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.

Rail Franchising

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Commons Chamber

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

My hon. Friend is making a fine point. I welcome more competition, and I would welcome the involvement of groups from the charitable and non-profit sectors. The idea that the public sector should underwrite risk with taxpayers’ money is what we are moving away from.

[Will Quince]

My hon. Friend makes an eloquent point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

In the past 20 years, 13 of which Opposition Members stood up to defend and were under a Labour Government, there has been an increase in the number of passengers using the railway, more trains than ever and greater customer satisfaction about many parts of the line.

I want to make two points in the time I have left. Given that today is an Opposition day, I looked at an Opposition day debate in 1994, in which the former right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who was shadow Secretary of State for Transport, spoke. He said that privatisation would not get the necessary investment, secure the safety of the railway network or upgrade the lines. In the past 20 years, that has been shown to be wrong.

The franchise that serves my constituency, East Midlands Trains, is an example of one that works well. It is not perfect by any means, but in the past few years, it has worked well. Transport Focus says that it is performing well, especially on punctuality and reliability. In surveys, customer satisfaction is nearly 90%.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the highly subsidised European models get much lower satisfaction rates? All they do is transfer the burden from the passenger to the entire taxpayer population. What we have in the United Kingdom is not perfect—no system is—but at least the people who use the service pay for it.

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Time after time, I sit in the Chamber and listen to Opposition Members who really do not understand economics and where the money comes from, and do not get how we can pay for the railways and all the sweeties and goodies that they seek to give out.

If we consider the Midland Mainline franchise in 1996, a couple of years after franchising occurred, there were 14 trains a day between London and Sheffield and the average journey time was two hours and 26 minutes, with the fastest journeys taking two hours and 10 minutes. We now have more than double the number of trains on the midland main line between London and Sheffield and the average time is quicker than the fastest time was 20 years ago.

I do not want to claim that everything is perfect. Many things could be better about the midland main line and East Midlands Trains, but what I have heard today from the Opposition is, as the Secretary of State said, complete nonsense. We should recognise that much progress has been made in the past 20 years. There is much to do, but I will not sit here and listen to the sort of nonsense that has been expressed.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Gentleman is presenting a series of very good arguments, but why does he assume that responsibility for the error would rest with the designer rather than, for instance, the software designer or the programmer, or perhaps even the ethicist who informed the design?

[Karl Turner]

The hon. Gentleman is right to correct me. The claim will lie with the insurer. However, as other Members have pointed out, the position is not entirely clear. The Association of British Insurers is concerned about the likelihood that existing insurance practices would need to be significantly changed to deal routinely with road traffic accidents involving automated vehicles. The Government acknowledge that in their impact assessment for the Bill, saying that it might result in increased administrative and procedural costs for insurers. Although the Bill does enable them to claim from the manufacturers when the vehicle is in automated mode and deemed at fault for an incident, the Government also acknowledge that there could be significant teething problems with the system, particularly given early disagreements about liability between the parties. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

It is difficult to estimate how different insurance premiums will be when automated vehicles are fully functional on the road. The roll-out and proliferation of autonomous vehicles should produce significant safety benefits, with driver error being either significantly reduced or eliminated. Although that should lead to reduced premiums, a great deal of work will be necessary, as we prepare for this new environment, to better assess whether that will in fact be the case. If there were increased procedural and administrative costs for insurers, there could be higher premiums, in which case there would be a severe impact on the uptake of AVs in the UK, making the Government’s actions self-defeating. We believe that the Government must review at regular intervals how the insurance for AVs is working, so Labour will press for a review date to be included in the Bill.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman is making some extremely important points, and I hope that he will forgive me for interrupting him again. On that very issue of insurance, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) made the very good observation that human error is the greatest cause of accidents nowadays. It is likely—although we cannot be 100% sure of anything—that the arrival of driverless vehicles would reduce the number of accidents, thus reducing the amount of insurance required and, as a result, reducing insurance premiums as well. Would that not, in many ways, liberate drivers rather than hampering them?

[Karl Turner]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I think that I made the same point myself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

I will leave the hon. Gentleman to make his own point on that.

I am particularly excited about the progress of electric vehicles because of my concern about the environment. Air quality has already been mentioned, and there is no doubt that the Paris climate talks started to exert the downward pressure on carbon dioxide emissions that will inevitably result in the phasing out of fossil fuels. I have been talking to the Renewable Energy Association, which is the UK’s largest trade association for renewable energy and clean technology. It has produced an excellent forward view, which estimates that the move towards electric vehicles will be even more rapid than is currently anticipated by the Government.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. Friend is making a fine speech about energy purity and clean air. Is she as excited as I am that so much Chinese technology is coming along, largely due to the dirtiness and air pollution in so many Chinese cities? Does she also welcome the amount of invention that is taking place not through Governments but through the free market and the technologies that it is spurring?

[Mrs Gillan]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I shall refer to the international scene later in my speech.

The Renewable Energy Association estimates that most new car sales will be electric well before the 2040 diesel and petrol sales ban. It further estimates that 75% of new car and light commercial vehicle sales will be all-electric or plug-in hybrid by 2030. That goes to show that the electric vehicle market is set to be one of the most exciting in modern times. As others have said, however, there are several barriers. They include public policy, the cost and range of vehicles, the lack of infrastructure and the lack of availability of low carbon energy.

The UK’s EV and energy storage markets directly employ more than 16,000 people. That number will grow significantly, particularly if our public policy supports growth in, for example, grid flexibility as well as strengthening our building codes and even introducing workplace regulation. In addition to domestic growth, we also have the possibility of post-Brexit manufacturing and export opportunities, which are potentially very significant. However, to expand those export markets, we will need a robust domestic market, which will in turn depend on a reliable, available and affordable low carbon electric vehicle charging network.

The network certainly has a long way to go. I had a look in Chesham and Amersham, which are pretty go-ahead places that will be early adopters of the new technology. I was really disappointed by the electric charging map, however. I saw one point in Great Missenden, one in Little Chalfont and one in Chalfont St Peter. Chesham is ahead of the game with two. I found it interesting that the point in Little Chalfont is at the London Underground car park. I hope that the Minister will say something later about encouraging organisations such as London Underground and Transport for London to invest in far more charging points at their car parking facilities throughout the south-east.

As I said earlier, international progress is going to be rapid. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) mentioned China, and it is worth taking a few minutes to look in more detail at what is happening internationally. In the UK, the Government have confirmed that they will ban the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles without a battery element by 2040. France has done the same. The Netherlands has confirmed its plan to ensure that all new vehicles are emissions free by 2030. That will effectively be a ban on the sale of new diesel and petrol vehicles. Germany is considering banning new petrol and diesel cars by 2030. That would certainly require the upgrading of the country’s entire manufacturing processes and supply chain by that date. China is considering a ban similar to the one being introduced in the UK, but it has yet to announce a timeline. I think that that will be highly significant. Moving on to another country with a vast population, India has announced that it wants all new car sales to be electric by 2030.

An interesting by-product is the question of what will be needed for the manufacture of the batteries. Volkswagen estimates that 40 gigafactories are going to be needed for battery manufacture globally, and there is a belief that there is scope for a number of those factories to be located in the UK. They would create new manufacturing jobs and inward investment, if domestic markets were created for those battery products. I hope that the Minister will tell us what possibilities exist to encourage that sort of investment in our manufacturing in the UK.

I welcome the Bill. There is no doubt that the national roll-out of a strategic, smart and effective charging infrastructure is a critical component of developing the electric car market. The move to hold powers to require service area operators to provide a minimum level of EV charging is welcome, both on motorways and trunk roads. There is already some provision for charging on the majority of major motorways and trunk roads by one dominant operator, but there is a need for more competition and for making access easier in order to break down the perceived barriers to the uptake of EVs.

The applicability of these provisions to large fuel retailers that are not part of trunk road or motorway service areas might not be as valuable, however, because the dwell time at such sites is less desirable to the motorist. EV drivers typically stop for a short break commensurate with the time required to get a significant charge. There might be a need for further provision in areas where customers need to rely on public rapid charging instead of the classic overnight charging at home or at work. In those areas, the charging would be likely to be combined with another amenity, and it is therefore essential that the Government consider these provisions in relation to retail sites and coffee shops, for example, to provide an associated activity alongside the charging of the vehicle.

In the light of the alternative fuels infrastructure directive, we are starting to prescribe a common standard for what the future of EV charging should look like. We will also need to allow roaming. Just as we have roaming for phones, we will also need roaming to allow vehicle operators to use other people’s equipment. I would like to know what the Government are doing to encourage the use of another operator’s hardware, in order to cross the barriers created by having a contract with a single user.

It has been mentioned that the variety of ways of accessing charging points through accounts, cards or smartphones is confusing and unnecessary. We need to look at standardising that process. The requirement for charge points to be smart, especially those at home and in the workplace, is essential. It will allow electric vehicles to become part of the developing decentralised grid. We need to be able to use those vehicles not only to take power out of the network but to put it back into the grid at certain times. I hope that that massively distributed part of our grid infrastructure will become a reality with EVs, and I would like the Minister to say something about that as well. I have already mentioned the fact that solar carports and canopies will be essential to ensuring that rural areas are not disadvantaged.

I wondered whether there was any possibility of amending the Bill, so I want to make a couple of suggestions before I sit down. The Government could consider going further and regulating so that all new houses and housing developments with driveways or on-site capacity for EV charging should have the three-phase electricity supply that is necessary for effective charging of EVs. We should also ensure that the minimum power supply levels are included in building codes for all new homes, offices, shopping centres, public buildings and other areas where parking is available to the public. While we have only a small number of EV charge stations at present, that would ensure that retail sites can rapidly expand as demand grows. All new workplaces should also have EV charging facilities on site or a provision to install charge points. Lastly, those who have electric vehicles should be identified. In Norway, such vehicles have the identifying letters EL on their licence plates, which can go up to 99999, meaning 99,999 vehicles, and I think they are up to about 60,000. I hope that people can be rewarded by the Government for turning to electric vehicles. It is an exciting technology. It is the future, and I am glad that our Government are grasping it by the horns.

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

We often get a feeling of déjà vu in this place, and tonight is another of those times; I feel like we have been here and have heard some of these comments before. I warn Members that if any of them have actually paid attention to my speeches on electric vehicles, they will get another feeling of déjà vu. [Hon. Members: “Hooray.”] It merited more than that. Anyway, the sense of déjà vu comes because the Bill was clearly part of the previous Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, which is testament to the folly of calling a general election. Not only was it a waste of money, but we are now revisiting legislation that had effectively already been through its Committee stage. We are redoing work that has been done before, which is costing the taxpayer money. [Interruption.] I will give way if the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) wants to make an intervention.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman was saying that the general election was a waste of money, but I cannot possibly agree. We have 13 Conservative MPs in Scotland, which is a great success all on its own.

[Alan Brown]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

The thrust of this Bill is rightly uncontroversial and consensual. Were persuasion of its merits needed, it was supplied by the Ciceronian eloquence and elegance, and indeed the exhaustive explanations, with which the Minister for Transport Legislation and Maritime, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), characteristically set out his case.

As hon. and right hon. Members have said, the pace of technological change in this area, as in others, is rapid and dramatic, and is in many ways a manifestation of the much-talked-about fourth industrial revolution. The prize in this space is huge. We all want the UK to be the best place in the world to innovate and invest, and for society, individuals and the environment all to benefit as we do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) made extremely important points. Where technology advances rapidly, the regulatory framework too often lags behind and in some areas, as here, risks acting as a drag on that new technology.

The key to this Bill is that it seeks to remove barriers to the market operating and developing as we would all wish. Given the pace of change, it is right that we include provisions to enable the use of delegated legislation, with appropriate scrutiny, to allow the regulatory framework to continue keeping up with the pace of change—creating a framework to stimulate the market, but not specifying the specific technological solutions.

The Bill has two key aspects, as other hon. Members have said. First, the Bill is about stimulating automated vehicle technology, which is in its infancy. There are then the provisions on electric vehicles, a technology already set fair and continuing to grow, but which must be encouraged.

Automated vehicle technology continues to develop apace. In 2015, only a couple of years ago, there were four test sites in the UK looking into that technology and how it might develop. I hope more sites will explore the technology in future and that at least one of those sites might be in Scotland, drawing on the track record of experience and innovation north of the border, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). In order for there to be such growth, one of the key barriers that must be overcome is insurance. Insurance policies and the insurance framework were designed for an age—indeed, our age—when all vehicles were controlled by humans and the idea that they would not be was inconceivable, with an individual being held responsible for their decisions and actions through the courts and through the insurance framework. We have already seen technology move on—for example, as in automated parking—but we have yet to see the insurance framework move with it.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting distinction between a vehicle controlled by a driver sitting at the steering wheel and a vehicle controlled by technology, suggesting that the latter is not controlled by a human. But of course it is controlled by a human—the human who wrote the code, who came up with the ethical choices and who designed the system, and who is now remote from the vehicle. There is still human control. It is merely a question of which human is responsible, not whether a human is responsible.

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Perhaps I should say a vehicle’s driver has historically been held responsible. Of course, in this context the person who wrote the code would not be held responsible. The insurer, in the first instance, would be held responsible, with the insurer or the authorities being able to pursue remedies against the manufacturer through the courts were there to be a technological flaw or error. It is right to keep the insurer as the first step in seeking redress, as that makes redress as swift and easy as possible for an injured party, while not taking away the opportunity through the courts to address any issues that arise with the manufacturer.

I will address four areas of policy relating to automated vehicles. The first is safety. Concerns have rightly been expressed in the press and, on occasion, in this House about whether the technology is safe and whether this will be a safe way to proceed. The technology is in its infancy and continues to be explored, but the statistic from the Department for Transport is that 97% of accidents or collisions relate to human error, with the explanatory notes and the Library briefing on the Bill stating that it mainly falls into two categories. One of those is a driver losing control of the vehicle, driving too fast for the conditions or not being able to manage the vehicle’s progress. The other is a driver not seeing something. We would hope the technology would be perfect—I am not sure whether it will or will not be—but any technology is likely to significantly reduce that level of accidents and human error.

That takes us to the second challenge that has been both raised and then addressed by Members from both sides of the House: the impact on insurance premiums and the insurance market. Let us suppose that that reduction in accidents that we would all hope and expect to see occurred. As has been said in this debate, with the Minister, the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) I believe making this point, we would expect to see that helping to drive down premiums. That is not a reason for the insurance industry not to continue developing new products and streamlining its processes—I hope it will—so that this does not add to an administrative burden for those purchasing insurance, and I think there is a potential to drive down premiums there.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Given his expertise, I know that my hon. Friend will know that the car insurance market underwrites a lot of other insurance markets, as it is the most profitable, so the loss of premium in that market could have consequences in other insurance markets, including home insurance, that would have other societal consequences. I am sure he is going to address that.

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend is right to say that changes on this scale have the potential to change not just the technology, the way in which we use it and the way we live our lives, but the supply chain, the energy market and the insurance market. One challenge for all of us and for that market is how it evolves and adapts to that change. In his speech in March on the precursor to this Bill, he highlighted to hon. Members who perhaps suggested that the pace of change was too fast that we cannot sit still and use the challenges posed to the current ways of doing things as a reason for not progressing.

There are two final areas I wish to touch on in respect of automated vehicles, the first of which is the environmental benefits that could be delivered through fuel-efficient transportation, for want of a better way of putting it. One would hope that the decisions made by a computer are that bit quicker and more efficient than reactions by a human, so this has the potential to bring about increased fuel efficiency. The other area is one the Minister highlighted: the opportunities that automated vehicles provide for those who may until now have been excluded from driving or from making use of vehicles, be they elderly or disabled people. These vehicles may well increase the opportunities for them to make use of this way of getting around.

The second part of the Bill deals with electric vehicles, a technology that is already well developed. I was very much involved with this issue in a past life, as Westminster City Council’s cabinet member for the environment and transport. One key thing I worked on back then with the Mayor and my colleagues in city hall was expanding access to electric vehicle charging points in central London. In many ways, this is the easy end of the scale in expanding use. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who is no longer in his place, has spoken eloquently on this subject, and in his successful time as deputy Mayor of London he did much to drive forward the technology and access to it. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), a former cabinet colleague of mine on Westminster City Council at the same time, also did a huge amount to expand that network. Westminster is one of the most heavily covered parts of the capital—it may even be the most heavily covered—for EV charging points, which increase access. One may argue that it is a part of the country that needs fewer charging points than others because the average journey in London is 10 km or less, and even current battery technology is normally capable of delivering that.

Achieving the roll-out and the commercial success of EVs more widely requires a number of key issues to be addressed in the country as a whole, the first of which is choice. In any market where a consumer makes a decision on where to invest their money and what to buy, particularly on a purchase of this size, we want to make sure that there is a functioning market. We see that in place, with myriad new electric vehicles coming on the market every year. The technology also needs to be affordable and we need to make sure that the charging networks are simple to use. We need the prices to come down and we need this to be seen as a viable and affordable alternative to conventional fuels. We must ensure that we have a network of interoperable charge points so that people can plug in regardless of the network they are on or the deal they are signed up to. That relates to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on concerns about range. The grid must be smart, so that we can ensure we do not overload it when everyone comes home from work in the evening and plugs their car in and suddenly we see a surge in demand. Charging must also be swift. The point was well made that at service stations or motorway service areas there is an opportunity for people to plug in their EV and charge it while doing other things, but many people will want a quick charge and to move on.

The technology continues to develop but it is not there yet. A wonderfully interesting book was written some years ago called “Start-up Nation” which is about innovation in Israel. It talked about technology being developed to charge an electric vehicle’s battery in a matter of minutes. I do not know whether that technology worked or whether it is still being developed, but it shows that the innovation and the willingness to drive it forward are there. All these things are addressing the challenges of battery technology, but I believe that as we move forward—as we have seen with renewable energies—we will see significant strides in battery technology which will deal with these challenges. This Bill gives the scope for all these issues to be addressed. On technological advances, one of the best analogies we could draw is with the early mobile telephones. Twenty or 30 years ago, a mobile phone came with a briefcase, which was its battery pack, but over a very short period that was reduced to something that is probably smaller than my thumb. I see no reason why as this market develops we will not see similar developments in this area.

I believe the future is bright. We have an obligation to future generations. Not only are the economic benefits and the benefits to individuals evident, but we hold our environment in trust and it is in its environmental opportunities that the greatest opportunities with this technology exist. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun set out, it is estimated that about 40,000 people die annually from illnesses related to poor air quality. Some 80% of nitric oxide in inner-city hotspots is due to road transport, so the potential to address both air quality and climate change is there. Some may fear that we are swapping dirty fuel in cars for dirty power generation, as more electricity is needed. I would say simply that that is not a reason not to act; it is exactly why we must in parallel continue to embrace the opportunities presented by green and renewable power generation, building on the real progress made so far, also enabled by technology.

To conclude, this is a Bill to be welcomed. We must seize the opportunities that new technology offers for our economy, for enhancing our daily lives and for preserving and enhancing our environment for future generations. This Bill does that and I am pleased to support it.

Chris Gibb Report: Improvements to Southern Railway

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman rather makes my point for me. Why on earth are we discriminating against disabled people, who want the same freedom as able-bodied people to turn up at a railway station and carry on with their journey?

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy McDonald]

No, I am not giving way again. The hon. Gentleman should sit down.

Before the Secretary of State claims that this a conspiracy theory cooked up by ASLEF or the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, a spokesperson for Govia Thameslink Railway said:

“there is no cast-iron guarantee that passengers with accessibility requirements can spontaneously board a train in the assumption there would be a second member of staff on board every train.”

Here is another quote from a representative from a train operating company seeking to introduce DOO, in a recent edition of Modern Railways, on the advantages of trains that could go into service with only the driver on board:

“The good thing would be that all of the regular passengers would still be carried, it would only be the wheelchair users who wouldn’t be able to travel”.

The Secretary of State will be well aware of numerous stories of disabled passengers who have been left stranded as a result of the staffing changes that he is forcing through. Sandra Nighy, 56, of Highfields, Tarring, was left stranded in the freezing cold for more than two hours waiting for a Southern service on Hampden Park train platform near Eastbourne, because there was nobody to help her on to the train. Sandra said:

“the whole situation was horrible and embarrassing and it is unforgiveable when I had booked assistance 48 hours in advance”.

Everyone should be able to use rail services, and providing assistance to those who need it should be a top priority to ensure a good quality of life. The Transport Secretary should be ashamed that he is making our railway less, not more, accessible for disabled people. I firmly believe that the Labour party, passenger groups, staff and the disability charities are in the right when we say that the Government’s objective should be to make our railways safer and more accessible, not riskier and more exclusive.

The Gibb report paints a picture of a chaotic relationship between Network Rail, the Department for Transport and Govia Thameslink Railway, none of which has sufficient oversight or responsibility, leading to poor performance on Southern. Gibb says:

“None of the parties in the system share the same incentives or objectives”.

He recommends

“that the custodian of the overall system integrity be better identified”.

While those criticisms are clearly true for Southern, they are an accurate summary of what is wrong with the way in which our railways are managed in general. Labour has consistently highlighted the fact that privatisation and fragmentation of the railway has prevented the necessary oversight and responsibility needed to deliver upgrades and run efficient services, which is why, as part of our plans to take rail into public ownership, we will establish a new national body to serve as a “guiding mind” for the publicly owned railway, to avoid the chaos over which this Government have presided.

There is no need for the Government to prolong the suffering of passengers any longer—this industrial dispute is but one part of an unedifying scene—as basic managerial inefficiency characterises this woeful service.

It is within the Secretary of State’s power to end the industrial dispute tomorrow. He can do it by calling off his plans to expand driver-only operation and by guaranteeing a second safety-critical crew member on every train, and he should do so immediately.

As with the east coast main line, which delivered the lowest fare rises and highest passenger satisfaction of any rail service in the country, and which returned over £1 billion to the Treasury, it is time to admit defeat and to take Southern back under public control as a public service.

The privatised, franchised railway system, which allows all comers, including state-owned rail companies from across the globe—with the bizarre exception of the UK itself—to extract profits from passengers and taxpayers alike has had its day. The Government should wake up and recognise the chaos they have created. They should do the right thing and bring our railways back under public control and ownership. If they don’t, a Labour Government will.

--- Later in debate ---

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

What a pleasure it is to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) for all he has done, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), on the all-party parliamentary group on Southern rail. I hope that the group will reform as soon as he is ready.

This is a particularly important debate for me and it is one that is very close to my home, in the sense that I live very near a station on the Southern line, from which I take a train to get here. This situation has had a huge impact on my life and the lives of many of the people I have the privilege to represent. People around our communities cannot get home. Children cannot get to school and therefore the parents, even if they could have got to work, cannot go because they do not have emergency childcare.

I have been working very closely with my hon. Friend the Minister, who has done enormous amounts of work of late to ensure that the rail network gets the money it requires. But in the Gibb report we find many indications of why this is not just about money. It is about so much more. It is about huge amounts of time and infrastructure, and that is why I shall skip over the industrial relations that have been so adequately covered by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and over some of the aspects of union power touched on by those who are my friends, even if they sit on the other side of the House. I shall focus instead on areas in which we need to take the Gibb report seriously.

As various people know, electrification of the Uckfield line has been spoken about since the 1970s. It was, I believe, the last track to use a steam engine for regular commuting services, right up to the 1970s, and now that legacy is coming through on the diesel line. Surely enough is enough. It is 2017, Thomas the Tank Engine is on an iPad—he is not even a book any more—yet we have diesel trains running on what should frankly be electric tracks. Please, Minister, can we have the electrification we need? Can we catch up with the iPad generation?

There are many people from Edenbridge and District Rail Travellers Association with whom I have been working very closely who have spoken about this and about how we can get this done: how to get the lines dualled—or rather, redualled, as the dual line was removed in the 1990s. Perhaps—here is the real chance—we can get the line to run beyond Uckfield. Imagine that, Madam Deputy Speaker: taking your holidays and deciding that instead of driving down—you do not want to do that, through Croydon and south London, on all those crowded roads—you will get on the tube at Westminster. You take the Jubilee line straight through to London Bridge, where you get on the train. You will travel down some of the most beautiful tracks in Kent, but then you end up by accident in Sussex. However, you will still go through beautiful parts of Kent, travelling on from Uckfield down to the coast. Imagine that, Madam Deputy Speaker, for an evening in Brighton after a day in the House. I can see that you are already desirous of those moments.

I can see that that is something that we can all aim for. There are many issues that we can touch on: the parking at Cowden and Hever; the fact that many folk have to drive to stations such as Hildenborough or Sevenoaks, rather than getting on at the station nearest to them, which has an impact on the environment and road safety. These are narrow lanes with cyclists and horse riders. That is a danger for all of us.

Perhaps the most important issue is the fact that we have to invest in our future. Time and again, we have lived off the legacy of our great-grandparents’ thoughts and dreams—those investments that built the trains, bridges and roads. They were built by the Victorian and Edwardian generations, and in this new Elizabethan age surely we need to emulate that investment, because when we spend on the rail networks we are not spending on getting to London five minutes quicker; no, we are spending on making our nation great, and we are doing it because London is not just the people who live in it. All great metropolises depend on the networks they feed off, and there is none greater than ours and there is none that requires more investment.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Sixth sitting)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Public Bill Committees

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

Given that the Minister has conceded that there will be a strategy, may I urge the hon. Gentleman to do as little strategising as possible and perhaps to include corporates as much as possible? My experience of watching Governments strategise, whether in the military or the civilian field, is to see what is charmingly known as a cluster emerge from the ideas of Whitehall and get thrust on corporations and individuals who then have to untangle whatever came out. I urge him as much possible in our process to act simply as a receptacle of ideas, rather than as a preacher of doctrine.

[Richard Burden]

In many ways, I think that is what we are getting at. Throughout Committee we have emphasised the importance of consulting stakeholders, and listening to and involving them. The corporate sector, particularly in the automotive industry, is central to that. Automotive is one of those areas in which partnership between Government and industry has been at its most successful. The Automotive Council, established by the previous Labour Government—but I am pleased to say continued by the coalition and this Government—has been held up as a beacon for a non-bureaucratic way to bring Government and industry together to lay out where we want to go and the kind of road map needed to get there.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Fifth sitting)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Hayes]

No, but we look up to you; that is the point I am making.

We are also working with UK security agencies. When I was in my previous job as security Minister in the Home Office, I was heavily involved in consideration of cyber-threats and cyber-security. It is important for the Committee to know that this is something that has been discussed across Government, because some of these responsibilities are shared by different Government Departments and different Ministers. We are therefore working with other parts of Government on the new National Cyber Security Centre to engage directly with the industry to raise awareness and promote best practice. Using the Government’s approach to cyber-security, applying it to this area of work, engaging with the automated industry and those who are developing this technology is central to our purpose.

The hon. Gentleman invited me to go into some more detail. As part of that, we have set out for the industry the objective of developing a set of principles for cyber-security. As a result, our thinking is developing alongside that of the industry. It is important that we establish at an early stage the principles—many of which the hon. Gentleman touched on—that will underpin the safe and secure development that he and I seek.

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

Given that the foreign countries to which people are most likely to take their electric cars are going to be European countries, can the Minister tell the Committee a little about what co-operation he hopes to have with European partners, particularly on charging points? We know that the vulnerability in cyber-security is often at the point of connection. The telephone network—presumably a telephone network is linking them—and the charging points are going to be vulnerable.

[Mr Hayes]

The promotion of sharing good practice will be national; it will be between Government and industry; and it will be pan-national, pan-European and, beyond that, international. The establishment of an information exchange to share exactly those kinds of principles is part of what we are doing. That certainly includes work across Europe, for the very reason my hon. Friend gave, which is that people will want to travel beyond the boundaries of this country. They will also, of course, buy vehicles that are manufactured in other places—the nature of the automotive industry is that it is pan-national. It is critical that we can rely on digital standards, just as we expect mechanical standards to be reliable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Marris]

My hon. Friend is right. I am not an expert but, intuitively, I recognise that solar power generation is likely to be less efficacious at night, although I appreciate that the wind blows at night and that, if we continue with nuclear reactors, they produce electricity all the time. That is why electricity is cheaper at night through Economy 7.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I think we have spoken in Committee about the fact that some charging capability will also be fed back into the grid. The hon. Gentleman is very much describing a nightmare scenario, in much the same way as in the 1800s some of those Manchester cotton workers described the spinning jennys as a nightmare scenario. The truth is that technology evolves and human practice evolves with it, so I feel that he is being a little bleak for this stage of the Bill.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Third sitting)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Richard Fuller]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and to have listened to the opening speeches. I will focus on the intent of clause 1 and how it relates to the title and ambitions of the Bill. As you know, it is entitled the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, and, for those of us with an interest in technology, it is that forward-looking word that attracts us. The Bill meshes with the Government’s stated strategy of being at the forefront of welcoming technology businesses into the UK, both broadly and in the area of vehicle automation. Both the Opposition spokesman and the Minister alluded to that general principle and the context in which the Bill has been introduced. I raised a point earlier about whether the word “monitoring” is part and parcel of that broader ambition and whether it assists in it, which will certainly be an important consideration for Government Members.

The Minister kindly drew my attention to my question to the chair of the Automated Driving Insurers Group, who replied that, yes, the Bill met the insurance industry’s ambitions. I think the Minister was trying to reassure me with that, but I must gently point out that if it had been up to the satisfaction of insurers, Columbus would not have gone to America, no one would have gone to the moon and Steve Jobs would not have created Apple. The confirmation and endorsement of insurers may be a necessary condition, but it is certainly not a sufficient one to meet the ambitions that we have set ourselves.

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

My hon. Friend makes some good points, but the whole point of insurance is to share risk. It was that sharing of risk that allowed Columbus to go to America and allowed the exploration of the known world. In fact, it was the invention of insurance in these islands that enabled us to create an empire and trade with the world. I feel slightly that my hon. Friend is perhaps aiming at the wrong target.

[Richard Fuller]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no wish whatever to demean one of the most important export earners for our country. Insurance is indeed important, but when it comes to the issue of the word “monitoring”, what my hon. Friend and other colleagues on the Committee need to work out is the implication of that word—yes, through the context and lens of the insurance industry—for the ability of this country to provide an adequate platform for innovation.

I was trying to think of the implications of the word “monitoring” versus “controlling” for when I am sitting in a vehicle. Surely one of the advantages of the vehicles that we are trying to encourage here is that it is a different type of experience. When someone gets into an autonomous vehicle, that enables different types of things than when they get into a regular vehicle. One must surely be that they have the ability to do other things, because the car is taking them from A to B. However, if the word in the definition is “monitoring”, I understand that my time doing other things is now limited, because I have essentially got to be doing what I would be doing anyway, which is monitoring the road, the vehicle, the conditions and pedestrians. I will be spending all of my time monitoring what is going on, even though I am not necessarily controlling what is going on.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Fourth sitting)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the necessary correction. My concern is that there is nothing in the Bill that requires software to be updated. I find that somewhat difficult to understand. These vehicles will be available for use and there will be several iterations of the software updates, so I am staggered that there is nothing to require that to happen. It is almost an assumption—the nature of the beast is such that of course it will be part of the debate—but there is no obligation.

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

Many businesses have insurance for business disruption based on their updating cyber-security software for their accountancy models and so on. I am not entirely sure why the hon. Gentleman feels that such a provision is needed in the Bill when it works alongside the insurance element, so in reality the insurance company would provide that check.

[Andy McDonald]

I am not entirely sure that, as a matter of course, insurers would check whether the software on all the vehicles they insure is up to date. They might demand that at the outset but I am not sure what mechanism would make sure of it, other than to warn people that otherwise policies would be voided.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Would not that in many ways be similar to servicing vehicles? My insurance policy, like many others, requires me to service my vehicle, which is about as non-electronic as it is possible to get these days, pretty regularly. The insurance company will not have checked in advance, but if they later find out that an accident was caused because the vehicle was not in a roadworthy condition because I did not maintain it properly, my insurance is invalid. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but not why he believes it should be in the Bill, rather than leaving it to insurance companies to manage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

We are ranging a little widely, but I must say that the hon. Gentleman is entering the realms of fantasy, to use a phrase often used by Captain Mainwaring of Corporal Jones in that legendary programme, “Dad’s Army”. Insurance models are currently available for all kinds of vehicles of all ages and at all stages of development and iterations—my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire is a renowned expert on the subject. Some of those vehicles are very ancient indeed and include no modern technology or mechanics, but they are safe, they can be driven safely, and they are insured accordingly. It would be extraordinary if the insurance industry did not develop products that suited vehicles of all ages. They do so now, so why would they not do so in the future?

[Tom Tugendhat]

The Minister makes an impassioned defence of his point, and he is absolutely right: the market has solutions for these things. It is not necessarily for the state to decree the exact contractual relationship between an insurer and a vehicle manufacturer. It is certainly true that some software solutions, unlike the mechanical solutions that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire enjoys, will inevitably become obsolete, just as some computers and telephones have done, but the Bill’s purpose surely cannot be to ensure that no car built from now on is allowed to go obsolete and that all its systems and software must be kept constantly up to date until the last person who wishes to drive it decides no longer to do so.

[Mr Hayes]

Perhaps, having accused my dear friend—not my hon. Friend in parliamentary convention, but my dear friend—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West of entering the realms of fantasy—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Marris]

What a Minister! Given that he has been so generous to me, I will be generous to him.

On a more serious point, may I draw the Minister’s attention to the beginning of line 23 of clause 4, which states

“knows he or she is required”?

I think that should state “knows or should have known that he or she is required”, because otherwise the person can plead ignorance and there is no “should have known” about it, which is a common construction in law, as my hon. Friend for Middlesbrough will know. Similarly, in line 33, “that an insured person knew or should have known that he was required under the policy” would be legally clearer and help all of us, including insurers. Line 41, subsection 5(b), reads

“which, at the time the person knew he or she was required”.

It ought to be “at the time the person knew or should have known he or she was required”. Having put that forward, I know the Minister will consider it in his usual generous spirit.

More importantly and substantively, there should be a provision in clause 4 on the cost of software updates. I appreciate that clause 4 is principally about insurers and so on, but it is about software updates. If in terms of safety—not the legalities—there is a safety-critical update that the manufacturer decides is going to cost £1,000 to whack in and the insured decides not to do that, that would void his or her insurance policy, but it would also put the rest of us at risk.

That is not a figure plucked out of the air. I might have said in an earlier session that the software to install a sat-nav in my car—just for the software; none of the hardware—costs £600. To update the software for sat-navs in many cars can be £300 or £400. That is just for the software update for a poxy sat-nav, let alone for an automated vehicle.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman is seeking now to regulate the contract between an individual and the car company they buy from in relation to servicing. There are many different updates that are required for a car in terms of safety-critical features, which happen every now and again, such as changing tyres. [Interruption.] Or buying a new set of brakes, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire says. Each different manufacturer has a different price list. If someone wants to buy a Rolls Royce, they can be pretty sure that the price of the items will be very high. I chose not to—there were several reasons for that, not least that child seats do not fit very well. Rather more fundamentally, I chose to buy a cheaper car for the simple reason that I realised that if I was going to be asked to service the damn thing, I wanted it to be affordable. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West is effectively seeking to govern the servicing arrangements.

[The Chair]

Order. That was a very lengthy intervention.

[Rob Marris]

Without straying too far, the Labour party was in favour of looking at a regulatory regime to cap energy prices; so now is the Conservative party. There is a role for the state when there is market failure. We are talking about potential market failure for very important safety items, not whether it is going to cost £100 or £200 to service a car and someone decides whether they buy a Rolls Royce, or whatever presumably less expensive car the hon. Gentleman bought—I cannot think that he would have bought a more expensive one. I understand the role of the market for that.

I am not looking to cap service charges, but there is an argument for the state putting a cap on the price of software updates, on safety grounds. The hon. Member for Wycombe referred earlier to parachutes. He can correct me on this, but I do not think that many people are killed in this country from someone’s parachute failing, besides that individual. What we are talking about here potentially is an individual whose parachute fails and who then lands on someone else and kills them. It is not just the owner of the vehicle; it is the rest of us.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman talks about safety-critical software. Brake pads are pretty safety-critical. If someone does not maintain their vehicle to a reasonable standard with proper brake pads, the vehicle is uninsurable. The same would be true in this case. If the manufacturer overprices the update, people will not buy the car. If people do not update the software, the car will be uninsurable and therefore undrivable.

[Rob Marris]

The hon. Gentleman has a much more touching faith in the market than I do to resolve these things—that is why he is on those Benches and I am on these. That is fine, but in terms of the safety of all of us—he drives on the road, so do I; his family goes on the road, so does mine—I want a cap on safety software upgrade prices. The Minister should consider that, and it would go in clause 4.