Leaving the EU: Driving Licences

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

I will call Dr Coffey to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention in 30-minute debates.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential impact of leaving the EU on driving licences.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and I am delighted to see several other hon. Members here for this short debate.

The essence of what I am trying to put across today is that we have an opportunity—a Brexit bonus—to look again at some of the driving licence regulations that were put in place thanks to our membership of the EU in order to ensure, first, that we support rural communities and, secondly, that we unlock economic growth opportunities. I think the Government have already recognised that. In particular, I am seeking reform of our driving licences so that the C1 and D1 categories are applied to everybody who has passed a driving test in this country, in the same way that those of us who passed our test before 1997 acquired grandfather rights. That was an arbitrary deadline, and driving tests have got longer and longer.

This issue first came to my attention when I visited Halesworth Area Community Transport and was told about its challenges in getting more drivers. To drive a van for that not-for-profit organisation, as it then was, people had to pay £2,000 to £3,000 to do a course and pass a test thanks to the regulations. When I went to see the Minister, I was told that they were EU regulations, and that as long as we were part of the EU there was absolutely no way we could change them.

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend was recently a Minister in the Department for Transport and was involved in the response, so he will know the Department’s thinking—

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. There are Divisions in the House. I will suspend the debate for 15 minutes for the first vote and 10 minutes for any subsequent votes, so let us all be back here for about 4.19 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

The new end time for the debate will be 4.44 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)]

Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who I was delighted to serve under at the Department for Work and Pensions, where I did eight wonderful years. That was good training for the work that I am doing at the Department for Transport, trying to wrestle difficult problems and find long-term solutions.

My right hon. Friend approached the debate in a very constructive and positive way: we are trying to find the art of the possible, rather than perfection on an ongoing basis. She and I both represent seriously rural constituencies, and although I am bound by the wonders of collective responsibility, and echo and endorse everything that the Government do, I share her concern that there is a definite lack of drivers in rural communities in the circumstances that she outlined. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) also set out his knowledge of community transport on behalf of the people of his constituency. It is a genuine issue, and to pretend otherwise is naive and wrong. We must acknowledge that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal has been a doughty campaigner in this space. I look forward to her ten-minute rule Bill and subsequent private Member’s Bill, which as I understand it, looks to reform the process and find a way through. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney), who is a member of the Transport Committee and formerly held my role, put his strong views on the record.

Clearly, the legislation is complex, but it is ironic that my driving licence—this applies to the driving licence of anyone above the age of approximately 43—entitles me to drive these vehicles, even though I passed a driving test that, on any interpretation, was of a lesser standard in days gone by. And yet, someone who is under the age of 42 has done a much more vigorous driving test—it is no question that it has got harder, and quite right, too—but is not so entitled, because of the 1997 grandfather rules, even though they might be a policeman or someone who drives a response vehicle. That strikes me as an anomaly.

I accept and entirely understand the concerns of those who do not want someone who is newly qualified to drive a much more substantial vehicle, and it is entirely right to be mindful of that. A multitude of arguments were set out in the detailed call for evidence, which was published and updated in summer last year, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal knows. It outlined particular concerns about the legislation. She will be aware that on 6 June we published the responses to the call for evidence, which sought evidence on, among other topics, the road safety impacts of returning to the pre-1997 licence position. This is not a simple issue, and it is a vital duty of this Government to ensure, to the best of our ability, that road safety is paramount and is observed on an ongoing basis. The analysis of the responses showed that there was support for some form of extension to the driving licence entitlement, but there were also some concerns about road safety.

My right hon. Friend also rightly identified the international obligations that apply by reason of the 1968 Vienna convention, which lists C1 and D1 as separate categories, and which we ratified in 2019. That would need to be addressed. There is also the issue of ongoing driver shortages. We need a legitimate examination of that issue in relation to bus drivers, delivery drivers and HGV drivers, and of whether the change that she seeks would alleviate the pressure that unquestionably exists on the economy and the communities that we all serve. One would also have to think about driver medicals, because we require C1 and D1 drivers to demonstrate a higher medical standard.

Let me respond to a couple of other points. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak) rightly lauds and applauds the work of his local community to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the D-day landings on 6 June, and the work that all are doing to commemorate that historic date. I will do everything I can to assist him and his constituents to ensure the safe passage of his community as they, quite rightly, pay their due respects.

Several colleagues have raised legitimate concerns on community transport, and that has unquestionably been taken on board. I will certainly do everything I can to try to find out the extent of that issue, and all evidence we can elicit to clarify just how grave that situation is would be of great assistance.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal outlined the position in relation to ambulances. I confess that that is not in my briefing and I am not aware of that issue specifically, although I know it was in the call for evidence, in particular. I think that is a legitimate question and I will take it up with the Department of Health and Social Care to try to clarify the extent of that problem and the difficulties that exist. Any Government, and particularly this Government, are passionately committed to trying to alleviate those particular problems on an ongoing basis.

To summarise, we always look to keep the driving licence regime under review, and there has been a call for evidence. If there was to be change, it would require consultation, so any implementation of change would have to be consulted upon. For my part, I see a significant difference in respect of a community volunteer who is, for example, a qualified policeman of 40 years of age being allowed to drive a community minibus. There is also the larger issue of how we deal with C1s, and the age of individuals and their experience on an ongoing basis has to be addressed.

We are clearly considering the ongoing position with the European Union and the extent of any new driving licence directive that may or may not come in, which has been agreed by the European Parliament. That may also constitute an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to address those particular points on an ongoing basis. I thank her for her ongoing campaign, which is massively to her credit; it is what Back Benchers can and should do. I know that she is a doughty proponent of positive change and I welcome her efforts to improve the lives of those in her community in Suffolk and the community organisation that she represents. I commend her efforts, and I look forward to working with her.

Question put and agreed to.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. Given the delay for the vote, we are not scheduled to start the next debate until 4.44 pm, and I am minded to wait until that time to allow those who remember the rules to get here in good time. It is rather obvious that the next debate is very heavily subscribed, with at least 10 Back-Bench speakers already notified to me, and we require the Opposition spokesperson to start their summing up at 5.27 pm, with the Minister at 5.32 pm. That would imply that those Back Benchers who wish to speak can take a maximum of three rather elegant minutes to say what they need to say, and then sit down to give everybody else a chance—although even with three minutes, we may struggle. If some colleagues are not called to speak, I apologise; stick to three minutes and we should be okay, but that depends how long Sir Stephen Timms takes. We have another five minutes until the next debate.

Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

There are a number of Members who wish to speak. We have plenty of time, but if people could restrict themselves to around six minutes, we should all be doing grand.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone.

I am pleased to have secured this debate on one of the biggest issues affecting my constituency right now. It affects not just Dartford, but areas right across London and the neighbouring counties. It is, of course, Sadiq Khan’s extension of the ultra low emission zone. The decision by the Labour Mayor of London to extend that scheme to cover the whole of London will be catastrophic for my constituency, which neighbours London. The border is not neat; it straddles roads such as Maiden Lane and sits at the end of roads such as The Coppice, Bowmans Road and Stonehill Woods Park. Although their residents are in Kent, they have to enter London just to get out of their road—just to live. They have no choice but to enter London.

Currently, the border with London is fairly frictionless. Thousands of times a day, people drive across that border, often without even knowing it. That is good for London, and good for Kent and other counties bordering London, but now Sadiq Khan is building a financial wall between London and the rest of the country. A small business, particularly in outer London, that relies on customers travelling to it will be crucified by this form of taxation. The line that has been used by those desperately trying to defend the Mayor is that the scheme will not affect many people, but one in seven cars is already affected. Given that the Mayor ignored his own consultation on this scheme and did not include the expansion in his manifesto, as sure as night follows day, he will increase the number of vehicles that will have to pay—all to sort out the financial mess he has got his administration into.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that if they wish to speak, they need to bob to catch my eye—but that reminder seems slightly superfluous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for securing this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who was right that I have taken a deep interest in the ultra low emission zone expansion for some time, and that is because there are a number of big problems with the policy.

The first problem is that Sadiq Khan does not have a mandate for this policy. He claims that ULEZ expansion is essential to tackle air pollution, and we heard his briefing being faithfully read out by the hon. Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson). Given that the Mayor was re-elected to City Hall only last year, we would imagine that this policy featured prominently in his manifesto, but it did not. He went to the polls on a 100-page manifesto, and one paragraph on page 55 mentioned the ultra low emission zone, but it pertained specifically to the extension to the north and south circular in October 2021, which he had already announced. There was no mention whatever of expanding the boundary to the outer part of Greater London.

When the Mayor decided in May this year to push ahead with that expansion, the Evening Standard article that covered the announcement said:

“On Friday morning, Sadiq Khan insisted that he would not press ahead with the plans if the public overwhelmingly rejected them during the public consultation.

He said: ‘It’s a genuine consultation—as were the previous two consultations in relation to the central London Ultra-Low Emission Zone and the expansion. I hope Londoners who care about the health of their families will respond.’”

They did, in large numbers, but the Mayor initially refused to release the results of that consultation. Eventually, after public pressure, the results were released on 25 November. They revealed that 60% of respondents opposed Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ expansion to outer London. That figure increases to 68% when we include the organised responses that the hon. Member for Swansea West mentioned; 70% of outer London residents oppose the expansion and 80% of those who work in outer London were also opposed.

This policy has no mandate and no public support. It turns out that it is not about air quality, either, contrary to the propaganda read out by Opposition Members, which comes directly from the briefing sent by the Mayor of London. The document I quoted earlier is not a hatchet job, but the Mayor’s own integrated impact assessment. I gave one example, but there are many, of where it uses phrases like “negligible to minor” in terms of the impact that the expansion would have on air quality.

There is no mandate, there is no public support and it is not really about air quality, because the impact is negligible. So why is the Mayor of London so interested in ULEZ expansion, and why is he rushing it? The answer is as old as time: it is about money. This is a cash grab, pure and simple. According to Transport for London’s own figures, it expects the £12.50 charge to hit 160,000 cars and 42,000 vans per day. In monetary terms, that is about £2.5 million per day—a big cash injection into the Mayor’s coffers.

There is a question about timing. When the inner and outer ULEZs were introduced, people had years to prepare. In this case, we have nine months. The average family cannot save up to buy a car that quickly, especially when household bills are rising, and we know that they are. Small businesses and charities may be forced to replace one vehicle or even a fleet that they had banked on being able to use for many years to come.

Who will be hit? The Mayor of London does not seem to understand who will pick up the bill for his policies. It is not wealthy Londoners—it is ordinary working people, on the poorer end of the socioeconomic spectrum, who are less likely to be able to upgrade their car, and more likely to own an older vehicle. There is a myth that Mayor Khan attempts to spread around that low-income Londoners do not own cars, or drive in Greater London. That is categorically false. What is more, he knows it. The “Travel in London” report produced by TfL in 2019 shows that, by its own analysis, 50% of outer London households earning as little as £10,000 own a car. Car ownership rockets to in excess of 70% for those earning upwards of £20,000. According to TfL’s impact assessment, low-income Londoners are more likely to own non-compliant vehicles. The ULEZ expansion is not a tax on wealthy drivers, but on poorer people who simply cannot afford to buy a new vehicle.

In my constituency, we do not have tubes or trams. We have trains that go into central London and we have private vehicles. Some 83% of Orpington households own a car, meaning that a great number of my constituents could be liable to pay the charge. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), many of my constituents use their car every day to go to work, to the shops and to visit family and friends. Under the Mayor’s plan, they face a potentially disastrous annual bill of £4,500.

Other Members have spoken about the impact on public services. More than half of Greater London’s police officers and firefighters and around a fifth of the workers in my local NHS trust come into Greater London from outside. Those who work in outer London and those who work in shift work are especially reliant on their cars. Someone on a night shift faces a double whammy of a £12.50 charge driving to work, and a £12.50 charge after midnight when they drive home. It could cost them £25 per shift to go and do their work.

The ULEZ expansion will also impact on businesses in outer London. Many people drive in from Kent to shop in Petts Wood in my constituency. TfL estimates that 8% have non-compliant vehicles. Rather than paying £12.50 a time, many will simply choose to shop and visit elsewhere, depriving London’s high streets of customers.

Many drivers, both in London and those who travel from outside to work, shop or visit outer boroughs, are unaware that they may face an even higher bill. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford about the increase in the level of fines—up to £180. The Mayor has just hiked the fine from £130 to £160, and will go further from January next year, raising it to £180. If a driver crosses into Greater London, perhaps unaware of the boundary or unaware of the existence of the charge or that their vehicle is not compliant, they will unknowingly rack up a cripplingly high bill. Potentially as many as 12,000 cars and vans a day may be hit by a fine.

The RAC estimates that Transport for London could raise £260 million a year by imposing those penalties. To put that into context, Churchill Insurance estimated that the total parking fines raised by every council in the country combined would come to £250 million—£10 million lower than Transport for London would make with those penalties in the first year. TfL could in fact earn significantly more than that, because if not all drivers pay within 14 days—reducing the penalty from £180 to £90—that could raise £390 million every year.

The Mayor of London has not been a success in office. The Metropolitan police and the London Fire Brigade are both in special measures. Violent crime has reached record highs, and it has not abated. He is not on target to deliver enough affordable homes, despite what he boasted about as being the largest settlement from central Government on record. Crossrail was years late and billions of pounds over budget, with billions more lost in fares that were never raised.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to get back on to low emission zones.

[Gareth Bacon]

Indeed I am. The point I am trying to make is that Sadiq Khan is looking for something he can point to and claim as his. Leaving aside the fact that the ultra low emission zone was not even his idea—it was conceived and the preparatory work was done under my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—the Mayor has adopted it as his big idea. The expansion of the ultra low emission zone to outer London has no mandate or popular support. It will do almost nothing for air quality, it will be economically damaging and it will hit the poorest hardest—damaging not just those who live in outer London but millions who live outside Greater London. It is an appalling and unjust policy and it should be scrapped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing the debate, because much of what he and other colleagues have said so far about the impact that this scheme is going to have on their constituents certainly rings true for Carshalton and Wallington.

I note that not a single Liberal Democrat has turned up to the debate. Given that the Lib Dems voted for this policy in the Greater London Assembly, actually lamented that it took Labour so long to implement its policy and two Lib Dem boroughs have passed motions to support it, including Sutton, I am surprised that none of them could be bothered to come and defend it, but there we go.

I do not want to repeat what has been said about the ULEZ so far, but I want to highlight the severe impact this change will have on people in Carshalton and Wallington. As the Minister for London, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who is no longer in his place, pointed out, 30% or 30,000 vehicles in the London Borough of Sutton are non-compliant, according to TfL’s own data. That is 30,000 people whose livelihoods will be impacted by this change in a matter of months, as the Mayor has given people next to no time to prepare for it.

As has been said already, this change will hit the poorest Londoners hardest. What many will not be aware of, and will be shocked to hear, is that there are no exemptions in this ULEZ expansion to support small businesses, charities, keyworkers or the elderly, and there is very little in place to support disabled people. These are people who rely on their cars.

Sutton has a public transport accessibility level of just 2, because we have no tram, no tube network, no London Overground and no Crossrail. We have a few National Rail services to central London, which are currently being reduced due to Govia Thameslink Railway’s timetable changes, and a limited bus network. We have also seen this Mayor of London cut the Tramlink extension from Croydon to Sutton, despite the money already being in place when he took office, and we have had no investment or improvement in our bus network.

The question a lot of my constituents are asking is: “What can I do?” They cannot afford £12.50 a day. They cannot afford an annual fee of £4,500, or even the £3,000 that is the more conservative estimate for those who do not use their car every day. My hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) has already outlined that the scrappage scheme lauded as the apparent solution does not, in reality, even touch the sides. Back in May, even Sadiq Khan himself said that the scrappage scheme would need something like £180 million to cover everyone who would be affected, and even that was probably an underestimate. Furthermore, the scheme is open to those who were rejected last time, and two thirds of people were rejected last time. It is a system that will only breed more disappointment and discontent, with more people missing out.

The scrappage scheme is not the answer, but what is the Mayor’s answer, and what is Labour’s answer? I can tell hon. Members, because they were asked in the London Assembly. My London Assembly Member, Neil Garrett, asked the Mayor of London, “What should I tell my constituents if they can’t afford this charge?” The answer, not from the Mayor, but from a Labour Assembly Member was, almost word for word, “Well, a new car that is compliant is only about £3,000. Just go and buy one.” That is the political equivalent of Paris Hilton wearing a t-shirt saying “Stop being poor”.

That is the answer people are getting from the Labour party, backed up by the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, who are all saying the same thing: “If you can’t afford it, tough. You are going to have to live with it, or give up your car, give up your job and move out of London. You are not welcome here.”

I commend the work that is being done by Conservative-run boroughs in outer London, including Bromley, Bexley, Croydon, Harrow and Hillingdon, to do everything they possibly can, but I would like the Minister to feel the anger from our constituents and the huge impact that this change will have, not just on individuals, but on businesses and charities, and on the most vulnerable who live in outer London, and outside London.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford set out very eloquently, this is taxation without representation for many people living on the outskirts of London. I represent a constituency that borders Surrey. The border between my constituency and Surrey is a small country lane, which leads from the lavender fields into Woodmansterne—this is not somewhere with huge trunk roads and traffic coming in and out of London. Yet the people who live on the other half of Carshalton Road have no say in who the Mayor is and cannot do anything about this policy.

I strongly urge the Minister to take this away. I would be grateful to hear what advice he has received about the Government’s powers in this respect, and I ask him to join us in urging the Mayor of London to scrap this policy. It will hit the poorest Londoners and our constituents the hardest, and it will do little to nothing to tackle air quality; as we heard so eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), the Mayor’s own impact assessment says that it has nothing to do with air quality. The policy has no public support and he does not have a mandate for it in his manifesto.

In reality, if this is not about air quality what is it about? We have already heard that it is about money, but it is about much more than that. TfL has already employed people to work on a road user charging scheme. Once these cameras are in place, be in no doubt that the Mayor of London is keen to expand the ultra low emission zone to be a road user charging scheme instead; he will expand the eligibility of the number of cars that are captured by it.

The ultimate goal for this Mayor—he has been quite open about this in his own consultation documents—is to have a policy whereby every single Londoner is charged every single time they use their car, regardless of how new or old it is. That is what he wants, and the camera network for ULEZ is the first step towards that. We need to stop it and he needs to rethink; otherwise, we will see a massive amount of problems coming from our constituents who cannot pay this unaffordable charge.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

I call Dean Russell, with a maximum of seven minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. That is jolly interesting, but the topic is the ultra low emission zone.

[Mike Kane]

I can hear the Risographs of activists in London churning out leaflets about their Members of Parliament who do not want to support clean air. That is a clear divide, and I urge Members to get on the right side of it.

Public Transport Authority for South Yorkshire

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Alexander Stafford]

I will give way one more time to the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he will want to make his own speech at some point.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman asked you to give way and you said yes. We do not need a commentary.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way one more time. He talks ambitiously and grandly about the need for investment, and he is absolutely right, but how does he think that sits alongside the practical experience of this Government, who have cut spending on public transport from £3.9 billion in 2009 to £2.4 billion in 2020? Where is the ambition there?

A5 in the Midlands: Improvements

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. Before the debate started, you reminded us of the famous folk song about the A5. I have the answer—it was Christy Moore, with “Go, Move, Shift”:

“Born in the middle of the afternoon

In a horsedrawn carriage on the old A-5

The big twelve wheeler shook my bed

You can’t stay here the policeman said…

Go, move, shift”.

I win the brownie points on that quiz of yours, Mr Hosie.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

And now can we get back on topic?

[Mike Kane]

I will, Mr Hosie.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on securing the debate about an issue on which he has campaigned for some time. It is of huge importance to his constituency, and to that of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans)—what an impassioned plea he made! The hon. Gentleman was like some latter-day Henry Tudor on Bosworth field: ending the Plantagenet dynasty, slaying Richard III—the last King to go into battle—and making a plea for investment in his constituency. His was an eloquently framed speech.

There is a vast amount of consensus on the need for more action to be taken, and I hope the Minister will consider all points raised today. As has been pointed out, the A5 is a strategic route that generates about £22 billion each year. It brings huge benefits to the UK economy and not least to the regional economies in the midlands. It is a vital road corridor that connects businesses with ports, airports and motorways, and it supports major employment sites such as Magna Park and the MIRA enterprise zone.

I am acutely aware of the ongoing capacity issues on the A5 in the region. Although the pandemic has altered commuting patterns, congestion on the A5 in the midlands still averages approximately 25 seconds per vehicle per mile, I am told. On some sections congestion is even more severe, reaching over a minute and a half per vehicle per mile at some points.

As hon. Members have said, the cost of congestion is plain to see. It causes undue stress and, as the hon. Member for Bosworth said, a lack of happiness—although I have never heard about that in the context of a road—because of the extended journey times for motorists. It also contributes to increased carbon emissions and poor air quality for local residents, which I see all too often in my constituency around the M56.

Furthermore, research shows that traffic in the UK costs the economy billions of pounds every year. National Highways and the Department for Transport have highlighted the severe congestion issues on the A5 and identified the need to improve traffic flow. However, that is not being backed up by real action; hon. Members representing their constituencies in the midlands will be disappointed by the lack of progress on increasing capacity on the A5.

RIS2, running from 2020 to 2025, had committed to widening the A5 into a dual carriageway from Dodwells island to Longshoot, but, in a hammer blow to the local area, those plans were scrapped last year by National Highways and the Department. National Highways has said that the improvements will be considered in the context of wider proposals in RIS3 to improve capacity on the A5 from Hinckley to Tamworth.

In the meantime, congestion on the A5 remains at significant levels. Motorists will rightly question why they must wait until 2025 for funding to improve the traffic flow even to be considered. That is just one of a number of potential improvements to the A5. For example, the hon. Member for Bosworth told us that his constituency has Britain’s most bashed bridge—the alliteration trips off the tongue whenever he says it, and he raises it time and again.

Many Members will be eagerly anticipating the publication of RIS3 and hope for a coherent strategy to tackle congestion on the A5. However, given the broken promises so far, commitments may have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Wider investment is needed in our road network, not just to tackle today’s congestion, but to future-proof our major corridors. National Highways has projected that traffic on its roads will increase by 20% between now and 2050, but there is a complete lack of planning to prepare the strategic road network for the capacity that is needed.

We have to face this challenge together as the nations of the United Kingdom. I have not checked with the House of Commons Library, but I believe there are now about 40 million licensed vehicles on our roads. The figure has almost doubled in 30 years. At some stage, we have to make a decision. Yes, we have to help car drivers, but we must address how Government can begin to tackle that growth. We cannot continue with such vehicle numbers on our ever-shrinking highway network. It is important to lay that out.

Labour supports investment in our roads. Under this Government, the state of our roads has rapidly deteriorated. The issues discussed today are examples of wider endemic problems. From our country lanes to motorways, our road network has suffered more than a decade of under-investment. We need only look at what happened to highways maintenance funding last year: the Government slashed it, on average, by 22% across England. In the west midlands, the cut was even steeper. For instance, Government funding to pay for pothole repairs fell by a staggering 27% in the region, the second biggest cut in England.

We are now seeing the long-term nature of the cuts to road funding. Many local councils have been told that they can expect the cuts to their road maintenance grants to be embedded for the remainder of this Parliament. Last year, the annual local authority road maintenance survey found that it would take 11 years to clear the maintenance backlog, if local authorities had the funding and resources to do the work.

Labour has committed to rebuilding the infrastructure our communities depend on, as part of our contract with the British people. That starts by fixing the mess on our roads. We will invest in our strategic road network and our local roads alike to build a transport network that is fit for purpose, both now and in the future.

P&O Ferries and Employment Rights

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I have always been a glass half full type of guy, but, sadly, I have to completely agree with his interpretation of the situation. I do not see the urgency that is required to deal with this situation. If P&O thinks that it has the right to bring its weight to abuse its staff, the Government should be looking at what weight they can bring against its owners. Why should DP World be allowed within a mile of the London freeport project? It has shown itself to be a company without morals and without a care about regulation or legislation. Why should it be involved in one of the UK Government’s flagship projects? If the aim of freeports is to provide less regulation within each zone, we can have zero faith that even a minimal rulebook will be followed by DP World or any of its companies.

Until the despicable actions of last week are rectified, DP World should not be allowed anywhere near any Government projects or funding. Today we have found out more about how much P&O value its staff—this time, its new staff. Evidence has emerged, as has been mentioned, that those being used to bust workers at P&O may be paid just £1.81 an hour. P&O’s plan is to exploit the maritime employment regulations and give the bare minimum to the staff that it recruits. This means paying the International Labour Organisation minimums of £16.27 a day for an able seaman, or just £3.54 an hour for a cook. That is the reality of what P&O is trying to pull off here. It is plumbing the depths of wage slavery so that it can save a few quid.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend will have heard the Minister say that because some of this was commercially confidential, he was limited in what he could do or say the night before. When we hear stories about “balaclava-clad security guards” dragging people off ships, surely commercial confidentiality goes out of the window?

[Gavin Newlands]

Absolutely. I thank my right hon. Friend for that point, which speaks once again of how this Tory Government care more about the businesses than the employees. That is at the heart of this particular issue. The truth is—[Interruption.] We are being barracked from the Government Front Bench, but actions speak louder than words.

The truth of the matter is that this is a race to the bottom, pure and simple, with overseas workers on starvation wages and workers here tossed on the scrapheap for having the temerity to expect a decent salary. It is about exploiting the global south for cheap labour, with people shipped thousands of miles from their homes, with virtually no employment rights, and used as pawns by the likes of P&O in their attempts to break UK-based staff.

Over recent years, we have seen how P&O and other shipping companies have made mass use of ILO contracts to pay their staff the bare minimum. I have mentioned able seafarers, but cabin stewards on North sea routes receive £2 an hour and cooks less than £5. It is a scandal that, having driven wages so low across the maritime sector, P&O is now using that as an excuse for its victimisation of loyal, hard-working staff.

Back some quarter of a century ago, when I started my first ever part-time job at a certain well-known fast food restaurant at Glasgow airport, I was paid £2.70 an hour. That was thought of as a low wage even at that time, and it was, but here we are in 2022 and people are asked to move across the world and break their backs for pennies. Since the staff operate from UK ports but work for companies or on boats registered in other countries, they are exempt from the minimum wage legislation that governs the rest of us. That is a disgrace, and something that the Government and international partners must resolve as soon as possible.

It is shameful that this country allows such poverty wages and employment conditions—close to indentured labour—on boats that ply its waters day in, day out. That race to the bottom has meant the loss of hundreds of jobs at P&O and the continued exploitation of hundreds of other people.

Motorcycling: Government Support

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. Can I start with a declaration of sorts? I am a biker. I am proud to ride with YesBikers for Scottish independence and, like almost every other speaker, I am very happy to support many of the campaigns run by the Motorcycle Action Group, which I particularly thank for its help preparing for today.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) on securing this debate, which is important and not just for those who ride bikes. I agree with much that has been said on parking, theft, safety, dedicated spending on motorcycles and the condition of roads. The economic value of racing has also been mentioned—it is important and not spoken about often enough.

I do not want to concentrate too much on safety, but when I bring my motorbike to England and I see the removal of the hard shoulder on motorways in an attempt to create “smart” motorways, I do worry. If a motorcyclist breaks down—these things do happen—they are not given the protection of a car. The removal of the hard shoulder is something that will have to be very carefully monitored over the next few years in relation to injury and death when motorcyclists break down.

We are in the middle of a climate emergency. The stated policy of many Governments to move to net zero and cap the increase in the temperature of the planet is the right, indeed only, thing to do. Part of the solution will be to reduce carbon emissions from transport, which will include motorcycles. The determination to remove the need for new petrol and diesel vehicles from the 2030s onwards is the right course of action. Motorcycles already contribute significantly to reduced carbon emissions and improved air quality. Their contribution to tackling these issues will increase if innovation and engineering are supported to progress. A few electric motorbikes are available right now, but they are limited in number and actual range and are disproportionately expensive, and there is little or no second-hand market that would make them affordable for most people.

Given that motorcycles already contribute significantly to reduced carbon emissions, surely the Government should be supporting a modal shift from cars to motorcycles. The Leuven report alluded to by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) suggested that a 10% modal shift from cars to motorcycles reduces congestion for all road users by 40%, resulting in a 7.5% reduction in CO₂, a 5.5% reduction in nitrogen oxide, a reduction in exhaust particulate matter and a 16% reduction in non-exhaust particulate matter—mainly brakes and tires.

The recent Oxford Economics report commissioned by ACEM said that

“the average emission factor for a European motorcycle (up to 250cc) is 64g/km of CO2 emissions”.

That is equivalent to around one third the emissions of a car. Given that smaller motorcycles, including mopeds, account for 62% of the 22 million two-wheel vehicles on the whole of Europe’s roads, one can see the potential of even a modest modal shift from cars to motorcycles. Even larger bikes have a weighted CO₂ emission that is markedly lower than both petrol and diesel cars. As part of our carbon reduction strategy, even before the widespread introduction of electric bikes, the UK Government should be encouraging a move from cars to bikes. I ask the Minister, what precisely is being done to support that?

Turning to the support the Government should provide for safety, the Minister will know there is a great deal of commercial research into automated vehicles. It is shocking that it has taken five years to ensure that Euro NCAP testing of those systems will even test the ability to detect and react to motorcycles. More worryingly, one of the problems is that car sensors can fail to detect a motorcycle if it is barely a metre or so off-centre from the sensing vehicle. For the safety of bikers, and for road safety generally, I ask the Government never to introduce autonomous vehicles to roads here until we are certain that motorcycles can and will be detected.

On safety, pedal cyclists are rightly provided with segregated lanes and, as has been said, they are routinely allowed to use bus lanes. Yet there is no routine access for motorbikes to many bus lanes, which has always struck me as illogical. I ask the Government: what possible logic is there in not supporting bikers by allowing them access to bus lanes, particularly when pedal cyclists can routinely use them? If I can go further than what has been said, if we accept, as I believe we and the Government do, that a critical mass of pedal cyclists makes it safer for them because other road users, mainly car drivers, are used to seeing them and adjust their driving accordingly, surely to goodness the same applies for motorcyclists.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it also causes confusion when people move from one area where they can drive in bus lanes to another where they cannot? That confusion is unfair on motorcyclists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

I agree that is unfair. If there was a presumption that one could use a bus lane, except on the odd occasion where one could not, that would be a far more logical approach.

Finally, I turn to the Department for Transport consultation on vehicle regulation, which includes anti-tampering laws. It says:

“Specifically, we would look to create”—

among other things—

“a specific offence for removing, reducing the effectiveness of, or rendering inoperative a system, part or component for a vehicle…and advertising such services”.

Many people modify their bike for aesthetic or performance reasons. I can think of at least one common modification that would breach that new offence. Were one to change the petcock and carburettors on an old motorbike to replace a vacuum system with a gravity-feed system, one would be required to cap off the vacuum system—self-evidently. That would, at a stroke,

“bypass, defeat, reduce the effectiveness of or render inoperative a system, part or component”,

which is one of the proposed new offences. I gently ask the Minister what kind of madness is it that would see changing the carburettor on a motorbike become a criminal offence. That needs an awful lot of rethinking. In short, the Government should support the rights of bikers to work on their own machines, and not turn that perfectly normal activity into a crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. It is also a real pleasure to speak on this subject.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) on securing the debate. It has taken me back to when I was 16. Dad took me to the garage and unveiled my first motorbike, as I thought, though it was probably a moped—a 50 cc bright blue Honda Camino. I have since had many enjoyable days out riding pillion on bikes from a Honda 900 CBR Fireblade, through to my dad’s last bike, which was a Yamaha FZR1000. There were many conversations around the kitchen table about Royal Enfields, BSAs, Triumphs, Nortons and many great British bikes.

It is wonderful to hear of the enthusiasm for motorbikes. While being proud of the past, we are energised for the future and looking ahead to the decarbonisation of bikes and the continuance of sport, recreation and commuting. I have listened carefully to the valuable and thorough contributions to today’s debate, and it is a pleasure to be closing it.

One of the first things my hon. Friend asked for was confidence that motorbikes are appreciated. They certainly will be by me. We have not had long this afternoon, but I have heard a lot. I agree with Members about the importance of road safety for motorcycle users, and the key role that motorcycling can play in meeting our current mobility needs. There was a request for an acceptance of motorbikes. I assure my hon. Friends and other Members that they have my personal advocacy.

Before I go into detail on plans, I want to acknowledge some important challenges faced by motorcyclists. As has been pointed out, motorcycles make up an important and sizeable vehicle population on UK roads, with 1.4 million licensed in 2020. I am aware of the greater level of risk that motorcyclists face on our roads, compared with other road users. Although they make up just 1% of total road traffic, they account for 19% of all road user deaths. I mentioned the Honda 900 CBR Fireblade. It was owned by a good friend, who was sadly killed on his motorbike.

There were many references to the Motorcycle Action Group, which does a great deal of good both in lobbying for policy change and with its charitable work. I have had the pleasure of seeing that for myself in Copeland. That group’s work, along with that of other charitable organisations, is superb. Another example is the Nationwide Association of Blood Bikes, which transports blood, vaccines, plasma, platelets, samples, donor breast milk and other urgently required medical items to hospitals and healthcare sites. That is a life-saving service, which is provided completely free of charge by valiant volunteers, who offer their time for no pay or reward, allowing the NHS to divert funds where they are needed most.

Motorcyclists save our lives every day, and we must ensure the safety of theirs. Reducing the numbers of those needlessly killed and injured on our roads, especially vulnerable road users, is a key priority for the Department. That was evident in our road safety statement published in July 2019, which focused on the Department’s four priority road user groups: young road users, rural road users, motorcyclists and older vulnerable road users.

The statement described many actions that will contribute towards making our roads safer for all. Some of the actions that focused on motorcyclists included the promotion of the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency’s enhanced rider scheme to increase the uptake of post-test motorcycle training. It was interesting to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who I agree with on the good work that the police do in encouraging that advanced test—I was pleased to learn more about that. Other actions included the development of a training framework to encourage riders who complete compulsory basic training—CBT—to take full test training, and working with the motorcycle industry to encourage the use of protective equipment to reduce post-crash collision severity.

The way we move is changing, as is the way we live. The rise of the gig economy, and new apps that mean we can have anything delivered to our door in minutes, has increased the role of powered light vehicles. It is welcome that powered light vehicles, which are often a more affordable option than cars, can help people fill these jobs and satisfy this demand, but they must be able to do so safely. That is why, through the road safety statement, we commissioned research into the use of powered two-wheelers to better understand how we can reduce the safety risks encountered by these drivers and riders.

The Department remains committed to ensuring that motorcyclists are equipped with the specialist skills needed to stay safe on the road. The Department’s THINK! public awareness campaign has a motorcycle strategy that aims to create greater understanding between car drivers and motorcyclists. It also raises awareness about the steps that both parties can take to avoid collisions.

While I hope all of that reassures Members about how important motorcycle safety is to the Department, the work does not stop there—there is much more to do. We will shortly publish a new road safety strategic framework to improve our understanding of the risks and concerns of those who choose to ride. We have set out an ambitious future of transport programme, which aims to deliver significant advances for society, the environment and the economy. For vehicle standards we are conducting a regulatory review, which will help us enforce appropriate safety, security and environmental requirements. It will protect consumers, road users and the environment. There are three key ambitions for the review: first, we want to enable the introduction of safer, cleaner and more technologically advanced vehicles. Secondly, we want to ensure that swift remedial action can be taken if vehicle parts or safety related equipment placed on the UK market are found to be unsafe or non-compliant. Thirdly, we want to better prevent tampering with critical hardware or software where it negatively impacts on safety or the environment. I welcome the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe on that.

I see many opportunities for the role of motorcycles. Road vehicles are responsible for 91% of the UK’s annual domestic gas emissions from the transport sector. L-category vehicles are responsible for just 0.4% of that total. However, that does not mean that they should not be cleaned up, because decarbonising brings many associated benefits, in particular improving air quality and reducing the noise pollution that blights so many. That is why we have committed to delivering an action plan this year, through the Motorcycle Industry Association and Zemo Partnership, to build new UK opportunities for zero-emission light powered vehicles. We look forward to the launch of the action plan at Motorcycle Live in early December—an event I have heard much about in today’s debate and that I very much hope I can attend.

[Stewart Hosie]

I am glad the Minister has given some attention to the vehicle regulation review. I listened to what she said: it is to avoid tampering with safety equipment. That is perfectly reasonable at face value. If somebody removes the rear seat from a motorcycle, and with it the grab rails that are a safety feature on the rear fender, will they have committed an offence if the wording of the legislation ends up the same as in the consultation?

[Trudy Harrison]

The hon. Member asks a particularly technical question, the answer to which will be sent to him in writing.

Luton Airport Expansion

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been a few changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. I remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to anyone else on the call and us in the Boothroyd Room. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall, except when speaking.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the planned expansion of Luton Airport.

It is a real privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I am pleased to have secured this debate and to welcome the hon. Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) and for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who are keen to speak. I will keep my remarks to around 10 minutes, so that others can contribute.

Let me start with the history and background. Luton airport is poorly sited on top of a hill, with no direct access by mainline trains. Although the M1 is close by, there are very poor east-west transport links. The passenger transport modality still favours cars and taxis.

My constituency of St Albans lies some distance to the south of Luton airport. Until the latter part of the last decade, the existence of the airport was of little consequence to the residents of St Albans. However, two main changes have taken place in that time, causing significant disruption to residents of the city and the surrounding towns and villages. First, in the 10 years to 2019, passenger numbers have doubled from little more than 9 million to a record 19 million in 2019. That has resulted in a 50% increase in aircraft movements over the same period. Secondly, the ever-increasing number of flights arriving and departing the airport are being concentrated in a very narrow corridor between St Albans and Harpenden. The area navigation, or RNAV, system, introduced in 2015, has exacerbated the misery of my constituents by directing planes to fly over the same homes and communities over and over again.

Let me start with aircraft noise. It will come as no surprise that the most pressing concern of my constituents is the noise from those flights. For many, the noise disrupts their peace and quiet and their sleep and rest, and is a major distraction from work and recreation. There is also increasing evidence that this noise can have a profound effect on physical and mental health. A study carried out by Queen Mary University of London for the Airports Commission in 2015 identified increased incidences of heart disease, stroke, obesity and diabetes in the areas studied, as well as negative effects on psychological health and overall wellbeing. More research is needed, but I raise that study to shine a spotlight on how seriously we must take all the legitimate complaints of local residents.

The next issue is expansion and consultation. Luton set out a very aggressive growth plan a decade ago. It was egged on by the Department for Transport’s aviation policy framework of 2013, which encouraged airports such as Luton to make best use of their existing capacity. That led to a free-for-all for regional airports, squeezing in as much traffic as possible into often inappropriate locations. Luton airport and its owners, Luton Borough Council, appear during that period to have ignored the expectation in the framework that

“growth in aviation should ensure that benefits are shared between the aviation industry and local communities.”

When the last major expansion application was approved in 2012, it was to double passenger capacity from 9 million to 18 million. At that time, the growth was envisaged to be over a period of 15 years to 2028 but, pre-pandemic, that capacity had already been maxed out. The approval went hand in hand with noise control limits, to be achieved by the modernisation of the operating fleet over that period. Community campaigning groups such as St Albans Quieter Skies and the Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise were both given assurances by the operators that expansion plans were to be mitigated by that revolutionary technology. They understood that as the skies got busier they would also become quieter.

In fact, those groups tell me that the opposite has happened. The uncontrolled growth of operations means that the 2028 limits were not only reached but exceeded in 2019. The huge spike in passenger numbers has meant greater numbers of aircraft, and even larger, noisier ones. That has resulted in the noise control limit being breached with increasing severity in 2017, 2018 and a record-busting 2019, the same year in which the number of permitted passengers was also breached. Trust from community groups and residents has therefore completely broken down. They describe how they have been fobbed off with talk of the introduction of quieter planes, and asked to ignore real-world data showing that they are at best only marginally quieter than the ones they replaced. What measures will the Minister take to compel Luton to keep its promises on real, meaningful noise mitigation? What can he do to speed up the much needed improvements to already congested airspace, to reduce the noise impact on Hertfordshire residents?

I will turn now to the question of the climate emergency, and emissions. The newer aircraft were supposed to be quieter, but there was also a requirement that they would be less polluting. Any further expansion to the airport must take into account the devastating impact of increased air traffic on climate change and the grave health consequences of further air pollution for neighbouring districts. Once again, community groups such as LADACAN and STAQS have pressed Luton airport on what progress is being made on reducing emissions from its operations; once again they are being given the runaround. The operators are keen to espouse the improvements that they are making to airport operations, but the airport buildings account for only 3% of emissions. The overwhelming majority of carbon emissions are from the aircraft themselves, and the surface transport to get to the planes—cars dropping off and picking up passengers. The airport tells me that those 97% of emissions are out of its control. What can the Minister do to reconcile the further expansion of operations at Luton with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee that

“demand cannot continue to grow unfettered”?

Will he commit to making sure that there is no further growth in capacity at all until the promised noise reductions are delivered and aircraft have switched to sustainable aviation fuel?

Finally, I want to touch on a real or perceived conflict of interest. We have been told that the rapid growth to 2019 was unprecedented and unexpected. We are apparently expected to ignore the incentivisation deal by Luton Borough Council, the owner of the airport, which encouraged airport operators and their airlines to deliver consistent year-on-year growth. All the while, I and my constituents look on as Luton Borough Council spends tens of millions of pounds preparing an application for a development control order to more than double capacity—again—to 32 million passengers per annum. At the heart of those plans is a complicated arrangement whereby Luton Borough Council owns the airport but the airport supposedly has an arm’s length company running it, and contracts an apparently independent operator. Somehow we are expected to believe that the owner of the airport, Luton Borough Council, has no input into the strategy of continued expansion.

The reality, as I have demonstrated, is that the authority is more than happy to incentivise growth at its airport. That is where the whole arrangement becomes most troubling. The authority charged with making impartial judgments on planning and enforcement matters at the airport stands to lose the most from rejecting applications for expansion, and from enforcement. There is understandable concern that although noise control limits were breached over the three years to 2019 no apparent enforcement action has been taken by the planning authority to remedy the situation in the same period. Instead, we see the submission of a further planning application to regularise the breaches to make the problem go away.

I do not accuse the local authority of any legal or procedural impropriety, but it is very difficult for a casual observer to be persuaded that there is no predisposition for Luton Borough Council to be in favour of expansion. It is well documented that the airport is an enterprise that keeps the council solvent; in fact, there have been accusations that it is too reliant on it as an income stream.

When the expansion of the airport was last debated in this place just over three years ago, it was in the context of the medium to long-term proposal to increase the passenger limit at Luton to 32 million. I was encouraged by the Minister who responded to that debate, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who said that the Government would take the decision about expansion out of the hands of the local authority as a nationally significant infrastructure application.

Today, I take the opportunity to ask the Minister if he will ensure that the decision on the current planning application, which would increase the passenger limit to 90 million, is called in by the Secretary of State. That is absolutely critical to restore the trust of our local communities; a first step on that journey would be to make sure that the decision is not only impartial but seen to be impartial.

In conclusion, I accept that this debate takes place in the shadow of the pandemic. Luton, like other airports, has seen an extraordinary reduction in the demand for flights as we have faced rolling lockdowns and indeterminate travel restrictions. However, the airport tells me that it wants to ramp back up as soon as it can. That is all the more reason to put the brakes on these irresponsible expansion plans.

The airport operators have voiced concern that there will be an oversupply of capacity at many airports for some time as we recover from covid. I would like to ask the Minister whether the situation presents a unique opportunity to re-evaluate Luton’s suitability as a high-capacity air hub in light of the airspace constraints, its poor location and its highly irregular ownership structure.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

For a brief contribution, I call Richard Fuller.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Thank you very much indeed for calling me, Mr Hosie, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I also thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), first for permitting me to speak in this debate, but more importantly for her consistent campaigning against the further expansion of Luton airport. She is right to call out Luton airport for its excessive and rapid growth and consistent breaches of noise limitations, and because expansion is inconsistent with our environmental goals and our pathway to net zero. Minister, the current application for further expansion of Luton airport is an egregious example of a disregard of the principles of net zero, and that alone is sufficient reason for the Government to oppose it.

The other issue that she rightly mentioned is the conflict of interest between Luton Borough Council—Luton’s unitary council—and the airport expansion. As the Minister knows, it is a great concern for local residents in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire that somehow Luton’s local authority has a major conflict of interest and it is right and responsible for the Minister to act. In fact, the Minister has an opportunity to act. He has an opportunity to stop the consultation on air flight pathways between Luton and Stansted. That would give him further time to consider what should happen. As the hon. Member for St Albans said, he can call in this expansion plan and provide confidence to residents in Bedfordshire that due diligence and a proper appraisal of it will be undertaken.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

For an equally brief contribution, I call Bim Afolami.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) on securing this important debate on Luton airport expansion. I recognise the importance of this matter to her constituents, and to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) and for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I know it matters a great deal to them and I welcome the chance to respond on behalf of the Government.

For context, the UK enjoys one of the best connected, best value and safest aviation industry of anywhere in the world, and that strong industry is vital as we build a truly global Britain and level up the country. It is important to recognise at the outset the great social and economic benefits that the growth of the aviation sector has brought. Airports serve local communities, support thousands of jobs, and connect places and people across our Union and the world. Before the pandemic, the sector contributed at least £22 billion to GDP each year and supported approximately half a million jobs in the UK.

Turning specifically to Luton airport itself, the Government welcomes the ambition of airports to provide better facilities and choice for passengers, and there has been significant investment in the terminal, airside and surface. I look forward to the opening of the Luton DART, or direct air-rail transit, in 2022. That £225 million infrastructure will support more sustainable travel to the airport. Pre-covid, Luton airport provided impressive connectivity with 128 routes serving destinations across Europe, the middle east and north Africa, illustrating the importance of global travel and spreading global understanding. Luton airport is a key employer in the local area, supporting around 30,000 jobs in 2019, and contributing £1.5 billion to the UK economy and £500 million to the local economy surrounding the airport.

The Government are supportive of airports making the best use of their existing facilities. However, we recognise that the operation and development of airports can have negative, as well as positive, impacts for local communities. In particular, I have listened to the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden and for North East Bedfordshire. They made excellent points in their speeches and I will continue to consider them in the weeks and months ahead. I look forward to working with them.

The Government’s position is that proposals for development should be judged by the relevant planning authority, taking careful account of all relevant considerations, particularly economic and environmental impacts, and proposed mitigations. Specifically on noise, the Government’s aim is that any management strategies and necessary mitigation are developed and decided on locally, wherever possible. The Government’s involvement should be where there are strategic decisions to be made, such as the national night flight policy currently being consulted on.

I am aware that Luton’s proposed application for a development consent order would involve construction of a new second terminal to the north of the runway. Local people have had the opportunity to consider and comment on that proposal, as part of the statutory consultation undertaken by Luton. That consultation ran between October and December 2019 and asked for feedback on all aspects of the proposal, including the layout, surface access, environmental mitigation, land assembly and compensation. I welcome the ambition and the proposed further investment from Luton, but, as the final decision on Luton’s proposed development consent order rests with the Secretary of State for Transport, I hope hon. Members will understand that it is not appropriate for me to comment any further at this stage.

Turning to airspace, I am aware of the proposed new Luton airborne holding stack and the arrival arrangements. I am also aware of the concerns about increased overflight and noise in those communities that may be affected. That has been mentioned by all hon. Members today. I am conscious that some of that arises out of the earlier performance-based navigation changes, which is the corridor to which the hon. Member for St Albans refers.

The Civil Aviation Authority is the consenting authority for airspace changes. It is important to distinguish between the planning process with regards to land, and the airspace changes that are linked, of course, but are separate from the planning process. None the less, local authorities have the opportunity to consider and comment on proposed changes that could affect them. The Air Navigation Guidance 2017, which was itself subject to a major public consultation in early 2017, is embedded in the Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP1616 process. It is relatively new and is just beginning to take effect, but it requires airspace change sponsors to undertake air pollution and noise impact assessments of their proposals. It requires airspace sponsors to actively engage and consult with key stakeholders, including communities, on their proposals.

When determining those proposals, the CAA will consider the environmental benefits, the operational requirements and the impact on communities. The CAA will also consider how the sponsors have reacted to the consultation feedback that they have received. We will expect a proposal to be submitted to the CAA over the summer. I hope hon. Members will understand that, given the potential for Ministers to call in the airspace change proposal, I am unable to make any further comments on Luton’s specific proposal.

I turn to climate change, which has quite rightly been raised by all hon. Members who spoke today. The Government of course recognise that the fight against climate change is the greatest and most pressing of the challenges facing our modern world. All hon. Members will know that the UK was the first major economy to pass laws to end our contribution to climate change by 2050. We will be setting out ambitious plans in the run-up to COP26 this year. The jets that we see today are approximately twice as efficient and half as polluting, not to mention much quieter, than the ones that looked similar but were flying 20 years ago. However, we know that more can be done. The Government’s starting point is that emissions, not aviation—emissions, not flights—are the problem.

We are taking decisive action in establishing, for example, the Jet Zero Council. The council, whose plenary met again last week, is a partnership between industry and the Government, with the aim of delivering zero emission transatlantic flights within a generation. It is focused on developing UK capabilities to deliver both net zero and zero emission commercial flight. That includes considering how to develop and industrialise clean aviation and aerospace technologies, establishing UK production facilities for sustainable aviation fuels and developing a co-ordinated approach to the policy and regulatory framework that is needed to deliver net zero by 2050.

We are the first major economy in the world to pass laws to end our contribution to global warming by 2050. We have recently launched the green fuels, green skies competition, which is a £15 million funding programme to support the development of first-of-its-kind production plants, with the aim of producing sustainable aviation fuel plants at scale in the UK. That builds on the success of the earlier future fuels for flight and freight competition. In addition, £3 million will be used to establish a sustainable aviation fuel clearing house, alongside the commitment to consult on a SAF blending mandate later this year.

I am keen to stress that the Government recognise that we cannot act in isolation. Aviation emissions are an inherently global issue. For a country where more than 90% of those emissions originate from international flights, co-ordinated global action is especially important if we are effectively to tackle the sector’s climate impact. The UK continues to take a leading role in the work of ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, to reduce emissions from international aviation. We are determined to see ICAO’s carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation succeed. The UK volunteered to take part in that scheme from the start. We continue to advocate for increased environmental integrity within CORSIA.

Although airports are a key part of our commitment to global connectivity, we are also a Government who are committed to a greener future. We take our commitments on the environment, clean air and reducing carbon emissions very seriously, and the expansion of any airport must always meet our climate change obligations. In the coming months, the Department will be consulting on a net zero aviation strategy that will set out the steps we will take to achieve net zero ambitions by 2050, and I warmly welcome contributions from all hon. Members present and their constituents as part of that consultation.

In conclusion, the Government are committed to a world-leading aviation sector. We are also committed to ensuring the sector can grow in a sustainable way, and I look forward to discussing that further in the weeks and months ahead.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

As this is a half-hour debate, there is no winding up or summing up.

Question put and agreed to.

RNLI and Independent Lifeboats: Covid-19

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members that there have been some changes to normal practice, to support social distancing. Please sanitise the microphones using the cleaning materials provided before you use them. Respect the one-way system in the Chamber. That means going in one door, and walking this way, and leaving by the other door. Members can speak only from the horseshoe. There is no requirement to stay after speaking, although Members may wish to do so. In an oversubscribed debate, if there are Members waiting to speak in what used to be the Public Gallery, please make way for them after you have spoken. I think that that covers it. Finally, this is quite a busy debate, with 10 or 11 additional Members down to speak. If Members stick to four minutes each, everyone will be called.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Mangnall]

My hon. Friend says it better than I could, and I will only say that I wholeheartedly agree with her. Perhaps in the near future I can come on a visit to her lifeboat station. Excluding an emergency service from information that is likely to increase the demand on its services is not only inexplicable, it is dangerous to members of the British public. Before I come on to independent lifeboats, it is particularly welcome to hear that the RNLI recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. After hundreds of years of working together, that official step formally affirms the collective aspiration to save lives at sea, and emphasises the dedication and determination to provide the UK and its people with another century of coastal coverage.

This year has seen an incredible rise in domestic tourism. My own constituency has never felt better. The town of Salcombe in my constituency saw a turnover of 35,000 people per week, and the figure for Dartmouth was only slightly lower. The dramatic increase in coastline visitors undoubtedly heaps pressure and demand on our independent lifeboats and the RNLI. The whole House will agree with me that they have responded in a manner that is a credit to their professionalism, training and structure. Our independent lifeboats are derived from the RNLI and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. As the RNLI and the MCA have changed their structures, communities have often stepped forward and maintained their lifeboat stations and crews as independent, self-funding entities. My own constituency is home to the Hope Cove Life Boat, one of the UK’s 60 independent lifeboats. I joined it this summer to discuss the impact of covid on its operations, and committed to holding a Westminster Hall debate. I am delighted to be able to deliver on that promise. That said, I am now acutely aware of the challenges faced by our independent lifeboats: the lack of recognition for lifeboats independent from the RNLI, organisational issues, lower levels of funding with the phasing-out of the Government’s grant scheme and, of course, the impact of covid. I will address each of those points. Identity is key, and identity challenges are just that: challenging. Our independent lifeboats have great difficulty stepping out of the shadow of the RNLI. More often than not, those who donate to the RNLI think they are contributing to all lifeboat stations across the United Kingdom. This is not the case. Today’s debate is, I hope, the first in many steps in helping to raise awareness about our independent lifeboat stations and to inform members of the public about the difference between independent lifeboats and the RNLI.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) held an event in Parliament a few years ago that was attended by many members of the independent lifeboat community. I understand that at that meeting proposals for an independent lifeboat association were raised. I would like to build on this idea, but rather than create another bureaucratic body that ties down hard-working volunteers, I would respectfully ask that each Member of Parliament whose constituency is home to an independent lifeboat meets me and other representatives from independent lifeboats, to discuss how we might ably and effectively embolden the voice of our independent lifeboats.

Such an association might initially just record the data of each station from the operating expense to the capital expense cost, from budget submission to call-out information and response times. From there, the information could be collated, documented and centralised, to create a clearer picture of the work done by our incredible independent lifeboats.

That association—which, for brevity’s sake, we shall call the ILA—would create an informal organisational structure around independent lifeboats and help to ensure that their voice is heard by the UK Government and members of the public. We could go one step further and encourage the nomination of a representative from one of the 60 independent lifeboats, so as to be able to educate, inform and engage members of the public and Members of Parliament. Such a representation could then represent all independent lifeboats on the UK search and rescue body, rather than the current system where the representation of independent lifeboats is made through the RNLI. I hope everyone is keeping up with this.

I hope the Minister will consider supporting these proposals. I am conscious of the time and I know that a number of hon. Members want to contribute to this debate. I have two quick final points. First, we have all recognised that fundraising efforts have been significantly curtailed due to covid-19, and for small, independent lifeboats fundraising is a lifeline, year on year. Coupled with the expensive cost of personal protective equipment, which has to be more durable at sea, they have suffered huge impacts on their budgets.

I wrote to the Minister on this matter over the summer, with a great deal of support from hon. Members attending this debate. I thank him for his response. The letter raised my concern around PPE costs for independent lifeboats and the RNLI. The RNLI is not calling for any form of reimbursement, but many of the independent lifeboat stations are. I ask the Minister to look again at that letter and to set up a fund that can be made available to independent lifeboat stations, so that they can recoup their costs around PPE. A temporary fund would not only be a significant step in the right direction but would be widely welcomed.

Secondly, the rescue boat grant scheme was set up in 2014 as a five-year scheme of £5 million. The last phase of bidding ended last year. If my information is correct—or my spies are correct—I understand there is a possibility that the scheme could be reintroduced. I hope the Minister will recognise, given the attendance today, that our lifeboat stations are of significant importance to many hon. Members, and reintroducing that rescue boat grant scheme would be welcomed on both sides of the House and across the country. Groups such as the Severn Area Rescue Association have told me that another five years of that grant would provide the breathing space for independent lifeboats to recover from 2020 and plan long into the future.

Of course, the work of independent lifeboat stations and the RNLI would not be possible without the extraordinary help of the National Coastwatch Institution. With 57 stations and over 2,500 watchkeepers, it works intimately with lifeboat stations to maintain a watchful eye across our coastline. If any Member of Parliament finds themselves walking along the south west coastal path, as I did this summer, I urge them to visit Prawle Point Coastguard station. Not only will they be greeted by a magnificent view, but they will see the extraordinary work done by the NCI. I hope that any decision made today and in the future will consider how integral these networks are and why we need to maintain them.

I have spoken at length about the value of the RNLI and our independent lifeboats. I hope the Minister will recognise the necessity of ensuring clear channels of communication with the RNLI and to bring it into the fold with the four other paid emergency services. As for the independent lifeboats, there is a great deal of work that we can do as Members of Parliament. The Government should support our steps to create this new ILA, renew the rescue boat grant scheme and, of course, cover the costs of PPE.

As one Twitter user said to me in response to Parliament’s digital engagement on this topic, we should always support those who risk their lives to save others. I am in awe of the volunteers who brave the harshest elements to rescue those who find themselves in trouble at sea. These key-sector workers need our support, our applause and our commitment. I hope this will be the first of many debates, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Before we continue the debate, I will say two things. First, if the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) wants to take a seat in the horseshoe, she is more than welcome. Secondly, 11 Members are due to speak before the summing up, which will begin at 3.30 pm, so if everyone could speak for just shy of four minutes, everything will be perfect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I, too, commend the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for securing this debate and for the way in which he constructed his opening remarks, and I think his views will be shared across the Chamber.

Like many other Members, I represent a coastal community and a constituency where people have for generations gone to sea for work, secure in the knowledge that, should anything ever happen to them, they would be supported by independent lifeboats or the RNLI. For close to 200 years, crews have gone out and put their lives at risk to protect and save others who come into unfortunate situations.

RNLI Buckie in my constituency is a station that I have visited on many occasions in my time as an elected representative. I will use today’s debate, if I may, to make some remarks about Adam Robertson, who died suddenly just days before his 70th birthday. Adam was an integral part of the Buckie RNLI station and its operations for more than 30 years. As with many RNLI or independent lifeboat volunteers, Adam’s professional life was not at sea, but on the land. For 30 years, he had a career in building control with Moray Council. When I was a councillor for a decade, I often met Adam in the corridors of council headquarters. We would stop to have a blether, and he was always well informed, but also generous with his time. He was someone I respected a lot.

Adam initially became involved with the RNLI at Buckie when he helped to organise its annual gala days as part of its fundraising efforts. He rose through the ranks to become responsible for ensuring that the Buckie lifeboat was always ready to go to sea and for arranging ambulance support on land when it was required. He was a genuine stalwart of the RNLI and the local community for decades. He was also an officer with the Boys’ Brigade, and for many years he helped to organise the annual fireworks display in Portgordon, which draws thousands of people to the coastal village every year. As a councillor, an MSP and an MP, I always helped with the stewarding at Portgordon fireworks, and every year Adam was there to do the security briefing to ensure that everyone knew where they had to go and what they had to do. He did that in a purposeful and powerful, but always respectful, manner. Although we will not be having Portgordon fireworks this year, when we meet again we will remember Adam and all the help he gave that organisation and many others throughout his near 70 years.

Adam’s wife said:

“He was a family man who would do anything for anyone, his love for the community was exactly the same.”

That is what the RNLI and our independent lifeboats are all about at heart. Groups like the Buckie lifeboat team are filled with community volunteers who sacrifice their time to help others. We thank them for their dedication and the work that they do.

I also want to mention the Moray Inshore Rescue Organisation, based at Findhorn, which is an independent lifeboat organisation that does so much. We are indebted in Moray for the work that our independent lifeboat and the RNLI do day in, day out. They work both at sea and on land, educating our young people about the dangers and the safety that they need to bear in mind. Their community work right the way through our towns and villages is something that we all respect and congratulate them on, and it is something we can all get behind.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes for giving us this opportunity to pay tribute to our independent lifeboats and the RNLI and for allowing me to put on record my thanks to and admiration of Adam Robertson for everything he did for Buckie RNLI for more than 30 years.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Given that a few speakers on the call list are not here, I am pleased to say that the remaining speakers can now take five minutes.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

Since this Government came to power, funding for the Scottish Parliament has been cut. Since 2009-10, it has been cut by around 11% in real terms, but, within that, capital expenditure has been cut by around 25%, and that is a common story around the country. Decisions taken by this Government so far mean that the Scottish Government have some £3.5 billion less in real terms to spend than they otherwise would have had.

The changes announced today will make no substantive improvement to the fiscal position in Scotland. Indeed, the cumulative impact of today’s announcements will lead, over the next five years, to a real-terms cut of around £12 billion. This is very much an austerity Government.

What this Budget and the Red Book also tell us is that the Government and the Chancellor have failed on all the substantive targets that they set for themselves. They promised that debt would fall as a share of GDP by 2014-15, that the current account would be in balance by 2015-16 and that the public sector net borrowing that year would be some £20 billion. The debt will not now fall as a share of GDP until the next financial year. The current account will not be in the black for two more years, and the £20 billion borrowing promise will be almost four times that at £75 billion for 2015-16.

In essence, the Chancellor has failed to meet all of his own targets. With Tory and Liberal Democrat policy having strangled recovery in 2010 and 2011 and with some £50 billion of cuts to come—that is the difference between the £106 billion achieved and the £126 billion of cuts promised and the other £30 billion threatened today—we are on track, unless there is a change, for a decade of austerity. And still not a single one of the Chancellor’s major targets has been met.

Amid the rhetorical flourishes, the Chancellor talked about recovery and suggested he was lifting some of the burdens on working people. I notice that he did not apologise for trying to rebalance the economy on the backs of the poor. In essence, this was a political platform for an election. We know that because if we look at the impact not of the threatened future cuts but of today’s Budget announcements we see that the Government will take an extra £1 billion either in tax rises or in cuts to services over the next three years. Not only was the Budget not fiscally neutral, it did not provide any stimulus that we need.

Of course the Chancellor did say a deal about tax, particularly about increasing thresholds, which I welcome. I was intrigued by the notion of increasing the 40p threshold, not least because the number of people paying the 40p rate has increased by 2.5 million over the past 25 years, 1.5 million of whom have emerged in the period of this Parliament. We now have almost 5 million paying a rate of tax that used to be for the rich. There is a question over the affordability of that change and the time scale on which it will be delivered, but we will come to that later.

The Budget also confirmed that for some of the poorest in society the misery of the austerity programme will continue. We know that the proportion of cuts to tax rises has moved from 4:1 to 9:1, which is the clearest indication that the Government are trying to balance the books on the back of the poor. We know that the pain of that will be felt in Scotland by the 145,000 households affected by the changes to incapacity benefit, with people losing about £2,000 each. It will be felt by the 370,000 households who have seen tax credits reduced by almost £1,000 a year. It will be felt by the 620,000 families hit by the child benefit freeze, who are losing £170 a year. It will be felt by the 120,000 people losing, on average, £2,500 a year as disability living allowance is removed. It will be felt by the 835,000 households hit by the 1% cap on benefit increases—almost 1 million people in Scotland alone are hit by that one measure.

That is important in the context of this Budget, because there is now a growing body of opinion, including not least the OECD, that suggests we do not simply need a growing economy to fund our welfare provision; we need to squeeze inequality out of the system to help to deliver a growing and booming economy. Once again, I suggest that the Government are swimming against the tide of informed public opinion.

Many of those austerity measures will have to be mitigated using the precious resources of the Scottish Government: £114 million on the Scottish welfare fund, £69 million on the council tax reduction scheme and £90 million to mitigate the bedroom tax—almost £300 million to mitigate the dreadful decisions of this Government. Why do we not devolve welfare so that rather than having to use our precious resources to mitigate bad Tory decisions, we simply do not make them in the first place?

What the Chancellor did tell us today was that he finally expects to see some substantive and prolonged growth, which of course is to be welcomed, but others have noted that we still have the drag-back from the impact of the balance of trade, which appears to be negative for the entire forecast period. I welcome what he said early in his statement about help for UK Trade & Investment with regard to exports to China, but China is only one of many countries and I fear that, in and of itself, that will not be enough to turn the negative impact of the balance of trade into a positive one.

I am also glad that the Government have U-turned on their North sea policy, particularly in relation to the reduction in the supplementary charge—an increase early in this Parliament that should never have happened—but that, in and of itself, does not make for a long-term economic plan. A long-term economic plan would require the Chancellor to change course, away from a further £30 billion of new austerity cuts, away from an approach that continues to put the recovery at risk and away from a further attack on public services and the poor; in short, away from an approach to fiscal consolidation that has damaged not only the public services but the economy and undermined attempts to improve the public finances.

How much better it would have been, as a genuine alternative, had the Government recognised that their plans have failed, which they have, and adopted a stance that, rather than inflicting further cuts, allowed for a modest 0.5% increase in public spending, which would see a real end to austerity and, essentially, see the deficit continue to fall, see debt fall as a share of GDP and deliver up to £180 billion of investment across the UK over the next Parliament, rather than the miserable plans and additional austerity cuts we have seen today.

Our judgment is that this was neither a Budget to strengthen a recovery, nor a Budget for fairness or for tackling inequality. There was no long-term economic plan, merely a long-term austerity plan. It was a political Budget, as ever, from an all-too political Chancellor. As I am sure many of us have said in the past, the Tory Back Benchers might have waved their Order Papers today, but they will pay the price at the ballot box on 7 May.

High Speed Rail

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I welcome the statement, thank the Secretary of State for advanced notice of it and recognise the Government’s ambitions for reduced journey times to Scotland. However, reducing journey times to Glasgow and Edinburgh, and further along the east coast to Dundee and Aberdeen, would require HS2 to go beyond Manchester and Leeds. I know that the Secretary of State is doing this in a phased way, but when will he be in a position to tell the House the time scale for the completion of HS2, so that every major city on the island will be able to benefit from it?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I face a dilemma because some people want us to go a lot faster while others among my colleagues do not want us to go at all. We will have to bear that in mind, but I hope that we will have fuller plans before any decision is made about independence. That depends, however, on whether the hon. Gentleman can let me know the date of the referendum.