being able to speak to it, but they have not in any way detracted from or taken time out of the debate on the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill. I am afraid that the right hon. Lady is correct to say that if Members seek a Division on a particular amendment, that will eat away at the remaining time available for debate. A lot of people will feel that that is a regrettable state of affairs, to put it mildly. I note what she has said about the precedent of the Channel Tunnel Bill. The Secretary of State is not in his place, although he might very well be here for Third Reading. As far as I am aware, he is a person of robust constitution and perfectly capable of staying in the Chamber for an appreciable period to debate matters of important public policy. I have never had any reason to suppose that his conscientious Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—[Interruption.] His Minister of State, indeed. No discourtesy was intended to the hon. Gentleman. I have never had reason to suppose that the Minister of State was incapable of strenuous parliamentary endeavour over an extended period.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Perhaps the Minister is going to add to that point now.

[Mr Goodwill]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like to point out that last night’s Business of the House motion was not objected to. On the matter of Members having had their say on the Bill, the Select Committee sat for 160 days, which was more than 700 hours. It heard 1,600 petitions, and 21 Members of this House appeared before it a total of 36 times. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) herself attended three times, for a total of two hours and 10 minutes.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a matter of indisputable fact, and I thank the Minister of State for taking the opportunity to make that point. So far as last night is concerned, it is also a matter of fact that the motion was not objected to. The Business of the House motion appertaining to this matter was of course objected to on Monday evening by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. Had it been objected to last night, there would have been a requirement for a debate today on Members’ concerns, which would have eaten into the available time. The absence of an objection last night and the fact that I have just mentioned are obviously causally linked.

HS2 Phase One: Financial Indemnity for Affinity Water

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I have today laid before Parliament a departmental minute from the Department for Transport describing the contingent liability arising from an indemnity that will be provided to Affinity Water Ltd, protecting them from financial loss as a result of any construction damage to at-risk water resources from the construction of the Phase One, London to West Midlands HS2 rail line.

HS2 construction in the Colne Valley has the potential to cause damage to the chalk aquifer from which Affinity Water sources its water supply. An appropriate mitigation strategy will be developed during detailed design of the construction works, using information from ground investigation surveys. With the mitigation strategy in place, it is considered that the risks to the aquifer will be low. However, the risk of potential damage will exist despite the mitigation measures which will be applied. Should the aquifer or the company’s abstraction points be damaged, Affinity Water is likely to face a consequential financial loss. There is no existing protection for Affinity Water in respect of this loss and they would be unlikely to make a successful claim under common law. Under standard compensation arrangements, the basis for compensation would link to the loss in value or damage to a claimant’s property, which for Affinity Water could include pipes or pumps. However, the water in an aquifer is not a property of Affinity Water and so they have no protection if the project causes damage to the resources on which they are dependent. Therefore, Affinity Water require the Department for Transport to carry the liability for any financial loss arising from any impact of the Phase One construction works on their abstraction points.

The worst-case scenario with respect to the liability would include the cost of replacing three abstraction boreholes, each one is estimated to cost £20 million, and also the cost of providing temporary replacement water supplies during the period for which water abstraction is interrupted. The indemnity will not be limited, however. Under the worst-case scenario, the projected cost of the indemnity is expected to be approximately £77 million. The duration of the liability is scheduled to last for four years from 2017 to 2021, which represents the period of the construction works which might cause the potential damage. The worst-case scenario, in which HS2 must replace more than one borehole, is considered to be remote.

If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be managed through normal supply procedure. The Department will be noting this contingent liability in its accounts.

Attachments can be viewed online at:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-03-22/HCWS637/.

[HCWS637]

Cabin Air Safety/Aerotoxic Syndrome

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan.

First, I will declare an interest, having been a Unite rep in a previous existence; I remain a member of the union. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) for securing this debate, and for his very measured opening speech.

My background is in science; I used to work as a biochemist for the NHS. So I am very wary about jumping to any conclusions; we need to weigh up the evidence. However, I support the request for an independent inquiry into this issue. The evidence is quite compelling and we need to progress. The employer’s duty of care has been talked about, and it is absolutely key to this issue that we assess the evidence that is available, examine the incidents that have occurred and try to establish whether there is a causative effect. We really need to take some action, and I hope that that is what we decide to do at the end of this debate.

Both my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde and the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) have already talked about cabin air and where it comes from. It is quite significant that the new Boeing 787 uses a different method of supplying cabin air. The air is supplied by electronically driven compressors that take air directly from the atmosphere so there is no contact with the engines; there is no possibility of a seal failing and contaminants from the engine oil getting into the cabin air. One of my constituents, who is an air steward, has suggested to me that this new plane has been developed because it has been recognised that there are issues with the old system of bleed air. Again, however, that is speculation.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I asked precisely the same question of my officials: was it done for that reason? They said, no, it was done for other reasons, not because of the air quality issue. Obviously, however, the effect is that air does not have to pass through the engine. The aircraft was designed for efficiency and that change was one way of making the aircraft more efficient; it was not made in reaction to this bleed air quality issue.

[Liz McInnes]

I thank the Minister for that intervention; that is very useful information. It reinforces the point about speculation and causative effects. Obviously, cabin crew say that the air issue was the reason why the 787 was developed with that system. If there is a public inquiry on this matter, I hope that information about that system will form part of the evidence.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said that some statistics showed that fume events occurred in one flight in 2,000. One of the statistics that I pulled out is from the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. COT reported in 2007 that fume events occur on one flight in 100, so again there is some dispute over the incidence of these events. There is also anecdotal evidence that fume events occur even more often than that, but they are not being reported. The really surprising thing about all of this is that there are no chemical sensors in the aircraft. The noses of the cabin crew are the only detectors.

My constituent asked me not to give her name, but she was quite happy to talk to me about her experience as a cabin crew member. She described these fume events to me. She said that she has been in cabins when fumes have entered. She has flown for four different airlines and fume events have happened in planes from all four of them. She said to me, “Fumes come in. You smell the oil. It’s not being acknowledged by managers and higher officials in the airline industry when these incidents are reported.” When I spoke to her, she compared the effect of fume events with Gulf war syndrome. With Gulf war syndrome, we had soldiers coming back to the UK with massive neurological problems and it took a very long time for any investigation to be made and for it to occur to somebody that these problems were happening too often to be a coincidence. It is interesting that she made that comparison.

My constituent said to me that all cabin crew want is for this problem to be recognised and acknowledged. Until we have a full investigation, cabin crew will not feel that their employers are doing everything they can to safeguard them while they are at work.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship yet again, Mr Hanson. I congratulate the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) on securing this debate about cabin air safety and aerotoxic syndrome. I should also declare an interest as a member of a union that has members who have been involved with OP toxicity issues. As a member of the National Farmers Union, I have dipped many thousands of sheep and used chemicals at many thousands of times the concentration of the ones we are talking about in this debate. Also, I have two friends who have suffered the sorts of symptoms that we have heard described today: chronic fatigue and sickness and so on.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The Minister is making a good point. In fact, the issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). Does he accept that the problem is the regular, continuous exposure to various levels, whereas sheep dipping, even though it was done without proper protection initially—he can correct me if I am wrong—would presumably be for a limited period? It would not be every day in someone’s working life on the farm.

[Mr Goodwill]

I will go on to describe the levels that those in aircraft cabins are likely to be exposed to under normal operations when a fume event has not taken place. However, as I was saying, neither of my two friends who are suffering from career-finishing symptoms—they are not able to work—had been involved in either the aviation industry or in agriculture. I suspect that if they had been involved in agriculture, I would have been asking questions about whether their exposure to sheep dip or to other agrochemicals may have been to blame. Similarly, if they had been in the aviation industry, I would perhaps be asking the same questions.

The Government take the health and air safety of passengers and crew extremely seriously. The United Kingdom is recognised throughout the global aviation community for its high standard and excellent record of safety in commercial aviation. I must make it clear that the Government must always act on evidence and we have over the years worked hard to collect evidence, as did the previous Government when the problem first came to public awareness. There has been much public debate about the issue as so many people are aware of the problem.

There are currently two inquests into deaths where the relatives of the deceased are trying to establish whether contamination by cabin air could have been the cause of death. Both inquests are still open, and in both cases the CAA rather than my Department has been named as an interested party. Both of the deceased were employed by the same airline, and so far the evidence that has been gathered does not support the view that the deaths were connected to contamination of cabin air.

In the case of Richard Westgate, the Dorset coroner’s January pre-inquest review has been adjourned to 30 March 2016 to allow time for medical experts’ reports to be submitted, but he did release a prevention of future deaths report in 2014, which some have taken as a signal that the death might be attributed to contamination of cabin air. However, there was no evidence to suggest that this was the case, and we await the full inquest verdict with a great deal of interest.

In the case of Matt Bass, who has been mentioned during this debate and whose case is before the Berkshire coroner, the January pre-inquest review has been adjourned until 15 June 2016 to allow time to locate medical samples and to instruct the experts. I offer my deepest sympathies to the families and friends of the deceased, but, as the two inquests have not been concluded, it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment in further detail.

[Dawn Butler]

The Bournemouth coroner, in respect of Mr Westgate, issued a regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths under the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013 in relation to both British Airways and the CAA on 16 February 2015. In it he states:

“In my opinion urgent action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe that your organisation has the power to take such action.”

Is that part of your consideration?

[Mr Goodwill]

As I said, the inquest has not been finalised and no verdict has been reached. In many ways, the precautionary principle may have prompted the coroner to issue that advice at that time, but the case is still before the courts. Similarly, if the case was before a criminal court, one would not want to comment before the verdict. It would be inappropriate for the Government to do so and my legal advice is that we should not comment before the verdict. In at least one of the cases we will not have long to wait for the verdict, and we will look very carefully at the scientific evidence brought before the inquest and how that is interpreted.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I am interested to hear the Minister say that the Government want to look carefully at the evidence; I appreciate the sentiment behind that. Would it be useful to also look very carefully at the responses to the report referred to by British Airways and the Civil Aviation Authority, because this information will help us to decide how best to move forward?

[Mr Goodwill]

Certainly the CAA is involved in this. I meet regularly with the unions involved, particularly BALPA, so it is not something that we are trying to shuffle away, but we need to wait for the result of the inquest before we report on these particular cases. I will go on to present various pieces of evidence and show where we are on this important matter. I will talk about what work has already been done and what work we believe needs to be done.

The safety of cabin air is an issue that has been a matter of public debate over several years—in fact, over a decade now. This continues to be the case, and I, together with my noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, have received a considerable amount of correspondence and responded to several parliamentary questions on cabin air quality. As background, some crew and passengers have expressed concerns that they have suffered long-term health impairment, which they contend is due to exposure to organophosphates present in small amounts as additives in aviation engine oils and hydraulic fluids.

As ever, we have to be careful to have regard to whether there is evidence to support the link between the illnesses and cabin air. That is why the concerns have been investigated at length over a number of years. In 2006 the previous Government arranged for the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—an independent advisory committee of toxicology experts—to review evidence from the British Airline Pilots Association. At the time, the Committee on Toxicity considered that it was not possible to conclude whether cabin air exposures in general, or following incidents such as fume events, cause ill health in commercial aircraft crews. It recommended further work to ascertain whether substances in the cabin environment could potentially be harmful to health.

A second inquiry was held by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, which looked into this issue as part of a wider inquiry in 2007, and published its findings in a report called “Air Travel and Health”. In that report, the findings of the Committee on Toxicity were supported. Following the recommendation in 2007 by the Committee on Toxicity, the Government commissioned a series of scientific studies as part of a research programme on cabin air. The principal research study, which was carried out by Cranfield University, was published in 2011. It found that, with respect to the conditions of flight experienced during the cabin air sampling, there was no evidence of pollutants occurring at levels exceeding health and safety standards and guidelines. Levels observed in the flights that formed part of the study—I stress that they did not include an instance of an oil seal failing—were comparable to those typically experienced in domestic settings. No higher levels of exposure were found than, for example, we would experience in this Chamber.

In addition to the principal study, three further research studies were commissioned and published by the Government. Those four published studies were formally submitted to the Committee on Toxicity for consideration in 2012. The Committee considered the research reports, as well as other research published in the scientific literature since 2007, and subsequently published a position paper on cabin air in December 2013.

I have recently written to several Members of Parliament regarding the findings of the Committee’s position paper. In that letter, which was also placed in the Libraries of both Houses, I summarised the advice the Committee gave and its conclusions. In short, the paper recognises that contamination of cabin air by components or combustion products of engine oils does occur, and that episodes of acute illness have occurred shortly after such episodes. However, it found that levels of chemicals in bleed air would need to occur in far higher concentrations than those found during the studies to cause serious toxicity, and that the symptoms that have been reported following fume events have been wide-ranging, and less specific than those that typically occur from chemical toxicity.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is being characteristically generous in giving way. Is there not a basic flaw in that suggestion, if we do not count incidents? Could it be that in some older aircraft that may not be maintained to such a rigorous standard, air fume events are more frequent? Is that not a possibility, if we do not do a proper investigation, in situ, in real time?

[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.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Minister is being generous with his time this afternoon. What I want to know is what is behind the research. What about the cumulative impact of constant exposure to instances of gases being released into the cabin?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am going to come on to the frequency of fume events. I think none of the toxicologists or other scientists involved in the projects consider that there is a risk in the normal background level of chemicals in an aircraft cabin. As I have said, those are similar to the levels found in any other setting in the UK. The fume events are what we need to look at, and I will be discussing a little more evidence that I have been given about the frequency of those events.

As a toxic mechanism could not be categorically ruled out as the cause of the symptoms, the Committee concluded that more research would be beneficial. It stated, however, that it would be necessary to balance the likelihood that the further research will usefully inform further management of the problem against the costs of undertaking the research. There are various aspects of the issue to take into consideration, including the results of the research that has been undertaken and the unpredictability and rarity of the fume events. I said I would have some information on that. The Civil Aviation Authority operates a mandatory occurrence-reporting scheme and, contrary to what we may have heard during the debate, the CAA is determined that every type of occurrence should be reported. Indeed, if airlines do not report instances, questions are asked about whether their culture is a good one.

When I was a member of the Select Committee on Transport we visited the CAA and were given a list of the sorts of reports that came forward, which included things that people might not see as relevant, such as both pilots eating the same sandwich. That would be an issue if there were a food poisoning incident. Even what might seem trivial and unimportant incidents must be reported, and there is a culture of reporting in the airline industry, not least in the case of fume events, which people are well aware of.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The Minister is being very generous. How does the CAA envisage the compulsory reporting of incidents being carried out, when there is not the monitoring available to find out whether one has occurred or not?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am advised that if a fume event occurs it is apparent to everyone on the aircraft. The smell of the oil is absolutely apparent to people. As I mentioned, there is a culture of reporting in the CAA and the aviation industry—which, incidentally, we would like to spread to the health service, where near misses and potential accidents are often not reported. Its reporting culture ensures that the aviation industry is one of the safest in the world.

[Rachael Maskell]

That is the crux of the debate. The reality is that it may be possible to detect a serious fuel event; but what about a minor one, where there is slight leakage into the cabin?

[Dawn Butler]

rose—

[Mr Goodwill]

I will also give way to the hon. Member for Brent Central before I respond.

[Dawn Butler]

To pick up on that point, there are also some toxins that one cannot smell, so is not the way to gather the empirical evidence, as has been said, just to monitor what is going on in the aircraft at the time? The Minister is absolutely right: the airline industry has a culture of reporting the errors or mistakes that people make, so that it can improve its system. However, that is exactly what is not happening with these incidents, because they are not being monitored.

[Mr Goodwill]

A lot of air quality monitoring has been carried out on aircraft. The problem is that fume events are relatively rare and therefore there has not been the ability to pick one up during one of those monitoring situations.

Under the CAA’s mandatory reporting scheme, the trigger for a report is an event that is considered by the crew to be a

“safety-related event which endangers or which, if not corrected or addressed, could endanger an aircraft, its occupants or any other person.”

None of the flights where fumes and smells were reported in post-flight questionnaires met those criteria; they are the ones that we actually tested. However, I have some data from the CAA on the number of those reports where smells have been reported in the cabin. We heard from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that he had been given the figure of about one in 2,000 flights. We heard from the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) that it is about one in 100. The evidence that I have is that in the last decade we have seen annually between 282 and 471 reports of smells or fumes in the cabin. The last year that we have report numbers for is 2014, when there were 426.

However, it must be emphasised that up to now, reports of fumes have included all causes of smoke, odour or fumes, both internal and external, and not just incidents of bleed-air contamination. The CAA estimates that a maximum of 10% of those incidents reported are regarding bleed-air contamination—in other words, less than one a week—and therefore it has not been possible as yet to have testing equipment on an aircraft when one has happened. I hope that that puts into context the frequency with which these situations occur.

[Rachael Maskell]

I would like to press the Minister a little further on this issue, because it is very important. The fact that detection equipment is not available or not placed on aircraft means that we are moving to subjective measures of whether an incident has occurred. Is it not vital that we first do the correct monitoring in order to understand how big, small or frequent these incidents are, and then go on to take action? I do not think that the reports to which the Minister is referring are satisfying us that that empirical evidence is available.

[Mr Goodwill]

I could not agree with the hon. Lady more. I am laying out what research has been done and what information we have to date. That is why it is very important that EASA makes further progress. Indeed, we are keen to find out what research is happening around the world. Because of the international nature of the aviation industry, it is the Government’s view that an international approach to any future research investigations would be appropriate.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister comment on the occupational health and safety aspect and look at this issue again? It seems to me that air cabin crews’ Health and Safety Executive protections apply only when they are on the ground and outside the aircraft. Things such as Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations seem to be falling through the net between the CAA and the HSE.

[Mr Goodwill]

My advice is that the CAA is the body responsible for the safety of crew and passengers in this case, and the CAA, as I have said, takes this very seriously. We are working with international bodies such as EASA to try to progress some of the research. The opportunity to collect data from a broader sample base than is available in the UK—

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister has been most generous in accepting interventions. My understanding is that COSHH regulations would apply to much of this, but that the CAA has said that COSHH regulations do not apply to it. Could the hon. Gentleman go away and look at that, in terms of the health and safety protections that should apply to these workers?

[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.

HS2 Phase One Hybrid Bill Select Committee Report

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I am today publishing the Department’s response to the second special report from the Select Committee for the HS2 Phase One hybrid Bill that was published on 22 February 2016.

The Select Committee was tasked with considering petitions from those specially and directly affected by the Bill and subsequent additional provisions to the Bill. Their second special report marked the culmination of over 18 months of Committee deliberations which began in July 2014. Over the course of the Select Committee process, 2586 petitions were lodged against the original Bill and the subsequent five additional provisions to the Bill. The Select Committee heard approximately 1,600 of those petitions in formal session, with the remainder withdrawing, or choosing not to appear before the Select Committee, mainly as a result of successful prior negotiation with HS2 Ltd.

Where the Select Committee considered it appropriate to do so, they suggested modifications to the Bill powers, the provision of specific undertakings and assurances to petitioners or the provision of additional mitigation works. During the Select Committee process, five additional provisions were made to the Bill and many of these contained further mitigation measures that were agreed with petitioners and the Select Committee during the course of the hearings. The Select Committee’s recent report summarises their hearings and contains further general recommendations as well as recommendations on specific petitions in relation to those issues where they felt an intervention was required.

In responding to the Select Committee, we have endeavoured to be as constructive as possible and have similarly aimed to confine our responses to those areas of the report where it seemed beneficial to note our agreement to the recommendation or to offer a clarification, where appropriate.

Alongside the response to the Select Committee report, we are also publishing a number of additional documents today. These are the Statement Of Reasons Command Paper, an equalities impact assessment consultation response report, together with supporting documents and a water framework directive assessment update.

The Statement Of Reasons Command Paper, which is entitled the “Government overview of the case for HS2 Phase One and its environmental impacts”, is required by Parliamentary Standing Order 224A in order to assist the House during the third Reading of the HS2 Phase One hybrid Bill. This document summarises the work that has already been done to assess, control and mitigate the environmental impacts of HS2 Phase One, and explains why the Government continue to take the view that the HS2 Phase One project is worthy of its support.

Two equalities impact assessment (EQIA) updates were published for consultation in 2015 to take account of changes to the Phase One Bill scheme made by the additional provisions to the Bill. The summary report that is being published today provides HS2 Ltd’s response to issues raised by consultation responses received on the two EQIA updates. I am also placing some supporting documents into the Libraries of both Houses and these are the original hybrid Bill EQIA, the EQIA update consultations for Euston and the update consultation on the remainder of the Phase One route and the summaries of responses to both consultations.

The Phase One hybrid Bill was assessed for compliance against the water framework directive (WFD) objectives in a series of published documents. Since then, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled in favour of a challenge against a WFD objective assessment process. In doing so, the Court of Justice clarified the way in which compliance with the directive’s key environmental objectives should be interpreted in the assessment of new developments and scheme proposals. In light of the ruling, the WFD assessment for the proposed scheme has been reviewed and updated and we are publishing this today.

Copies of the response to the Select Committee can be found on the www.gov.uk website. Copies of the statement of reasons, the equalities impact assessment consultation response report, together with supporting documents, and the water framework directive assessment update will be made available in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS602]

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to provide funding for large local transport projects.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The Department is providing over £7 billion for the devolved local growth fund, which will fund more than 500 local transport projects by the end of this Parliament. It now includes £475 million for transformational local transport schemes that are too large for the devolved allocations. We will be providing further details very soon.

[Mr Jackson]

May I make a plea to the Minister? Will he tell me when some of the £75 million funding from the roads investment strategy will be used to reduce the noise pollution that has already been identified by Highways England on the A47 Soke Parkway through Peterborough, adjacent to Apsley Way and Bradwell Road?

[Mr Goodwill]

The A47 is part of the strategic road network and is therefore not covered by the money that I have just announced. However, in November 2014, the Chancellor announced £300 million for the A47, including the Wansford to Sutton section between the A1 and Peterborough. On the question of noise pollution, the Government have challenged Highways England to mitigate noise at more than 1,000 locations. Measures that could be used include noise reduction surfacing, tree planting and barriers.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Transport for the North published a report this week that looks into local and regional links as well as access to the national network. It puts forward ambitious schemes for improvements in rail transport between Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds and for better access to the High Speed 2 network. What kind of co-ordination will there be to ensure that this happens?

[Mr Goodwill]

It is particularly important that we co-ordinate rail and road systems, particularly in regard to freight, and HS2 will open up a large number of additional freight paths that will take pressure off the roads. Co-ordination will be absolutely vital and we are working with Transport for the North and the leaders of the great cities of the north, including Liverpool, to make sure that that happens. Indeed, I shall be in Liverpool later today.

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

18. My hon. Friend will be aware of the absurd situation on Canvey where, although residents can virtually kick a football at the new DP World container port, it is easier to access the tens of thousands of jobs there by travelling from the east end of London. What support can he give my residents on Canvey Island who have been campaigning for a third road for many decades?

[Mr Goodwill]

I very much agree that new road infrastructure can transform local economies and boost access to jobs, which is why we have given significant funding and freedoms to local areas to take forward schemes such as this. We will be announcing further funding opportunities very soon. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to make the case for that project with Essex County Council and the South East local enterprise partnership. The port facilities in her constituency are absolutely superb, and it is important that we give them the infrastructure that they need to back them up.

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

Large local infrastructure projects have been the hallmark of the Scottish Government since they came to power in 2007. There have been too many to list here, but they include the Borders rail link, the Tarbert to Campbelltown trunk link road and, in my own constituency, the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness. According to independent analysis, Scotland is investing twice as much per person in transport as England. That includes active travel projects such as cycling, on which we are already way ahead of the UK. Last year, this Government announced a new £680 million access fund up to 2021. Can they clear up the confusion about when that fund is going to go ahead?

[Mr Goodwill]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the high-speed rail line between Edinburgh and Glasgow, which has been conveniently shelved. He may be aware that SNP-controlled Perth and Kinross Council has decided that potholes now have to be at least 60 mm deep—that is nearly 2 and a half inches—before it will consider filling them in. That indicates what its priorities might be in some cases.

[Drew Hendry]

The Minister and I may disagree on many things, but one thing that we do agree on is the benefits of cycling. The cycle-to-work scheme has been a popular and progressive policy, and credit is due to the Government for continuing with it. However, in the summer Budget, the Treasury said that it was actively monitoring salary sacrifice arrangements because they were becoming increasingly popular. In Scotland, progressive policies that work and are popular are something that the Government there support. Will he confirm that he is working to ensure that the Chancellor will protect cycle-to-work schemes in the forthcoming Budget?

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman may have to be patient and wait for the Budget, but certainly schemes such as the cycle-to-work scheme are very good. Large numbers of people who have bicycles are using them to get to work and it is a great way of getting people fit and active, as well as reducing congestion on our roads.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

6. When the Government plan to make a decision on the location of a UK spaceport.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The Government’s ambition is for the UK to have the facilities and regulatory environment in place for commercial spaceflight during this Parliament. My Department is currently working closely with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to assess and understand the technical requirements, with the aim of announcing the process for spaceport selection later this year.

[Brendan O’Hara]

As the Member for Argyll and Bute, I have championed and will continue to champion the Machrihanish bid to become the UK’s spaceport. The community-owned facility has considerable advantages, including a 3 km runway and the overwhelming backing of the community. When will the next stage criteria be announced by the Department for Transport? Can the Minister assure all those who are working hard to bring the project to Machrihanish that the Government are still 100% committed to the creation of a UK spaceport?

[Mr Goodwill]

I can certainly confirm that. In fact, the Department for Transport has provided £5 million to fund initial phases of work. It is also important that we work with potential operators to check out the facilities that they might want to ensure that they can be provided. It is a great opportunity. With companies such an Inmarsat, Clyde Space north of the border, and Surrey Satellite Technology, we are already world leaders in space technology, so this will be a further step towards pushing against the barriers to British involvement in the space race.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his recent visit to Cornwall Newquay airport where he saw the excellent facilities we have there to host the spaceport. Will he confirm that he went away with the very clear message that Cornwall not only can accommodate but is ambitious to be the English bid for the spaceport?

[Mr Goodwill]

I certainly did get a very clear message and was taken up by the enthusiasm of the people in Newquay. I was recently at Prestwick, as well, so I know that other airports are interested. I did notice when I was at Prestwick that there was no shortage of slots to use; it seemed quite quiet when I was there.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

7. What steps he plans to take to ensure that rural communities have access to regular bus services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

12. When construction of High Speed 2 is planned to begin.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

A great deal of work has already been completed, and actual construction will start next year.

[Mr Baker]

Tempted as I am to propose that the Government build HS2 sometime in the Parliament after next, when it will be seen for the white elephant that it is, could the Minister reassure me that there is time enough to deal with all the environmental impacts of HS2, such as the construction impact on the historic village of West Wycombe in my constituency?

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend did promise me an impish supplementary question and I was not disappointed. The fact is that we have promised that there will be no net environmental loss during the construction. Indeed, we plan to plant 2 million trees as part of the phase 1 construction. I think it will be a project that we can be proud of and one that communities up and down the country will value as part of our economic plans.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I rather like elephants, white or otherwise. Let us look at the building of phase 2 of HS2. The Secretary of State has said in the past that serious consideration would be given to the possibility of beginning construction on the northern part of phase 2 between Sheffield and Leeds in parallel with work on the southern part of that leg. How much serious consideration has been given to that, and is there a possibility that work between Sheffield and Leeds could begin before the very end of the project?

[Mr Goodwill]

It is important that we prioritise the Birmingham route, because that is where the congestion is and where the real benefits are. Let us not forget that those trains will run through to serve stations in the north and in Scotland from day one. It is very important that we look at how we can deliver that. Indeed, some of the investment at the station locations in the north can go ahead even before the trains reach those locations.

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

13. What steps he has taken to reduce waiting times at driving test centres.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The UK Airprox Board investigated 23 near misses between aircraft and drones in six months last year. Of those, 12 were deemed to involve a serious risk of collision. The British Airline Pilots Association wants the Government to run tests on what would happen if a drone were sucked into an engine or hit a windscreen, and the Government have had a working group on the matter since 2013. So why is it only this summer that Ministers will say anything? Should we not know by now what tests have already been done, what regulatory and other options are being considered and when Ministers expect any agreed option to be put into practice?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I assure the House that we take that matter very seriously indeed, and we are aware of the risk of a collision with a drone. Yesterday, I met representatives of the British Airline Pilots Association, and that was one of the topics that came up. As the Secretary of State said in answer to an earlier question, severe penalties are in place for people who get involved with such activities. There are a number of technologies, such as geo-fencing, which would prevent those aircraft from entering sensitive airspace. We take the matter very seriously, and we are considering the best action to take.

[Richard Burden]

On a different but also topical subject, I was in Kent yesterday talking to businesses that had felt at first hand the traffic chaos surrounding 32 days of Operation Stack last year. I know that the Government are consulting on lorry parks and junction improvements for future years, but what are they going to do to prevent a repeat of last year’s scenes from occurring in 2016? I am not asking the Minister to tell me who he is meeting; I am asking him what the action plan is.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

T2. On 4 February this year, hundreds of my constituents were gridlocked on the M6 and the M42 for an entire day following an accident. Would the Minister meet me to discuss lessons to be learned from that day of chaos and examine proposals to open the M6 toll for free or for a nominal charge, but only when such crisis situations occur?

[Mr Goodwill]

There is an agreement in place whereby M6 tolls can be lifted in the event of a major failure that is likely to lead to prolonged inoperability of the surrounding roads on the strategic road network. The Government are looking at options over that agreement, but there are substantial cost, policy and value-for-money implications involved with de-tolling, which we are currently considering. As part of the process, I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

T4. With an estimated skills gap of some 50,000 HGV drivers predicted by the end of this Parliament, does the Minister agree that it would make sense for the Government to contribute towards the £3,500 training fee required for licences? Not only would that help to plug the skills gap, but it would mean more people working and paying tax, and it would reduce welfare.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

T6. I know that the Government keep the status of trust ports under periodic review. Poole, which is a trust port, is a successful port. Such a status has the support of the local community, and indeed of its Member of Parliament. I hope the shipping Minister understands that.

[Mr Goodwill]

May I first put on the record our gratitude to my hon. Friend for the very hard work he carried out as a member of the Select Committee on the hybrid HS2 Bill? We occasionally ask trust ports to review their status. All the feedback I have had from his trust port certainly shows that the trust port model is working well, and we would not wish to interfere with that.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

It is clearly in the public interest for a person reporting somebody as unfit to drive to have anonymity. However, does the Secretary of State agree that anonymity should be rescinded where the allegation appears to be malicious, and that the reporting form should clearly state that an accuser will be liable to prosecution if false accusations are made about an individual?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

May I thank the Minister of State for his visit to Northern Ireland? It was good to see everyone in the Union working together. He visited Belfast International airport, Lough Neagh Rescue and Wrightbus. Will he use his influence to help the various road and rail projects we saw, and help with things such as air passenger duty, enterprise zones and, of course, one day having a new runway here to improve links to Northern Ireland?

[Mr Goodwill]

It was great to visit Ulster and see some of the good news about the 300 new jobs at Belfast International airport. Ryanair is now based at that airport, with direct flights to Gatwick and new routes in the pipeline, including to Milan and Berlin. It was great to visit Northern Ireland, and I look forward to going again.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

T8. In my constituency, a link road from the M6 to Heysham port will open within the next 12 months. Are there any plans to trunk that road, given that it is a strategic route, and will my right hon. Friend make a statement on that?