Russia’s Grand Strategy

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

It is a privilege to be called in this debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for having secured it, and indeed to the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), who has elucidated many points that I know many on all sides share. It is only a shame that those who were such strong advocates for Putin’s murderous campaign in Salisbury are not in the Chamber today to defend their hero. However, we will have to address the issues that they would have raised anyway, because what we are dealing with here is not simply a foreign policy challenge—this is not a foreign adventure or a foreign land about which we know little—but, fundamentally, a challenge to the British people, the United Kingdom, our islands, our nations and our communities about how we defend ourselves in a changed world.

It is Christmas time, and I know many of us have children spoiled by grandparents who will try to force them in front of things such as “The Nutcracker” or “Swan Lake”, while we snooze quietly on the sofa pretending to concentrate, and moments like that remind us of the Soviet days. At moments of great difficulty, such as when the Soviet regime was under pressure—when various geriatric leaders were dying quietly in their beds, surrounded by even older members of the Politburo finding another one of their own to replace them—or when the Soviets were worried that coups were coming and change was imminent, Soviet TV played “Swan Lake”, “The Nutcracker” and, in fact, anything from Tchaikovsky.

Christmas will be a reminder for many of us that change is not necessarily that far away, and we are not alone in thinking that. Those sitting today in the Kremlin are aware of it. They know that their position is extremely vulnerable. They know that their claim to have the support of 70%, 80% or 90% of the local electorate is complete rubbish. They know that the reality of their support is very thin. What we are seeing today is not grand strategy in the sense of trying to do what the Soviets tried to do or Stalin tried to do, which was to try to move west as far as the Atlantic or to dominate parts of Africa. This is grand strategy for the Putin regime in the sense of surviving until tomorrow morning, then waking up and surviving until the morning after, and then doing it again and again and again.

This is a very fundamentally flawed regime. We are not really talking about Russia here; we are talking about a small cabal of kleptocrats, thieves and liars who have stolen one of the great countries of the world. It is a country, as I have said, that gave us so many artists, musicians, scientists, mathematicians and, indeed, even people who have advanced the life of the British people with inventions such as graphene, which Manchester University has done so well to develop. This is an amazing country. This is a country that really should have a grand strategy, and that grand strategy should be to invest in education, in connections and roads, in health and in the people who have made so much of Europe great, who have brought so many ideas to the world and who have brought so much joy to many hearts—not to mine perhaps but to my five-year-old daughter’s, as she loves the ballet. The problem is that those policies are not being followed, and they are not being followed for the very simple reason that they do not enrich the small band of brigands who sit round the table today. Putin and his 40 thieves sit there, getting richer and richer.

The latest estimate I have heard, and it is only an estimate, is that Mr Putin controls somewhere north of the equivalent of $200 billion. Of course that is not all in Russia—a lot of it is spread around the world—and very sadly, for those who read the works of Oliver Bullough, Luke Harding, Catherine Belton and many others, too much of it is here. Too much of it has flowed through our systems, our pipes, to be laundered, processed and channelled into areas where it can be redeployed and reused to further the advances of that same group of thieves.

This is a tragedy, and it is a tragedy for two reasons. One, it leaves the Russian people enslaved to a mob, the victims of a corrupt and despotic regime. Two, it is more tragic because the people we all represent and serve are also victims who are left damaged by this process. Our own financial system is harmed by that corruption, our own property networks are exploited by that corruption, our schools are devalued and our universities are stripped out. None of it is total, but it is certainly true that all our systems are damaged by the level of corruption that we see tolerated by a very small number of people in this country, and that is wrong.

I was privileged to work with many Members who are in the Chamber today on the 2018 Foreign Affairs Committee report, “Moscow’s Gold”, on the spread of dirty Russian money through our organisations. I was privileged to highlight some of the areas where we can do better, and we have been discussing how we might update that report in the coming weeks and months. We know there is a lot to do, so we will be looking more at where this money is going. We will be highlighting, as others have today, the overseas territories. We will be looking, as many others have highlighted, at how energy projects are used to exploit our dependence on petrochemicals and our dependence on energy, and to turn that dependence against us.

Those are the key reasons why this is about us, but there is a third reason why this is not just about a foreign country or just about Moscow, and why it is not even just about Kiev and Ukraine, although we must stand with the courageous individuals who are today defending their homes against Russian aggression, or rather Putin’s aggression. The third reason is that there is a direct link to our interests here. The reality is that the priorities of our people are, quite rightly, healthcare, education and transport. The interests that we share rely on having a world that works within a system of rules that support and defend free people to exploit their talents and opportunities to grow the economy, to invest for the future, to plan and to reap what they sow. What Putin and his regime are doing is what dictators do all over the world: they shorten the horizon, they cut down investment angles, they make it harder to develop, they make it harder to co-operate and collaborate, and they push people over the border and through illegal migration routes out of fear of persecution at home. Fundamentally, for our people, we must stand up with other NATO countries to defend ourselves against what we are seeing today.

I come back to my initial point. This is not a grand strategy; this is a cheap trick by a two-bit hustler playing a shi—excuse me, a shyster’s game. I believe that is acceptable. It is a shyster’s game that is being witnessed around the world. It is pretending to be a genuine strategic play, but it is not—it is not. It is a very, very low-grade trick, but because we have not stood up, because we have not been willing to be as firm as we can be, and because we have weakened ourselves with our European NATO partners and partners around the world, we are seeing ourselves undermined by it. We can stand up. We can kick out the dirty money—it is not that much in UK terms. We can, with allies, defend ourselves. We can stand with the Russian people, and with great people around the world, and reject this band of thieves and kleptocrats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

But we are where we are, and one of the mistakes of these sorts of debates is to equate Putin, for all his faults and his corruption, with Hitler. I would suggest that we are where we are in Crimea, and there is no doubt about the fact that the majority of the population want to be Russian. They may not have been transferred in the right way, but that is the fact. But Putin is not Hitler. It is true that, whoever becomes the leader of Russia, they will try to hold and to build on the influence in territories that were part of the Soviet Union. That is Russian grand strategy. People may not agree with it and they may not understand it, but it is a fact of life.

On the NATO point, I am confused about why people constantly argue that the way to solve this problem is for Ukraine to become part of NATO. In recently divulged documents, US Secretary of State James Baker said to President Gorbachev on 9 February 1990:

“We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”

The truth is that Ukraine is not going to join NATO. It would be a provocative act, and in constantly talking about it in this Chamber and in the west as if it is likely to happen, we are simply providing an excuse for President Putin to play the game of being the underdog and of Russia being threatened, so why do we do it? When we know NATO is never actually going to absorb Ukraine, why do we go on talking about it?

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. Friend is making a reasonable point about whether something may or may not happen, but does he at least accept the point that free countries can choose to associate with whomever they like? Some join the European Union, some join the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, some join NATO and some join the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Do the Ukrainian people not have a say in this, or do they actually belong to Russia?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Yes, but it is not going to happen, for this reason: President Biden is not the sort of President who is ever going to do it. He is a weak President and he is not going to suddenly elect Ukraine into NATO. We all know that, and that is the reality. We should let Ukraine into NATO only if we are prepared to fight for it, if we are prepared to spill American and British blood for the frozen steppes of eastern Ukraine, and nobody wants to do that. By the way, if we did do it, we would lose our nerve very quickly. Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. After a few years, if there were just 300 dead British soldiers there would be tremendous pressure in this House of Commons to withdraw. Russia would simply stay—it does not mind if it has to wait 20 or 30 years. So it is never going to happen. Ukraine is never going to join NATO, and if it did join NATO it would be potentially disastrous. In talking about Ukraine joining NATO, we are simply playing Putin’s game.

Now, the other talk we have had is about Russia being a mortal threat to our country, but this is not the Soviet Union. Russian armies are not placed in the middle of east Germany. Where is this mortal threat? We hear about all this hacking. No doubt Russia hacks. No doubt it has rather ineffective campaigns on Twitter. Are we so lacking in our faith in our own parliamentary democracy that we think we are going to be overthrown or are under threat from President Putin? This is not a strategic interest of the United Kingdom. Of course all Russian Governments will seek to extend their influence. Any Russian Government will be mortally opposed to NATO expanding eastwards. This rotten Russian Government might try to subvert aspects of our life, but why do we not have self-confidence? Why do we not look to our own proper strategic interests? We have no historic or strategic interest as a country in Crimea or eastern Ukraine. We do not understand it. We do not understand the history. We do not understand the complexities of the region. We do not understand the Ukrainian state itself, which is divided.

South-Eastern Rail Franchise

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

We are working to bring the franchise decision to a conclusion as fast as possible, and to get the benefits that will come with that decision right across the franchise as quickly as we can.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

The delay to this franchise is not only a delay to the people of Tonbridge and West Malling, and to the towns and villages around the area; it is also a delay to a strategy that the Minister already announced—the 15-minute delay compensation. I do hope that his initial statement that this scheme will wait until a change of franchise will no longer apply, and that he will instead introduce the change from a 30-minute to a 15-minute delay compensation now. If we are to wait still further, it will cost commuters in the wonderful towns that I have the privilege to represent, as they will have to pay more for delayed services.

[Andrew Jones]

Delay Repay 15—a compensation system that will give any passenger who has been delayed by 15 minutes or more 25% of their fare back—will be a part of all future franchise awards. We have recently been able to make some in-franchise changes in other areas, such as on Northern and Great Western. I will look into my hon. Friend’s point. I am aware of how well this scheme has been received where we have been able to make the changes. It is not quite as straightforward as saying that we can do this immediately, but I know that he is hungry for that benefit and I will do what I can to help him achieve it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I have already told Heathrow airport that, while the detail of the decisions is a matter for them, I would certainly want to see a proper spread across all parts of the United Kingdom.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

rose—

[Hon. Members]

Ah!

[Tom Tugendhat]

While we are thinking about unfortunate absences, will you join me, Mr Speaker, in thanking the Tonbridge line’s commuters for highlighting the problem of ghost trains on the Tonbridge to Redhill line? On 30 December, 36 trains were advertised but only 12 ran. Could the Minister possibly do something to ensure that the train operating companies actually run the trains that they advertise?

[Andrew Jones]

The Department monitors performance on a daily basis, and there is a range of actions that we can take when performance falls below agreed levels. I understand that performance on the Redhill to Tonbridge line has been impacted by various things, including speed restrictions, but I am able to tell my hon. Friend that performance on the line has been much improved since the start of the year, with 90% of services now arriving within five minutes of schedule.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Bus patronage is different up and down the country. Those local authorities that work closely with their bus operators and use technology and concessionary fares appropriately see an increase in bus patronage. I mentioned earlier the areas in which patronage is going up—it is up 22% in Brighton and Hove—and there are areas throughout the country where younger people are jumping on buses, too. It is about making it work better, collectively; it is not just about money—even though there is more than £1 billion for concessionary fares and we have invested £250 million in bus services.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

T3. Disruption on the M20, M26 and all roads in Kent is having a serious impact on the county’s economy. Schools are reporting that as many as 15% of students are getting in late, and businesses are already preparing for shift working in case their employees cannot get to work. That will cost serious time and serious money. A combination of works on the M26 and overnight closures on the M20 not ending until 6 am are causing the problems. My hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) and for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and I have already written to Highways England for answers. Will the Minister explain to residents, schools and businesses in Kent just what he, Highways England and Kent County Council are doing to keep Kent moving?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

My hon. Friend will know, because we have met on many occasions and discussed this matter in the Chamber, that the Department is very focused on concerns in the south-east. Highways England is carrying out works on the M20 smart motorway scheme between junctions 3 and 5. That work is about relieving congestion and improving journeys. Of course, some disruption is inevitable—that goes with major programmes of road investment—but I will ask Highways England to investigate the effect of the current roadworks, and in particular the timing of the overnight closures on the M20.

M26 Closures

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

It is a privilege to be here, speaking on behalf of the people I represent and on an transport issue of which many people will be very conscious, given the events of recent weeks, but let me start by saying how sorry I am that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will not be intervening this afternoon. We will all miss the adventure and surprise of finding out what connection the M26 in Kent could possibly have to Strangford. Sadly, that will be for another day.

The M26 is a key strategic road in the south-east of England that helps to connect our country to our European neighbours, providing a reliable link to our nearest port at Dover. It also facilitates the significant east-west traffic flow through the county of Kent. Communities such as Ashford, Maidstone, and those I represent in West Malling and Borough Green, have grown and prospered because the road network provides superb links with the rest of the south, along the M25-M26-M20 corridor. Therefore, any plan that might prevent such good access would cause economic and social damage to the area and require significant planning and mitigation. A scheme of enormous scale—such as turning the M26 into a lorry park—would require lots of consultation to allow people to plan for alternative routes.

The Government plan to us the M26 as a lorry park. Now, this is a surprise. It would fundamentally change the lives of residents and businesses across Kent, but neither the Department for Transport, nor Highways England, has asked to hear the thoughts of those affected. I am pleased that the Secretary of State and the Minister, who I am delighted to see in his place, met me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) last week, and I am happy that we have a further meeting with our local councils next week. I speak for all in saying that we understand that contingencies have to be made for a no-deal Brexit, but this is not a workable solution. Now, this is not just not workable for west Kent, but for the whole country, as this is ultimately a national concern.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I appreciate the time that the hon. Gentleman has taken to highlight the issues in Kent and across the country. Does he agree with me—an MP representing a constituency in another part of south-east England—that there may well be particular congestion pressures on the south-east, as the problems that he described on the M26 spread to the M25, M4 and other neighbouring motorways, affecting all our towns and cities across the south-east of England?

[Tom Tugendhat]

Indeed; I am getting to that exact point, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman should make it.

When plans are developed for any area, local residents and businesses are expected to have their say, but that has not happened here. No information was given on why the closures were happening, other than for “central reservation works”. This phrase could realistically mean anything, and does not indicate the scale of what is proposed. I checked with a few people, including local county councillor, Harry Rayner—a more assiduous representative of the community it would be hard to find—but I could not find anyone who knew about the central reservation works. Earlier this year, I had heard that the idea of using the M26 to store HGVs was being talked about as a vague possibility, which is why I wrote to the Secretary of State on 4 April to raise my concern about the wider effect that this level of disruption would have on the local strategic road network. I shall quote from the letter that the Minister has no doubt seen, but that others in the House may care to hear:

“I would be grateful if I could meet urgently with your team planning this to talk about the impact closing the M26 for a sustained period would have on the local road network and the villages which rely on it.”

This is hardly a surprising turn of phrase, but as no meeting was forthcoming, I wrote to Highways England about works on the strategic road network in Kent. The M26 was not mentioned in its reply.

As recently as three weeks ago, when I asked Highways England if there were any plans to use the M26 in the case of a no-deal Brexit, I was told that there were not, so I was satisfied that there were no plans to subject communities in the area to even more traffic nightmares. For months, I have told the people I represent that this would not happen, following assurances that I had received. I now feel that we have all been let down. Why was there no consultation? The Department for Transport and Highways England are publicly funded, and they should be held accountable for their decisions. To fail to consult the communities most affected by the scale of the proposal is unacceptable. The very least they can do is to apologise.

I am calling for a fundamental rethink of this idea, which would almost cut communities off and cause chaos across the whole area, particularly as there are alternatives outside Kent; I would like the Minister and his Department to explore these. I very much hope that he will have detail on this by the time of his meeting with me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks and our councils next week. We need to explore how we keep lorries at their source rather than allowing them to park in Kent—neither their start point nor, indeed, their end destination. There is technology available and emerging that would enable this to happen. The M26 is not a lorry park and does not have to be used in this way.

Since the closures were announced two weeks ago, a lot of people have linked the proposal to the vote to leave the European Union, but Kent has actually been looking for a solution since Operation Stack plagued the county in 2015, well before the referendum, let alone the result. The impact of closing the M26 is severe, regardless of the cause. Take policing, for example. Our excellent police and crime commissioner, Matthew Scott, has said that pretty much every traffic officer in the county would be needed to patrol a closed motorway. This would create a huge hole in Kent police’s resources, with neighbourhoods nervous about losing their officers to cover for their colleagues. It is no wonder that Matthew thinks this is an unworkable idea.

The views of local people and representatives like Matthew matter because their local knowledge can provide real insight and solutions. For example, has anyone thought what happens to HGVs travelling north on the A21, or south from the Dartford crossing on the M25? There are no slip roads on to the M26, so how would they join the queue? Do they rat-run through villages like Shipbourne to get to the junction? Sat-navs—which, as we all know, have caused many issues for lorry drivers and for people living on small roads in past years—will no doubt take lorries through small lanes that are unsuitable. Do they travel the wrong way on the M25, or go along the A25 through six air quality management areas in 18 miles? These 18 miles along the M25 and M26 are the longest stretch of motorway in England without a junction. The A25 runs parallel the whole way—a single carriageway almost everywhere, even through villages such as Borough Green that suffer the most with air quality and congestion. Borough Green cannot cope with more traffic, particularly large HGVs. Its air quality will suffer even more. It is a perfect example of why the problem needs to be stopped at source, rather than parking HGVs in Kent that then cannot proceed on to Europe.

Could using the M26 as a lorry park be mitigated? Possibly, but I want to know what avenues the Department has explored. Can lorries be kept at source? Will my hon. Friend the Minister look at utilising lorry-holding facilities before the Dartford crossing so that Kent does not have to bear the whole of this load? If not, how can the Government provide appropriate mitigations for communities like Borough Green and Platt on the A25? That question is perhaps the hardest to answer. It requires significant investment. Take the air quality issue. How can the Minister and colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provide funds and suitable equipment to properly measure the impact? How can they make sure that Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council can enforce the statutory limits so that they are kept within? What additional powers will be granted? These are all questions that we do not yet know the answers to.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) joins me in the comments that I now make. Currently, when there is a problem on the M26, the impact stretches further afield, much further south and east of the motorway. For example, the A227 is the only realistic route in or out of Wrotham and runs over the M26. Congestion there leaves the village almost cut off, with a single track road to the west the only option. The conurbation of Wrotham—a wonderful and very beautiful village—and its neighbours Borough Green, Platt, Ightham and others understandably feels that it has been getting rough treatment recently. Its infrastructure is declining, when connectivity matters more than ever.

I want to try to make the lives of people living and working in these beautiful villages better, not worse, but traffic congestion and poor air quality remain problematic, and rail services are often unreliable and slow. I do not need to rehash the issues surrounding the Southeastern timetable changes, but added to the delayed start to Thameslink services to the City of London and compounded by the threat of a lorry park, villages could be cut off.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that this seems to imply that the Department for Transport simply is not sufficiently well prepared for what might come about on 29 March next year? Is he aware that the Comptroller and Auditor General expressed concerns about the Department’s preparedness last week to the Brexit Committee, when he said that the Department

“has convinced itself that it is less risky than it actually is”?

Is it not time that the Department got on top of this issue, to avoid the very problems for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents that he has set out so eloquently?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the hon. Lady, the Chair of the Transport Committee, and I should also pay tribute to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). They have both taken up this question with great diligence. If she will forgive me, I am going to focus on the issue particularly relating to Kent, which is not only about Brexit. In fact, this issue is not specifically Brexit-related. It is, as we know, related to Stack, which happened before the referendum and would no doubt have arisen anyway should there have been any issues with crossing the channel. I will focus on the M26 rather than on wider issues, which she not only suggests but has done very capably through her Committee work.

It is worth considering the other implications. There is a planned 3,000-home new development in the area as part of the draft Tonbridge and Malling local plan, which is out for consultation at the moment and to which I urge those who wish to comment to respond as soon as possible. Should that be approved, it will put additional strain on local road and rail networks. Do an extra 3,000 families need hundreds of additional vehicles thundering down country lanes every day? I do not think so, and I would be surprised if others did.

Clarity, consistency and communication matter, especially for businesses. Take, for example, ALS Airport Travel in West Malling. Every day, its drivers make countless journeys from the Malling area to Gatwick. The combination of closing the M26 and the existing smart motorway work on the M20 will have a hugely detrimental impact on the business.

We have no faith in Highways England to manage two neighbouring works concurrently. It cannot even get the M20 scheme right at the moment. Lower speed limits, narrow lanes and full road closures are already forcing traffic on to local roads. Accidents are on the rise. We see the effect every day. Highways England’s woeful lack of communication across any scheme sees closure dates change frequently and residents unsure of what it will deliver for them. It has happened already with the scoping works on the M26 last week. The motorway opened two days before it was planned to, which is great, but Highways England failed to tell anyone that it had happened. The Department and Highways England really must start talking to the people who are most affected by these plans.

Closing the M26 to hold lorries will impact public transport, too. In a rural area, where many people travel long distances to school, even the slightest delay in the morning affects the network for the rest of the day. Has the Department spoken, for example, to local bus operators about that? How will it ensure that children get to school on time? More pressingly, should the education of students in west Kent be impacted day in, day out, because the area is at a standstill due to HGVs preferring not to stop in the county and blocking our major roads?

One possibility that I would like to see implemented if this proposal proceeds is to relax the rules of the traffic commissioner to allow bus operators and Kent County Council to modify and change bus routes quickly. Some people, including me, have argued that 70 days’ notice is too long already, but the Government have an obligation to ensure that public transport still works and to put into place changes that mean children can get to school on time and as stress-free as possible.

This is just as important for any other motorist, so can the HGV parking ban on Kent County Council roads, piloted in Ashford, be extended county-wide, and can the penalty be increased, with permission to clamp on the first offence as well? Without that, our roads will not have a chance of being free and available for local traffic to use. Sadly, clamping matters in this circumstance. Can roadworks on local roads be limited, too? I would like powers to be granted to Kent County Council to enable it to charge more than currently permitted under the lane rental scheme to limit works causing delays on the roads. This would require departmental approval and, I understand, a statutory instrument, but it is precisely the sort of change that needs to happen.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I could talk more about the further mitigations possible under part 4 of schedule 7 to the Traffic Management Act 2004, but I trust you and the Minister already understand my concern. There is an argument that, wherever disruption might occur, these ideas should be implemented. This summer, a sinkhole developed on the A26 in Maidstone, closing the road for months, and the whole of mid and west Kent suffered as a result. The highway network in our corner of Kent is not resilient, and this needs to be considered as well.

At yesterday’s Public Accounts Committee sitting, the permanent secretary of the Department admitted that the works on the M26 would cost £30 million to £35 million and include hard shoulder improvements as well as the central reservation works. Can the local community also benefit from these improvements? Why not pursue a simpler solution and stop HGVs entering Kent in the first place? Why should it be the responsibility of the garden of England to turn into the parking lot of England? Most HGVs do not start their journeys in our county, so why not keep them at source, as they do in France?

I want to touch on a social issue that I know concerns my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. The M26 is largely rural and it is far from any services. If lorries are parked here, how will drivers be fed and provided with water and sanitation facilities, and where will they sleep at night? Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council and Sevenoaks District Council have clear statutory responsibilities under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, so why have they not been informed either? Both councils do a brilliant job across all services, and they are excellently run, with extremely capable leaders and officers. I am pleased that the Minister will meet us on Tuesday, and it is clear than any proposal on the M26 would require abnormally high levels of Government support for our local councils.

I want to help the Minister and his Department to find a solution to this problem. I welcome the wonderful benefits that the freight industry brings, but there must be a better solution than turning major roads in the county into a lorry park. I look forward to his response and to working with him and local councils in finding such solutions. Before I sit down, I must extend the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, who express their support, but sadly could not be in the Chamber this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

We are working on our Maritime 2050 strategy, which will look at ports, infrastructure, the environment, accessibility and employment opportunities. I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to update him since our last meeting.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Does the Speaker agree that it has come to a pretty pass when a Member finds out that works have begun on a motorway to turn it into a parking lot without consultation either with the local community or with surrounding Members? The M26 works started last night. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in April to ask whether this was going to happen, and I was assured that works were not planned. Only yesterday was it confirmed to me that Highways England had said that that was exactly what was planned, despite having told me the reverse only a week earlier. Does the Speaker agree with me, and will he urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to explain to the House how this planning permission has been granted with no consultation?

[Mr Speaker]

I admire the breathing capacity of the hon. Gentleman. I get the impression that he is at least moderately discontented.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Correct, Sir.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure that my view is of any great interest to the House, but I am sure that it will want to know what the Secretary of State has to say to my somewhat irritated colleague.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

The service on GTR’s Thameslink services has indeed been unacceptable. A hard review is under way, which will give the Secretary of State all options when it concludes. With respect to the size of that franchise, the Secretary of State has also indicated that he is open to breaking it up once the Thameslink programme is in place and when that franchise comes to an end in 2021. He has had discussions with the Mayor of London about some services moving to Transport for London.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

We are approaching the summer and traffic will be driving down the M20. I am sure that you, like me, Mr Speaker, will wish to have a speedy exit towards the coast. Will the Minister explain what he is doing on the smart motorways programme on the M20 to ensure not just that it works but that communities are protected from noise?

[Jesse Norman]

I am very glad my hon. Friend mentions noise, because that is a topic of great interest to us. We are actively exploring whether we can bring to local concerns about noise-capturing the same kind of concerns we are bringing to the structure of the highway.

National Policy Statement: Airports

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

The fact is that Scotland has lost a lot of domestic connectivity over the last few years, so the hon. Gentleman is not quite right. It is good that he sees Scotland as strong, but we want to be stronger and we want further connections.

As we have already heard, the Department for Transport said that there would be 100 extra flights a week to Scotland. Although it is now saying that there could be 200 flights coming from Heathrow, it is up to the Government to provide the protections. Let us take the figure of 100 that has been quoted. If, say, Dundee and Prestwick get the new suggested slots, even just a twice-daily service from each of those airports would equate to well over half that figure of 100 flights. When we take the rest and spread it over the rest of Scotland’s airports, it is not actually a great deal of increased connectivity. That is why this falls short of our expectations.

Heathrow airport has made it abundantly clear that it is willing to work with the UK Government on the matter, and acknowledges that it is a Government function to deliver that protection. As has been touched on already, Heathrow has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Scottish Government. The airport has been very open and communicative with both me and my predecessor in the SNP’s transport spokesperson role. I believe that it really wants to deliver on its commitments to Scotland, including the preconstruction logistics hub, for which I appreciate it is currently doing an ongoing assessment. I hope that that assessment concludes that Prestwick airport is successful, because that would be really good for my local area. There is also a stated minimum value of £300 million construction and supply chain contracts for Scotland, and a minimum peak construction job creation of 100 jobs.

Heathrow committed to a £10 passenger fee discount to Scottish airports, and, to be fair, it has since increased that reduction to £15 per passenger. It committed £1.5 million to advertising through a Scotland-specific marketing fund, and it has delivered on that, with only £250,000 outstanding, which it has pledged to use to promote the new V&A museum in Dundee. It has also confirmed that it is now working with VisitScotland to provide a takeover of a gate room to promote Scotland for a five-year period, equating to some £300,000. Cynics will say that it is bound to do these things to keep Scottish MPs and the Scottish Government onside. However, it seems to me that it has delivered to date, and over-delivered in some aspects, so I can only take it at face value.

In the bigger picture, 16,000 jobs are predicted to be generated in Scotland through an expanded Heathrow. These are certainly benefits that I want to see delivered.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his namesake, Keith Brown, the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy in the Scottish Parliament, who supports the expansion of Heathrow and spoke about it very strongly in 2016? Does he not agree that the jobs he mentions simply will not come if there is not an expansion?

[Alan Brown]

As I said, I have spoken in favour of expansion before. The Scottish Government have also spoken in favour of it—that is why they have signed a memorandum of understanding. We are just looking for protections and deliverability.

Some people have asked, why Heathrow and not further expansion in Scotland? We have to acknowledge the reality that Heathrow has been the hub airport for the UK for 40 years, and there is not the critical mass in Scotland for getting such a hub-status airport. That is why the Scottish airports have supported the principle of Heathrow expansion.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

This has been a generally well-tempered and constructive debate on a very important topic; indeed, it is a topic of such importance that no Government have been able to solve it for the previous 50 years, and it is therefore with great pride and delight that I put this question to the House today.

We have heard a very wide range of views and there has been great engagement, but the fact remains that the need for additional capacity in the south-east is more pressing than ever, and, as colleagues across the House have mentioned, there is a cost to doing nothing—an opportunity cost that we cannot ignore that forces us to act. We have acted so far by calling a review, and series of consultations, a statement, an urgent question, a debate, and I myself have signed 75 or so parliamentary questions; we have had a very extensive wider debate about this topic, and rightly so.

I have been very surprised, however, by the attitude of some of the Opposition Front-Bench teams. The spokesman for the SNP declared that his own Scottish chambers of commerce were in support and that he himself and the Scottish Government had spoken in favour of this proposal, yet they now find themselves against it, and at a time when airports in Inverness, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and the like all stand to benefit. [Interruption.] There were many speeches in this debate and they deserve to be paid attention to. The SNP position, however, is clarity itself compared with that of the Labour Front Bench, which has managed to pull together the astonishing combination of itself being against the motion, while ordering a free vote for its Members and recommending abstention, as the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) mentioned; I have seen sludge from the bottom of the Thames with more clarity than Labour’s position on this topic.

The fact remains that a new runway at Heathrow is the best strategic solution to this critical issue: it is well located, and it will provide the greatest connectivity by the introduction of new domestic routes and additional and frequent long-haul routes. The north-west runway scheme would deliver the greatest quantified benefits most quickly up until the 2070s. Crucially, this is not a scheme that will only benefit the south-east; its advantages will be felt across the entire United Kingdom, as we have heard from speeches from the entire United Kingdom during this debate.

The Government are committed to protecting and expanding these domestic routes, increasing them from eight to at least 14, and 15% of them will serve domestic flights to deliver even more opportunities for greater connectivity across the UK, benefiting passengers and businesses.[Official Report, 10 July 2018, Vol. 644, c. 6MC.]

[Tom Tugendhat]

Are there not two things that would help my hon. Friend’s position here: first, having the CAA and NATS taking overall control of airspace and, secondly, extending the Land Compensation Act 1973 to air routes?

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. If I had heard all of it, I would be able to respond in some detail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to implement the digital railway strategy.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to implement the digital railway strategy.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

Two weeks ago, Mark Carne, the chief executive of Network Rail, and I launched the company’s digital railway strategy in York, where we announced that the industry should make plans for all future renewals to be digital or digital-ready. I have already approved funding to develop digital schemes in Moorgate and the south-east, and in particular, I have set out plans for the new TransPennine route. The £2.9 billion modernisation, starting around this time next year, will be Britain’s first, principal inter-city digital railway, and very necessary it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

It is very good of the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) to drop in on us. We have missed the hon. Gentleman, who was, I think, attending to important business elsewhere, but is now in the bosom of the Chamber. Let’s hear the fella.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence—you have been very kind indeed.

However, one thing that has been less kind to us, sadly, is the timetable changes on GTR and Southeastern. Many people in the constituency I have the privilege to represent, and indeed many in neighbouring areas, are commenting on the lack of capacity taking people into London in the morning and home at night to West Malling, Kings Hill and other places on the Maidstone East line. What will the Government be doing to increase capacity to get in and out of London for these valuable people?

[Chris Grayling]

I can assure my hon. Friend that there has not been a change to capacity on the Maidstone East line. Some trains on the new timetable are faster and some are slower, but in overall terms the services will continue to deliver for passengers. Right now, as I explained to the House a little while back, we clearly have initial problems with the new timetable. This is the biggest logistical change that the railways have made for a very long time. My Department is working very closely with all those involved to try to get this sorted out as quickly as possible. But this is all about delivering more services, longer trains and new destinations across the south-east, and once it is bedded in, I think that passengers in his constituency and elsewhere will see the benefits.

Gatwick Airport: Growth and Noise Mitigation

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered growth and noise reduction in Gatwick Airport.

Thank you, Sir Christopher, for allowing me to address this Chamber. I am delighted to have the privilege of congratulating you on your well-deserved honour, which recognises your lifetime of service.

The issue of aircraft noise is incredibly important to me, and I am afraid that many in the Chamber will have heard me speak about it many times. It is also important to all the residents of Tonbridge, Edenbridge and surrounding villages—indeed, I have received more correspondence on this issue than on any other since I was elected. That is unsurprising for those of us who live under the flightpath in the beautiful villages of west Kent, which are the most beautiful in England, as we all know—I declare an interest because our home is there. The impact of aviation noise on the economic prosperity and environmental sustainability of our communities has been severe.

Why am I raising the matter now, when many villages in Kent, Sussex and Surrey have been experiencing noise from flights for half a decade or more? In 2013, the introduction of the aviation policy framework meant a dramatic change to the flightpaths of the Gatwick airport approach. Many of the villages around Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Malling are now overflown as they have never been before. I therefore wish to focus on what Gatwick and the wider industry are doing or not doing to reduce noise from approaching aircraft as the airport continues to grow.

It is great that there are busy airports in this country, proving the case that you have made many times, Sir Christopher: that we are a global country open for business with the whole world. It is wonderful that communities from across the world are using the airport, but the impact on communities who live under the flightpaths are also of great concern to us all, and we should take into account the impact of each aircraft that arrives or leaves.

I am well aware of the London airspace management programme and of the importance of getting it to properly reflect the views of communities. The global implementation of P-RNAV—precision area navigation—will require more to be done to reduce noise, but it will not be implemented until the early 2020s. Communities such as ours need action to address the problem now.

This may surprise you, Sir Christopher, but extraordinarily enough, I would like to acknowledge the change in attitude from Gatwick airport. Not only does it say that it is helping with the work of the London airspace management programme, which I welcome, but it has listened more in recent days and its attitude has improved dramatically since I first met its representatives in 2014.

The arrivals review was much needed and proposed some good ideas. I am grateful for the work done on it by Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake, whom I am glad to see in the Gallery today, and for the community representation, but it needs to go further. For example, modifications have been made to the whine of the Airbus A320 that many of us will have heard. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who worked so hard to achieve those modifications, is not present, but I know that he is on Government business abroad—he is in our thoughts, and I know we are in his. The modifications are welcomed by all communities, but they are not enough and they were even agreed before the arrivals review was completed.

Recommendation 11 of the review would have provided a fair solution, utilising both sides of the airport equally on days with no wind, but it was rejected. It should have happened as part of the commitment to implement the review in full. It has also been admitted by almost all those involved that recommendation 10—widening the swathe—will not alone cure the problem, so we clearly do not have the solution to the noise issue.

Growth comes at a price to the communities affected. The impact of both arrivals and departures is heard for many miles around on all sides. Complaints continue to increase and new protest groups have sprung up all over Kent, Surrey and Sussex. These folk are protesting not because they want to, because they have nothing better to do or because they have a history of direct action, but because aircraft approaching Gatwick are having a serious impact on their lives, their health, their children’s development and their right to enjoy their properties in peace.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I know that he has done a great deal of work on the matter and that it has caused grave difficulties in his constituency. Does he agree that one of the problems of dealing with Gatwick—indeed, with any airport—is that people must be able to trust the information that they get from it? In East Grinstead in my constituency, there are constant complaints about erring off the straight and narrow. It is clear that trust has broken down between residents and the airport. What suggestions does my hon. Friend have for a remedy? Does he agree that it is a very serious problem?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for expressing that essential point. The noise management board, which is part of the solution, has begun that work, but of course it cannot solve the problem alone. As he would expect, I will come on to the Department for Transport and its role in restoring trust. I welcome his points.

I remember David Wetz, who lives in Chiddingstone, telling me last summer that he was unable to enjoy his daughter’s birthday celebration properly outside because normal conversation simply was not possible in the garden. That is a disgrace. It is not a matter of nimbyism. It is about people wanting to live a normal life without having a motorway built over their heads.

As representatives in Parliament of communities such as Chiddingstone, we are responsible for representing their interests to the Government—I pay tribute not only to the right hon. and hon. Members present, but to the many others who have joined groups with us. It is clear that we need to enforce a better balance between the interests of the aviation industry and of local people affected by noise. Successive Governments have designed policies that seek to achieve that balance, but we must consider whether Gatwick is complying with them and whether the Department for Transport is enforcing them in its role as noise regulator.

The key policy—it is a welcome policy—on noise is the 2013 aviation policy framework, which clearly stated Government policy on aviation noise as

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I know that the debate is about Gatwick, but the same issue affects other airports. Belfast City airport has a cut-off time of 9.30 pm for aeroplanes to land. Obviously there are cases in which aeroplanes land later, but a system of fines is in place and the money goes into the community. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what happens at Belfast City—a smaller airport, but one that is surrounded by houses—could well be helpful for his investigations, and indeed for the Minister and his Department?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has come up with some suggestions, and I would be happy to look into them later. In fact, some interesting work has been done on the approaches to Schiphol airport with respect to the effect of laying out the ground on how sound travels. There are interesting ideas out there, and I certainly welcome looking at Belfast’s example.

The policy set out by the Government is clear: they do not endorse any increase in the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise. That approach is a welcome change, but Civil Aviation Authority data demonstrate that it is not being followed. Since the policy was introduced and the flightpaths were altered radically in 2013, Gatwick has increased its flight numbers by 12% and its passenger numbers by 22%, but the number of people significantly affected has not reduced. In fact, it has risen every year.

The Minister will know about the 57-decibel average noise contour—after all, it is the Government’s preferred noise impact measure. Using that calculation, the number of people affected by aircraft noise has increased by 27% since 2013. Looking at it geographically, the affected area has increased by 8% across Kent, Surrey and Sussex over the same period. Using the Government’s preferred data method, we can show that noise is continuing to get worse in the communities affected, despite the policy. My question for the Minister is clear: why have the Government failed to implement the aviation policy framework in full? Their own figures clearly show that the number of people being significantly affected by aircraft noise has increased.

The aviation policy framework rightly looks at sharing the benefits of growth between the aviation industry and local communities. Indeed, to quote it directly:

“The industry must continue to reduce and mitigate noise as airport capacity grows”.

I hope everyone includes in their definition of “the industry” airlines, airports, National Air Traffic Services, the Civil Aviation Authority and all those industry representatives who sit on Gatwick airport’s noise management board. Have the benefits of growth been shared? Certainly, many people are benefiting from the airport—Gatwick and the air industry have grown—but both collectively and within their individual areas of responsibility, they have not done enough to reduce noise.

I am afraid that it remains unclear what the industry has done so far, particularly away from the confines of the noise management board. At the Gatwick airspace seminar and noise management board public meeting only last month, we heard that the airport requires airlines to contribute to the reduction of noise. We also heard very clearly from the chair of the noise management board, Bo Redeborn, that this issue would not be considered because it is outside the terms of reference of the board. However, in a letter to me and six other colleagues on 6 December, the day before the airspace seminar, the Secretary of State for Transport mentioned that Gatwick’s noise management board was the place to discuss these matters. We obviously need a little clarity. Which one is it? Should the noise management board be looking at these matters at the expense of the industry doing anything to reduce and mitigate noise as airport capacity grows? If so, that is in contrast to the policy. However, it is clear from Bo Redeborn’s comments last month that the noise management board is not the place to discuss these matters, contrary to the Secretary of State for Transport’s letter.

I am disappointed that repeatedly the Department for Transport seems unwilling to take a view on whether its aviation policy framework is being properly implemented or not. My view, however, is clear: I agree with Bo. It cannot be left solely to the noise management board, although it definitely has a role. The line from the policy is clear and it is the whole industry that needs to do more, individually and collectively, to reduce and mitigate noise. Passing the issue to the noise management board for its consideration is being used as a reason not to enforce policy, which is a great shame. My second question to the Minister is this: what steps will he or his Department take to ensure that the industry will reduce and mitigate noise on its own, outside of the agreed work programme of the noise management board?

Finally, I will again quote from the aviation policy framework—everybody’s favourite bedtime reading. The framework says it is clear that the Government want

“to incentivise noise reduction and mitigation”.

Sadly, in the considerable correspondence that I have had with the Department for Transport over the past few years, I cannot find many examples to highlight what incentives have been offered for noise reduction and mitigation. It seems that Gatwick airport’s compliance with the aviation policy framework is largely optional. As Gatwick, along with Heathrow and Stansted, is a noise-designated airport, the Secretary of State has direct responsibility for regulating noise at the airport. It is for the Department for Transport to ensure compliance—that cannot be delegated down to the airport’s noise management board.

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I will just say how important the south-east airports are to the regional airports and how important economically the south-east airports are to Aberdeen. I know that he will visit the north-east soon, so today I will highlight the heliport at Aberdeen. During his campaigning on noise, I would also like him to emphasise the issue of helicopters, because, as he is well aware, helicopters dwell, as opposed to just flying in on a flight-line. The residents of Dyce, near Aberdeen International airport, are blighted by the noise from helicopters. I would be very grateful if he could remember helicopters as well as fixed-wing aircraft.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will be absolutely delighted to remember that. Helicopters are not an enormous issue around the area that I represent, but the issue does arise, and when I am up in the north-east of Scotland I will look out keenly for helicopters.

Community groups, including those who are not affected by helicopters, are represented on Gatwick’s noise management board and wrote to the Secretary of State on 11 October last year—I urge community groups in my hon. Friend’s local area to do likewise. That was followed up on 2 November with a letter from myself and my right hon. Friends the Members for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), and my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), for Crawley (Henry Smith), for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), and for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), whose support I very much welcome. We specifically asked what the Government were doing currently to address noise, given that it has been evident for the past half a decade. I am afraid that I was deeply disappointed, as was every resident and community group representative who I have spoken to, that responses from both the Secretary of State and the new Aviation Minister—Baroness Sugg—failed even to mention any action that the Department for Transport was taking. Instead, we heard that the existing channels of communication were satisfactory, when sadly they evidently are not.

As Gatwick is a noise-designated airport, the Department for Transport is responsible for regulating noise at Gatwick and it must take its role as a regulator far more seriously, so my third question to the Minister is this: what measures will he or his Department take to deliver a reduction in noise that meets the aims of the Government’s policy regarding the significant growth of Gatwick airport in recent years? I am sure that that question will be familiar to the Secretary of State because it is exactly the same one that we put in writing in November last year and that was not answered properly in his response on 6 December.

To be clear, three issues clearly arise from the motion. The first is that more needs to be done to ensure that the aviation policy framework is enforced in full; the second is that the industry needs to do much more to reduce noise; and the third and final one is that the Department for Transport needs to take its role as a noise regulator more seriously.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I welcome the fact that he is here—I appreciate that the Aviation Minister sits in the other place and that my hon. Friend is, as it were, taking one for the team. It is very welcome that he is responding on her behalf.

Before I wrap up, I should emphasise that the only reason I called for this debate is that it is evident that the Department for Transport can do more, should do more and must do more to deliver peace to west Kent. As Gatwick is a noise-designated airport, the Department’s role in this regard is to fulfil its statutory responsibility. A Government should be able and willing to implement the policies that they have introduced. That is all we ask the Department for Transport to do. It should not be the job of local communities to hold Gatwick airport to account with regard to its growth and consequent noise reduction measures.

I urge the Minister to meet me and representatives of local community groups, including the excellent Gatwick Obviously Not! group, which is based in Penshurst—some of its members are represented in the Gallery today. They can express to the Minister in words that are even clearer than mine exactly what the impact is. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

May I say what a delight it is to have you in the Chair, Sir Christopher, especially in your recently dignified form? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing this debate about growth and noise reduction at Gatwick, and all those Members who have spoken. My hon. Friend has proved himself on this issue as on every other to be an indefatigable campaigner—a tribune of his people—and still more strikingly so with a voice that is obviously failing under him. We can only congratulate him on his courage and resolution.

As my hon. Friend acknowledged, this matter falls briefly but unhappily into what might be referred to as a ministerial limbo, and therefore I am responding on behalf of the Government—I should say that I am very far from an expert on these matters, as I fear will become strikingly clear with the passage of time. I also pay tribute and offer my pity, if I may, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) for having to put up with me twice in a single day, once on transport for the north and once on noise in the south. Those issues are not necessarily as different as one might think.

As hon. Members will be aware, the Government recognise that noise disturbance from aircraft is a serious concern to local communities. The concern can be still more pronounced when an airport is experiencing growth of the kind that has been seen at Gatwick. The Government’s role is to ensure that the right balance is struck locally and nationally between the environmental impacts and the economic and consumer benefits that aviation growth can deliver. Those environmental impacts of course include noise.

I need hardly say that the value of aviation does not need to be debated in this Chamber. It connects us with the world and allows us to visit our friends and family, to conduct our business and to see foreign countries and further parts of this country. The sector is also, as has been recognised, a very important part of the economy, directly supporting more than 230,000 jobs with many more employed indirectly. It contributes around £20 billion annually to the UK economy. The inbound tourism industry alone across the country is worth a further £19 billion.

Although there has been an aerodrome at Gatwick since the 1930s, the commercial airport as we know it today was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in 1958. In its first year of operation, just 186,000 passengers passed through the airport. Today, it is the UK’s second largest airport and helps take more than 44 million passengers to 228 destinations in 74 countries around the world every year.

As has been recognised by several hon. Members, Gatwick is a very important local employer—it is important to put that on public record again from the Government perspective. Almost 24,000 people work on the Gatwick campus across 252 different companies, with 2,800 directly employed by the airport. Nationally, the airport supports a further 61,000 jobs and contributes more than £5 billion towards our GDP. As such, it is a key part of our national infrastructure. Its local economic impact and the local economic value of its recent growth are significant drivers of growth and prosperity in the south-east. That means better pay, more jobs, stronger local businesses and growing asset values.

The Government recognise and have made clear that the benefits of airport growth must not come without due consideration and mitigation of the environmental impacts of aviation, in particular those impacts caused by the noise generated by aircraft. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling mentioned, the Government’s policy, as set out in the aviation policy framework, is

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

My colleagues have recently brought forward new policies and measures in line with that aim. It has been suggested that nothing has happened, but I understand that that is not true and I want to put some of the measures on the public record. They can then be discussed and debated and used as a framework for further discussion.

As hon. Members are aware, the Government set noise controls at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports using powers in the Civil Aviation Act 1982. My Department has the power to direct those airports, including Gatwick, to fine for noise infringements. I have no doubt that Gatwick’s management is, or shortly will be, following this debate closely. The responsibility—as matters presently stand, pending a further aviation strategy—lies with Gatwick, as advised, with potential enforcement from the Department.

One of the main controls the Government set is restrictions on operations at night time, because we recognise that noise from aircraft at night is, among many unacceptable aspects of aircraft noise, widely regarded as the least acceptable. In October last year, the Government introduced changes to improve the night flight regime. By introducing a new quota count category for the quietest aircraft, the Government are seeking to improve transparency for communities and to ensure that all aircraft movements will count towards an airport’s movement limit, whereas before such aircraft were exempt.

I reassure hon. Members that the Government have maintained the previous movement limit for night flights at Gatwick, which has been fixed for many years. It will guarantee until 2022 no increase in flights beyond what was already permitted. Furthermore, among other measures, from later this year there will be a reduction in Gatwick’s quota count limit, which should incentivise airlines to purchase quieter aircraft to make use of the airport’s permitted noise and movement allowances.

Separately, last October the Government published our decision on how we aim to support airspace modernisation, which includes new policies to ensure noise is more thoroughly considered in these important decisions. As hon. Members may know, the way our airspace is managed is based on arrangements that are in many cases almost 50 years old. In today’s world, that approach is increasingly inefficient, and can lead to unnecessary delays for passengers and an excessive impact on the environment around airports. We therefore need to modernise our airspace to enable the UK to keep pace with the rest of the world in exploiting the newest technologies. Advances in technologies have provided great improvements in the environmental performance of aircraft airframe design and engines, in terms of both noise and carbon emissions, and that has had a substantial effect on the noise experienced on the ground. For example, new-generation aircraft such as the Airbus A350 and Boeing 737 MAX have a noise footprint that is typically 50% smaller on departure and 30% smaller on arrival than the aircraft they are replacing.

We expect aircraft noise to continue to fall in the future, compared with today’s levels, and we believe that that trend has the potential to outweigh the noise generated from increases in air traffic. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who is no longer in his place, discussed the screaming banshee of the BAC 111. There is no doubt that, as it and the A320 indicate, tweaks to aircraft design can greatly improve noise performance. As he said, the noise experienced over the past few years may have actually decreased by some measurements. I respectfully suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling that it may not be correct to measure from just 2013. Possibly the correct measurement for noise is to look at before the recession of 2007-08—the Gordon Brown recession, as I like to refer to it—when noise levels were not quite at the level they are now in terms of the number of people affected, but were certainly significantly higher than in the intervening period.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am loth to be pedantic with the Minister, but he understands better than anybody, having represented his community in Herefordshire so assiduously for so long, that, although an incremental change downwards is to be welcomed, should an uptick come, it is hard to remember where we were 10 years ago—it is very easy to remember where we were before the uptick.

[Jesse Norman]

I am exceedingly aware of that. It is generally a feature of human consciousness that we ignore the things we benefit from but are extremely angry if things we enjoy are taken away from us. This is an example of that. I would not derogate for a second from what my hon. Friend said.

To say that we believe that the trend has the potential to outweigh the noise generated from increases in air traffic is, of course, not to say that as aircraft get quieter there are not difficult issues that need to be addressed with the implementation of the new technology. One major component of airspace modernisation—some hon. Members touched on this—is performance-based navigation, which allows aircraft to fly their flightpaths far more accurately than they could with previous navigation techniques. That has obvious benefits in terms of noise, because populated areas can be better avoided, but it also poses challenges—I do not need to remind hon. Members that with great power comes great responsibility —particularly in its effect on those directly underneath flight paths that experience a greater concentration of aircraft. That requires proper administration and control, and a sensible and considered approach. That is why the Government have brought about a new requirement for options analysis to be used when developing proposals to change the use of airspace. That will enable communities to take part in a more transparent airspace change process, and it ensure that options such as concentrated routes versus multiple routes and the degree of respite that can be offered, which has been discussed today, can be given proper consideration.

The Government recognise through the 2014 “Survey of Noise Attitudes” that attitudes towards aviation noise are changing. That goes to my hon. Friend’s point. The work carried out during the SONA study shows that sensitivity to aircraft noise has increased. The same percentage of people are registered as “highly annoyed” at lower levels of noise than in a past study. That is what we should see in an increasingly prosperous society. The threshold for interruptions and loss of amenity should go up. That is not a bad thing by any means, although it might be highly distressing for those involved. That is why the Government have introduced new metrics and appraisal guidance to assess the impact of noise on health and quality of life. In particular, it will ensure that for future airspace changes, noise impacts much further away from airports are considered much more than they are at present.

As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) mentioned, the Government have also committed to creating an independent commission on civil aviation noise later in the spring. ICCAN, as it is known, is designed to help rebuild some of the communities’ trust in the industry that we recognise has been lost, and will ensure that the noise impacts of airspace changes are properly considered. Communities will be given a greater understanding of and stake in noise management.

Alongside the Government’s work, Gatwick, which in this case is the responsible entity, is seeking to address the concerns of the communities surrounding the airport. I welcome the tone of the constructive remarks in relation to how Gatwick is engaging with those around it. In response to the significant concerns raised in 2014 and 2015 about Gatwick-related aircraft noise, the airport has launched several programmes of community engagement, most notably the noise management board, which is independently chaired and attended by representatives from several local community groups. Its role is to develop, agree, and maintain a co-ordinated strategy for noise management for Gatwick on behalf of stakeholder organisations. My officials are actively involved in that work, and all evidence raised at the NMB is considered in the development of Government policy. If it is for Gatwick, as the responsible entity, to take action, it can do so under advisement from the NMB.

Furthermore, and in accordance with its obligations under the environmental noise directive, Gatwick will later this year publish its draft noise action plan for 2019-23, which will provide an opportunity for the public to have their say on what it is doing to mitigate noise. The final approval of the noise action plan falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but my officials will work closely with the airport and officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as the plan is developed.

Finally, I want to return to aviation in the national context and the aviation strategy, which has been discussed. It is subject to a process that is already under way. We seek for it to be comprehensive in its scope. It will seek to address many important issues, such as security, connectivity and skills, and the development of innovation and new technology, which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East raised—I have some experience of our great investment from when I was at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, through the National Aerospace Technology Exploitation programme, and our relationship with some of the big aircraft manufacturers. Hon. Members may be pleased to know that one of its objectives is to consider how we support growth while tackling the environmental impact of aviation. As the Secretary of State said in his recent letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, one of the issues that the Department wants to consider is whether there should be new framework to allow airports to grow sustainably. That means looking at trends in aviation noise over the long term and how they relate to growth in aircraft movements.

I want to give my hon. Friend a moment to finish, so I will speak for just a second longer. This issue is relevant not just to Gatwick, but to all airports across the UK, and it demands a national approach. We cannot prejudge the process, but one of its outcomes may be that we will want to clarify our existing aviation policy and how it should be monitored and enforced. My colleagues and I recognise the importance of accountability, and that may well be something that needs to be considered as part of a more developed overall aviation strategy framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who has arrived in the nick of time. His presence and support is always gratefully received.

I want to reinforce three very brief points. The Minister responsible should take time out of her schedule to meet the community groups and the noise management board. Gatwick Obviously Not! and other groups have done an awful lot to ensure that their requests are not only appropriate and reasonable, but well argued and practical to implement. I also suggest that, as the London airspace management programme phase 2 is developed, it should take into account the full review of airspace policy that the Government have promised. The policy must not weaken the relationship between growth and noise. Indeed, it should be tightened.

I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) and for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Gordon (Colin Clark), for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), and for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for their contributions. I thank the Minister for responding for the Government.