EU Transport Council

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I will attend the final Transport Council under the Luxembourg presidency (the presidency), taking place in Brussels, on Thursday 10 December.

The presidency is planning a policy debate on social aspects of road transport ahead of the EU road initiatives that we expect to be published by the Commission in 2016. The debate is likely to focus on whether existing legislation should be clarified in order to reach a uniform interpretation of the rules in all member states, and the challenges in the enforcement of existing rules.

There will be a lunchtime debate on road safety at the request of the presidency. I welcome the opportunity to share expertise and best practice on road safety in the light of the UK’s excellent track record in this area. I look forward to hearing about the work done by EU colleagues to improve road safety among vulnerable road users in other member states.

Under any other business, there will be presentations on:

The state of the energy union by the Commission;

The MH17 crash following a report from the Dutch accident and investigation branch;

An aviation strategy for Europe by the Commission following publication of its aviation package on 7 December;

State of ratification of the Luxembourg protocol to the rail rolling stock convention, which Luxembourg will encourage other member states to ratify;

Nominations to the ICAO Council; and

The Netherlands’ priorities for their presidency which begins on 1 January 2016.

[HCWS370]

Disabled Parking Permits (London Borough of Harrow)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate about the assessment of applications for a blue badge. Let there be no doubt that I share his concerns about the wellbeing of people with disabilities, especially when it comes to ensuring that the impact of their condition on their quality of life is minimised. Although it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual cases, I would like to outline some aspects of the operation of the scheme.

The blue badge scheme has been in place since 1971, and its primary focus has always been on helping those people with permanent and severe mobility problems. The scheme enables about 2.5 million people with disabilities to retain their independence by allowing them to park close to where they need to go, providing access to jobs, shops and other services. Approximately 75% of blue badge holders have said that they would go out less frequently if they did not have a badge, and about 64% would be more reliant on friends and other family members. The Government are committed to the blue badge scheme and want to protect it for those who rely on it.

The Government are responsible for the legislation that sets out eligibility, the terms of the concession itself, the design of the badge and the enforcement framework. Badges are generally valid for three years, and the badge is for the holder’s use and benefit only. Local authorities can charge a fee of up to £10 for a blue badge. The scheme primarily improves accessibility for people with disabilities, but it has become increasingly advantageous financially. In return for the £10 fee, the scheme provides a generous package of benefits for people with severe disabilities. It enables parking on single or double yellow lines for up to three hours. Badge holders may also park for free for as long as they need to at on-street parking meters and pay and display machines. They can park for free in on-street disabled parking bays, and, unless signs say otherwise, this is also without time limit. Blue badge holders also receive other benefits—for example, no congestion charge in London. It is estimated that the annual benefit of the scheme to people with disabilities is about £250 million—nearly £100 per annum on average for each badge holder. The benefit per person ranges from £35 for people living in rural areas who make one trip a week to more than £5,000 for those who use a badge to travel to work in London every day.

Not surprisingly, the financial benefit of a badge could lead to abuse in a variety of forms. Therefore, in 2011, following a review of the scheme, the Government set out their proposals for improving the administration and enforcement of the scheme. Our aim was to ensure that the scheme was administered efficiently, consistently and fairly. In 2012, our reform strategy delivered the most comprehensive changes to the scheme for 40 years, helping to tackle widespread abuse of the scheme and ensuring that badges go to those with the greatest need. The reforms supported the Government’s agenda of promoting freedom and fairness, and meeting the needs of older and disabled people. The improvements to the scheme included: the use of independent mobility assessors to make assessment fairer and more consistent; and new legislation so that local authorities can now withdraw a badge following one criminal conviction for misuse, rather than three, as previously.

Some time ago, I spent time in Leeds with the enforcement officers checking up on the correct use of badges, and I am pleased that similar operations have been ongoing in Harrow. Indeed, a number of operations have taken place—I think they could be described as a bouquet—to make sure that abuse is minimised. Other improvements included: new powers for local authorities to seize badges that are being misused on-street, where previously only the police could do this; a new high-security, fraud-resistant badge designed to make it harder to copy or alter; and the launch of a single national database of all badge holders and their details in order to help prevent multiple and fraudulent applications. That also enables quick and easy validity checks by on-street enforcement officers from anywhere in the country.

Eligibility for a blue badge is not based on the type of disability. People with physical, mental or cognitive conditions can receive a badge if their walking is sufficiently affected. In order to qualify for a badge, a person needs to meet one of the eligibility criteria set out in the regulations that govern the scheme. They can be eligible either “without further assessment” or “subject to further assessment” by the local authority. People are eligible for the “without further assessment” category if they are over the age of two and receive the higher rate of the mobility component of the disability living allowance; or receive eight points or more under the “moving around” activity of the mobility component of personal independence payment; or are registered blind or severely sight impaired; or receive a war pensioner’s mobility supplement; or have been both awarded a lump sum benefit at tariffs 1 to 8 of the armed forces compensation scheme and are certified as having a permanent and substantial disability which causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.

People who do not qualify without further assessment may still be eligible subject to further assessment if they are over the age of two and are unable to walk or have very considerable difficulty in walking because of a permanent and substantial difficulty; regularly drive a car but are unable to operate, or have considerable difficulty in operating, a parking meter on account of a severe disability in both arms; under the age of two and have a condition that requires that they always be accompanied by bulky medical equipment or that they be kept near a motor vehicle in case of need for emergency medical treatment.

On 1 April 2012, the Government introduced a change, which may be at the heart of my hon. Friend’s concerns. Evidence was showing that the badge issue rates vary significantly between local authorities. That could not be fully explained by population characteristics. Indeed, assessment procedures also varied. We introduced new legislation to require that where a person’s eligibility is not self-evident, the local authority must use an independent mobility assessor such as an occupational therapist or physiotherapist to help determine eligibility. That means that unless the local authority determines that an applicant’s eligibility or otherwise is clear cut, their eligibility will need to be confirmed by an independent mobility assessor. For badge eligibility decisions to be fairer and more objective, assessments should be undertaken by professionals who are independent of the applicant rather than referring to the applicant’s GP.

There was a lot of evidence to support that change. The Department of Health’s care services efficiency delivery programme noted that the involvement of GPs had only been at the discretion of the council and that a GP might not examine a person but instead rely on records. It indicated that it was rare for a GP not to support an application and that the GP-patient relationship could be compromised. It reported that the use of on-site occupational therapists allowed for a speedier and more effective decision.

Furthermore, independent research commissioned by my Department concluded that there was concern that some people who might not have had a clear and compelling need for a badge could still receive them. A majority of local authorities also believed that that was the case. The new assessment was supported by disability-represented organisations, including the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, and by the Transport Committee, which reported that using an applicant’s GP to assess eligibility was likely to produce a bias in favour of approving the application. These groups agreed that greater use of independent mobility assessments was needed to determine eligibility fairly and robustly. Indeed, a consultation showed 84% of respondents in favour of greater prescription from central Government on eligibility assessments. Focus group discussions with badge holders also revealed support for that approach provided it was delivered by an appropriately qualified healthcare professional.

An independent review commissioned by my Department in 2011 found compelling evidence that intelligently combined desk-based assessment and independent mobility assessments offered a substantially more robust assessment procedure. It concluded that mobility assessments achieve more efficient badge issuing; improved fairness for applicants; greater assurance that assessment is thorough and objective; and high level of confidence that those applicants intended by legislation to be eligible actually receive badges.

Let me make it clear that this change was introduced not to deprive anybody of a badge but to ensure that the scheme focused better on those whom it was intended to benefit. In introducing this change, we enshrined it in legislation that the independent assessor must be professionally qualified and trained in the assessment of a person’s ability to walk and have the expertise necessary to assess on behalf of the local authority the ability to walk of the applicant in question.

Although local authorities are required to determine eligibility through an independent mobility assessment, in cases where it is not clear whether an applicant may qualify for a badge, a local authority is able to make use of factual information from the GP or from other medical professionals regarding an applicant’s condition and treatment as evidence to support the eligibility decision-making process. If the new procedures are working properly, I would indeed expect some people who may previously have received a badge to find that they are now refused. Unsuccessful applicants who have had their application refused have no right of appeal to my Department against the local authority decision not to issue a badge. However, we recommend in our guidance that local authorities establish an internal procedure to deal with appeals against a local authority’s decision not to issue a badge. Appeals may not be heard where a case is clear cut, but our experience indicates that local authorities will review cases if there is any doubt about eligibility. If a qualified mobility assessor has advised the council, we see no reason for a further appeal beyond that.

We also state that local authorities must let the applicant know in writing why their application was refused, and strongly recommend that they provide a detailed explanation of the grounds for refusal. We feel that this transparency can avoid complaints being made and upheld. An unsuccessful applicant can also ask the authority to reconsider the case at a later date if they feel that their mobility problems have become more serious over time or if they think that all the relevant facts were not taken into consideration at the time of assessment. In the case of local government maladministration, there is also recourse to the ombudsman. Indeed, if any council was systematically committing procedural irregularities, it would leave itself open to judicial review. I should make it clear that I have seen no evidence of this type of practice.

As I have mentioned, local authorities are ultimately responsible for the administration of the scheme so it remains the responsibility of each local authority to determine their own assessment procedures and ensure that their procedures are in line with the legislation that governs the blue badge scheme.

I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the Government are committed to promoting equal opportunities and achieving a fairer society by meeting the needs of the elderly and people with disabilities. It is important that we ensure that the blue badge scheme remains sustainable and protects preferential parking facilities for those with the greatest need. I believe that the introduction of independent mobility assessments means that a fairer, more robust and more effective process is in place to do this.

Question put and agreed to.

East West Rail

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Friday 4th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) on securing the debate. I share his enthusiasm for east-west rail, and very much want it to become a reality.

East-west rail is a transformational project to rebuild the railway between Oxford in the west and Bedford in the east. It will also connect Aylesbury with Milton Keynes. Part of the project will use disused railway routes, and part of it will upgrade or double-track lightly used or mothballed sections of railway. It is a missing part of the railway jigsaw connecting the great western, west coast and midland main lines.

The project is being built in two parts. Phase 1, between Bicester and Oxford, is being built as I speak; phase 2, between Bicester and Bedford, is being developed. Trains operated by Chiltern Railways started running on the first part of the railway on 25 October, with two train services an hour from London Marylebone to the brand-new station at Oxford Parkway. Two stations have been completely rebuilt, at Bicester Village and Islip.

That was the first new rail link between a major British city and London in over 100 years. Together with Chiltern Railways, we have invested over £320 million in east- west rail phase 1, and in September 2016, when the infrastructure works west of Oxford Parkway have been finished, services on this route will be extended into the centre of Oxford, where it will connect with the Great Western main line.

Phase 2 of east-west rail will connect Oxford and the Great Western main line with Bletchley, the west coast main line with Aylesbury and the Chiltern main line and Bedford for the Midland main line. It will allow faster journeys between these locations than is possible by car today. It will stimulate economic development and new housing across the region. The project includes a new station at Winslow and new platforms at Bletchley.

This project is complex and challenging. In particular a lot of work is needed to the structures, such as bridges, and earthworks along the route. As part of the project we expect Network Rail to do the following: build or renovate 18 bridges over the railway; modify or close over 75 level crossings; and build 22 new footbridges and subways across the railway.

The new railway will be capable of operating at 100 miles an hour. It will also be electrified, enabling faster, lighter and greener electric passenger trains to run. As well as providing a new route for passenger trains, east-west rail will provide a corridor for rail freight.

East-west rail is a challenging and ambitious project. Network Rail’s current cost estimate for phase 2 is high. We want to reduce this cost as plans mature and scope options are looked at in more detail, taking the risk out of the scheme. None the less, I would like to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to delivering east-west rail.

These are challenging times for the rail industry. In June, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that important aspects of Network Rail’s investment programme were costing more and taking longer. He announced the steps he was taking to put things right. On 25 November my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to Britain’s vital transport network as part of our wider spending plans.

Sir Peter Hendy’s report on delivering the rail investment strategy was published at the same time. The Secretary of State has accepted Sir Peter’s report, subject to a short period of consultation with stakeholders, such as the East West Rail consortium. No infrastructure schemes have been cancelled. Electrification of the TransPennine and midland main line has already resumed following a brief pause. The Government have confirmed their commitment to delivering east-west rail. Work on this has continued without interruption while Sir Peter’s review has been carried out.

We included this project in our 2012 rail investment strategy following the convincing case put forward by the East West Rail consortium of local authorities. One of the strengths of this project has been the close working relationship we have had with the consortium and the help and support it has been able to provide. I am pleased that the consortium has been able to play its part in the development of the delivery plans and welcome its continued support in the future.

Following Sir Peter’s review, funding has been identified in control period 5 to continue development of east-west rail and secure the necessary planning powers to enable the project to be completed. Network Rail is continuing to work on its plans for east-west rail phase 2. It expects to have developed a single option for the scope of east west-rail in a considerable level of detail by late 2016. When this work has been completed, we will be in possession of much better information than we have now. This will enable us to make an informed decision and set out clearly the timescales for delivering east-west rail.

As part of these next steps, I urge my hon. Friend and all the interested local partners such as the East West Rail consortium to continue to help to take the project forward. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important topic, which I know is of considerable local interest. It is now time for Network Rail to get on with the job and to develop a detailed plan for east-west rail that we can all get behind. As I said at the start, the Government are committed to seeing east-west rail built.

This Government have prioritised infrastructure investment. A 50% uplift in investment compared with the last Parliament demonstrates that we really mean business. Projects such as this are becoming a reality and contributing to the long-term economic plan that got such a resounding endorsement at this year’s general election.

Question put and agreed to.

Pavement Parking (Protection of Vulnerable Pedestrians) Bill

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Friday 4th December 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on bringing forward this Bill to deal with an issue that should have been addressed sooner. It is right to harmonise across the country the arrangements and enforcement policies that have been in place in Greater London for a very long time.

Every council and every individual sees the abuses of pavement parking on a daily basis. It can be very costly: pavements can crack when cars go on to pavements; the dropped stone kerbs and footings on the pavements can be damaged; and even landscaped areas can be damaged, which has not been mentioned so far.

How can we police this in the future? A reasonable form of future policing would involve something along the same lines as a parking ticket. Provision would need to be built into the new laws that enforcement is not fielded out to these ANPR—automatic number plate recognition—processing companies, because those cowboys will move on straightaway to find another little loophole that they can exploit to the hilt.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

Let me provide some clarification. It has been stated that parking on the pavement is a criminal offence. If a council uses its powers to ban pavement parking on particular streets, it can be enforced by those councils if they have civil enforcement powers. About 95% of local authorities do have those civil enforcement powers.

[David Morris]

I thank the Minister for that interjection. He is correct in everything he says, but these powers are very costly. Their enforcement can range from £1,000 to £3,000, so we need to look at finding a means of enforcement on a cheaper scale, as well as on a fairer scale. I believe that any legislation to address this problem should exempt councils from bringing in these “spy-in-the-sky” companies, which would cause not only more problems for individuals, but an absolute headache for any legislative process that we introduce.

I have nothing more to say other than to wish my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset well and to thank the Minister for listening to parking issues not only on this occasion, but many times in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for the way in which he introduced his Bill, and for his clear concern for the safety and free movement of pedestrians. Having tried and failed to encourage a Patterdale terrier to walk to heel, I was very pleased to hear that he had had more success with his own children.

Disabled people, older people, and people with young children in pushchairs are particularly concerned about this issue, but the House should be in no doubt that I share his concern for the well-being of all pedestrians. I have been out and about in Scarborough wearing blacked-out glasses and observed some of the problems caused by, in particular, restaurants putting tables on the pavement. That is a perennial problem.

It is clear from what was said by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) that a number of complications would need to be ironed out before the Government could act, and given that many local authorities are under the control of his party, and other parties, I think it important for us to encourage authorities to engage fully.

Vehicles parked on a footway or verge where such parking is not permitted can cause serious problems for many groups, including people in wheelchairs and those with visual impairments. Indiscriminate pavement parking does more than cause problems for the movement of pedestrians, as it may also damage the verge or footway, and the burden of repair costs normally falls on the local highway authority. High-quality pavements are important in enabling people to get about as part of their everyday lives and participate in their community.

My hon. Friend’s Bill has inspired some valuable and interesting debate; let me now offer the Government’s views.

There is currently an historic ban on footway parking by all motorised vehicles throughout London, except where it is expressly permitted by local authorities, and the Bill seeks to extend a similar prohibition on footway parking outside London. It is worth noting, however, that in many cases London councils permit limited footway parking, which is indicated by relevant signs, including a broken line on the footway prescribing the limits of footway incursion by vehicles. That is because local authorities need to take account of all road users when making decisions on footway parking restrictions or allowances.

In some streets, footway parking is in practice inevitable to maintain the free passage of traffic to meet the needs of local residents and businesses. It would not be possible to drive a refuse wagon, let alone an emergency vehicle, down some narrow streets if that were not the case.

Local authorities must address such issues to ensure that a fair and balanced approach is taken to all residents and road users, and it is therefore right for them to decide where footway parking should be permitted. I should make clear that all authorities outside London already have full powers to introduce bans on footway parking wherever they see fit. That can be done by means of a traffic regulation order, under powers contained in the relevant sections of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The restrictions must be indicated by traffic signs that have been authorised by my Department.

[David Morris]

Obviously legislation and regulations already exist to prevent pavement parking, but the process is very costly. Is there any way in which we could amend the offence to make it cheaper for councils to act accordingly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

We heard from the hon. Member for Cambridge that some local authorities could prescribe zones, but if there were a ban on all footway parking, the cost associated with relief from that ban on certain streets would fall on local authorities. It is the flip side of the same coin.

I understand that the traffic regulation system is considered by some people to be a barrier to the wider provision of an effective footway parking system, but do not entirely accept that. Despite the cost, local authorities make many traffic regulation orders each year for a variety of traffic management purposes. An average authority makes perhaps 50 permanent orders a year. In practice, local authorities are responsible for both parking policy—deciding where parking may or may not be permitted—and parking enforcement.

In addition to direct footway parking bans delivered through traffic regulation orders, there are the yellow line road markings. Vehicles should not park at all where there are double yellow lines. Upright traffic signs indicate when parking restrictions are in operation when they are placed in conjunction with single yellow lines. Those restrictions apply from the centre of the road all the way to the back line of the highway, including the footway—which could mean the fence line of a field, or a length of residential garden walls.

There are also several ways of preventing footway parking that do not involve regulation, including the use of physical measures such as the erection of guard railings, bollards, high kerbs, cycle racks, seating and planters. Decisions on whether to use such measures must be made by local authorities, on the basis of local circumstances and site layouts. Their use does not require traffic orders or signing, and can therefore be a relatively quick means of restricting vehicle access, as there is no need for a formal order-making process. Of course, we would still encourage local authorities to consult those likely to be affected as a matter of good practice. Such measures also have the advantage of being self-enforcing, thereby cutting down on the resources that are needed to ensure they are complied with.

I recognise, however, that the needs of disabled people must be taken into account, and that careful planning of physical measures is required to ensure that they can get about safely and independently. We must not forget that some people with mobility problems need to park close to their homes, and that that may sometimes require pavement parking. We would not want people with serious mobility problems who had been accustomed to parking outside their homes to be forced to park two or three streets away. Local authorities have the power to ban vehicles from parking on the footway, and the Department for Transport’s guidance to local authorities makes clear that during the appraisal of its parking policies, an authority should consider whether footway parking is problematic in any part of its area. If it is, and if that is not covered by an existing traffic regulation order, the authority should consider amending the existing order or making a new one.

Introducing a national ban on footway parking outside London would change the way in which local authorities decide where and when footway parking would be allowed or prohibited. It would be a change to the current system but would not introduce a new power, as local authorities already have that power; and it would not be without new cost burdens for local authorities. They would have to remove any existing local prohibitions, taking down signage, and then review every road in their areas to establish where limited footway parking should still be allowed, to avoid congestion, before going through the process of passing resolutions, putting down road markings, and erecting appropriate signage.

If the Government were to propose any such legislation, I would not wish us to do so without undertaking a full and impartial impact analysis, evidence-gathering exercise and consultation, in order fully to understand the legal implications and the costs that might be imposed on local government of changing the existing system when powers to ban footway parking already exist.

As I explained at the outset, we share my hon. Friend’s concern for the safety and free movement of pedestrians. Improving access for disabled people is a key priority for my Department. Although the Government cannot support the Bill, I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), has agreed to convene a round table next year to discuss footway parking issues, and has also agreed that the Department should undertake some work to examine more closely the legal and financial implications of an alternative regime, and the likely impacts on local authorities. I cannot commit myself to any further action without a firm evidence base and the collective agreement of my ministerial colleagues, including those in the Department for Communities and Local Government. Nevertheless, I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his Bill.

Airports Commission: Final Report

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury)—my one time cycling partner—and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this debate. We have heard some remarkable and passionate speeches—indeed, I look forward to the mayoral hustings next year. In contrast, my speech will be unremarkable, because at this point in the process the Government are engaged in dispassionate, clear-headed analysis of the Davies report.

The coalition Government set up the Airports Commission to take a fresh, independent and comprehensive look at our current and future aviation needs. I thank Sir Howard once again for his diligent work, which covers not only new airport capacity but how to improve our existing airport infrastructure, including in the regions. The future of our aviation industry is of immense importance to this country and to many of our constituents, as we have heard, so I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to this excellent debate.

The UK aviation sector employs about 230,000 people directly and many more indirectly—for example, in the supply chain. Tax revenues from the industry are £8.7 billion per year and air freight carries goods worth over £100 billion a year between the UK and non-EU countries—that is more than 40% of our non-EU trade by value.

What is often overlooked when we discuss aviation in this country is that we are incredibly well connected: we have the third-largest aviation network in the world, after the USA and China; the number of passengers using our non-London airports has increased by over a third since 2000; and London remains one of the world’s best-connected cities, with at least weekly connections to over 360 destinations. In comparison, Paris serves about 300 routes and Frankfurt about 250. Air connectivity is one of the major reasons three-quarters of Fortune 500 companies have offices in London. The airport capacity constraints we are seeing today are in fact a symptom of Britain’s success and the aviation industry’s success in attracting new business.

Maintaining our international and domestic UK connectivity is critical if we want to continue growing as a country and as an economy. We are focusing on a wide range of issues—not only capacity—that support our aviation sector. Airspace, for example, is a critical piece of our national infrastructure. That is why it is vital we work to optimise capacity, maintain air safety, reduce air traffic delays, and mitigate aviation’s impact on the environment. The CAA’s future airspace strategy is designed to do this, and the Government support that important initiative. The Government are also providing support to our airports through improving surface access.

The Airports Commission worked for two and a half years and consulted widely before coming to its conclusions. As we are all aware, it recommended that additional runway capacity is needed in the south of England. What Sir Howard called the “optimal” solution was that that should take the form of a new north-west runway at Heathrow. The commission also recommended a package of mitigation measures, including a night flight ban, a noise levy and a community engagement board, to name a few. The full list of mitigation measures is on pages 10 and 11 of the final report. The Government have been reviewing the commission’s findings, but we have not yet made any decision, which, the House will be aware, limits what I can say today.

Several colleagues were critical of the Airports Commission’s report. The Department has received a number of representations critical of the way in which certain issues are addressed in the commission’s final report, including air quality, noise, surface access, economic benefits, deliverability, financing, and capacity and connectivity. We have taken the matters raised into account as part of the wider programme of work considering the commission’s recommendations. My Department has considered and continues to consider carefully the representations submitted, to identify whether the issues they deal with have already been examined by the commission or affect the overall validity of the commission’s evidence and recommendations.

Noise is, of course, a contentious issue, and the commission has taken into account the noise impacts of each scheme, including potential mitigation measures. We need to recognise that aircraft are becoming less noisy and more fuel efficient, particularly those that adopt Rolls-Royce engines. None the less, we understand local communities’ concerns about noise and we are carefully examining the evidence provided to the Airports Commission, including on potential environmental mitigation.

The Government take seriously the issue of air quality. It is a complex issue and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has just consulted on its draft action plan. As we know from our discussion on Volkswagen, a number of issues in connection with other transport modes also impact on air quality. Many of the problems around our major airports are as much due to the traffic as to aviation activity. We are considering the detailed analysis contained in the Airports Commission’s final report and any decision regarding future airport capacity will take into account the Government’s overall plan to improve air quality and our commitment to comply with EU air quality standards.

The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) raised the issue of CO₂ emissions. The Government take UK climate change commitments very seriously and are committed to meeting them. The commission engaged with the Committee on Climate Change when undertaking its extensive work on greenhouse gas emissions, including considering the impacts of expansion under two different policy frameworks, both carbon capped and carbon traded. The Government are carefully examining the evidence. Any decision on future airport capacity will take into account the UK’s climate change policy and the 2008 climate change obligation. I am hopeful that we can get agreement globally on a global market-based mechanism for trading carbon, which would be the ultimate goal to ensure that aviation plays its part in reducing carbon emissions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth raised the issue of mitigation measures. The Airports Commission recommended that should the Heathrow north-west runway scheme be taken forward, a package of measures be put in place to limit the impacts of expansion on communities, including the introduction of a noise envelope, a predictable respite regime, a ban on night flights between 11.30 pm and 6 am, and a commitment that no fourth runway be built at Heathrow airport. If it is decided that there is a need for additional capacity and that there should be a new runway, whatever its location, we will ensure that there will be a package of measures to balance the benefits of expansion with the interests of communities.

I am sorry I have not been able to touch on every point that was raised in the debate, but let me stress again that many of the issues raised here today are the priorities and concerns of the Government. I thank all those who contributed to this excellent debate. It is clear that we live in an ever-changing world. We have to get this decision right, recognising its impact. We have heard a wide range of views representing a wide range of people. We do not want to hide the challenge on airport capacity. People rightly have strong views, but Sir Howard Davies’s commission has produced a powerful report that has earned the right to close scrutiny and analysis.

Hazardous and Noxious Substances (Opt-in Position)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The Government have decided to opt-in to the proposed Council decision on the ratification and accession by member states, in the interest of the union, to the protocol of 2010 to the international convention on liability and compensation for damage in connection with the carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS) by sea, with regard to aspects related to judicial co-operation in civil matters.

The 1996 international convention on liability and compensation for damage in connection with the carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by sea (‘the 1996 HNS convention’) was agreed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to fill a gap in international law on the treatment of HNS at sea. A 2002 Council decision agreed that EU member states would take the necessary steps to ratify the 1996 HNS convention within a reasonable time and, if possible, before 30 June 2006. Despite this, due to the concerns that many EU member states, including the UK, had over the 1996 HNS convention, none of them ratified it and it has never been brought into force.

The 2010 HNS protocol consolidates the 1996 HNS convention and amends it to address concerns with the initial agreement. However, the 2010 HNS protocol created new concerns and made the implementation process complex. As a result, no state has yet ratified the 2010 HNS protocol, and although some would like to do so, in practice none are likely to until the outstanding concerns with the convention are resolved in the International Maritime Organization, and unless the convention comes into force in other countries simultaneously (it will not enter into force until it has been ratified by at least 12 countries with enough contributing cargo).

The Commission has proposed two Council decisions, one relating to matters of judicial co-operation in civil matters and one with the exception of matters related to judicial co-operation in civil matters. These decisions, when combined, lift any barriers within EU legislation that were preventing EU member states from ratifying the 2010 HNS protocol and so EU member states will now be able to ratify if they wish to do so.

The Government took the view in this instance that UK interests would be best served by opting-in to the proposed decision that deals with “aspects related to judicial co-operation in civil matters”, as this would retain the UK’s ability to fully ratify the HNS protocol, and the removal of any binding deadline from the proposal has the effect of maintaining the UK’s current flexibility to be able to ratify and accede to the HNS protocol if and when we are ready to do so.

[HCWS309]

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

4. What progress the Government have made on finalising the route for phase two High Speed 2.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

We have committed to setting out the Government’s plan for the HS2 phase two route in an update to the House before the end of this year.

[David Mowat]

I thank the Minister for the time he and his officials have spent with me recently to discuss the Golborne link. The initial justification for the link was a proposed depot in Wigan, but that depot will now not be located in Wigan. The only justification that remains is the 10 minutes saved by train journeys north of Wigan. Will the Minister confirm that if that standalone link north of Manchester goes ahead, it will be subject to a separate business case so that we can examine its business case review?

[Mr Goodwill]

We are certainly considering all the recommendations made by Sir David Higgins in his report, “Rebalancing Britain”. Sir David believes that the link to the west coast mainline is needed sooner rather than later. The alternative, which would mean linking to the west coast mainline at Crewe, would mean upgrading the west coast mainline to take on the additional services. That could be costly and disruptive. Indeed, it would incur those dreadful words “Replacement bus services” for many weeks.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I beg the ministerial team for a moment of sanity on HS2? The latest evaluation says that, with the hidden costs, the cost will rise to £160 billion for a country that cannot even keep its national health service running. Is it not about time that we look at this in a ruthless manner and tell Lord Adonis, who calls himself the godfather of HS2, to get his act together? Let us stop this nonsense and invest in things that really work.

[Mr Goodwill]

That is not what Lord Adonis was saying when he was Secretary of State for Transport. I am very pleased that Lord Adonis is engaging with this Government in delivering massive infrastructure improvements. The question the hon. Gentleman needs to ask himself is: what is the cost of not progressing HS2? It is about the capacity and the great cities of the north, which are crying out for that additional capacity and the wealth it will bring to the north.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Of course, HS2 should have started in the north. On phase 2, may I also appeal for sanity from the Government? Will they review the hybrid Bill process and the cruel and unfair compensation scheme? The hybrid Bill process for phase 1 has been convoluted, impenetrable, protracted and painful, not just for the MPs on the Committee, but, more importantly, for the people affected by the project. It is ironic that we are using such a snail-like process for something that is supposed to be high speed. The hybrid Bill process is not fit for purpose. We should modernise it and bring it into the 21st century.

[Mr Goodwill]

I pay tribute to those Members who have doggedly sat on the hybrid Bill Committee and listened to petitions in such an admirable way. Many of the petitions did not reach the Committee, because we managed to reach agreement beforehand. On the question of building HS2 from the north first, it will still end up in London, whichever end it starts at. It is between Birmingham and London that the capacity is needed as a matter of urgency.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend meet me and a delegation from Erewash Borough Council to discuss its proposals to mitigate the impact of the route for phase 2 of HS2 on local residents and businesses, especially in and around Long Eaton?

[Mr Goodwill]

We have not finalised the route, so it might be premature to have that meeting. As I have said, we will update the House before the end of the year. At that point, it will be very appropriate to meet a number of communities up and down the line of route.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department’s policies on increasing access to public transport for disabled passengers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

9. What progress his Department has made on assessing the viability of reopening Plymouth airport.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The Chancellor announced in the March 2015 Budget report that

“the government will commission a new study into the possibility of reopening Plymouth Airport.”

I am keen to determine the final form and scope of the study, and how best to take it forward.

[Oliver Colvile]

As my hon. Friend knows, Plymouth will be the focus of global attention in five years when, during the Mayflower 2020 celebrations, we commemorate the date the Mayflower set sail to found the American colonies. Does my hon. Friend agree that if these celebrations are to be a major tourism success, it is important that people can get to Plymouth, and that this means improved roads and railways and better air links?

[Mr Goodwill]

Well, that new colony certainly worked out well.

My hon. Friend is right that investment in infrastructure is vital to the economic development of the south-west, which is why we have committed £31 million to improving the resilience of the Great Western route. We have already heard about the £40 million used to fix Dawlish and the long-overdue investment in the A30 and the A303, which have long been the scourge of tourists and business people travelling to the south-west.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that cross-channel transport links remain open.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

Recent improvements to security measures include fencing, additional security guards, dogs, and improved CCTV and thermal imaging cameras. In addition to these measures, the French Government have committed very significant police resources to the Calais area.

[Karen Lumley]

On my summer business tour, I met lots of exporters in Redditch having terrible trouble getting their goods into Europe. Can my hon. Friend assure me and Redditch businesses that his Department is doing everything possible to ensure that my businesses prosper in the future?

[Mr Goodwill]

The channel link is certainly vital to the whole UK economy, and particularly to the haulage industry. I was recently at Folkestone and saw some of the problems at first hand. In particular, there were issues with regard to just-in-time delivery of parts for the motor industry, steel rails produced in Scunthorpe that are exported to the continent, and lobsters produced in my constituency that travel in trucks across to customers in France and Spain.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

This summer the M20 through my constituency was closed for 32 days. I am grateful for the attention that the ministerial team is giving to solving the problem. Will the Secretary of State update me on the progress being made to avoid a repeat of this summer’s closure next summer?

[Mr Goodwill]

The key to preventing any recurrence of the problems we have had this summer is sorting out the issues in France. I am pleased to say that the MyFerryLink industrial dispute has been resolved, so we do not have that additional problem. The Government put in place a contingency plan at Manston, which would have relieved the problem further. It is certainly important to look at how to improve the situation when, for whatever reason, we have disruption on the channel.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

12. What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Scottish Government on the Airports Commission’s final report, published on 1 July 2015.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I have had no representations on this particular topic, but I look forward to a productive engagement with all the devolved Administrations on this subject.

[Peter Grant]

The Minister may not be aware that as part of the very expensive lobbying campaign undertaken on both sides of the airport expansion debate, passengers using Scottish airports are being deliberately targeted in an intense scaremongering campaign, trying to persuade us that if the decision goes the wrong way, Scotland will be cut off from the rest of the world. That is clearly just scaremongering, as that is not going to happen. Depending on how the decision goes, it has the potential to bring significant benefits to Scotland, but also the potential to cause significant damage to Scotland. Will the Minister give an assurance that when the time comes he will make representations through the appropriate channels to ensure that all Members can play a full and equal part in the debate?

[Mr Goodwill]

I have to say that the representations I have received from Scotland, the north of England and Northern Ireland underline the importance of having good connectivity to international routes, which may be brought about through additional runway capacity in the south-east. Indeed, we have already provided some help to the Dundee service to allow passengers to reach the capital, albeit not to a hub, in that way.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that expanding Heathrow and connectivity with Scotland and the Scottish airports is one of the best things we could do to strengthen the United Kingdom?

[Mr Goodwill]

The Government will make an announcement in response to the Airports Commission’s report in due course, but I think it would be premature to make any additional comment at this stage.

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

In his statement on the Airports Commission, the Secretary of State for Transport promised a decision before the end of the year. On the subject of regional airports, we agreed at that time about the commercial, economic and social connectivity that is required. The Secretary of State referred to

“the slots needed by Scottish airports and other airports that have lost them, and I hope we can address that. I want to reflect on that point while considering the whole report.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2015; Vol. 597, c. 1486.]

Does he still agree about the importance of this development for Scotland’s regional airports such as Inverness and Dundee, and has there been any progress in his thinking on a review of route development and public service obligations?

[Mr Goodwill]

I have always made clear the importance with which I view local airports and regional international airports and how big a part they play in the economic development of areas, particularly in Scotland. We need to look at aviation as a whole. Certainly the representations I receive stress the importance of connectivity—whether it be through Amsterdam, Schiphol, Paris, Frankfurt or indeed to slots that may become available in the south-east.

[Drew Hendry]

Given that recognition of the importance of this issue, will the Minister confirm that any decision on the development of a third runway at Heathrow or development at Gatwick would not have to go through an additional stage in the legislative process? With a veto on Scottish MPs suggested by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), an assistant to the Scottish Secretary, what will the Minister do to make sure that this subject will be “delivered from EVEL”?

[Mr Goodwill]

I think it would be premature to enter into that particular discussion. I am always in favour of jumping one’s fences when one reaches them.

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

21. How many of the 47 recommendations ignored by the Airports Commission would have benefited Scotland, and would those recommendations have increased the number of domestic flights, unlike the Heathrow option, which would decrease it?

[Mr Goodwill]

One of the concerns that I have picked up around the country, outside the south-east, is that owing to the pressure for slots at both Heathrow and Gatwick at peak times, connecting flights coming in from other parts of the country are always an issue, and we are well aware of the acute need for that issue to be addressed.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

13. What progress his Department has made on upgrading and enhancing the railway in the south-west.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

T5. The port of Newport is the second largest steel handling port in the United Kingdom and it is likely to suffer grievously from the current steel closures. What has the Minister done to assess the consequential job losses in transport and elsewhere as a result of the Government’s neglect of the steel industry? Will he persuade his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to end his policy of gifting British jobs to Chinese workers?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

As the Minister with responsibility for ports, I am all too aware of their importance in getting exports out of our country and getting imports in. Yesterday I was at the port of Bristol, which is going to benefit from developments in the nuclear industry, which will be partly financed by the Chinese, and I am going to Felixstowe later today to see the developments there.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

The Government’s commitment to dual the A45 between Stanwick and Thrapston and improve the Chowns Mill roundabout was warmly welcomed by east Northamptonshire residents. Will the Minister now update us on that work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Last week, the British Airline Pilots Association wrote to the management at Loganair, which operates air services throughout the highlands and islands, about its concern that aircraft are being returned to the line despite being unserviceable. It said:

“In some cases aircraft retain defects that clearly affect flight safety and in others have restrictions placed upon them which render the aircraft effectively unusable in our operating environment.”

These are lifeline services to some of the most economically fragile communities in the country. What can the aviation Minister do to ensure, either through his Department or the Civil Aviation Authority, that our local communities can retain full confidence in these crucial services?

[Mr Goodwill]

I regularly meet BALPA; indeed, its general secretary, Jim McAuslan, is a good example of how unions can work with Government to promote their members. Safety is our top priority for air travel in the UK, and all our airlines have to meet strict safety maintenance requirements. Compliance with these requirements is overseen by the Civil Aviation Authority. I understand that the CAA is aware of Loganair’s recent difficulties, but is satisfied that the company is operating safely and maintaining its aircraft in accordance with the necessary safety requirements. The matter will, of course, be kept under review.

[Mr Speaker]

We have overrun, but I want to hear a brief inquiry from a member of the Select Committee. I call Mr Martin Vickers.

Heathrow: Noise Mitigation

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) on securing this debate on the mitigation of noise around Heathrow airport. I thank other colleagues for their contributions and for the way in which they have described the problems that aircraft in the air cause for people on the ground.

I assure the House that the Government are acutely aware that noise is a major environmental concern around airports, and especially for the communities surrounding Heathrow. I remind the House that, as is set out in the aviation policy framework that was published in 2013, our overall policy is to limit and, when possible, reduce the number of people in the UK who are significantly affected by aircraft noise. That remains our overarching policy, and the aviation industry is fully aware of it.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Is the Minister aware that 300,000 people who are not currently overflown by flights into Heathrow will be affected severely if runway three goes ahead? The third of my constituency that is not currently overflown by landing paths into Heathrow will be directly underneath the new flightpaths. Those people did not know that they would be living in such a noisy environment when they bought their homes. Does the Minister agree that that is not fair and that runway three should not be imposed on those 300,000 people in London and beyond?

[Mr Goodwill]

May I reassure the hon. Lady that although the Airports Commission has made its report, the Government are yet to make a decision on it? We hope to do so by the end of the year.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

I will spare the Minister a lecture from the perspective of those who live around Gatwick because I know that he is in an invidious position as he considers the Davies commission’s report. However, I want to put it on record that the concerns that have been expressed by my hon. Friends in this debate also apply to Gatwick airport.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am well aware that the vectoring trials at Gatwick, which involved performance-based navigation —the accurate navigation that is now available—provoked a lot of concerns similar to those regarding Heathrow that we have heard about. One of the problems seems to be that although the ability to fly aircraft more accurately limits the number of people who are affected, those who are affected often experience a greater incidence of aircraft. There is a debate to be had about whether we should fly accurately down navigation lanes and limit the number of people who are affected, or go back to the situation that we had in the past when, because aircraft could not navigate as accurately, the planes flying out of the airports were more dispersed and noise was spread around.

[Dr Mathias]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Goodwill]

I ought to make some progress as time is fairly limited and I want to answer some of the points that have been made in the debate.

In the case of Heathrow, the airport, the CAA, the airlines and NATS are aware that noise is a significant concern for the communities around the airport that needs to be acted on. Heathrow is taking steps to cut back and mitigate its noise impact. Under the European Union’s environmental noise directive, it is required to produce a noise action plan that sets out its intentions to mitigate noise.

The House will be interested to know that last year the airport published its “Blueprint for noise reduction”, setting out 10 practical steps that it is taking to mitigate noise in 2015. Earlier this year the airport also established the Heathrow community noise forum, which is made up of representatives from local authorities around Heathrow—including that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell—as well as representatives from NATS, British Airways, the Department for Transport and the CAA. One of its principal aims is to help to build trust with local communities—I know that that trust has been tested—by keeping them informed of developments, and seeking to improve the overall level of understanding about Heathrow’s operations and airspace. That good initiative by the airport will bring about real benefits.

Under powers set out in the Civil Aviation Act 1982, the Government set noise controls at Heathrow, including restrictions on the number of flights allowed during the night, and specified the routes that departing aircraft need to follow. The controls also cover minimum height levels and maximum noise limits that departing aircraft must adhere to at certain points near the airport. Communities can be affected by noise disturbance from either arriving or departing aircraft—or indeed both—but, as I will set out, it is more difficult to lay down limits for arrival aircraft.

The routes used by aircraft and the height at which they fly are significant factors that affect the noise experienced by people on the ground. The departure trials last year at Heathrow and Gatwick, and the public response to them, as indicated by the number of complaints received, clearly show that people notice changes in airspace use and—as my inbox would attest—are quick to make their feelings known.

The Government understand communities’ concerns and are considering how the airspace change process can be improved. The CAA is also aware of concerns about the airspace change process and is carrying out an independent review into whether that can be improved. I assure the House that those trials ended last year, and the information gained is vital to increase our knowledge for future airspace change driven by the CAA’s future airspace strategy.

Changes to the UK’s airspace structure are required, which we must accept while we are seeking to address the impact of such changes as much as practicable. Aviation is a success story, and the public like the opportunity that it affords for holidays or to meet family and friends living far away, as well as for business travel, which is vital for our economy. However, the basic structure of UK airspace was developed more than 40 years ago, since when there has been a dramatic increase in demand for flights. The future airspace strategy is critical to ensuring that the industry is efficient and able to minimise its overall environmental impact.

[Ruth Cadbury]

When considering the implications and impact of aviation on communities affected by noisy environments, will the Minister also consider the impact of sleep deprivation and that on children’s learning in schools when their classrooms are overflown every 60 to 90 seconds?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I am aware of the problems. Indeed, I visited two schools in the hon. Lady’s constituency with her predecessor and saw the problems at first hand. Although double glazing can help in winter, in summer windows need to be opened and children in the playground can be affected. I appreciate the impact that noise can have on people on the ground, and the Airports Commission report sets out a number of suggestions, including a ban on night flights.

We are discussing the noise of aircraft that arrive in the early hours, particularly the early flight from Hong Kong. It is all very well saying to people that aircraft are quieter than ever before, but the flight either wakes someone up or it does not, and if they are woken up, they stay awake. I understand that many people are sensitised to noise because of the length of time that they have been subjected to it.

The plan is to modernise UK airspace and to deliver our contribution to the European Commission’s single European sky by 2030. That ambitious plan is designed around the use of modern technology, including more precision-based navigation. This technology has the potential to bring about significant benefits: for the industry through greater efficiency, safety and resilience; for the environment through fewer emissions; and for passengers through quick journeys and fewer delays. The technology also gives the aviation industry an opportunity to deliver improvements to communities near airports. More precise navigation means that planes can be directed away from populated areas and can ascend quicker, which means less noise for people on the ground, but that can happen only with modernisation. Without that, none of the benefits will be possible. Of course, modernisation brings challenges too, which is why it is important that the Government listen to the concerns of communities so that they can share the benefits when possible. The CAA, NATS and the wider industry also need to listen to communities and to ensure that they can have a say in changes that will affect them.

As is set out in our aviation policy framework, the Government believe that in most circumstances it is desirable to concentrate aircraft along the fewest possible number of routes in the vicinity of airports, and that these routes should avoid densely populated areas as much as possible. However, the aviation policy framework goes on to add that in certain circumstances, such as when there is intensive use of certain routes, and following engagement with local communities, it may be appropriate to explore options for respite. Such engagement is crucial for delivering results that work for communities and the aviation industry.

I now turn to how Heathrow’s operations impact on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell. I understand that he has already had communications with Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd about this matter. As he is no doubt aware, his constituency will be impacted by noise from both arriving and departing aircraft from Heathrow. I understand that noise from arrival aircraft is the primary concern for residents in his constituency.

For safety reasons, and to ensure safe separation between incoming flights, there are no set routes or heights for arrival aircraft before they join the final approach path. This can result in a large spread of arrival tracks, which can vary from day to day and are dependent on such issues as how busy the schedule is and wind direction. There are, however, techniques that can be deployed to mitigate some of the noise impacts. These include continuous descent approach, whereby aircraft adopt a steady angle of approach. This reduces the noise impact on residents living further away from the airport.

The Government want to maximise the benefits of a strong aviation sector. This is good for the economy and for bringing not only investment and employment to the UK, but 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 the prime example.

I once again thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on such an important subject, which I know is close to his heart, as indeed it is for many of his constituents and residents living across the south-east.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I beg to move,

That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is committed–

(1) that the Select Committee have power to consider–

(a) amendments to accommodate changes to the design of Euston Station in the London Borough of Camden;

(b) amendments to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers and changes to the design of the works authorised by the Bill in the London Borough of Camden;

(c) amendments, to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers, relating to:

i. the London Boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham and Hillingdon and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea;

ii. the District of Three Rivers in the County of Hertfordshire;

iii. the parishes of Ellesborough, Great Missenden, Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell and Wendover in the County of Buckinghamshire;

iv. the parishes of Aston Le Walls, Boddington and Chipping Warden and Edgcote, Greatworth and Marston St Lawrence in the County of Northamptonshire;

v. the parishes of Coleshill, Cubbington, Kenilworth, Long Itchington, Offchurch, Stoneleigh, Ufton, Water Orton, Weston under Wetherley and Wormleighton in the County of Warwickshire;

vi. the parishes of Balsall, Berkswell, Dickens Heath and Hampton-in-Arden in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull;

vii. the City of Birmingham;

(d) amendments, to accommodate changes to the design of the works authorised by the Bill, relating to:

i. the London Boroughs of Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham and Hillingdon;

ii. the District of Three Rivers in the County of Hertfordshire;

iii. the parishes of Amersham, Calvert Green, Denham, Preston Bissett, Quainton, Steeple Claydon and Wexham in the County of Buckinghamshire;

iv. the parishes of Boddington and Culworth in the County of Northamptonshire;

v. the parishes of Burton Green, Coleshill, Cubbington, Curdworth, Ladbroke, Lea Marston, Middleton, Offchurch, Shustoke, Southam, Stoneleigh, Water Orton, Weston under Wetherley and Wormleighton in the County of Warwickshire;

vi. the parishes of Hints with Canwell, Curborough and Elmhurst, Drayton Bassett, Fradley and Streethay, King’s Bromley and Lichfield in the County of Staffordshire;

vii. the City of Birmingham.

(e) amendments relating to the extension of the Chiltern tunnel in the parishes of Amersham, Little Missenden and Great Missenden in the County of Buckinghamshire;

(f) amendments for purposes connected with any of the matters mentioned in subparagraphs (a) to (e);

(2) that any petition against amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee is

empowered to make shall be referred to the Select Committee if–

(a) the petition is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the amendments was published, and

(b) the petition is one in which the petitioners pray to be heard by themselves or through counsel or agents.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Before I start, may I welcome the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) to her post as the shadow Secretary of State in the new politburo—sorry, shadow Cabinet? She is already on record as continuing to support HS2, which will be music to the ears of her Labour colleagues who run our great cities in the west midlands and the north. I look forward to working with her. Indeed, many of the momentous decisions facing us will have implications for our infrastructure for many years to come.

The motion instructs the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill to consider two sets of amendments: the first set relates to changes at Euston and elsewhere in the London borough of Camden, and the second set to changes along the rest of the route. These are the third and fourth such additional provisions that have come before us, and I am sure that many in the House will now be familiar with the hybrid Bill process. However, for the benefit of new Members, I hope that the House will indulge me if I give a brief explanation.

The purpose of this motion is to bring within the scope of the Select Committee any petitions from those who may be affected by the proposed changes.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

May I ask the hon. Gentleman what the requirements are of the landowners and occupiers? Is this related to compensation, as many people in my constituency have been badly hurt by the lack of compensation?

[Mr Goodwill]

This is not specifically related to the compensation issue. This is about the minor changes and some other more substantial changes that we are making. This is about the principle of the hybrid Bill Committee being allowed to consider these changes and about people being given the opportunity to look at the environmental statement, and also to petition the Committee if they are affected. Indeed, the purpose of this motion is to bring within the scope of the Select Committee any petitions from those who may be affected by the proposed changes.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I agree that constituents should be allowed to petition, but there is a fee for petitioning. Will the Minister consider getting rid of that fee to allow easy access for those who might not be financially able to petition?

[Mr Goodwill]

The £20 fee is a matter for the House. I can reassure colleagues that anyone who has already petitioned will not be asked to pay a second fee. I do not believe that a £20 fee is prohibitive in this particular case.

An explanatory note of the changes was made available to the House last week. Although it is not the purpose of this debate to discuss the changes in detail, it is clearly important that Members understand the principle of them. If the motion is passed, those who are directly and specially—to use the legal term—affected by these changes will be able to petition the Select Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms). The Select Committee will then consider their case for changing the scheme.

First, let me turn to the proposals in relation to Euston. In April 2014, the House gave a Second Reading to the High Speed Rail Bill. At the time, the Secretary of State, having considered Sir David Higgins’s recommendations, said that we would seek to develop more comprehensive proposals for the redevelopment of the station to maximise the economic potential and regenerate a site that has been neglected. Since then, HS2 Ltd has worked with Network Rail and Transport for London, as well as engaging with the local community to develop such a proposal. Indeed, I have visited the area myself with Frank Dobson, who used to represent the area around Euston. I am pleased to see his replacement, the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), in his place on the Labour Benches today.

The proposal announced today will substantially reduce the disruption to the travelling public, provide an enhanced underground service and do much more to support the wider regeneration of the local area. It is also fully compatible with the redevelopment of the remaining conventional station, which is for Network Rail to bring forward in due course.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister take this opportunity to comment on the stories in the weekend press that there would be a substantial increase in the cost as a result of these changes, as well as a reduction in the number of platforms for the inter-city services?

[Mr Goodwill]

I can certainly put the right hon. Gentleman right on that point. Eleven new platforms will be built for HS2 at the station, and 11 will remain in the current station to serve the existing network. Five approach tracks will remain, and there will be four for a period of approximately three years during construction. Works on the existing tracks and platforms will enable existing services to be accommodated. Those works will be undertaken prior to the start of the construction of the main HS2 works.

High Speed 2 will provide a step change in capacity on the west coast main line by enabling long-distance passengers to make their journeys much faster on the new line. This will free up space on the existing network for faster, more frequent trains. Indeed, it will also free up space on those platforms. I want to make it clear that for the existing west coast main line, the number of platforms will be reduced from 18 to 11, while the number for HS2 will increase from zero to 11. This means that there will be 22 platforms in total, which is four more than at present. The HS2 trains will also be longer, and the way in which they load their passengers will make it easier for people to get on them. That is because there will be a system similar to the one used by Eurostar, in which passengers come down escalators on to the platforms. This will avoid the situation of everyone trying to rush down to one part of the platform as the train starts to load.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The people on the Committee are clearly good people and they are doing a very good job. It is all very well giving them the power to consider more options, but will the Minister give us an idea of how many of the recommendations he intends to accept?

[Mr Goodwill]

We have already accepted a number of the recommendations. Indeed, some of the additional provisions are the result of our accepting recommendations in situations where there was a need to take over additional land. I will give the House a couple of examples where we have listened to the Committee and accommodated its suggestions, which have now become part of the additional provisions.

I shall return to the points I was making about Euston. Delivering the additional benefits will mean that construction will need to be in two stages, so while construction disruption will be more localised, it will last for seven years longer overall. The peculiarities of the hybrid Bill process mean that an additional provision is required only when additional powers or land are required. The vast majority of our revised Euston proposal can be delivered using the powers and land that are already within the hybrid Bill. The information in the explanatory note therefore sets out only those small new areas of land and additional works that are required to give effect to our new vision for Euston.

However, the supplementary environmental statement that will accompany the additional provision, if this motion is passed, describes the environmental effects of the revised plans for Euston, to ensure that those affected are fully aware of the details of our proposals. In addition to the Euston station-related changes, the additional provision includes other minor changes in Camden, such as additional parking for London zoo, the provision of space to allow lorries to turn and the inclusion of some listed buildings within the relevant schedule to the Bill.

I turn now to the second set of additional provisions, known as AP4, which contains changes proposed outside Camden. These additional provisions include almost 70 mostly minor amendments—including eight in your own constituency, Mr Speaker—to powers relating to changes up and down the line of route outside Camden. These changes have come about following a combination of negotiations with petitioners and the recommendations of the Select Committee, as well as the continuing development of the design of the railway. Right hon. and hon. Members in the relevant constituencies were written to in July with an outline of these changes. As with the Camden changes, an explanatory note was sent to Members last week.

The most notable changes are: first, in response to the Select Committee’s recommendation, an extension of the northern end of the Chilterns tunnel past South Heath—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) as this is a result she can bank and it is a tribute to her campaign and that of her constituents for this extension; secondly, the relocation of a recycling facility known as a “bottom ash plant”, from a site in Castle Bromwich to a site off the route in Tyseley in the west midlands, delivering on an agreement with Birmingham City Council to avoid any interruption in service; thirdly, the relocation of a school in Water Orton in Warwickshire, as agreed with North Warwickshire Borough Council; fourthly, the relocation of vent shaft works from Salusbury Road to Canterbury Works, both in the London Borough of Brent; and finally, the provision of extra track at Greenford railway station in west London to support the transportation of excavated material from the scheme by rail—something we wish to see wherever possible.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

AP3 and AP4 affect my constituency much less than AP2, but given that the Minister described how he made a site visit to the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), will he make a visit to the affected roads in my constituency, which are largely in the NW10 area? No visit has been made since the one by the Select Committee in March, and since then all these additional provisions have come forward and the composition of the Committee has changed. Will he come to witness the disruption, disturbance, noise and nuisance that residents in these roads feel they will suffer as a result of living in a building site for the next 10 years? That is how they see it.

[Mr Goodwill]

I would be delighted to come to have a look at the problem. I believe the hon. Lady’s constituency has the ventilation shafts which will be the problem and that there is a local laundry facility available for many people who do not have washing machines, so it is important that we look at how they can still have that facility. [Interruption.] That is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). Sorry, I got confused. As we have new Members representing that area, I would be delighted to visit once again to hear about that issue. If any additional problems are caused by these additional provisions, I would be happy to look at them and meet local people. If the leader of the local council would also like to attend, I would be delighted to see her, too.

[Mr Spellar]

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive explanation he has given of the changes and the two tranches. Will he also tell us what the Department’s outline estimate is of the additional costs of these changes?

[Mr Goodwill]

Some of these will be less expensive—indeed, that is one of the purposes of some of the changes we have suggested—and other changes will be within the budget that we have outlined, so there will be no need to have an overall increase in the budget. HS2 Ltd did, however, make provision, when planning for this project, for some changes that it expected the Select Committee may propose. I might expand on that a little later in my comments.

It should also be recognised that the changes set out in the additional provision are only a fraction of those that we have made to the scheme to address petitioner concerns. Many changes can be made within the existing Bill powers and so do not require an additional provision. Those include changes such as improved noise mitigation at Wendover and mitigations of the impacts on Bechstein’s bats—a species of vesper bats—in Sheephouse Wood in Buckinghamshire. The Bechstein bat is a particularly at-risk species and it is important that we protect the woodland habitat it uses.

The overall phase 1 budget is not expected to increase as a result of those changes, including the Euston proposals. Many of the changes come at no additional cost, some actually produce small savings and others are absorbed by the contingency set aside at the outset specifically for the purpose of addressing petitioner issues. If this motion is successfully passed, both these additional provisions will go through the same process, although the timings will be different for each. The relevant additional provision, an environmental statement describing the likely significant environmental effects of these changes and a supplementary environmental statement describing any new or different significant environmental effects of other proposed changes that do not require a change to Bill powers will be deposited in Parliament, council offices and libraries in affected areas. For the additional provision affecting Camden, these documents start to be deposited tomorrow. For the additional provision affecting other areas of the route, these documents will be deposited from 12 October.

A public consultation on the environmental statement will be held. The responses to the consultation will be analysed by Parliament’s independent assessor and the assessor’s report will be tabled in the House ahead of Third Reading. For the additional provision affecting Camden, the consultation will run from tomorrow until 6 November, and for the other additional provision, the consultation will run from mid-October.

There will also be a petitioning period for those directly and specially—to use that term again—affected by the changes in this additional provision to submit petitions against them. The petitioning period will run as usual for four weeks. For the additional provision affecting Camden, it will begin on Friday 25 September and end on Friday 23 October for all petitioners. For the other additional provision, the petitioning period will begin in mid-October for all petitioners. Newspaper notices will be published in national and local newspapers over two consecutive weeks following the deposit of each additional provision alerting the public to the changes and to the opportunity to feed into the process by petitioning or responding to the consultation as appropriate.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

To ensure that enough people are aware of the additional petitioning process, will my hon. Friend explain how people who are visually impaired or who might not have access to the local and national newspapers will get the information about these new changes?

[Mr Goodwill]

I will look into what we can do to ensure that people who are visually impaired can access the information. For the vast majority of people affected by the changes, they will be no surprise. In many cases, we have made them in negotiation with the landowner or other interested parties, including local authorities. Indeed, some of them respond to petitions so there will be delight that the changes have been proposed, although other people who might be affected might well want to petition about them.

Taken as a whole, these two additional provisions mark a major step towards completion of the hybrid Bill’s progress through the Select Committee. They demonstrate the Government’s willingness to seize the opportunity that a redeveloped Euston station offers not only to the local area but to the nation as a whole. They also demonstrate our willingness to respond to the concerns of petitioners and the Select Committee to make beneficial changes to the project, and I therefore commend them to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I, too, welcome the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) to the Opposition Front Bench. She is very familiar with HS2 from her previous work, and I am sure she will properly discharge her duties, despite disagreeing entirely with me on the merits of the project. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his kind remarks, and welcome the Secretary of State to his place on the Front Bench. It is good to see that this project is still engaging the Department fully.

The parliamentary process for High Speed 2 is both lengthy and confusing. The petitioning and consultation processes are time consuming and very arduous for my constituents and others who give evidence to the Committee, who have busy and demanding lives, and have not chosen to be affected by this project.

The additional provision process is another example of how opaque our procedures are here. There is a lack of information on additional provisions 3 and 4. While that is not entirely helpful to colleagues, it is certainly confusing to constituents, who want it explained to them why a motion like this can come before the House and be voteable on, yet the inherent details that will come with the major announcements from the Department are not available. I understand the intricacies of the House, but it is hard to explain them to constituents.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am sure that interested constituents watching the proceedings of the House will be aware that this is just opening the door to the opportunity to engage and petition. We are kicking the ball into play, and it is up to those who wish to petition and engage in the process to play the match.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful for that. Anything that we can do to clarify the position for our constituents is much appreciated.

Notwithstanding the complexities of legislating for a major infrastructure project, I am very grateful for the HS2 Committee’s recommendation of the proposal for extended tunnelling through the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, now known as C6, and the Government’s decision to adopt it. The extension of the tunnel from the originally proposed Mantle’s Wood portal to the South Heath green tunnel north portal will provide vital extra protection to our ancient woodlands and communities. It recognises the enormous efforts that my constituents, many national organisations, local organisations and I have made to try to save our area from real environmental damage.

While of course I am pleased that the Committee has proposed this additional mitigation, we must not forget that a large swathe of the area of outstanding natural beauty remains exposed to the railway itself. Unfortunately, the recommendation of C6 still falls short of what is required to protect the area fully from the severe impacts of this project. A long, continuous, fully bored tunnel throughout the entire AONB is really the only way adequately to protect our natural countryside and communities. I urge the Committee, and the Minister and his officials, to continue to look at the long tunnelling proposals. Indeed, I was hoping that I could encourage the Minister and his officials to think of this less as a railway in my constituency and more of a tube line, and continue the tunnelling to the end of the AONB.

Additional provision 4 contains two further amendments affecting Chesham and Amersham that I am keen to see implemented and consulted on carefully. Shardeloes Park in Amersham will, I hope, benefit from an improved design for the protection of its walled kitchen garden and grade II listed building. However, I remain concerned about the effects of construction on other historic buildings in the area, particularly in the nearby village of Little Missenden. In addition, there will be a realigned footpath south-west of Potter Row in South Heath, and I look forward to receiving more specific details of that amendment and that relating to Shardeloes gardens.

Many of my constituents will be affected by the proposals in AP4, particularly the changes that will provide for extra tunnelling. I encourage the Government to make sure that the dates for the release of the supplementary environmental statement, as well as those for petitioning and the deadlines for consultation responses, are published as widely as possible. As the Select Committee is hearing from petitioners in the Chilterns, it is crucial for my constituents to be able to plan their evidence accordingly and be as fully prepared as possible. In particular, the prompt release by HS2 Ltd of all the relevant noise data for the South Heath area would be appreciated, as people will be “directly and specially affected”—to use the legal terms—by the extra tunnelling. They may also, as I know the Minister acknowledges, wish to return and petition on the additional changes.

The constituency of the right hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) is also affected by the provisions. Some landowners in the constituency have been affected by multiple additional provisions in the past. With each AP in which more land is taken, the impact on the landowner’s business increases. As such, would not it be right and proper, once all the additional provisions have been published and the true aggregate impact is known, for those affected landowners to be afforded an opportunity to present to the Select Committee again, in order to summarise the overall impact? The right hon. Gentleman also feels that there is a limited explanation as to why additional land is required. One affected landowner who has seen the additional provision knows he is going to lose more land, but claims he has had no explanation as to why. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will take that into consideration.

Once again, my constituents in Chesham and Amersham will have a very small window between their petition date and the release of AP4 in mid-October. I ask the Committee in particular to be mindful that many petitioners will not necessarily have the time or resources to study AP4 prior to their first petition appearance, and that points may need to be picked up in further detail if a petitioner decides to submit another petition on AP4. I hope that any final decision on a long tunnel in the Chilterns will not take place until after AP4 has been consulted on and all Chilterns petitions heard, so that the Committee will then be in possession of all the arguments for and against the recommendation as it stands.

I ask the Minister whether it would be possible for me to meet HS2 Ltd officials soon after the release of AP4, in order to understand more closely the specific details and aid my constituents in any way I can. Perhaps my colleagues in Buckinghamshire could be similarly briefed.

The deadline for submissions in response to the AP2 supplementary environmental statement ends this Friday, 18 September. I plan to submit a response myself, but, along with several of my constituents who have contacted me, I have found it very difficult to distinguish which aspects of AP2 will be made redundant or affected by AP4. I ask the Minister to be aware that that has been a significant issue during the AP2 consultation period, which gives a further reason for the details on AP4 to be released as quickly as possible. I also continue to have concerns about compliance with the public participation requirements of the Aarhus convention, and situations such as the confusion surrounding AP2 and AP4 do little to assuage them.

I am also concerned that constituents who were affected by the original, pre-AP4 plans and who have conducted their business or made plans accordingly now find themselves in a better position following the adoption of AP4. I would like reassurances from Ministers that the Department will look carefully and favourably on those cases, because it is invidious to have told someone that they are going to lose their business and for them to go on to make arrangements as a result, only to then find that their business premises have in fact been saved by AP4.

I thank my constituents for all their work thus far. I also thank the Select Committee for its work. It is fair to mention the Clerk, Neil Caulfield, who has given exemplary assistance to my office and my constituents.

I hope that the Select Committee will continue to listen to the arguments made by petitioners from Chesham and Amersham and, if the project goes ahead, ensure that it is executed in what I consider the right way. It should ensure that our manifesto promises on the environment are adhered to, not sacrificed on the alter of this project. That still causes a great deal of concern not just among my constituents and other people, but to the Government’s assessment institution, the Major Projects Authority, which continues to afford it an amber/red classification.

Finally, I want to say that I have worked hard with many people and organisations over many years, and inch by inch, we are getting more tunnels in the Chilterns. My appeal to the Minister is: just tunnel to the end of the area of outstanding natural beauty and protect it. At least, we would then have the satisfaction of knowing that it was a job well done.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I obviously support the motion because it is important for my constituents to have the chance to petition the Select Committee. That does not, however, mean that I support the proposals or HS2. I oppose HS2 on cost and on merit: it will not achieve its stated objectives.

The impact of HS2 on my constituency—on residents, businesses and the environment—will be devastating. It is a major cause of concern to very many of my constituents. Such is the concern throughout the constituency that it is raised with me daily. The plans for changes at Euston station have a long and sorry history. Standing back, we can see that not the least reason for that is that it does not make sense to bring a 21st-century, high-speed railway into a densely populated part of north London simply because that is where the conventional station is.

[Mr Goodwill]

There was a lot of disruption for the constituents of the hon. and learned Member—or for the people who are now his constituents—when the work was done at King’s Cross station. Do they consider that the work was worthwhile, now that the station has been finished?

[Keir Starmer]

That is a false comparison, as I am sure the Minister knows. The situation in and around King’s Cross cannot be compared with the densely populated area around Euston. We only need to look at a map, as I am sure the Minister knows, to see that the situations are not comparable. In fairness and in respect to my constituents, it is not right to make such a point when, anxious about their situation, they are coming to me daily. When I address them at meetings, I can see the anxiety on their faces. Please let us address the motion with respect to them, not make false comparisons. The Minister knows that the two situations are simply not comparable.

We have had plans, amended plans and further amended plans for Euston, but the only sensible plan is to abandon the project altogether. Far from being an improvement on the other plans, this plan is the worst of the lot. It leaves my constituents with all the pain and none of the gain. I want to focus particularly on the phased approach.

The plan offers and sets up decades of blight with no assurance about when the project as a whole will be finished. I will spell that out, because this is what it means for my constituents. Phase 1 will take up to 2026 and phase 2 will then go up to 2033, while the development of the eastern side of the station has no start or finish date. That amounts to 16 to 20-plus years of works and blight, so we can see why my constituents are coming to me daily and why they are so concerned.

Under the proposal, we will have half a station, but it will take twice the time. I will have children born in my constituency who will grow up and probably leave school knowing nothing other than construction works at what is likely to be the biggest construction site in Europe. I have people at the other end of the scale who will retire in the next few years and probably spend their entire retirement with the construction works going on. That is what this plan means for many thousands of people in the Euston area.

The Secretary of State described the plans in one document as

“essential for the local community”.

That beggars belief and is testimony to the failure of HS2 and others to listen to what the local community is saying.

I pose the following questions for the Minister. First, the hybrid Bill was premised on a new station being delivered at Euston by 2026. What is now proposed is half a station by 2033. How did HS2 Ltd get its planning so hopelessly wrong that we are in that situation? Secondly, why is HS2 Ltd no longer able to build a new station at Euston by 2026? Is it the cost, the impact on existing users or some other reason?

Thirdly, and I would like some detail on this, what is the current budget for the new station at Euston? How do the current costs compare with the estimated costs in March 2010, when the route for phase 1 was announced, and November 2013, when the hybrid Bill was deposited in Parliament?

Fourthly, the extended construction completion time of 2033 and beyond will blight the lives of up to 17,000 people in my constituency who live within 300 metres of the construction work. What is the proposal to compensate them for that?

Fifthly, appendix A to the explanatory note before the House states that

“The development principles in the EAP include promoting ‘comprehensive, commercial-led, mixed-use development above and around the new and existing stations’.”

That is at odds with the No. 1 objective in the Euston area plan:

“Prioritising local people’s needs: To ensure that new development meets local needs by ensuring homes, jobs, businesses, schools, community facilities and open space lost or affected by HS2, should it go ahead, are reprovided in the Euston area.”

I ask for an assurance from the Minister and, if appropriate, the Secretary of State that they recommit to that No. 1 objective in respect of local needs. Sixthly, by what date will the Government commit to re-provide new social housing, open spaces and community facilities on the land acquired for the new station?

My constituents are entitled to answers to those questions. The plan for Euston is a mess and there is a lack of information in the provisions. HS2, Network Rail and Transport for London need to step up and listen to local residents and businesses, who speak with a clear voice in opposition to these plans.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to make a short contribution.

I support the motion and, in particular, the AP3 proposals. Before I turn to those, I thank the Minister and the officials of HS2 Ltd and Network Rail who put on a helpful briefing for Members last week. That was particularly useful in helping us to visualise the proposed changes at Euston station.

I am a long-standing supporter of HS2, not least because of the benefits that will be delivered to my constituents in Milton Keynes by the freeing up of capacity on the west coast main line for additional commuter, regional and inter-city services. Notwithstanding that support, I and many of my constituents have been concerned about the impact on the commuter services into and out of Euston during the construction phase. I have been reassured by the presentation last week and the motion before us today that, during the construction phase, the current timetable will be maintained with minimal disruption. There will be some disruption at weekends and at other times, as is inevitable with large-scale infrastructure projects. I am grateful for that reassurance.

An earlier additional provision that we considered opened up the prospect that the west coast main line could be connected to Crossrail services and some commuter services could be diverted directly on to Crossrail. I simply ask for that option to be kept on the table should any further restrictions at Euston be required.

An article in The Sunday Telegraph at the weekend seemed to indicate that there would be a permanent reduction in capacity for the classic services at Euston when HS2 is complete, but all my information suggests that the reverse is true. In addition to the additional capacity on HS2, if my figures are correct, there will be a doubling of commuter seats into and out of Euston at peak hours once HS2 is complete. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that.

[Mr Goodwill]

I can confirm that. The revised plans include so-called path X, which is an underpass that allows much more flexibility in the way Euston can be used. When phase 1 of HS2 is open, we estimate that about 30% of passengers will alight at Old Oak Common and get on to Crossrail, or perhaps go to Heathrow on Crossrail 2, and that will take the pressure off Euston station for the remainder of the construction period.

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful for that reassurance. One feature of the revised plans for Euston that I was pleased to see is the flexibility of its design. If in future Crossrail 2 is developed to go through Euston, the station has been designed in a way that could easily incorporate that.

I make one personal plea to the Minister. It may not be entirely within his gift, but perhaps he could use his good offices to encourage people at Network Rail or elsewhere—in the design there is room for this—to put back the old Euston arch, which was shamefully destroyed, or at least taken away, when Euston was redeveloped in the 1960s. That was a grave mistake. As well as building a brand-new railway line for the future, hopefully we can make reference to our architectural history and put back the Euston arch somewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

With the leave of the House, I will make a few remarks in response to the debate.

The fundamental point of the debate is to allow petitions to be submitted to the hybrid Bill Committee, so, while many of the points are perfectly reasonable ones to make, they should be directed to the Committee for it to consider and then, if necessary, make recommendations on. That said, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) made some points I need to address, particularly about how Euston station can be developed. We are all in awe of the development of King’s Cross and St Pancras stations and the regeneration of the surrounding area. People used to go to King’s Cross for all the wrong reasons; now they go for the right reasons. It is a great place to be.

We need such regeneration around Euston, although I recognise the points about there not being quite so much spare land around there. It is important that we work with Network Rail and Transport for London to co-ordinate the approach. Our Euston proposal is fully compatible with the redevelopment of the remaining Network Rail station and has been developed with Network Rail and TFL. The improvements to the underground station at Euston will be transformational. When the new Victoria development opens, we will get a taste of how a new state-of-the-art underground station can help commuters and particularly of how the tidal flows of people need not conflict in the way they often do in other areas. On project delivery, Sir Peter Hendy and his team are looking at how Network Rail can work more effectively.

The hon. Lady mentioned excavated material being removed by rail. Extended construction at Euston station will allow more excavated material to be removed by rail, as there is capacity to do so. We will work to maximise what can be taken out by rail. The fewer trucks the better for noise and congestion and for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. I am a London cyclist myself. We know that, sadly, heavy construction vehicles are often involved in accidents. Despite the prowess and training of drivers and the modification of vehicles, accidents still occasionally happen. I can also confirm that there are no changes to the compensation schemes. The scheme in urban areas, compared with country areas, recognises the character of those areas and the effect that construction and development can have, particularly on property prices and people.

The hon. Lady asked about the net cost of the changes. I can confirm that the net cost is zero. The overall cost of phase 1 remains £21.4 billion at second quarter 2011 prices. Any changes that add costs simply draw down the contingency not set aside for that purpose. We always knew we would need to draw down the contingency—for example, to meet the cost of the Chiltern tunnel extension, the cost of which was more than £40 million, at second quarter 2011 prices, excluding the contingency. I hope I have reassured the House that the project is deliverable within budget.

The hon. Lady also asked whether we would return to the House to provide clarity on phase 2 and legislative plans. I can confirm that the Government will outline the way forward for phase 2 before the end of the year, including confirmation of the plans for legislation.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Minister says that the Government will announce the way forward. Is that the same as confirming the line of route?

[Mr Goodwill]

On phase 1, the line of route is certainly becoming much closer to being confirmed, but on phase 2 there is obviously a lot more work to be done with local authorities and leaders of the great cities of the north, as we call them, to ensure that we get that right. Some criticism has been voiced today that we keep coming back with new changed proposals, but it is important that we react to the points that people make, as the Committee reacts to petitions, for example. We have reacted to ensure that we can deliver a state-of-the-art station at Euston and minimise the impact on local people during the construction phase.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) mentioned the supplementary environmental statement. Let me repeat that for Camden it will be available from tomorrow for consultation until 6 November, while the consultation period on the AP4 area will commence in mid-October—I cannot give an exact date—and will run for six weeks.

The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) talked about the phased approach and how that would certainly mean disruption for a longer period, but we need to consider disruption not only to the residents affected by vehicles, noise, dust and so forth, but to the commuters who use the station. Delivering the project in the way we have outlined today will mean having more capacity through that station. I am pleased to reassure Members that some of the coverage at the weekend about reductions in platform space is not correct. There will be an opportunity to make sure that we keep the passengers going through.

As I mentioned in an intervention, Old Oak Common will become one of this country’s most important stations—it will be as well known as King’s Cross, Victoria and Waterloo. Indeed, at least 30% of the passengers will alight there to get on to Crossrail and then to a number of locations around London. As for other areas where it might be quicker to go through Euston when the line is complete, passengers will be able to use Old Oak Common as a connection. To come to Westminster, for example, it will take only three minutes longer via Old Oak Common than it would be via Euston. Many people may get used to Crossrail and like to use the new facilities.

The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, and indeed the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), mentioned the provision of social housing. It is important, particularly in the more deprived areas of our capital, to have good social housing provision. We have already committed to replacing lost social housing at Euston. We have purchased the Netley development and we are funding the construction of more social housing in the area—all with the aim of ensuring that social tenants are required to move only once.

The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras also asked why the whole station would not be ready by 2026. If we look at the project—phase 1 to Birmingham and phase 2, the Y section—we find that capacity will not be needed until later for additional trains coming from Leeds and Manchester, and many other trains will start their journey further north in Scotland.

I think I have covered a number of the points raised. The ability to divert into Crossrail will be maintained, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) made clear. As for the environmental statement, there will be an ability to prioritise local needs. The hybrid Bill does not take powers for over-site development, which will all be subject to the normal local planning process, so it will need to conform to the local planning strategy. I am sure that there will be tremendous opportunities at Euston for other development in the area, which will capitalise on the new station.

Finally, I come to the Euston arch. I can tell Members that the Secretary of State is very keen to see the resurrection of the Euston arch. We think we know where the bits are. The Euston Arch Trust aims to re-form the arch, and it is for that trust to bring it forward through a local planning application. We have a location for the new Euston Square gardens for the arch to come forward. Personally, I wonder whether a holograph might be even better, but I can certainly confirm that the Secretary of State is very keen to see the arch resurrected.

[Mrs Gillan]

I thank my hon. Friend for letting me intervene before he finishes. Towards the end of my speech, I raised the position of constituents who were affected by HS2 before the announcement of AP4, which has now been reversed by the Chiltern tunnel extension. Will HS2 Ltd and the Government stand by their proposals to the landowners who were previously affected, or will their position change?

[Mr Goodwill]

Petitioners will be able to petition if they have locus standi, which is the legal term. We will look at the petitions as they are presented to check whether that is the case, but if people are affected by these changes, they will be able to petition. If, for example, there is no fundamental change in their circumstances on the part of the route to which the tunnel will not extend, they will not be able to present an identical petition for the identical reason that they did so on the previous occasion. It is important for the effective operation of the Committee that we do not open up more petitions that do not relate to the specific changes in AP3 and AP4.

[Mrs Gillan]

Will my hon. Friend clarify one more point?

[Mr Goodwill]

Just once more.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am thinking of circumstances in which a constituent has effectively lost their business because it was disrupted by the HS2 works, and has made alternative arrangements, with great difficulty and at a financial cost. Now that AP4 has introduced extended tunnelling, they would have been in a much better position, because their business could have been saved. Will the door still be open for them to negotiate with the Department for the compensation that would have been due to them had AP4 not come into existence?

[Mr Goodwill]

I think I understand the point that my right hon. Friend is making. Because we have improved the scheme from an environmental point of view, it will not have the impact that was envisaged on that particular business. I should be happy to receive representations from my right hon. Friend explaining the exact position, and we will look at them in the context of the compensation packages that we have announced.

I commend the instruction to the House, and hope that it will receive the support that it deserves.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is committed–

(1) that the Select Committee have power to consider–

(a) amendments to accommodate changes to the design of Euston Station in the London Borough of Camden;

(b) amendments to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers and changes to the design of the works authorised by the Bill in the London Borough of Camden;

(c) amendments, to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers, relating to:

i. the London Boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham and Hillingdon and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea;

ii. the District of Three Rivers in the County of Hertfordshire;

iii. the parishes of Ellesborough, Great Missenden, Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell and Wendover in the County of Buckinghamshire;

iv. the parishes of Aston Le Walls, Boddington and Chipping Warden and Edgcote, Greatworth and Marston St Lawrence in the County of Northamptonshire;

v. the parishes of Coleshill, Cubbington, Kenilworth, Long Itchington, Offchurch, Stoneleigh, Ufton, Water Orton, Weston under Wetherley and Wormleighton in the County of Warwickshire;

vi. the parishes of Balsall, Berkswell, Dickens Heath and Hampton-in-Arden in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull;

vii. the City of Birmingham;

(d) amendments, to accommodate changes to the design of the works authorised by the Bill, relating to:

i. the London Boroughs of Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham and Hillingdon;

ii. the District of Three Rivers in the County of Hertfordshire;

iii. the parishes of Amersham, Calvert Green, Denham, Preston Bissett, Quainton, Steeple Claydon and Wexham in the County of Buckinghamshire;

iv. the parishes of Boddington and Culworth in the County of Northamptonshire;

v. the parishes of Burton Green, Coleshill, Cubbington, Curdworth, Ladbroke, Lea Marston, Middleton, Offchurch, Shustoke, Southam, Stoneleigh, Water Orton, Weston under Wetherley and Wormleighton in the County of Warwickshire;

vi. the parishes of Hints with Canwell, Curborough and Elmhurst, Drayton Bassett, Fradley and Streethay, King’s Bromley and Lichfield in the County of Staffordshire;

vii. the City of Birmingham.

(e) amendments relating to the extension of the Chiltern tunnel in the parishes of Amersham, Little Missenden and Great Missenden in the County of Buckinghamshire;

(f) amendments for purposes connected with any of the matters mentioned in subparagraphs (a) to (e);

(2) that any petition against amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee is

empowered to make shall be referred to the Select Committee if–

(a) the petition is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the amendments was published, and

(b) the petition is one in which the petitioners pray to be heard by themselves or through counsel or agents.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

draft Merchant Shipping (Alcohol) (prescribed limits amendment) Regulations 2015

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

Good morning, Ms Dorries. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning.

As we celebrated so successfully during London international shipping week last week, each year some 500 million tonnes of freight are handled by ports across the United Kingdom. This includes 40% of our food and a quarter of our energy supplies. On top of that valuable cargo, there are 28 million passengers using our ports annually. We entrust the safety of these people and goods to the professional mariners who navigate through our waters, some of which are the busiest in the world. It is vital that all members of crew, whatever their function, are capable of undertaking their duties effectively, and, in particular, that they are not incapacitated through the consumption of alcohol.

To address the risks posed by excess alcohol consumption, the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 made it a criminal offence for professional mariners sailing in UK waters or on board a UK-flagged vessel anywhere in the world to exceed specified limits. These were set at the same level as for motorists in England and Wales: in the case of breath, 35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 ml; in the case of blood, 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml; and, in the case of urine, 107 mg of alcohol in 100 ml. When mariners are found to have exceeded these limits, they face prosecution. For example, in 2012, a cargo vessel collided with a ferry approaching Belfast harbour. Both ships were badly damaged, although, fortunately, there were no injuries or pollution, and both were able to proceed into port under their own power.

When the police breathalysed the master of the cargo vessel some hours after the accident, he was found to be still three and a half times over the alcohol limit. He was arrested, prosecuted and ultimately sentenced to a year’s imprisonment. That is just one example of how alcohol consumption can severely impair a seafarer’s ability to safely navigate a ship.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Next month, I shall be navigating the Oxford canal on a narrow boat. My hon. Friend will know, because we have discussed it in the past, that much money is made from tourists and people coming to this country and hiring narrow boats. Will this legislation affect people hiring narrow boats who perhaps enjoy a tiny tincture as they travel at four knots down one of our beautiful canals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The legislation will apply to professional mariners. If one were to charter a vessel with a crew so that one could enjoy a party on board, the crew would be expected to maintain their sobriety under the terms of the legislation. However, the regulations would not apply to recreational seafarers. Of course, we have laws in this country for people behaving irresponsibly. If I were up a ladder painting my house and I was drunk and dropped something on someone’s head and killed them, I would be held responsible. Previous Governments have looked at how the regulations may apply to recreational mariners, and this measure does not apply to them.

I mentioned one example of how alcohol consumption can severely impair a seafarer’s ability to safely navigate a ship.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Given that the regulations deal with lowering the limit—the example that the Minister has just cited was of somebody three and a half times over the existing limit—how does he see the lowering of the limit affecting such cases where the seafarer clearly did not have any regard at all for the existing limits?

[Mr Goodwill]

Obviously, as all Members will know, when one sets a limit for alcohol in this country, whether it is for an airline pilot, a mariner or the driver of a car, truck or bus, there are those who will disregard the law and break the limits. Indeed, one of the worst cases of drink-driving that we have seen, as in the port of Belfast, was the master of a vessel who was three and a half times over the existing limit, which would probably be five times over the new limit. Of course, such irresponsible behaviour cannot be tolerated. In the case that I mentioned, the man, who was not a UK national—and neither was the ship on the UK shipping register—was imprisoned and felt the full force of the law. Indeed, it was very fortunate that people were not killed and that a major pollution incident did not ensue from that particular incident.

[Robert Flello]

I am grateful to the Minister for being generous with his time. Are there facts, figures, data on mariners who have been over the new limit but below the existing limit having accidents or causing problems? Is that the reason behind the introduction of a lower limit?

[Mr Goodwill]

As I will explain, we have a new international agreement over global limits; as I develop my points, that will become apparent. This is about having the same limit all over the world so that mariners can be in no doubt about what the limit is. Indeed, I will not go too much into drink-driving, but there were a lot of arguments about driving between Scotland and England when the Scots changed their regulations. Therefore, no one can be in any doubt if they are on board a vessel about what the limit is. Many shipping companies will go over and above this and impose zero tolerance on their crew members, particularly on short sea crossings, where people can have a normal social life on land and engage in their work on the vessel.

In the example that I gave, that captain endangered not only himself and his own vessel but other ships in the vicinity and the people on board them, not to mention the local marine environment. That is why we take the matter of breaches of our alcohol limits so seriously. While there is much that we can do as a nation to ensure the safety of shipping, there is no doubt that even more can be achieved by agreeing improved standards to be applied globally—going on to the point that I was making—through the International Maritime Organisation. Particularly important is the IMO’s convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping. The purpose of this convention is to establish internationally the basic standards of competence and behaviour to which seafarers must adhere. At the Manila conference in 2010, a number of changes to the convention were agreed to address risks to safety that had been identified. This included, for the first time, an internationally agreed alcohol limit for professional mariners. In the case of breath, 25 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres and, in the case of blood, 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres. I cast my mind back to the existing regulation, which was 35 and 80; that reduces to 25 and 50.

These tough new limits on alcohol consumption reflect a global commitment to tackling the problem of seafarers who cannot fulfil their duties through drink and the threat that that poses to safe navigation. It is envisaged that they will send a strong message to ship operators and seafarers worldwide that excessive consumption of alcohol at sea will not be tolerated. It is right that, as a leading maritime nation, we put our weight behind that effort. The regulations that we are considering today would bring existing UK legislation into line with the limits agreed at the IMO, with the addition of a limit in the case of urine of 67 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres, which is the comparable level.

In addition, having international common alcohol limits helps mariners to understand the standard of behaviour expected of them no matter where they are in the world. Given that national borders are not visible at sea, enforcement of those limits is simplified when seafarers are found to have exceeded them. The effectiveness of these regulations will be kept under review. The Secretary of State will be required to report on the findings of periodic reviews of the effect of the new alcohol limits. This will ensure that we continue to focus on the overriding objective of maintaining safe navigation.

The maritime industry is vital to the UK’s prosperity and many human lives depend on its safe and efficient operation. By tightening the alcohol limits that we apply to our professional mariners, we both reduce the risk of accidents in our waters and stand shoulder to shoulder with other maritime nations seeking to do the same. I commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I will first make a few comments regarding the issue raised by the hon. Member for City of Chester. I extend my condolences to his constituent’s family; the situation must have been very traumatic and upsetting. I can tell him that work is being undertaken at the IMO to develop guidelines on dealing with crimes and disappearances at sea. I can certainly write to him about that in a little more detail. Of course, the ship in question would not be subject to these regulations, as it is not a UK ship and was not in UK waters. Indeed, enforcing and testing are the responsibility of the flag state—in this case, the Bahamas. If these things had happened on, for example, the new Britannia cruise liner, which is a UK-flagged vessel, the regulations would have applied.

As with the current limits, those before us will apply to professional mariners on duty—and to those off duty, if their duties would require them to take action to protect the safety of passengers in an emergency—on all ships in UK waters and on all UK-flagged ships anywhere in the world. Obviously, that would include the master of the ship and watchkeepers, but it might also include crew members on UK-flagged ships who have responsibility, for example, at lifeboat muster stations or for looking after children in an emergency.

[Michael Fabricant]

My hon. Friend said that the regulations would apply only to UK ships in UK waters. Does that mean, therefore, that if they are on the high seas, in international waters, the regulations will not apply?

[Mr Goodwill]

It is up to other nations around the world to do what we are doing and implement such measures in their national regulations, so that those measures would then apply to vessels flagged with that nation. That is why we are encouraging every member of the IMO do that.

[Michael Fabricant]

But is my hon. Friend saying that the regulations would not apply to a UK-registered ship that was not in UK waters?

[Mr Goodwill]

For the avoidance of doubt, the regulations will apply to UK ships anywhere in the world.

We are keen, as the hon. Member for Blackpool South said, to ensure that knowledge of these regulations is spread widely. Indeed, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has issued notice to mariners about all the amendments made at the Manila conference, not just the one before the Committee today.

It is right that we should monitor compliance with the changes to the regulations. In the event of an incident, one of the first courses of action would be to breathalyse the crew and the master of the ship if there is any suggestion that alcohol may have been involved. Companies themselves will of course notify their staff of the changes. Indeed, many companies already have an alcohol and drug monitoring policy, and in many cases have zero tolerance to alcohol.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the master of a ship have any additional responsibilities for ensuring that crew comply with these regulations?

[Mr Goodwill]

Obviously, the master of a ship is the primary person on board a vessel who will be able to pick up whether members of the crew have an alcohol problem. If it is company policy not to have alcohol on the ship, disciplinary action can be taken through a crew member’s terms of employment if alcohol is discovered.

[Rachael Maskell]

How will the master of a ship be able to fulfil those responsibilities?

[Mr Goodwill]

The master of a ship is charged with complying with all regulations that apply to vessels at sea. If it is a UK-flagged ship, he will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the regulations. If other members of the crew are concerned about the captain, they also have a responsibility to draw that to the attention of the ship’s owners or, possibly, the first mate or chief engineer.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South talked about the review period and asked whether we will consider taking unilateral action earlier should it be necessary. Of course, all matters are kept under review, but I consider it important that we act internationally wherever possible, to avoid confusion. The measure under consideration is about setting an international level.

I recently visited the marine accident investigation branch, which provides comprehensive reports. I read a number of those reports in preparation for this Committee, including on the incident in Belfast that I described. The marine accident investigation branch is keen to ensure that, if alcohol is involved in an accident, it will be in the report and lessons will be learned. I do not consider the amendment to be in the category of burdensome red tape. Indeed, we are merely changing the levels that already apply.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South talked about commencement. The section of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 that applies to limits for non-professional mariners has never been commenced. Public consultation on the matter in the 2000s highlighted specific problems with applying the section to leisure crafts where the duties of those on board are ill-defined. Much can be done by means other than national legislation. For example, the Royal Yachting Association, supported by my Department, has promoted among pleasure boaters the message that alcohol and water do not mix. At local level, harbour authorities can manage any problems identified by working with user groups and hire companies, for example to agree codes of conduct. If necessary, they may utilise any powers they have to make byelaws or general directions.

[Mr Marsden]

I seek a little more clarification on that point. I absolutely accept the Minister’s points. I do not want to stray beyond the narrow interpretation of the regulations into uncharted waters, but he will be aware that sensitivities in relation to such issues, including among Members, are inevitably highlighted by individual incidents and accidents, a couple of which have been mentioned in this debate. We can see the river outside, and we know that tragic incidents occur on inland waters, too. Perhaps the Government will think about how they might be even more proactive in that process without necessarily resorting to major new secondary or primary legislation.

[Mr Goodwill]

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s intention to ensure that we do everything we can to protect life. One problem we face is in connection with the recent Court of Appeal ruling on what constitutes a vessel in the case of an accident involving a jet ski. The Railways and Transport Safety Act defines a ship as a “vessel used in navigation”. The Court of Appeal held that that means that, to be a ship, a vessel must be used to make ordered progression from one place to another. A vessel or buoyant craft simply used for having fun without the object of going anywhere does not fall within the meaning of “ship” in the Act. The Court of Appeal has therefore decided that a jet ski is not a ship within the legislation. We could be getting into difficult territory, because making that change would not simply be about amending legislation. If we needed to take action, we would need legislation that addressed some of the issues raised by the Court of Appeal.

We have had a useful discussion today that demonstrates the high regard that hon. Members have for the maritime industry and the vital part it plays in sustaining our nation’s wellbeing. In particular, it is evident that we share a strong commitment to upholding safety at sea. I welcome the support shown today for the regulations as part of the continuing effort to address the risk posed by excessive alcohol consumption by seafarers.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Alcohol) (Prescribed Limits Amendment) Regulations 2015.