Karl Turner
MP for Kingston upon Hull East · Independent · United Kingdom
“I will call Tom Hayes to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.”
“From 1997, the Prime Minister campaigned to scrap single-judge trials in Northern Ireland, yet when I opposed his Government’s plan to bring in single-judge trials in England and Wales, I received hostile briefings and smears about my mental health from the lads in No. 10 Downing Street.”
“It must be absolutely exhausting for the Justice Secretary to hold on to an idea that only he still pretends is a good one. The Mayor of London is opposed to these changes and has tried to persuade the Justice Secretary to bin them. The Mayor of Greater Manchester is opposed to this ludicrous idea.”
“Richard Foord will move the motion. I will then call the Minster to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.”
“Where I think the Prime Minister went wrong was in the shenanigans between those two points: looking around for an excuse for why it had gone wrong. “Just take it on the chin—deal with it!” That is the advice I would have given him, and that is why I am particularly disappointed.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). He and I rarely agree politically, but we do work together constructively in our constituencies for the betterment of the region.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Karl Turner, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 12.
“Again, my hon. Friend makes a valid point. I am sure the Minister has taken his comments on board, but it is a matter for the Minister to come back and satisfy the Committee.”
“My hon. Friend says from a sedentary position that the Minister said there would be no impact. I think the Minister has taken on board the points that my hon. Friend has raised, and I expect him to come back on that. I have one or two questions of my own for the Minister. Given that the CAA will get further regulatory powers and become the licensing authority to deliver oversight and take measures against carriers if necessary, is he absolutely satisfied that it is fully resourced? Does he foresee any issues in that respect? I look forward very much to his response.”
“T3. The criminal justice system is on its knees. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service are failing to make important disclosures in criminal proceedings because they do not have the necessary staff. Defendants are representing themselves, often in complex cases, because they have failed to qualify for legal aid. Interpreters are not turning up because the system is broken. Solicitors and barristers are leaving the professions and are not being replaced. The failed probation privatisation project has caused chaos and is putting people at risk. Family proceedings are just as chaotic. When will the Government do something about our once proud justice system? When will they get a grip and end austerity in the system?”
“All that could easily be put at risk if we leave the EU without a deal. Will the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that we will have the same air passenger rights once we have left the European Union? Overall, the Government’s shambolic handling of the Brexit negotiations could lead to thousands of skilled jobs being lost in the aviation sector unless they change tack and get a grip now.”
“The sector is worried, and it is crucial that we retain our status as a full and engaged member of the European Aviation Safety Agency. Alongside France we have been a key contributor to the development of European safety regulations and rulemaking, and nobody wants the UK to lose that influence. UK air passenger rights following Brexit should not be fewer than they currently are, and that is particularly important for disabled travellers and passengers with reduced mobility. The entire aviation sector in the UK has developed through EU law, and it has led to cheaper fares and greater choice for consumers. Our current deal has given us greater consumer rights, and passengers can claim compensation for delayed and cancelled flights. We are members of the European Aviation Safety Agency, which deals with the safe operation of aviation.”
“First, and foremost, we must retain access to the Single European Sky air traffic management system. Since 2007 we have enjoyed an open skies agreement with the United States of America which, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) made clear, includes 16 other countries. That must also continue. Through our membership of the EU we are members of the European single aviation market, which allows airlines based in Britain to operate throughout Europe. There is no World Trade Organisation fall-back for the aviation sector, which means that unless the Government negotiate a deal there will be no legal right to operate flights to Europe. It is no good saying continually that everything will be all right on the night.”
“Ministers might like to boast that 95% of the Brexit withdrawal agreement is done, but that is completely irrelevant as there can be no agreement unless everything is agreed—a point reiterated time and again by the Prime Minister—and that includes reaching a suitable agreement on aviation. Consumers and businesses have benefited from the UK’s global connectivity and access to markets, and the Government must build on that as we leave the EU. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what steps the Government are taking to improve our global connectivity through aviation, post Brexit. Labour believes that any new service agreements for the aviation industry following Brexit should seek to replicate existing arrangements as much as possible.”
“It is crucial that the Government now prioritise securing a deal for the aviation sector, and provide the industry with the certainty it needs in the run-up to March 2019 and beyond. Labour has always maintained that the aviation sector should have been the first priority for the Government in their negotiations with the EU. Despite that, when the Transport Secretary addressed the annual conference of the Airport Operators Association on Monday, we heard that the Government are still negotiating future arrangements for air services with the EU. Indeed, it is worse than that because, as I understand it, the Transport Secretary has not had a single meeting with one of his counterparts from the 27 European member states to discuss what would happen if we are in no-deal territory.”
“It creates a million jobs, brings in tax revenues, and is vital for importing and exporting trade. We are now just five months away from leaving the EU, and as the days pass, the risk of a no-deal Brexit becomes greater. Regrettably, it seems to be becoming more likely by the day that we might leave the European Union without a deal. Let us be clear: a no-deal Brexit would be a disaster for the UK aviation sector—indeed, the Government’s aviation technical notices relating to no deal confirmed that crashing out of the EU without a deal would be a total disaster for the UK’s aviation sector. It would have a serious impact, and that cannot be dismissed as scaremongering.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) for securing this important and timely debate. His excellent speech set out the current and future benefits of the aviation sector, as well as the possible risks. He said that more than 25,000 jobs—a staggering number—are directly supported by the Manchester Airport campus in his constituency. That is remarkable, and I pay tribute to Manchester Airports Group for its great work. Labour believes that a strong aviation sector is crucial to the UK’s status as a global, outward-looking nation, and it is even more important following our decision to leave the European Union. As we have heard, Britain has the largest aviation network in Europe and the third largest in the world.”
“Considering that we are five months away from leaving the European Union, does the Minister think that everything is in place? Is he confident that there will not be any major problems, such as those that have been spoken about by hon. Members today?”
“This amendment appears to undermine the monitoring, reporting and verification regime that the UK will have in place to oversee the industry’s progress in meeting future internationally agreed greenhouse gas and CO 2 reduction targets. Can the Minister provide clarification on that in due course? Regulation 4 refers to Thetis monitoring, reporting and verification. Can the Minister clarify what the implications are for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency of the UK’s sole responsibility for monitoring, reporting and verification of international shipping’s carbon emissions in UK ports? I look forward to the Minister’s answers in due course.”
“I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Government are adhering to the original schedule, or is it being extended to 2023 in the new regulations? Secondly, in reference to paragraph 3 of article 22 of EU regulation 2016/1927, the Government propose to omit the words following “Regulation”. That could undermine the subsequent agreements at the IMO about the targets for reductions in greenhouse gas and CO 2 emissions from shipping. In April, the IMO agreed an initial strategy for carbon reductions from shipping by 2050. That includes a target for the shipping industry to reduce total annual greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50%, compared with 2008 levels, by 2050.”
“It is always an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. The Opposition are entirely supportive of the regulations, but I would be grateful if the Minster could answer some questions. They are particularly technical, so I do not expect answers today; I hope that the Minister can put them in writing. First, paragraph 5 of article 21 of EU regulation 2015/757 calls for a regular two-year assessment of “the maritime transport sector’s overall impact on the global climate…through…emissions or effects.” The Government propose to remove that, which would leave the existing schedule in the 2017 regulations for reporting or reviewing every five years in the shipping industry. The 2017 regulations also require the first review to be undertaken by 2022.”
“It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I will keep my remarks very brief. As the Minister has already outlined, the draft regulations will make slight changes to EU regulations as they apply to UK law under the withdrawal Act, relating to specific insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators. They are absolutely necessary, and the Opposition support them.”
“The latest road safety figures show that there has been an increase in the number of pedestrian and motorcyclist fatalities as well. The number of cyclists killed has remained broadly constant since 2010: why has progress stalled in that area as well? I would be grateful if, in the time he has available, the Minister could answer some of the points raised by the Front-Bench spokespeople as well as by hon. Members on both sides of the House.”
“We saw this morning that the RAC Foundation and the Road Safety Foundation have published a report on the possible benefits of the safer road fund, which estimates that the fund could prevent almost 1,450 deaths and serious injuries over the next two decades on the riskiest A roads of England. We are crying out for investment in road safety, so why is that money not being spent and where is it being reallocated to? We are also concerned about enforcement. Traffic officers have seen a 24% fall in their numbers since 2012—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). In 2010, there were 3,500 police officers patrolling the UK’s roads, but by 2017 the figure had fallen to 2,600. It seems that cuts to our vital services are putting safety at risk.”
“The Government set themselves targets to meet in pretty much every other area of policy, but not for reducing road deaths and injuries. Why is that the case? We have heard about the safer road fund, and we welcomed that targeted approach to enabling local authorities to improve the most dangerous stretches of A road in England. The fund initially totalled £175 million, of which £100 million is currently invested. However, the other £75 million that was originally allocated has, according to the Minister, “not been required”. Will he clarify what that is about?”
“Another year of stats has been published and we are no further forward. I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and Ageas for publishing their important report on safe system and road safety indicators earlier this month, and the Government need to sit up and take notice of that. Many stakeholders are calling on the Government to adopt road safety performance indicators. The Government scrapped road targets that successfully reduced the number of people killed or seriously injured by a third under the Labour Government. The Government say that targets do not achieve anything, but I disagree. They focus minds and attention, and hold the Government to account. Currently, there are no targets with which to assess progress.”
“In fact, we have the fourth lowest number of road deaths per million inhabitants, behind Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. However, we must never think that that means the job is done, while thousands of families each year are still traumatised by the tragedy of losing a loved one in what are so often avoidable circumstances. Last year, as we have heard, 1,793 people were killed on Britain’s roads. That is an average of five every day, and more than 10 times that number suffered serious injuries, many of which were life-changing. The Government talk a good game about road safety being a top priority, but their legacy so far is one of disappointment and frustration, and the latest Department for Transport figures reaffirm that. Since 2010, progress has well and truly stalled.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) for securing this important and timely debate. He is clearly very committed to making roads safer in his constituency and he speaks with great knowledge of the subject. The Government recently published their 2017 figures for reported road casualties in Great Britain, after a lengthy delay. Although there are some positives in that latest statistical release, there is also cause for concern. The Minister told me earlier this year that the picture was mixed, and it remains so. We have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House about this country’s proud record. We have some of the safest roads in the world.”
“It is scandalous that British officers and ratings hold fewer than 20% of jobs on UK vessels, while the shipping companies reap the benefits from the tonnage tax. Does the Minister agree that we need to create a mandatory link to training and employment of British seafarers, including ratings, as other EU countries have?”
“It is time for them to reverse the cuts they have imposed during their time in office, which have undoubtedly led to the decline in road safety we have seen in recent years. I look forward to hearing what the Government are doing. Although we have one of the safest road networks around, we should never be complacent, and the Government should be doing much more to make our roads even safer. The roll-out of Bobby zones nationally would go a long way towards reducing deaths and serious injury. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks on the important points raised during today’s debate.”
“The Government talk about road safety being a top priority, but they have failed to reduce the number of people seriously injured or killed on our roads. The evidence points to the reduction targets working successfully to promote safer roads. Enforcement is a vital part of keeping our roads safe, yet the number of traffic police officers has been slashed due to huge cuts to police forces. It is not a time to be party political—the debate is far more important than that—but the evidence shows that when police officer numbers are slashed, casualty numbers near schools tend to go up. According to a Department for Transport statistical table, the number of serious road injuries increased by 7% in the year to September 2017. Do the Government not recognise the link?”
“Over a six-year period, we have seen a staggering 74% drop in child pedestrian casualties. The 20 mph zones would not just have benefits for road safety; importantly, they would improve air quality, reduce noise pollution and encourage more physical activity, such as walking and cycling, by contributing towards a safer environment. In the Labour party’s 2017 manifesto, we said that a future Labour Government “will reset the UK’s road safety vision and ambitiously strive for a transport network with zero deaths, reintroducing road-safety targets, setting out bold measures that will continuously improve safety standards.” Will the Minister say why the Government scrapped the road safety targets introduced by previous Governments?”
“Over the past two decades the UK has earned a reputation for having roads that are among the safest in the world. Sadly, over the past eight years progress has stalled and even begun to reverse. The latest statistics show that road deaths are at a five-year high and that serious, life-changing injuries are up by 9%. The latest data from the Department for Transport shows that child pedestrian fatalities rose by 36% in 2016, and they were up slightly the following year. The introduction of maximum 20 mph speed limit zones around schools would help reduce the number of such incidents dramatically. All the evidence shows that areas that have implemented the 20 mph limit have seen a reduction in casualties. My own city of Hull has introduced a number of 20 mph zones to address the issue.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on securing this crucial debate. He has long been a prominent campaigner for better road safety, not only as a Member of Parliament but, as we have heard, when he was a Minister in the Department for Education, where he did a great deal of work to improve road safety around schools, and we thank him for that. I pay tribute to the family of Bobby Colleran and to the important work that the Bobby Colleran Trust does. I know that the introduction of Bobby zones outside schools in Liverpool has been successful. The roll-out of such zones nationally is something that the Government should seriously consider. I am very keen to meet people from the trust to hear more about the great work it does.”
“I thank the Government Front-Bench team for the spirit of co-operation in which the Bill has been handled. I reiterate my thanks to colleagues in the other place, as the Bill has returned here in a much better condition. We thank the Government for listening and acting on our concerns.”
“I have mentioned this before, but there are more charging points available on the Orkney Islands than in Blackpool, Grimsby and my own city of Hull combined. The Government must do much better. There is also a new amendment to review the legal framework for automated and electric vehicles that should ensure the effectiveness of the regulations in this Bill as this fast-changing technology develops. Industry, I think I am right to say, has generally welcomed these amendments. The Association of British Insurers said that Lords amendment 5 “provides a realistic timeframe for reporting as the insurance industry does not expect fully automated driving technology to be commercially available until 2021 at the earliest”. The Opposition will continue to hold the Government to account in that regard.”
“The Government must work harder if they are serious about tackling poor air quality and climate change. They are nowhere near meeting their legally binding 2020 target of 10% of transport fuel being renewable. They are presiding over an air quality crisis, and they could and should be more ambitious in dealing with vehicle pollution. Electric vehicles are an important way, but not the only way, of confronting these serious problems. The Bill gives the Secretary of State a series of secondary legislative powers for the design and standardisation of charging points. Universal standardisation and distribution of charging points across the UK is crucial if the Government really are serious about increasing uptake.”
“I do not intend to speak for long because we support the aims of this Bill. However, we want to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of research and development in this important and fast-moving industry. We supported the Bill first time round and welcome these amendments today. That is largely because of the good work of our colleagues in the other place, and I pay tribute to them. The Bill aims to provide the framework necessary to encourage the take-up of electric vehicles as well as updating the regulatory environment for motor insurance for them. We particularly welcome the amendments to include hydrogen filling stations as well as electric charging points. Currently, there are about 12,000 electric vehicle charge points in the UK but only seven hydrogen refuelling points.”
“The Government have said that the public service obligation will ensure domestic connectivity; however, they have not said how, and given that they would make domestic routes exempt from air passenger duty, one wonders how this tax cut would be funded. Given the lack of detail on how the surface access plan will be funded, we are concerned this will lead to more transport investment being taken from the regions, and specifically the north of England, and used up in the south-east instead. We are not convinced that the third runway scheme will bring benefits across the country so it has failed our fourth test. We have been clear from the beginning of this process that our support was dependent on our four tests and our decision would be based on the evidence.”
“The Government have failed to address noise and environmental concerns. They have not updated the 2013 baseline figure, or defined an acceptable noise level target. Noise level targets for noise mitigation was another Transport Committee recommendation that the Government chose to ignore, as was extending the respite period at night to seven hours. The Government have failed to give any detail on how they will secure slots for the regions. Given that the slots are owned by airlines and not the airport, it is unclear how the Government can guarantee the slots will be used for domestic routes.”
“Their new aviation strategy is not due to be published until 2019, so we will not know their plan for reducing emissions until next year. The Transport Committee asked the Government to amend their outdated air quality population figures and adopt a more stringent air quality compliance interpretation, but again the Government did nothing. It is also telling that tonight’s vote has been scheduled before the publication of a Government report warning that surging aviation emissions would destroy Britain’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. Not only are Members being asked to vote for the NPS when it includes out-of-date figures and presents no clear strategy on how climate change targets will be met; they have also been denied the opportunity to see a report that will provide key facts about the impact of aviation emissions.”
“There is the big question of how the Government will keep landing charges flat in real terms. If they have to increase them, it is likely that the airlines will pass the cost on to consumers. The NPS does not guarantee that that will not happen. On surface access, the NPS provides no details of the costs that may fall on the taxpayer. There are also no details about the proposed changes to the M25 or the new rail scheme, and how they will be funded. The Government could have addressed those issues if they had implemented the Transport Committee’s recommendations. The UK has a legally binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Climate Change Act. However, the Government have failed to publish a strategy for UK emissions reductions in the NPS.”
“Given the Secretary of State’s disastrous handling of the railways, and given the Justice Committee’s recent comments on his reforms of the national probation service, I—and, I am sure, many other Members—will not have confidence in him to carry out that process. He should have listened to the Transport Committee and embedded its recommendations in the final NPS. As I said earlier, our support for the NPS was always dependent on its meeting four tests. Throughout the process we made it clear that our final decision would be based on evidence, and, having looked at the evidence, we do not believe that the NPS has met our tests. The first warning sign is that the entire document contains only one mention of cost, which is shocking, given the £14 billion cost of the project.”
“The Transport Committee scrutinised the draft NPS, and published an excellent report in March which made 25 recommendations to the Government. The Secretary of State claimed that he had acted on 24 of them, but the final NPS is largely unchanged. The Government had the opportunity to listen to Members in the House and in the Transport Committee. They could and should have improved this document and given Members up-to-date, detailed information allowing them to make an informed decision about one of the biggest infrastructure projects in the country. Instead, Members are being asked to vote this through, and any concerns that they have will be dealt with by the Secretary of State at the development consent order stage.”
“Let me start by commending those who have spoken today. The issue of airport expansion has been around at least since 2008, and Members have been campaigning on both sides of the argument since long before then. I recognise that those on both sides have strong views, but I think we can all agree that the tone of today’s debate has been relatively comradely. As we have made clear throughout this process, Labour recognises the need for airport expansion in the south-east, but our support was conditional on the meeting of our four tests. The draft NPS was published in October last year. In a Westminster Hall debate in January, I—along with other Members—highlighted a number of issues about which we were concerned.”
“The Opposition will consider the proposed expansion through our four tests and will follow the evidence across the Committee’s comprehensive recommendations. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister’s response to the concerns we have raised.”
“The Committee concluded that the updated NPS should give the Lakeside Energy from Waste plant the same recognition as the immigration removal centres, and that the replacement of its facilities should be part of the DCO. Given that not replacing the plant will have an enormously harmful effect locally, regionally and nationally, due to the inability to process the levels of waste that the plant is contracted to process, will the Minister explain why it will not form part of the DCO? The Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box on Tuesday and said that he had acted on 24 of the Committee’s 25 recommendations. It is difficult to trust a word that the Secretary of State says, yet we are expected to put our trust in him to deliver this huge infrastructure project. The Opposition are not prepared to do that.”
“The Government have done nothing to address the Committee’s concerns about respite at night, ignoring its recommendation to increase the flight ban from six and a half hours to seven hours. The Committee made recommendations about the compensation scheme, which the Government have also ignored and left unchanged in the NPS. The Committee suggested that there should be a strategy outlining how the Government will support local communities after the planning process is finished, but the Government have not included anything in the NPS on this absolutely critical issue. There is nothing new on airspace modernisation in the Government’s response to the Committee. I have covered the areas that the Secretary of State claims to have addressed, so I will briefly mention the area on which he admitted that he has done nothing.”
“Given that slots are owned by airlines and not airports, it is unclear how the Government can guarantee that slots will be used for domestic routes. I hope that the Minister will give the detail that the NPS lacks in that regard. The Committee also pointed out that there was no mention of potential costs and investment risks. The Government have not provided evidence that the scheme is affordable or deliverable. Again, they seem to have ignored the Committee’s recommendations on this important issue. The Committee recommended that airport charges be held flat in real terms, but the Government have not given that commitment. In fact, they say that “an increase in charges may ultimately be in the interest of consumers”. Does that mean that passengers will be expected to foot the bill?”
“Given that air quality and noise are the two biggest concerns for people living around the airport, it beggars belief that the Government have not addressed these important issues. On surface access, the NPS still does not give any details on what costs may fall on the taxpayer, or on the proposed changes to the M25. Will the Minister shed some more light on these issues? The Committee recommended that approval should be granted only if the target of no more airport-related traffic could be met. Rather than giving a commitment, the Government will only say that it is their “expectation” that that would be a requirement of a DCO. Will the Minister explain why that is not a firm commitment? On domestic routes, again the Government have failed to give any detail on how they will secure slots for the regions.”
“A little over four months ago, I stated from this very position that the Government’s draft NPS, published in October last year, and the responses to it raised more questions than they answered. I am sorry to say that not much has changed. The Government’s response does nothing to address the Committee’s concerns on air quality; they have not amended their outdated air quality population figures or adopted a more stringent interpretation of air quality compliance. On noise, they have not updated the 2013 baseline figure or defined an acceptable noise level target. They have also failed to define a minimum level of noise respite or to set out how they intend to regulate any noise envelope.”
“The Secretary of State said that he had acted on 24 of the 25 recommendations, but the NPS document is largely unchanged and the majority of the Committee’s recommendations will be left for the Secretary of State to decide on at the development consent order—DCO—stage of the process. We are effectively being asked to take the Secretary of State’s word for it. This is one of the biggest infrastructure projects in the country, and given his calamitous handling of the railways, I and many of my hon. Friends do not have confidence in him to carry this out. Will the Minister explain why the Government have not done what the Transport Committee asked and revised the NPS to include its 25 recommendations?”
“We welcome the work done by the Airports Commission, and we will guarantee that any airport expansion adheres to our tests that require noise issues to be addressed, air quality to be protected, the UK’s climate change obligations met and growth across the country supported.” We could not be any clearer that any decision must be based on hard evidence with full transparency. The Transport Committee completed its scrutiny just over two months ago and agreed that the draft NPS was not fit for purpose. It made 25 recommendations. The Committee’s support for expansion very much depends on the Government’s addressing its concerns in the final NPS. I do not believe that the Government have done that yet.”
“It is always an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I start by paying tribute to the Transport Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for the comprehensive work it has done in thoroughly scrutinising the Government’s draft airport national policy statement. I also commend right hon. and hon. Members across the House who have spoken in the debate, many of whom have long-standing views for or against expansion. I reiterate Labour’s view. We have consistently maintained that we approach the issue pragmatically and in terms of our four tests. In our 2017 manifesto, we stated: “Labour recognises the need for additional airport capacity in the South East.”
“Did they think that no one would spot it? Why was the statement of principles not included in the national policy statement or the consultation on the NPS? Why was it not disclosed to the Transport Select Committee? Has the Secretary of State secured an unequivocal guarantee from HAL that, in the event of the north-west runway not going ahead, the Government will not indemnify HAL for costs expended in pursuit of the project? Is it not the case that the Government have boxed themselves into a corner by committing HAL to a risk-free investment, while exposing themselves to either massive cost recovery on the part of HAL or crushing litigation before the decision has even been taken?”
“Can the Minister explain why a statement of principles was entered into between the Department and Heathrow Airport Ltd that clearly states, at paragraph 2.1.6, that “HAL reserves its rights (including but not limited to its rights to pursue any and all legal and equitable remedies (including cost recovery) available to it under law) in the event of…an alternative scheme being preferred by the Secretary of State or…the withdrawal of the Government’s support for aviation expansion for Heathrow Airport”? Does he not see that this is a massive revelation of the utmost importance? Given all the opportunities the Government have had to bring it to the attention of the House and come clean, why has this statement of principles, which effectively indemnifies HAL, been unearthed only at this critical stage?”
“I congratulate the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) on securing the urgent question. This appears to be a devastating revelation, and it is beyond belief that when such a bombshell has landed, the Secretary of State is not here to respond. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said: “The statement of principles… does not give Heathrow Airport Ltd the right to claim any costs or losses from the Government should its scheme not proceed.” —[ Official Report , 6 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 304.] That does not seem to be accurate.”