National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) (No.2) Bill

Debate between Steve Double and Nigel Evans

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands]

The hon. Member mentioned the green deal. I have hundreds of constituents who were essentially screwed under the 2010 Government’s green deal with the Lib Dems. Rogue builders were allowed to screw them out of thousands of pounds. The Government have done nothing for my constituents. What does he have to say about that?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Mr Newlands, you are incredibly intelligent. Maybe next time you will think of a different way of expressing that.

[Steve Double]

I am not sure what the hon. Member’s intervention has to do with the Bill, but I am sure that all his constituents who are in work will welcome the 4% cut in national insurance. The Scottish National party has raised taxes to their highest level anywhere in the United Kingdom, so I am sure that his constituents will be grateful for the Bill.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), I represent a constituency with a higher-than-average number of pensioners. Some of them have been in touch with me questioning why, as far as they could see, there was nothing in the Budget for them. Clearly, cutting national insurance does not affect them because they do not pay it. We have to remember that the Government have kept the triple lock commitment. Pensioners rightly had a 10% rise in their pensions last year. I was one of those who fought hard in the autumn of 2022 to ensure that we kept that commitment. Next month, they will rightly get a further 8.5% rise in their pensions. When those measures are combined, pensions will have gone up by 18.5% over two years, which is a significant rise. We have rightly kept our promise to pensioners. It is in that context that the Government have now rightly focused on supporting people in work and in jobs, which is very welcome.

We have to set this Bill and the 2% cut that it delivers in the context of the 2% cut that we made in January and the fact that, because of our careful management of the public finances and the economy, inflation is coming down and the green shoots of growth are back in our economy. For those reasons, we are able to make the decision to cut national insurance. I am happy to vote for the Bill this evening.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To start the wind-ups, I call Tulip Siddiq.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords]

Debate between Steve Double and Nigel Evans

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

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

May I associate myself with your comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, about Captain Sir Tom Moore? It is a sad loss for our country and, of course, especially for his family. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.

It is a privilege to speak in this debate as I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on general aviation, the Member of Parliament who represents Cornwall Airport Newquay, and a keen supporter of our aviation sector and especially our regional airports. I very much welcome the Bill and will be pleased to support it later this evening. I acknowledge all the work that the Minister and previous Ministers have put in, along with officials in the Department, to get us to this point. It has taken longer than we expected because of a number of factors, but the approach that the Department has taken—to engage and listen to stakeholders across the aviation sector—has been hugely welcomed and, along with the input from the other place, means that the Bill before us is a very good one.

The UK’s airspace is our invisible infrastructure in the sky. It is vital to the success of our aviation sector and the wider economy. It will become increasingly important in the years to come, with the development of clean flights through clean fuels and electric and hydrogen-powered flight. In recent times, there have been those who have prophesised the demise of aviation in the light of the need to reduce our carbon footprint, but I believe that its best days lie ahead. The industry is committed to playing a key part in helping the UK to achieve the Government’s ambitious aims on cutting our carbon emissions, and good progress is being made.

Although the sector has taken a huge hit, both in the UK and globally, because of the pandemic, I have every confidence that it will bounce back with the right support. We should use the current crisis to ensure that the sector is able to accelerate reform to a cleaner future. That is why it is vital that the Government continue to support the sector to ensure that it is able to lead our national recovery. The regional support for airports through the offsetting of business rates is welcome, but it would be remiss of me not to make the case for further sector support for airlines, those in the supply chain and airports at this incredibly challenging time.

We have a world-leading aviation sector of which we should be proud. We have the third-largest aviation network in the world and the second-largest aerospace manufacturing sector, supporting 1 million jobs and with a turnover in excess of £60 billion before the pandemic. Yet despite all the developments and growth in aviation over decades, the UK’s airspace has largely remained unchanged for 60 years. Review and change is long overdue, and the measures in the Bill are welcome and essential.

It is a huge credit to the UK aviation sector that it has maintained the growth it has, despite us lagging behind the rest of the world in airspace management. As aircraft and aviation technologies have advanced in the past 60 years, our airspace management has not kept pace. That has led at times to inefficient use of airspace, which has often contributed to higher pollution and noise.

I have nothing but admiration for those at NATS who manage our airspace in what has been one of the most complex airborne environments in the world, underpinned by an overly bureaucratic system of outdated legislation and complex guidance. The strains on our airspace have become most apparent in recent years. Prior to covid, flight delays in minutes per year had been increasing consistently in the five years leading up to 2020. That coincided with a year-on-year rise in the number of flights in the UK. Most alarmingly, estimates by the DFT suggest that, without the modernising of air traffic, delays could rise by 72 times by 2030, with more than one flight in every three from UK airports expected to depart more than half an hour late. Those estimates were admittedly put together prior to the pandemic, but when we do return to the pre-2019 level of flights in 2023 or 2024 as expected, we are unlikely to see a change in the trend of delayed flights without modernisation of our airspace.

The implementation of the reforms, innovations and technological solutions set out in the Bill are essential for our future prosperity. As we continue to deliver modern airports and state-of-the-art fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly aircraft, it would be a missed opportunity for us not also to modernise our airspace in the process. I am pleased that that is exactly what the Bill will bring about. I welcome the Bill also because it is a great example of cross-party parliamentarians from both Houses of Parliament working together with Government Departments and relevant civil authorities on issues of common concern that can be addressed only by bringing all stakeholders on board.

The all-party parliamentary group on general aviation, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport started and chaired for many years, has long looked into the issue of airspace change. In summer 2019, the APPG’s dedicated working group on airspace published its report of the inquiry led by the noble Lord Kirkhope on the adequacy of our airspace, especially at the lower—arguably more dangerous—end of below 7,000 feet. One important recommendation from the inquiry to the DFT and CAA was the introduction of a ratchet-down process for removing underused volumes of controlled airspace. It also suggested that the CAA should make a radical shift in its internal processes for airspace change to allow for greater flexibility in future airspace design. I am pleased to see both recommendations incorporated in the Bill and thank Ministers and officials for their proactive and positive engagement with members of the APPG in the consultation process.

The Bill will achieve this modernisation in three main parts. It will allow for an airport or other person involved in airspace change to be compelled to progress or co-operate with an airspace change proposal in line with the overall modernisation strategy. The second part of the Bill will bring in much needed updates to our airspace licensing regime in accordance with best practice. Part 3 relates to unmanned aircraft such as drones, which are no doubt a critical part of the future of aviation; their development is important for our economy for the future.

General aviation is often overlooked in the aviation policies of successive Governments, but general aviation matters. GA contributes over £1 billion to the UK economy, and supports hundreds of thousands of well-paid jobs across all regions of the UK. GA is also important as a gateway to the UK’s world-beating commercial aviation sector. General aviation activities such as gliding provide accessible grassroots, which often help to inspire young people into science, technology, maths and engineering subjects. GA platforms are also the best early testbeds for new technologies, such as electric propulsion. Without free airspace to test in, the UK will be at a competitive disadvantage for attracting high-tech aviation companies just as we are seeing the dawn of the new era of sustainable aviation.

General aviation is often overlooked when it comes to airspace management, and often finds itself restricted, or excluded from too much airspace. The Bill grants the Government—and, by extension, the CAA—the power to request that an air navigation service provider change its airspace in a certain way. This will be the first time that our regulator has ever been given this power, which is commonly found in other countries. The Bill will complement the CAA’s airspace modernisation strategy, which aims to rationalise the UK’s airspace system, bringing greater efficiency to air transport. Indeed, alongside the strategy is a commitment to look at reclassifying areas of low airspace that are problematic for general aviation. To improve use of lower airspace, it may be necessary to compel an airport to reduce its area of controlled airspace. This would not be achieved without the powers contained in the Bill.

Finally, I turn to the much discussed Government amendment on the temporary alleviation of the 80:20 usage rule, which requires airlines to use their allocated airport slots at least 80% of the time to retain entitlement to the same slots in the next equivalent scheduling period. I fully understand the rationale behind this. We do not want to see airlines continuing to fly empty or near-empty aircrafts at huge financial and environmental costs for the sake of keeping their slots. When administered well, the reprieve from this rule can form an essential part of the wider package of support for the industry. However, I urge Ministers to ensure that it does not pose any obstacle to maintaining critical connections between regional and national airports, and thus hinder the Government’s agenda to drive regional growth. I seek the Minister’s assurance that we will not miss this opportunity to ensure that slot allocation is not a barrier to growth, and that we grow our essential connectivity to our major airports for regional airports.

The Bill will bring much needed changes to modernise our airspace and improve efficiency of air traffic management. It will help to deliver quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys, which will help to reduce carbon emissions while increasing capacity where needed, increasing the resilience of our airspace and allowing greater access for general aviation. The Bill represents yet another positive step for the future of British aviation. I am pleased to support the Bill and urge colleagues across the House to do so.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Audio link—Sarah Olney.

Early Parliamentary General Election

Debate between Steve Double and Nigel Evans

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, about which I know he has a great deal of experience and knowledge. The eyes of the world are looking on this place to see whether we will be true to what we said we would do and whether we will respect what the voters told us to do.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend talks about Members of Parliament being elected at the last election on a promise of delivering Brexit and reneging on that promise. Did he notice that 217 Labour MPs voted against the withdrawal agreement Bill on Second Reading? Had they voted for it, they could have amended it how they wished, but they actually voted to stop Brexit.

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to take no deal off the table, there are two very simple ways to do that: vote for a deal and secure a smooth exit from the European Union; or vote for a general election and take no deal off the table if he wins. The fact that he will not support a general election betrays the real reason that Labour Members will not support an election, which is that they are afraid of the British people, they are afraid of what voters will vote, and they are afraid that they will lose seats and we will be in government.

I will be supporting this motion tonight because I believe that this House has sadly lost all legitimacy. We have lost the trust of the British people, and the only way to recover it is for the House to be dissolved as soon as possible, to have an election and to let the British people elect a Parliament they can trust to represent them.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Steve Double and Nigel Evans

Monday 11th March 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), a fellow member of the Petitions Committee, for introducing it.

Although I fundamentally disagree with the premise of the petition, I absolutely understand some of the frustrations that people feel. I admit that there have been many times over the past few months that even I—somebody who is passionate about leaving the European Union—have wondered whether it is not too much hassle, and whether saying, “Let’s call the whole thing off,” might be the easiest course of action. However, I believe that if we did that, we would be fundamentally wrong, and would be making a huge and damaging mistake. It would be hugely damaging to our democracy for us to seek to undo the democratic decision that the British people made in the 2016 referendum.

This House was absolutely clear at that time that we were allowing the British people to make the decision in that referendum, and that we would carry out the instruction that they gave us. If we do not deliver on that commitment, we will further damage, and perhaps destroy for a long time, the last bit of trust in this place and our democracy. We all accept that trust in politics is at a pretty low ebb. Given the way that this House and many Members and former Members have behaved in recent months, we can hardly blame people for having a very low opinion of it. It is sad to say that none of the main political parties comes out of this process with any credit, given the way we have gone about things. Ignoring the result of the referendum would do lasting damage, and I believe that there would be a significant backlash from the electorate.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why people in every constituency in Lancashire, and people in the north-west, the north-east, the south-west and the south-east, voted to leave was that for far too long they had felt as if they did not have a voice? This Parliament suddenly gave them a voice via the referendum, but it now wants to reinforce the view that their voice does not matter. It would be hugely dangerous not to carry out the wishes of the British people.

[Steve Double]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has been looking at my notes, but that was going to be my next point. He has made it very well for me. Many thousands of people up and down the country, particularly in the parts that he highlighted, voted for the first time in their lives, or certainly for the first time in a very long time, in that referendum for the simple reason that they thought that, because it was a nationwide referendum, their vote would count and their voice would be heard. It would be an absolute denial of that if we did not deliver on the referendum.

Not delivering on the referendum would not just damage our democracy. We should think about what message it would send to the EU if, having gone through all this for almost three years, we turned round and said, “You know what? It’s a bit too difficult. I think we’ll reverse this, because it’s a bit too hard for us. It’s too tough a decision for us to make.” It would be a national embarrassment if, having gone through this process, we do not actually deliver on the referendum. It would weaken our position in the EU. Let us not pretend that, by revoking the triggering of article 50 and pretending that none of this ever happened, somehow we will go back to pre-2016 times as though nothing had ever happened. It would undermine and damage our position in the EU in a way that would be massively damaging to our country.

If the conclusion is that it is too difficult, too complex and too politically challenging ever to leave the EU, that would be the final confirmation, if one were needed, that we have surrendered our national sovereignty and are trapped in a political union that will inevitably lead to further integration with the EU. That would be the only conclusion that could be drawn if, after voting to leave and spending nearly three years trying to get out, we cannot do that. Clearly, we would never leave the EU. It would show the EU that we are too weak and timid, and that we lack the courage, faith and optimism in our nation to leave.

Let us be clear that many people feel frustration because we are not where we want to be. We should never have been in this position. It is clearly an understatement to say that we are not where we wanted to be. This close to the deadline, we should not still be debating whether we will actually leave. It is absolutely ludicrous that, after all this time, the question of whether we will actually leave the EU is still on the table. That issue was settled when this House voted to give the people of this country a referendum, and when, after people gave us their decision, a huge majority of this House voted to trigger article 50. The decision was made then that we will leave. It should not be in any doubt. This matter should have been settled once and for all. It is a failure of leadership—of politics—that we have not been able to settle this issue clearly and finally.

Many people up and down the country—particularly some of those we were referring to earlier—who voted in that referendum because they wanted their voice to be heard do not believe that we will ever leave. I speak to them in my constituency every weekend that I go back. They come to me and say, “Please tell me that we are actually going to leave.” I say, “Well, as far as I’m concerned, and if I have anything to do with it, yes we will.” They go on to tell me that they genuinely believe that we are in the midst of an establishment stitch-up that will somehow find a way to ignore the referendum result—some clever parliamentary shenanigans to undo it—and we will not actually leave. Thousands of people across the country think that. If we prove them right and allow Brexit not to happen, we will reinforce their view. That will be hugely damaging to our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double]

It is well documented that I have not been the biggest fan of our Prime Minister during this process. I believe that many mistakes have been made that have led us to where we are today, such as the lack of a clear starting position for negotiations, allowing the EU to dictate the timetable and nature of negotiations, and not preparing properly and early enough for a no-deal Brexit, to name a few. Clearly, we could have done so much better and, with better leadership, we could have been in a better position.

I am also very clear that not all the blame rests with the Prime Minister. Many Members of both Houses—and former Members of this House—have played a part in undermining her negotiating position almost every step of the way. Every one of them must share responsibility for our position. It is now quite clear that members of the Cabinet and other senior members of Government have publicly and vocally said that they support the Government’s position of “no deal is better than a bad deal”, while crossing their fingers behind their backs the whole way. When it appears that no deal might actually arise, they make it clear that they do not support that position and threaten to resign if it happens. To find out that those people, who supposedly supported a Government position, did not really mean it, is enough to undermine trust in our politics.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in any negotiation, being able to walk away makes our position stronger? If the person who we are negotiating with knows that we ultimately have to accept a deal under whatever circumstance, the deal is not going to be very good.

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes the point very well. If we say that we can only leave the EU with an agreement, we are actually saying that we can leave only on the terms that the EU dictates. If it knows that we will not walk away without a deal, it will dictate the terms—as in any negotiation—and that has been part of the problem all along. Too many people in this House—those on the Opposition Front Bench have certainly contributed to this position—have told the EU, “We will not allow Parliament to take the UK out of the EU without a deal,” and it has believed it. The EU has not been willing to come to the negotiating table in good faith and negotiate a good deal because it has known all along that Parliament was very unlikely to allow us to walk away without a deal.

Too many Members of this House have also said publicly “We respect the referendum result”—some even stood on manifestos that said so—while working tirelessly behind the scenes every week to undermine the result and find a way to prevent it from happening. That has also been hugely damaging to trust in our politics.

We will find out only in the years ahead, when all this is over and the history books about this period have been written, exactly how damaging those who have sought to undermine the Prime Minister’s negotiating position have really been to our country. I believe they have been hugely damaging and have largely contributed to where we are today. Only when the history books have been written will we really understand all that has gone on behind the scenes to give the message to the EU that we will stop the UK leaving if we can, in any way that we can. That has been massively damaging to our chances of getting a withdrawal agreement and future deal that this House can support.

Space Industry Bill [Lords]

Debate between Steve Double and Nigel Evans

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 15th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Steve Double]

Absolutely. Newquay has several things in its favour. It has a very large runway and easy access to uncongested airspace over the Atlantic. There are literally hundreds of acres of development land in an enterprise zone ready for developing the necessary business and manufacturing that would support a spaceport. Uniquely, I believe, we also have the space enterprise zone through our partnership with Goonhilly satellite station. That makes us in Newquay very well placed to be the first UK spaceport.

Although Newquay should be the first spaceport, it should not be the only one. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said so well, there will be a need for further spaceports as the industry grows in our country. I believe that we will want to be launching satellites, putting people into space and operating sub-orbital flights from across the country, not just one location, much as I would love Newquay to be that location.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that I am not about to make a bid for the Ribble Valley.

Particularly if we get more than one spaceport, that will be a great boost to industries and SMEs that are interested in space. Some may be involved in contracts with the European Space Agency, to which we gave £1.4 billion in additional funding from 2016 for five years. Does my hon. Friend agree that, irrespective of what we do domestically and of our leaving the European Union, we should continue our investment in that agency? That is not a European Union issue.

[Steve Double]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes his point well. Another concern of the UK sector is our continued involvement in the European Space Agency post-Brexit. I join him in urging the Government to continue to play an active part and to participate in that agency, as that will be essential for the industry in this country.

Foreign Aid Expenditure

Debate between Steve Double and Nigel Evans

Monday 13th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double]

I will just make some more progress. From scientific research, health and climate change to economic growth, education, governance and security, there are few aspects of life that our aid does not touch in many of the poorest nations of the world.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Steve Double]

Yes, and then I will come back to the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin).

[Mr Evans]

I am extremely grateful. What my hon. Friend is saying is absolutely right and reassuring. If we do not recognise that there are issues out there—that is why we are debating this matter—then we need to address areas where the money has been misspent. Does he agree that when we give money to a charity in America that then spends millions on new headquarters as opposed to ensuring that that money gets through to the poorest people, we do an injustice to the poorest people throughout the world and are probably putting the 0.7% in jeopardy?

[Steve Double]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have to ensure that whatever money we have is wisely spent and delivered to the front line. When that is not the case, it needs to be addressed.