23/11/2016 House of Commons

questions tomorrow and then veritably leaping to his feet to

request a statement or a debate on this important matter. If there are

no further points of order, we come now to the ten minute rule motion.

Mr Chris Green. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that leave be given to bring a

bill to require those on the electoral register to produce proof

of identity at polling stations before voting and for connected

purposes. The purpose of such a bill is to bring the current electoral

rolls used in Northern Ireland to elections for the rest of the United

Kingdom. This is to reduce electoral fraud and ensure that our elections

continue to be both fair and free. Our democratic system, especially

the way we vote, is based on trust. The office for Democratic

institutions and human rights within the organisation for Security and

cooperation for Europe, who observe elections around the world, have

raised concerns about trust based electoral systems. There is the

potential to be abused and the vulnerability is there in the system

in the UK. A polling station is a place in which a ballot can be

placed in secrecy and free from any external influence, just the

individual's decision for him to vote. The role of polling station

staff is to ensure voters are able to cast their vote in secret, free

from undue influence and in a calm atmosphere. We have all heard the

phrase, vote early, vote often. But it appears that it's increasingly

actually happening. In some pollen district, where

population is stable with a high turnout, repeat visitors will be

noticed, especially if the staff at the polling station have worked the

same station for a series of local and general election. Repeat visit

will be far harder to spot and the polling station staff will be less

confidence to challenge where turnout is low and there is more

transient populations. Because a far greater proportion of voters will be

unfamiliar. As society changes, we must assess whether traditional

trust system of voting needs to change, at the risk of going and

undermined. Arid democracy is a living thing, and we have reformed

and developed it over time. -- our democracy. Parliament in the past

have improved free and fair voting, such as the Ballot act in 1872, and

the representation of the people act in 1918, made in the interests of

the electorate and in the interests of democracy. We are now approaching

a time when an improvement must again be made, so that we do not

lose the democratic integrity that has evolved over time and must

evolve again. In recent years, concerns over the integrity of the

voting system have been building over a wide range of areas, I wish

to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the independent review, a

report by the right honourable member for Brentwood, the

government's anti-corruption champion, who concluded that, to

retain the integrity of our democracy, we need to introduce more

rigour into the processes that we use. His conference of report

highlights a whole range of concerns and suggested actions to put it

right. No doubt, many colleagues in this chamber will share these

concerns. And also be aware of problems in their own

constituencies. Due to the very nature, the level of fraud and in

particular impersonation at polling stations is difficult to gauge. But

it does not mean it is not happening, and does not mean that

simple steps should not be taken to stop it from happening. Electoral

abuse was evident on a significant scale in Northern Ireland before the

requirement to produce identification was introduced 30

years ago, and the situation was further improved in 2003, with the

requirement for photo ID. While I can appreciate that some

reservations about this deterrent people from voting, in Northern

Ireland, the numbers of people who do not vote because of the lack of

suitable ID is very small. There is a strong case to be made that the

use of ID may in fact increase voter turnout, as some people will not

vote after losing their pollen card, which in fact they do not need to

bring in order to cast their ballot. That polling card. When we see a

problem and contemplate a solution we must ask ourselves if the cure is

worse than the disease, if requiring suitable identification to

participate in democracy is too big a hurdle. If someone buying

cigarettes or alcohol is ask for ID, we would hardly think it a problem.

If you were to pick up a package from the Royal Mail collection

office, you may think that showing proof of ID is rather a good thing.

We have two prove who we are in so many different circumstances, so it

can hardly be seen to be a problem when directly participating in

something so important as democracy. One thing I wish to make very clear,

this is not a move to create a national identity card, or a way to

keep checks on people, it is simply a move to add voting to the list of

many things that require identification. Identification does

not have to take one single form, for example, when the collect post

from the post office, 20 forms of ID are acceptable, from birth

certificates to bank statement and passport. Presently, Northern

Ireland offers seven different forms of photo ID, including an electoral

identity card, free of charge. The purpose of requiring ID is not a

barrier, it is to prevent fraud and enhance integrity of the voting

system. The organisation for Security and Corporation Europe

offers for all democratic institutions and human rights and

the electoral commission both recommend the use of ID in voting.

Britain has a formidable history as the mother of Parliaments and the

Westminster model of democracy has been adopted by many other nations.

If this model falls into disrepute and fails, it is bad for democracy

the world over, if we sit back and allow this to happen for fear of

change, then we are in the wrong. We cannot and should not sacrifice the

integrity of the democratic system, challenging issues about community

confusion and political engagement must be taken into account, but, we

must also never see an excuse of failing to act to hold the rule of

law. To conclude, I moved that the bill be introduced so that

collectors are confident in the democratic system, those entitled to

vote may do so, and, as in Northern Ireland, minimising personation and

fraud in polling stations in Great Britain. The honourable member has

leave to bring in the Bill. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I saw from

the honourable member 's profile that he is an engineer, and quite

frank, had somebody put up such a project to him with such a singular

lack of evidence I am sure he would have thrown it into the bin which is

what should happen to this miserable Bill. Which comes straight out of

the Donald Trump US Republican Conservative Central office School

of disinformation. As we have seen in the United States, it is a

blatant attempt to depress voting turnout, very interestingly, the

honourable member gave that away in his speech, he talks about areas

with stable population, but then there is a problem in areas are

transient population. I wonder what he was talking about? Basically, he

is saying, it is all right in Tory areas but it must be in city, Labour

areas where we have this problem. He gave it away very easily. Of course,

in a democracy, it is very difficult to justify denying people the right

to vote, so a mythology must be developed, and there is a widespread

-- that there is widespread and significant voter fraud. In the

post-truth, post-fact world, that becomes easier to spread, but let's

look at the data and the facts. Really starting with the United

States, where this conspiracy comes from, and Donald Trump is repeating

it only recently. There has been a detailed study under Republican

president George Bush, the US justice department was tasked with

searching for voter fraud. Out of 197 million 56,035 votes cast in the

two federal elections in the period studied, just 26 people were

convicted or pled guilty to illegal registration of voting. --

197,056,035. Let's look at the United Kingdom, the report, the 2015

elections at the general elections, 31 million votes were cast, in local

elections, also in 2015, many on the same day, 20 million were cast, and

there were 400,000 for mayoral elections. How many cases of fraud

were there? Let's have a look at that. 123 cases related to voting

offences, remember, 31 million votes cast in that election, that included

voting offences, in personation, voting as someone else, breaches of

the secrecy requirements, tampering with ballot papers, Ribery, undue

influence. -- bribery. Voting as someone else at a polling station,

26 cases out of 30 million votes cast. Using a postal vote fraud, 27

cases. And proxy cases, 11. That was the number of cases reported. Not

the number that actually were found to have any substance. 45 cases,

when the police looked at it, cleared, no offence had been

committed, it was clear. 36 cases, insufficient evidence, ten suspects,

not possible to identify a suspect. So we see this great edifice being

erected, where something like a total of 16 cases were resolved by

the police forces themselves. Six cases resulted in police cautions.

I'm not sure, because I don't think they finally resolved, whether any

of these cases have finally come to court. And yet, we are going to put

people to such considerable inconvenience, insist they carry

documentation, the honourable member talked about Northern Ireland. I was

a Minister of State in Northern Ireland, he may have noticed it has

a slightly different and slightly unique political history. Therefore,

there are no grounds for imposing that, although interestingly enough

he wants identification, he may want to ask his front bench why when they

came in in 2010, they abandoned identity cards, because in Northern

Ireland, the electoral body there will issue identity cards to people,

what he did not actually talk about how much that would cost. Mr Deputy

Speaker, there is no evidential basis for this measure, it would

involve a lot of extra work and increased delays at polling

stations, because people will be having an argument about it all, or

they would have to go back and Hughes will increase at the polling

stations. We have had problems at many of those. It will prevent a

number of elderly voters from exercising their rights. It is a

petty political partisan proposal and should be dumped in the bin. The

question of the honourable member bringing in the Bill, on the

contrary... I think the ayes have it. Who will prepare to bring in the

Bill. Sir Eric Pickles, Jason Macani, Jim Shannon, William Wragg,

David Nuttall, Mary Robinson, Craig Tracy, John Stevenson, Martin

Vickers, recall field, Luke Hall, and myself, sir.

Shame. You should have had the vote. Representation of the people voter

proof of identity Bill, second reading... Friday, 20th of January.

Friday, 20th of January. Excellent. We now come to the general debate on

exiting Bees you on transport, secretary of states to move the

motion. Deputy Speaker, grateful for the chance to move this motion to

open this debate but if I crave the indulgence of the house briefly,

just to say a couple of words about the situation on the railways in the

south-west, as you know, there has been considerable disruption as a

result of the storms down there including line closures and very

extensive delays, I can inform the house that following the flooding

which closed the great Western mainline between Exeter and

Tiverton, that line has reopened. I can also say that the Barnstable

branch, believed to be open any time now, but the loo branch is still

closed but that will be open again on Thursday. -- Looe. And there was

also the destruction when the South West trains route was closed as

well, can I just say that I'm immensely grateful to all staff,

sometimes get a hard time for things that don't work but when there is

major incidents like this, they do run around and get a solution

quickly. I thank you for coming to the house today for speaking on

this. Fillip ERT ever report presented yesterday must be a

framework for a fair deal going forward, will he commit to do

everything in his power to deliver on this piece of work and make sure

Network Rail deliver as a company for my constituents? I absolutely

understand the importance of the task ahead of us, I have read the

report very carefully, it shares my view that the number one priority is

the sea wall and the cliffs at Dawlish, and also that last

Thursday, I announced in today's Autumn Statement that there is a

provision of ?10 million for the next stage of the project. I'm very

committed, I know the Chancellor is very committed to making sure this

happens, it is strategically important for the nation we cannot

have a situation where the south-west can be cut off through

its principal railway route. I give reassurance we will move ahead.

I thank the Secretary of State for briefly giving way and for the

comedy has just made and join him in a calendar thanks for the Network

Rail staff for fixing the situation where -- meaning that trains can run

again. This is termed as the first step and I thank him for his own

personal issue in this -- interest in this issue and for sorting out

our rail infrastructure. This absolutely needs to be done, Mr

Deputy Speaker, and we will move ahead as quickly as we can this

week. Thereafter and protection work is due to start at Cowley Bridge

very shortly indeed. It's a shame they have not started yet but the

issue will be dealt with so that this cannot happen again. To move to

the main business of the afternoon, the Autumn Statement that we've just

heard demonstrate our commitment as the Government to a modern

infrastructure, an infrastructure that can serve the Government -- the

country and the economy. Our departure from the European Union is

a huge opportunity for Britain to be a stronger and more ambitious

country, a country more able to shape its future in the world, a

country that is outward looking and open for business. That, Mr Speaker,

is what I campaigned for in the summer and that is what this

business will do this -- this Government will deliver. A number of

companies in the transport sector have announced investment in the UK.

Nissan's investment is fantastic news for the country and the North

of England, particularly the gap they are not just maintaining

capacity but expanding it. Bob RDA received an order for new vehicles,

ensuring jobs and when I spoke to the international head of

Bombardier, he said that that was the work of the feeble in Derby, it

would become an international site. The Spanish firm Cap have said that

they are going to set up a train manufacturing plant in the United

Kingdom. And Siemens will manufacture rolling stock,

committing themselves to a continual... I think there is good

reason, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I view the future with optimism as we

approach leaving the European Union. Whereas of course I entirely endorse

his sentiment, there is an issue I want to return to in a moment

regarding British ports, which is a big issue and I won't go into it

now. Hopefully I can catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, because there are

serious questions outstanding on that issue as I am sure my right

honourable friend will concede. Mr Deputy Speaker, I absolutely agree

with my honourable friend. I have discussed this with him in the past

under regulation currently coming out of the European Union on ports

is tailored for the structure of ports on the continent and does not

fit well with the private sector ports sector that we have in this

country. The opportunity to make sure we have a regulatory framework

that is right for the United Kingdom is one of the benefits that comes

from leaving the European Union. I'm grateful to the right honourable

gentleman for giving way. If between now and the great acts that will

involve -- incorporate European legislation into the UK as the first

step to unpicking things that poured services directorate comes into

being, I'm not sure how likely that is, but if that were to be the case,

would that be something that wasn't incorporated straight into domestic

UK legislation? We have said very clearly that what we would do

festival is all built our legal duties while we are still members of

the European Union. When we leave the European Union, it is our

intention to transpose European law into UK law but it is then for this

Government and this House to decide what areas of legislation --

regulation we want to keep and what we want to change. I suspect

listening to the representatives made in this House that this is an

area we will want to return to. Can my right honourable friend tell me

how this regulation which disappeared to everyone's great

happiness disappeared and is now back to the point that we do not

even need to scrutinise it. Mr Speaker, the first point is that no

European piece of legislation passes this House unscrutinised thanks to

the assiduous work of my honourable friend, the Member for stone, but of

course this is one of the areas where it is the Government's

intention that we can scrutinise properly. It is very much my hope

and belief that our decision to leave the European Union will ensure

that an area like ports where our model does not confer with the rest

-- and four with the rest of Europe will mean we can tailor it to

something right for the country in the future. There are two areas I

want to focus on that are going to be priorities for my department in

the coming months. Top of that list is aviation. Our aviation industry

is world class and we have the third largest aviation network in the

world. UK airlines have seized opportunities globally including

those offered by the European open skies agreements. I will focus on

securing the best deal for the future so our airlines continue to

thrive and our passengers continue to have the best opportunities for

price and roots. We need effective regulation of safe air traffic

management. That is a priority for me as we approach negotiations. Our

connections with Europe are important but we need to widen our

horizons as well. We had to make sure we have continuity for our

aviation industry internationally. Leaving the EU gives us the

opportunity to make aviation agreements with countries beyond

Europe and it is an imperative upon myself and my department to make

sure that we have continuity when we leave. I have already had positive

discussions with my current US opposite number about the

transatlantic routes posed Brexit. Of course there will be a new

counterpart in place in the New Year and I intend to replace those

discussions once the new US Transport Secretary is in place.

Both sides have an interest in reaching early agreements and I'm

sure that will be the case. Last month, we signed a deal with China

that will more than double the number of flights able to operate,

boosting trade and boosting tourism. This is a country open to business,

open to the rest of the world and aviation has a big role in making

this happen. Whether its new agreements or a third runway at

Heathrow, I will do what is necessary for our business, our

country and our public. I will be speaking to other countries, such as

Canada, another country where there is a great interest to make sure we

have good connections posed Brexit. I have absolutely no doubt we will

secure a good time -- in good time the agreements we need for our

aviation sector to fly around the world and throughout the European

Union. It is in no one's interest, there are many parts of the European

Union that depends economically on the contribution made by British

Airways flying to -- British airlines flying to their regional

airports. I wonder if the Secretary of State will tell us that since he

campaigned for leave, how much preparation was done for us leaving

the European Union before the referendum? In terms of preparation,

the objective for this is actually very straightforward. It is in the

interests of the different regions of the European Union, it is in the

interests of the countries in the European Union that we continue to

trade, that we continue to have good transport links between us. There is

no logical reason for anybody to stand in the way of that. We now

need to work out what the best, precise arrangements are but

actually, what is the precise objective it comes to aviation? The

objective is business as usual. That is what is in everyone's interests.

The minister says it is business as used -- as usual but the Minister

will also know that aviation emissions are nowadays included in

the trading scheme with Europe. It is -- is it his view that we should

remain in a trading scheme when we leave the EU? The agreement reached

in Montreal six weeks ago I think provides a global framework for

tackling emissions for the aviation industry. That is what we will all,

both inside and outside the European Union, be part of as we ensure that

the economy of both the developed world and developing world can

continue to benefit from improved aviation links while still says

controlling carbon emissions. Mr Deputy Speaker, the second area I

are focusing on is road haulage. Without Corley is, or our shops

would be empty and industry would grind to a halt. Our logistics

industry does a first-class job getting goods to places but the vast

majority of lorries on the road never leave the country and as we

look to the future and to trade that does leave the country, does cross

borders, there is one simple fact we need to bear in mind. Around 85% of

the lorries operating between the United Kingdom and Europe are owned

by international haulage not based in this country the member states of

the EU and the United Kingdom have a common interest in making an

agreement. We need to sensibly allow goods to flow to and from the United

Kingdom 's, giving UK hauliers at their chance to win business and be

successful. This is an area we will be focusing on during negotiations,

making sure we get the right outcome for international hauliers that

serve this country and for UK hauliers as well. I will be speaking

on everyone using these services. I thank him for giving way on that

very important issue. Will this also include a progressive look at

freight charges for external movements of good outside of the

United Kingdom to outside far-away markets? I understand that New

Zealand, Australia, Canada have freight subsidy, allowing them to

cut the price of rated goods? I'm not necessarily a great fan of

inappropriate subsidy that I would hope that as we negotiate free-trade

agreements with countries around the world, we will have an environment

where trade gets carried out on a level playing field so there are not

artificial barriers that put up our costs and help other people reduce

their costs. Above all, we benefit from having a world where trade

flows freely and it's clearly in the commercial interests of

international hauliers that that happens particularly those from the

Irish Republic. I know we have a particular duty of care to our

friends in the Irish Republic to reach an agreement that ensures that

their trade, which travels by raid very frequently from the Republic of

Ireland through the United Kingdom into other parts Europe can flows

smoothly. It's in all of our interests to have sensible

cross-border arrangements. I spoke about the maritime sector... Thank

you for giving way. The secretary mentioned discussions with haulage

companies. At the moment, haulage companies rely on European drivers.

There is a 40,000 projected gap on HGV drivers by 2020. What can this

Government do to plug that skills gap? Absolutely and my honourable

friend the skills Minister, transport Minister and also

transport skills Minister, the Right honourable member for one of the

Lincolnshire seat has the task within his remit. He is not only

responsible for the roads network but is also, Mr Deputy Speaker, who

holds the schools -- skills portfolio within my department and

he is very excited about it. In a managed system migration will will

be able to recruit skills internationally where we need them

but we want to see a new generation of younger drivers come on and there

are many things we could do to make this a more attractive proposition.

He is working on those at the moment. I have spoken about the

ports sector and a more tailored regulatory network for our ports

sector after we leave the European Union. Of course, we have a very

thriving port sector and some strong international investment alongside

first-class facilities. It will be an essential part, in my view, of a

nation focused on global trade opportunities and opening up links

to other opportunist -- other countries. Our rail services through

the Channel Tunnel link us with the continent but apart from that,

Britain's rail network is domestic, so whilst on day one after exit, the

rules will be the same as before, in future we can take our own decisions

about changing those rules. You will be aware that right now we have a

delegation -- a derogation from many of the European standards because a

lot of our state back to Victorian times. One of the challenges we are

dealing with right now with the construction of HS2 is the fact

there are European specifications for platform heights which are

inconsistent with flat access for disabled people onto trains. That is

something that we have to address and it's part of the development of

HS2 which, free of European legislation, we can make sure we do

a better job for disabled people in this instance. That is something we

will all think is the right thing to do. I thought about the global

opportunity for Britain, across the transport sector I am determined to

negotiate the best deal for Britain within Europe but also to find new

opportunity for the transport sector around the world. I think we should

have and support industries as they sell expertise and products around

world and seek major contract, we have world-class expertise in this

country in aerospace, transport engineering, logistics, among

others, and we need to be confident enough bringing the services to the

world, we should have every reason to be confident, we are doing great

things in this country at the moment, from the first-class work

being done to deliver Crossrail in London to the high-quality

automotive technology that is developing the new generation of

autonomous and semi-autonomous vertical technologies in this

country, yes I will. Can I thank the Secretary of State for giving way

and talking about Crossrail, I think the infrastructure gap between

London and the rest of the UK remains ungritted. Does he agree

with me that the section of the great Western Railway

electrification project must be delivered with UK Government funding

as soon as possible? As I said in the house the other day, I am not

happy with the progress made so far in the electrification of the great

Western mainline, right now, my priority is getting investment in

better services into Swansea as quickly as possible. I think the

economy of South Wales and Swansea needs improved services and that is

my real focus. I don't want to wait for the future of infrastructure

projects, I want better services now. I'm determined to see improved

services in south Wales that will provide a real boost to the economy

the area he represents, and in the areas that other colleagues in South

Wales represent. Better transport links to the south-west, improved

services, an essential part of making sure we have a productive

economy. One of the key hurdles, quite a lot of railway companies

have, European procurement rules, and I wanted to find out that the

Secretary of State had been in conversation with the Department for

exiting the EU on the opportunities outside of the year in terms of

transport. Clearly, outside the European Union we have the

opportunity to shape our own procurement rules, I don't want to

be part of a government, that says international firms are not welcome

in the United Kingdom, that would be the wrong thing to do, but it would

be equally reasonable for us to say in this country that if you come to

do business with us, involved in the construction of High Speed two, we

want a skilled footprint, we want apprenticeship, technical skills,

the engineers of the future, train, develop, working on projects so that

they can carry on beyond projects to build us further project for the

future, and that is our intention. So, let me be clear, "Brexit" is an

unprecedented opportunity to shape... Double I thank the

Secretary of State for giving way, I'm happy about his avoiding my

question, -- I am unhappy about his avoiding my question, I would like a

better answer, I am owed a letter. Having said that, he said he wanted

to support economic boost for the South Wales area, so will the UK

Government be supporting Cardiff Metro plans, which are really

important in getting going again. Not only are we supporting the

plans, not only are we looking at how we deliver better services to

the whole of South Wales, it cannot be just about Cardiff, it is the

whole of the West, but things I will be looking at are if we can provide

better services to connect to the west of Wales, can we provide better

services to Swansea, and actually, if you will forgive me, it is not

just about South Wales, it is all about how we deliver better services

to North Wales, there is a tendency, particularly with the at ministries

and in Cardiff, to look to the south, there are important things in

the south but as a government we have not forgotten there is

different parts of Wales and the commitment to the north is something

that is in my interest. Let me be clear, Brexit is unprecedented

opportunity to shape our own future, we will make the most of it, get out

into the world, do business right across the globe and whilst home we

will continue to build a world-class transport system for this country. I

thank the secretary of state for being kind to give way as summing

up, and wondering as he sums up if he can set out to us what meetings

he has had with the transport Commissioner even the importance of

the relationship over the next that a while and what they discussed

during those discussions as well. I have already had one meeting when we

were both in Japan with the European transport Commissioner, I will be

seeing her again next week at the transport Council, we will in due

course be working out the best way in which we take on negotiations. We

have had exploratory discussions, we have had constructive discussions

and I look forward to further such discussions with her. For me, I have

to be very mindful of the need to make sure that we still have a

structure for the future that creates stability and opportunity

together for the aviation sector, that provide stability and

opportunity for other sectors and takes advantage of the potential

freedoms that leaving the European Union will offer this country in the

transport sector, and we hope to take advantage of the opportunity.

The question is this house has considered exiting the EU

relationship with transport. Can I echo the comments, remarks from the

Secretary of State concerning his regard for the workers who have come

to the aid of the South West rail system, yet again, and I think we

have heard from honourable members as to their disappointment, that yet

again we were looking at the issues of resilience, and I know they will

be wanting to see a resolution of that matter as quickly as possible.

The government strategy for leaving the European Union, or rather, the

lack of one, is causing great uncertainty throughout the transport

sector. I don't know who the Secretary of State is speaking to

but from aviation to rail to roads to maritime, they and we are none

the wiser on what the government plans might be and what impact

Brexit may have on the future of those sectors and all those who work

in or depend upon them. INAUDIBLE I have already made reference to the

question of the sector, it was well-established, speaking as

chairman of the European scrutiny committee, over a long period of

time that the government were against ports regulation, the

opposition, the Labour Party, are against the ports regulation. The

unions are against the ports regulation, every single one of the

47 Port employers are against it. What are the Labour Party actually

going to say about it during the course of this debate, will they

oppose it? I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention, if

he waits six or seven minutes, I shall come to that very point. Mr

Deputy Speaker, today is a welcome opportunity for the secretary of

state to provide much-needed clarity on what his plans are for transport

in a post-Brexit UK, the right honourable gentleman was one of the

leading advocates of Britain leaving the EU, now he has the privilege of

being the Transport Secretary, if anyone can provide us with a clear

picture of what to expect in the months and years ahead, presumably

he can. I would like to begin with one of the areas of transport likely

to be most affected by the country's decision to leave the aviation. Mr

Deputy Speaker, the aviation sector is a keep a lot of our economy. UK

aviation country by country is the largest in Europe, third largest in

the world. It is worth around ?50 billion in terms of GDP, supports 1

million jobs, and secures the Treasury some ?9 billion in taxation

each year. Whilst we accept the result of the referendum, and are

determined to secure the best possible deal for all the UK, we

cannot be an inward looking nation, cut off from cultural and economic

benefits that come with being an interconnected country. We must be

ready to do business with the rest of the world. This means retaining

and building upon the connectivity that the UK enjoys to allow the flow

of goods and services which will be key to getting the best out of

Brexit. I'm grateful to my honourable

friend. I too want to see Brexit a success, I want us to get on with it

and make sure we get the best possible deal for the country. But

does he share my concern that in departments like the Department for

Transport, that have had massive cuts to revenue budget, day-to-day

spend, just will not have the staffing in place to be able to deal

with all of these huge numbers of issues, and to really make sure that

we have at the same time as negotiating our way out of Brexit we

are negotiating all the different agreements with other countries on

things like aviation? I am very grateful to the honourable friend

for making the point, it is a very good one, we have seen not just

through this particular issue but the prism of the franchising system

itself, in the rail market, about the inability to see these things

through and deliver on them. He raises a very grave concern, and I

think we will be watching with great care in the weeks and months ahead.

Currently, the UK relies on the single aviation market through EU

membership which allows airlines to operate freely inside the EU without

restriction on capacity, frequency or pricing, as well as enabling the

use of the external aviation agreements. Leaving the European

economic area could mean no longer being part of the single aviation

market and losing access to those external air service agreements.

This is critically important, Mr Speaker, as unless the position is

urgently clarified, UK airlines will lose the right to operate within the

European Union and airlines will lose the right to fly UK domestic

routes. The government must ensure that Brexit does not damage the UK's

connectivity. The aviation sector has been clear as to the importance

of retaining an unchanged operating environment. I will indeed. I'm very

grateful for the honourable gentleman giving way, we have talked

about getting the best deal for Brexit but given the options that

are appearing in front of us, of that, does he imagine that any of

them are going to be as good as the situation at the moment, people

looking for the best decision but the question is, will it be as good

as what we have at the moment? I think the honourable gentleman has

raised a very critical point, that is the whole focus of the debate,

that is our concern in this house, that we are simply not going to be

able to deliver on the same level of access ability throughout the Europe

that we currently enjoy and in the area I am talking about at the

moment, that is critical to achieve before we can even begin the

discussions about trading relationship going forward. But... I

will give way. I will indeed. Can I thank my honourable friend for

giving way. The NA owes say that Network Rail and the government have

wasted and this -- the NAO said Network Rail and the government have

wasted during this government and incredible amount of already. Would

he agree that he needs to pull up its socks to live on infrastructure

projects in the future. The point is well made, that sort of wastage we

have seen in so many areas from this department over the last several

years. -- to deliver. Smart ticketing costs have been written

off, the depart all of the great Western, and he makes his point very

eloquently, I think there is a really critical concern of an ill

ability to function effectively, so it is something that concerns all of

us in this race. But returning to the aviation issue, it is vital that

not only there are assurances from government but confirmation that the

status of current aviation practices will be guaranteed beyond the formal

departure from the EU. He has been a cleanly generous with his time, in

terms of interventions. I was slightly reassured by what the

secretary of state said a few moments ago in terms of his

meetings, planned with the US Transport Secretary, but when my

honourable friend if you moments ago talked about access to the European

network, of course, the danger we have, as well on the US side, is we

fall back on the 1946 Bermuda to agreement, which was designed for a

whole different world, certainly not for the 21st-century. -- Bermuda

two. Does he share my concern is that it is not just in the European

skies that we have got to be concerned, it is wider than that. I

share those concerns, I was a little bit anxious to hear from the

secretary of state that while it is clearly imperative that the

conversations we have across the Atlantic happened, that that becomes

the first port of call rather than trying to resolve matters within the

European Union. I'm personally happy... I have spent a lot of time

with my German counterpart, and a number of other European transport

ministers and I will be doing that later this week.

I'll ask the the Secretary of State to explain his plans for the

European safety agency on leaving the review. What's his intention and

will he seek to maintain technical co-operation through the bilateral

aviation safety agreement as is the case with US, Canada and Brazil. Or

a, working arrangement with the EU as enjoyed by China, New Zealand and

Russia? You urge the Government to confirm air service agreements will

be negotiated separately to future trade. And specifying the nature of

these agreements. I invite the Secretary of State to outline plans

for the UK airlines to retain the right to operate within the EU and

retain access to the E EU's external service agreements. Mr Deputy

peeker... Deputy Speaker... He touched on a very important point.

Having looked back as I did on the air policies of the UK prethat. It

was bilateral agreements specified fly into London-only airports. It

was Iceland who broke that by flying into Glasgow. It pointed out the

problem when the UK was managing that itself. It was centralised for

the South East of the UK to the detriment of others. Well, I don't

know where you get your suits, Mr Deputy Speaker. Neither Iceland nor

Glasgow. We should always go to Glasgow. But that issue it

particularly pertinent given the issue on the location of the South

eastern additional runway. He makes the point well. Mr Deputy Speaker,

numerous rail projects in the UK receive support via loans or direct

funding as a kens against of our membership of the EU. Now is not the

time for the department to roll back on investments in our railways as

we've seen repeatedly on investments in electrification works that

honourable members have spoken about this afternoon. I invite the

Secretary of State to reassure the House that any funding shortfalls

will be made up by the Government and investment in rail will not

suffer as a Kens kens of Brexit. The Secretary of State said he wanted to

take back control during the EU referendum. On this side of the

House, we very much wish to take back control of our railways from

private and foreign skate-owned companies who currently profit from

the system at the expense of passengers and taxpayers. A policy

supported by two thirds of the public. But, as the Secretary of

State is aware, while running services in the public sector is

currently entirely consistent with EU legislation, the forth railway

package may restrict the different models of public ownership that may

be available. Does the Secretary of State agree with me, I think he said

so earlier, it should be for UK voters to decide how best to order

our railways. And, if so, will he confirm that his Government will not

attempt to retain any European requirements in domestic law that

would frustrate any future attempts to bring railways back into public

ownership. I was delighted to hear what he had to say about HS2. I

suppose if there is going to be a silver lining about leaving the

European Union, then we won't be able to blame them any longer for

any problems we have with disabled people getting access to our railway

system. I think my honourable friend from South Wales who hasn't had an

answer to his question, he made it clear he was talking about the the

infrastructure. For the Secretary of Secretary of State to say he should

be satisfied with the improvements. They will only come with improvement

to infrom a structure. To skilled to the print to which he refers with

regularity and which we share, that should be delivered whether we are

in the European Union or not. That should be a pre-recognise sit and

woven into everything we do. While we decided as a nation to leave the

European Union, cooperating with and retaining our connectivity to the EU

is vital. It would be appreciated in the Secretary of State could

enlighten us to say how hauliers from the UK can carry goods between

other member states as well as whether it is his intention to

secure an agreement for British driving licences to continue to be

exchangeable for those of EU member states after Brexit? Finally, a

mention of UK ports. They directly employ over 25,000 people. Many of

whom voted leave because of anxietyies surrounded EU port

services legislation. Many leave campaigners said leaving the EU

would show exemption. The hop rabbling member for Scarborough and

Whitby was reported as saying the port services regulations would

still apply under an arrangement that granted the UK access to the

European economic area. So, can the Secretary of State clarify the

Government's intentions on any withdrawal from ports regulations

and guarantee that any exemptions do not inadvertently undermine strong

industrial relations and welfare standards of dock and port workers?

Whatever he may try to infer with regard to the European economic

area, is completely beside the point. There is a regulation, as I'm

sure he knows, it is on the brink of being brought in by the end of this

month. All that talk he's begin us has nothing to do with the issue.

The real question to which I ask him again, are the Labour Party going to

oppose it? Are they going do say they condemn it? That is what the

unions and the Government and, as I understood it before, the Labour

Party? Mr Deputy Speaker, I'm not sure I could be any more clear. I

addressed the issue head-on. If the honourable gentleman wants to read

Hansard, he may be clearer in his own mind. Mr Deputy Speaker my

contribution has been full of questions because there's been so

little revealed so far as to give an idea of what the Government's hoping

to achieve post Brexit and how they same to achieve any such objectives.

Huge questions remain over the future of our flourishing aviation

sector over what existing EU legislation will be retained and

what this will mean for our railways or ports. Whether EU funding for

transport projects will be made up by the Government as well as issues

around connectivity by road and what Brexit will mean for haulage. So, in

con lose, I invite the Secretary of State to bring forward the details

of his departments plans for Brexit that have been so far so stark,

staringly absent. Thank you very much. My main concern in relation to

this particular debate, as has already been demonstrated, is with

regard to this issue of the port services regulation. I regard this

as a perfect example of where the European Union has gone completely

wrong. Why in this particular sector it is vital that we leave the

European Union and I'm going to give a number of reasons which are drawn

from those who have the most knowledge about these matters,

including the reference that I will quote from the library note which

has just gone out. In essence, as has already been said by the major

ports group, many of the issues that confront UK ports are affected by

policy and legislation by the European Commission and Parliament.

The European Parliament itself is about to hold a plenary session as a

result of which it is assumed for the present purposes it will go

through and go to the Council of Ministers goned by majority vote.

I've been following this for several years. I'll come on to the timetable

and my concerns about the failure to have a proper debate on the floor of

the House on this issue exclusively on this issue in a moment. What is

said is that while UK ports receive virtually no financial assistance

from the public purse, the situation is very different in most

continental ports. This is hugely important. We are an island. We have

47 ports. They are incredibly important and I will accept, of

course, that the spokesman for the opposition has made clear his

concern about this. But it doesn't alter the basic point which is we

can't resolve the question of the ports regulation because of the

qualified majority voting system because he can't, Ian if we vote

against it, stop it. That is the problem. I will give in a few

moments, a description which - that's really why I had to ask him

twice about this. Because, I understand that the opposition have

accepted the outcome of the referendum. The honourable gentleman

says in Scotland they don't. But there are ports in Scotland so there

are many people in Scotland who are themselves going to be affected by

the outcome of this I shall continue. Despite the fact we're an

island nation, and this isn't just romantic blurb that we are

surrounded by a silver sea, this is about the question of whether or not

in this country we are able to have an efficient sport sector. Because

we're an island, we are so heavily dependent on the ports as goods go

in and out of them. Despite... Of course I'll give way. I'm very

grateful. For the benefit of the wider house, over 90% of our trade

goes through our ports. Indeed. I can understand where the honourable

gentleman, my next door neighbour has got this from. That is paragraph

6: 2 of the library note which he's been reading. I can see that. Very

glad he's been so acid ewous. The point is this, this is the

principle. Despite the fact we're an island, we compete with continental

ports for certain types of traffic. The ports industry are therefore

very concerned by the lack of a level playing field between the UK

and continental ports. I will give way. You will have seen a report of

the Financial Times four or five weeks ago now on the front page it

is said the custom checks the UK could carry out at ports may find

themselves in some difficulty. At the moment we do 35 million checks a

year. We'd need to do up to 240 million checks but the new system

and its capacity will only be able to handle about 100 million. It will

leave a huge difficulty post Brexit if this situation emerges,

inevitably damaging trade because the infrastructure as not there to

do the checks. If we don't have an efficient port system, which we do

at the moment, because of the effect of this port services regulation,

nothing he said will make any difference to the fact our ports

will be put at a very self rear disadvantage but a very dangerous

situation visa sees the other continental ports. At the same time,

despite the fact there was an attempt to get state aid rules

imported into this question of the regulation, the ports employers

believe it was essential legislation aimed at regulating less commercial

ports on the continent must not be allowed to cause unintended damage

to the UK's thriving commercial sector. It's on that basis as a

matter of principle, effecting the whole of our import and export

business going through the ports, which I don't even have to attempt

to explain, it is so obvious the affect it will have, what this

proposal aimed to do was regulate access to port services, charges and

financial transparency. The text as a whole, they say, this is some time

ago, I'll catch up in a moment with what they're saying most recently,

as a whole, even if heavily amended, cannot deliver on its stated aims.

Instead, it will create severe legal uncertainty, reduce investment and

ultimately be detrimental to the safety standards and working

conditions which currently exist in EU ports. EU ports may have

different ownership structures but all require a high level the

confidence in a stable, legal and policy framework in the long-term if

they are to operate safely. That's for the benefit of the workers. And

contribute to the EU agenda for jobs and growth which is of vital

importance to everybody, whether they are employers or whether they

are workers in the ports. It goes on to say that the port services

regulation does not provide such confidence Andris, leaving a legacy

of legal and practical difficulties across the EU. Now, they go on to

say that they support a return to the previous EU ports policy based

around the application of the general provisions of the treaty

where in force appropriately by guidelines on state aids. We've not

got Brexit. The real point is are we in fact in relation to the Great

Repel Bill going to come to a point, as I think we must, where, yes we do

transpose the legislation into UK law but then, through the statutory

instruments and through our own decision within the framework of

this Westminster jurisdiction, as a result of decisions taken by the

people of this country, including the members opposite, including the

members on this side of the House and including, with the exception of

the SNP, I'll leave them out of this equation. They'll pay a price for

this in their ports areas. They will find, yes, they will, they may think

that's amusing. There are people in the ports of Scotland who don't like

this. Yes, but the fact is they don't like it and they will resist

it if they can. But they won't be allowed to if the SNP can get away

with it. The bottom line is this, this is an issue which is of great

national interest. The European scrutiny committee has been

following this for several years. We first recommended is for debate on

the floor of the House in July 2014. That is over two years ago. And I'm

going to now read out the most recent letter which IVF' written to

the minister regarding this. I wrote to him on the 16th of

October, 19 to October, in which I said, we understand it is intended

that the European Parliament will adopt this between the 12th and the

15th of December, and we presume this will be followed shortly by

Council agreement, you will understand therefore that the

committee expects that the government will finally after a

disgracefully long delay which I underline several times!... Schedule

the floor debate on the proposal, for it to be recommended, in fact,

there has been to debate which have been aborted already, and one of

them, I can assure the house, was so shambolic that the chairman of the

committee actually had to suspend the sitting. I won't go into the

details, they are all on the record, but it was so shambolic that he had

to suspend the sitting altogether. Yes, of course I am happy to give

way. I thank the chairman for giving way and I have been involved in the

committee for several years, and this particular issue I'm concerned

about, the right honourable member is saying that we will adopt, we

will take into British law what is now exist as EU law, but we will

selectively disappoint parts of the EU legislation which do not suit

Britain, and this might be one of those. -- disapply. Absolutely

right, absolutely essential that we disapply this for that region, the

mechanics will be left to statutory instruments but we have got to

reassert jurisdiction over our ports. And if I may continue, on the

17th of November, as recently as that, I then wrote again, to the

minister, and I said, the committee has asked me to emphasise to you and

the leader of the house that this debate should take place before the

European Parliament adopts the text for a first reading agreement and

the council's subsequent endorsement of the text, failure to meet the

timetable would suggest contempt for the house, and its legitimate

scrutiny requirements. Considering the fact this has been going on

since July, 2014, we still have not had that debate. I have to say,

there is just time for us to have such a debate, and I really do think

in the circumstances, although this is a general debate about exiting

the EU, there is a specific debate, as not many recommended but demanded

by the European scrutiny committee, backed by the sort of language I

have had to use, and I may say, demonstrates the importance of the

issue and the need to get on with it. The other point I must make, I

have had no reply to those letters. That is another point. I am afraid

that the European scrutiny committee has its meeting today, registers its

deep concern about the situation as it is. And I think the next point I

would simply make is the latest statement I have from the ports

industry, I received it this afternoon, and I just want to read

this out because it is important that the house should know that this

is the latest position. One further point, they say, is that the UK

Government has insisted on pursuing the inclusion in the port services

regulation of a competitive market exemption. Rather than the option of

having an exemption for the privately financed sports and the

face of the regulation itself, which is what they themselves have been

seeking. It is this competitive market exemption position which was

finally agreed in the informal trial on discussions between the Council

of the European Parliament and the European Commission earlier this

year, and which is now in the final draft version of the regulating due

to come before the European Parliament in December. However,

this competitive market exemption is not an exemption, it is a process by

which member states May apply to the European Commission for an

exemption, as if they can expect to get it, any application will be

determined solely by the European Commission, may be limited in scope

or time, and will relate only to certain articles in the regulation.

In short, it offers no guarantees that the regulation will not be

fully binding on UK ports. Mr Cooper, the spokesman at the annual

Parliamentary reception last week, of the United Kingdom major ports

group and who is also CEO of one of the largest port companies, also had

this to say: I will not rehearse the arguments against this wretched

piece of holy and unnecessary legislation but as the endgame

approaches, it remains an example of a regulation imposed by Brussels

which is a one size fits all straitjacket that runs entirely

counter to our national interest. In its present form, the regulation is

significantly less damaging than it might have been, and alongside the

Department, the port industry can claim considerable credit for that

but it is not a success that can be guaranteed over the long term. Many

of the changes to reduce the scope and impact have been a function of

short-term political expediency. Mr Deputy Speaker, the problem with

that is this, it is inherent in the procedures of the European Union and

the ministers in the European Parliament and the European

Commission that we are in this situation. We cannot stop it. Unless

we were to actually leave the European Union. It is perfectly true

as the member for Stoke-on-Trent says, what is for sure is that if we

repeal this legislation, if we follow Brexit to the logical

conclusion, in many other areas within the port area, since this is

what we are debating, this is a very good example of something which will

enable the United Kingdom to regain control over its island ports, to

regain control over the business that goes in and out of them, and to

do it on a basis which under Westminster jurisdiction under a new

ports Bill after Brexit has taken place, and the repeal bill has gone

through, to enable us to retrieve for the benefit of the people who

work in the ports, the people who work in the ports in the executive

capacity, and in the docks themselves, the workers themselves,

the people who deserve to be given a fair deal out of all this. And I

believe that both the government and the opposition recognising this must

appreciate that we need to have a proper debate about this because it

is so important that we get this right for the benefit of the United

Kingdom as a whole. Thank you very much. I wonder where he had gone!

Thank you, I am here. We heard from the Secretary of State for Transport

that we should have confidence, he has reassured us that we should have

optimism, but of course we have heard no details. The impact of

Brexit on different modes of transport will be immense, on

aviation, Maritime, Route haulage, but the main effect will be on all

of the people in the communities, rising costs for goods and mobility.

There are also those who want to do business with us or visit us as

tourists. It is wrong for ministers not to have a full explanation of

how exiting the EU is going to impact businesses, consumers and

passengers. Nobody doubts that we are facing stormy seas, yet instead

of a plan, we are told it is going to be Titanic by the Foreign

Secretary. That is scary enough, but time after time, in terms of plans

and answers, we find it is just an empty vessel. Mr Deputy Speaker,

this government's model is less a ship of state and more like the Mary

Celeste. We will see the Brexit rhetoric cast overboard and hear

some definitive answers. People will be affected, they and their

businesses deserve to know what the plan is. This failure to provide a

plan is simply a plan for failure. People face additional journeys for

connections, more expensive tickets, less rights to challenge the ways

and cancellations. -- delays and cancellations. Additional insurance

costs and long queues at border controls, and when they call home,

there are calls could cost more because they will not have mobile

phone roaming protection. The Chancellor said this morning he

wanted the UK to be the number one destination for business. How are

they going to get there? Let's start with aviation, leaving the EU could

restrict operations by UK airlines in Europe and by EU airlines in the

UK, leaving our constituents and visitors paying the price for Brexit

through higher bears. Analysis from independent economists states such

restrictions could lead to UK passengers airfares rising by 15%,

15-30%. As an MP from the Highlands and as chair of the regional

airports APG Gee, I am also extremely concerned about the

increased pressure of cost on regional airports. These airports

have thrived with the increase of low-cost airlines, and the advent of

cheap short-haul flights across Europe owes a large part of success

to the EU. As EasyJet said, the single aviation area gives airlines

freedom to fly across Europe, and since its introduction, passengers

have seen lets fall by about 40%. -- APGG. Without this agreement, it

will inevitably mean higher fares. EasyJet is currently registered in

the UK... I met the proprietor of AirAsia earlier this week, he has

built an extraordinarily successful low-cost airline across Southeast

Asia, they are not in any kind of agreement, why is it not possible to

have a low-cost aviation setup in Europe with us outside the European

Union but it is to have such a setup in a part of the world where there

is no such body as the European Union? Let me answer that by giving

you the words of EasyJet themselves, currently registered in the UK. They

can fly largely without restriction from the UK to other member states,

France, and Gemma, for example, and countries like domestic Italy. Now,

now they are setting up a separate operation out with the UK to ensure

it can continue to fly without restrictions after the UK leads the

EU. Their Chief Executive Officer has said, current EU flying rights

might have to be renegotiated and a new company will ensure that EasyJet

can operate within the EU. We are not saying there will be no

agreement, we just don't know the shape or form, we don't have the

luxury of waiting, but we have to take control of our own future. This

is in no small part due to the lack of clarity from the UK Government

over what aviation agreement UK will eventually come up with. The

secretary of state and his colleague for exiting the year have said that

market access remains a top priority, -- exiting Bees you, and

we want to make sure that we have access to European markets,

strikingly, however, there is no guarantee that the UK would stay

within the open skies agreement. -- and his colleague for exiting the

EU. When open skies was agreed in 2008, the UK market was one of the

key attractions for the United States, at the time, the UK

accounted for a 40% share of the market, if the agreement ceases to

apply, as was mentioned earlier, will the UK have two resort to an

agreement signed in 1946 and last amended in 1991, Bermuda two? Apps

this is an opportunity for the Minister to counter the -- come to

the dispatch box, and tell us. -- perhaps this is an opportunity. I

would be happy to allow the secretary of state to intervene on

that point, if he wishes to do so. Checking Facebook...! LAUGHTER

The market has changed considerably since those days of the Bermuda to

agreement, and any reversion could create disruption -- Bermuda two.

If the implication also of new border controls is negative in both

ways. Ease of travel within the EU is attractive to our constituents

and those coming to the UK. Processing times will impact on our

attractiveness to visitors. EU visitors will need to enter the UK

through the non-EEA lines will require Border Force to commit

significantly more resources at airports. Each with extra staff,

queueing times for European visitors will still almost double to around

45 minutes. Those of us representing constituencies with a significant

tourism economy find this extremely concerning. Staying slightly on that

topic, I suppose. Will he urge the Transport Secretary to engage with

the US Government who are can you rently considering Edinburgh airport

for pre-clearance travel to the United States as a positive way of

showing the world we are indeed open for business. I thank my honourable

friend for his intervention so won't follow his point up any further as

it has been made. Under the future provisions, being a tourist from

Europe, especially in the short break Europe, having the choice to

go to the UK or somewhere elsewhere there is a lot less hassle,

somewhere more welcoming. We'll need additional sprays allocated to

airports and other points of endry. The costs could spiral into tens of

millions of pounds. This cost would have been bourne by airports and

port operators who cannot invest that money to increase connectivity

and to improving the passenger experience. According to the tourism

industry counsel if the 23 million EU nationals who visited in 2015

were to be subject to full pourer checks, this would require the

Border Force to increase resources allocated to this by 200%. This, on

top of the problems that already exist. Manchester Airport group said

Border Force provision at a number of airports is already inadequate.

With the lack of lank term planning meaning queue times for passengers

can be unacceptably long. So, what is the plan? Before the member gets

into the detail of the hype that Kals of border controls, does he

accept the single largest threat to ordinary travellers in the UK and

across the entirety of Europe isn't any of the things he's mentioned but

is the package travel directive about to the introduced by the EU

which will put additional costs on every traveller because they may be

use sites like ex-peed ya? I think the honourable member makes a very

good point. There are so many issues facing us, it is very difficult to

pick out the one that's the single most important item. But there are a

lot of unanswered questions. So I was asking what the plan is. Is it

to reach an agreement with the EU that the EEA channel would continue

to operate within the UK and that EU member states would allow UK

citizens to use the EEA channel in the EU? Regional airports are vital

for connectivity within Scotland but the reckless gamble with our EU

membership has caused great uncertainty for these airports which

could have a serious detrimental impact on our economy. Scotland's

regional airports rely on outbound tourism to survive to be an economic

success. A 12% reduction in sterling predicted would result in a 5%

deline in travel. -- decline. Ryanair are scaling back their

expansion in the UK. Is it not the case since June 23rd, there's been a

significant appreciation of sterling and a surge of people coming into

Britain to buy because everything's cheaper in Britain? Isn't this good

for business in Britain? And good for business in Scotland as well? Mr

Deputy Speaker, I'm happy to answer that. When I was a retailer many

years ago, the UK Government brought in an increase in VAT before that

VAT increase hit, there was a rush to the shops to buy goods. After

that VAT increase hit, things fell through the floor. I think you'll

see a very similar effect going forward. Scotland has a large number

of regional airports many of which are reliant on low cost airports and

outbound tourism to survive to be an economic success. The International

Airport transport association predict an reduction. Since the EU

referendum sterling's down 25%. For airports like Prestwick, it is even

more vital that we continue the open skies agreement to maintain outbound

passengers. It should be endumb bent on the you can Government to give an

unequivocal guarantee did the UK will stay in the single aviation

market after we're taken out of the EU. With 76% of the UK holidays

abroad going to the EU, outbound tourism is key for the industry. It

employs over 215,000 people across the UK. It is a key driver in

ensuring our regional airports are successful. Remaining in the open

skies single aviation market is vital to ensure our airports remain

economically viable. Low-cost airlines are vital for regional

airports to be a commercial success. It has been a trait... Thank you.

You've talked about airports relying on bringing in tourist Distinations.

Aberdeen airport has heavy reliance on business traffic it has been

redirecting efforts in comdestinations like Spain and

Eastern Europe. What message would this send, the lack of clarity for

airports looking to diversify its offering? My honourable friend makes

a very good point. Underlines the theme I'm working on just now that

this uncertainty is bad not only for business, but for consumers and

passengers. Bad for everybody involved. Happy to give way. You

talked about exchange rates. I think the exchange rate relative to theure

Yeo, was far -- theure owe was far less. That's where we have our

serious trade imbalance with With the rest of the world, we've

relatively good relations. It is the strength of collar which is actually

compounded that depreciation. Depreciation will be beneficial to

British industry wherever we trade. Well, it is a kind of thing Mr

Deputy Speaker, somebody might want to put on the side of a bus! It has

been the treat of previous UK Governments to take forever in

making key transport decisions. However, UK regional airports,

including Scotland's do not have the luxury of waiting. For the sake of

them, our businesses and commuters, the UK Government need to provide a

clear guarantee any post Brexit aviation agreement will not lead to

a loss of investment and connectivity in Scotland if we end

up outside the open skies agreement. The current aviation policy

framework sets out airports cannot apply for the PSO or connectivity

fund due to the 60 minute rule. A number of Reeming that will airports

lose out. This Government's EU gamble's putting potential

investment in Scotland' airports at risk. They need to think again and

give regional airports a fighting economic chance. The issues are not

confined an aviation. Our maritime sector faces similar concerns. We've

heard about ports but this sector's worth billions to the UK economy and

240,000 people are employed in the sector in the UK. 53% of the UK's

imports and 45% of the UK's exports are from the rest of the EU. It is

estimated there are around about three million jobs in the UK linked

to trade with the rest of the EU. Currently, there is the freedom to

trade. EOCD rules could... And load and unload cargo of passengers

regardless of its flag and regardless of the nationality of its

owner. You can-flagships could however lose the right to operate in

the domestic trades of those EU member states who maintain

flag-based retruckss. The British international freight association

said their main concern is of potentially losing the benefits of

free trade and customs harmonisation with the EU single markets. It

states the return to tariffs for UK merchandise exports and imports, if

this is the outcome, would be detrimental to trade within the EU

and may result in the reduction of the UK/EU maritime volume. The UK

ports sector being largely privately owned and run in a competitive

environment is very different to those of many other EU member

states. The economists said changes to the costs of trade with the EU

are likely to affect the volumes and patterns of freight activities at

ports while the need tor new costumes checks is likely to cause

considerable congestion at UK and mainland European ports. It suggests

any negative impact could be mitigated through EEA membership or

free trade aagreements though delays in negotiations would mean a

significant period trading under WTO arrangements. Uncertainty will

impact the industry, the people it employs and it will drive up the

price of goods. What access arrangements will be put in place?

I'm happy to give way. I hear what he's saying. He's also heard what I

said earlier. What is his answer to that with respect to the questions

that he has raised with regard to Scotland? Are they not equally

affected in relation shot ports that are there? I thank the honourable

member for his intervention. I think we are both making a similar point

from different perspectives. There needs to be a plan for how ports are

handled going forward. The difference in the regulations and

the operation of UK ports compared to EU ports provides a significant

obstacle that the UK Government have to answer about. How they're going

to take forward a plan on that basis. I'm going to make some

progress, thank you. Thank you. So, what access arrangements will be in

place? What is the plan for the millions of people connected with

this industry in will UK companies have to access a single European

market? Will they have access to a single European market where no

taxes are duties are payable on goods? In terms of road haulage,

there are potentially a lot of uncertainties for UK companies as a

result of Brexit. Particularly in terms of employment, drivers hours

rules, access to markets and border controls. To transport a lorry load

of goods from London to Milan in 1988 required 88 separate documents.

The internal market replaced them with one single piece of paper. The

Freight Transport Association said that the EU had created a market

logistics had served for nearly half a century benefitting British

businesses as did the Road Haulage Association who felt their sector

the overall judgment was a fine one. They say competences in the UK road

transport are finely balanced in our sector though we have not got a 100%

solution in terms of market access, we have the most of what we think

the industry would want. This is largely in reference to the practice

where be the haulier from the UK can carry goods between two other member

states. So, what is the plan? Happy to give way and hear the plan. Can I

ask the honourable gentleman to tell the House firstly what proportion of

cross-channel traffic is carried out by UK hauliers as opposed to EU

hauliers and can you tell the House the balance of cabatage carried out

in the UK by EU hauliers and vice versa? ? The Secretary of State is

trying the similar argument during the Brexit campaign, they have to

buy cars made from here because it's a bigger market. It doesn't square

with the facts of what's happening in the European market. For example,

what is going to happen with the shortage of drivers in the road

haulage industry. Many of whom are EU nationals supplying our road

transport network. I haven't heard anything in your statement today

that says there is a plan for this. The EU single market has delivered

significant economic and social benefits for Scotland. The four

freedoms of the sing the market, movement, capital, people and goods,

of course services have removed barriers to trade and opened

Scotland that a market of over 500 million people. It has generated

direct benefits and questions of funding. As of October ?2016350

million have been legally committed for transport funding meaning a

further ?450 million is available as long as it's committed before the UK

leaves the EU. ?13 million of this want directly to transport Scotland

with the agency being able to seek a further amount from the remaining

?450 million. Yet, there has not been a peep from the UK Government

or Chancellor on whether or not these funds will be committed up to

2020. So, will the UK Government seek to top up the funding to

Scotland after we leave the EU? Mr Speaker, I'm going to conclude that

there are many further issues with rail and bus networks, vehicle stand

Ards, testing, disaishled badges and is a whole lot more, so many

questions of transport in light of Brexit, we'll return to the subject

again and again. These questions are being asked not just by me or my

honourable colleagues, but by industry and the public. They

deserve answers. They deserve the plan. But instayed they say the

issues of maritime, road or air, they have a UK Government all at

sea, taking the road to Thank you, it's a pleasure to poll a

to follow the member for Inverness. I'm not sure if it is entirely

parliamentary, but following an it's Bill first then bend, but we are not

in the same flowerpot right now. I'm pleased to have been given the

opportunity to speak today on the effect of using the European Union

and the impact it will have on the transport sector. Like many

colleagues, I'm sure, in this chamber right now I would have

preferred to end up having a debate in relation to exiting the EU and

the single market and the access to free movement of labour, none this

is an important issue and it comes down to residents in my constituency

and the United Kingdom as a whole. I note with some irony that the House

of Commons library briefing paper on this subject suggests that the

transport post Brexit may not look wildly different from how it looks

now. However given that much remains unclear as we head towards

negotiations I would like to outline a number of priorities the

Government should indeed consider. Mr Deputy Speaker, the European

Union common transport policy is focused on the number of policy

areas, notably economic, social and environmental improvements and

infrastructure investment. It has been a long-running debate about

whether the benefits of the Europe union membership and access to a

single market for transport services outweigh the relative burdens of

regulation. It is my belief that the development of the common transport

policy has been a benefit to the United Kingdom, improving the health

of our population, boosting economic growth and ensuring the long-term

infrastructure to compete in the global environment. We need to

ensure the UK continues to feel these benefits once we've left the

European Union. I'd also like to take this opportunity to change tack

somewhat from the long conversations we've had in relation to ports. I'd

like to focus on two key areas. Namely environmental improvements

and infrastructure improvements. While I sympathise with the

Government position while Brexit negotiations are ongoing it is

important to make guarantees. Like many sectors transport needs

certainty. I'm sure we all agree on that. First

I'd like to concentrate on the environmental impact will stop in my

own constituency of Bath there is a huge problem with air pollution.

Bath is full of buildings which have been constricted out of the famous

Bath stone which absorbs quite a lot of the emissions from vehicles. The

high pollution across the city doesn't mean that many are slowly

blackening. In some areas the air pollution areas exceed the legal

limits and cause problems to health and well-being. This is not an issue

isolated to my own constituency, but also an issue across many

constituencies represented here today to. Ensuring a transport

system that works in a way that does not negatively impact on the

environment includes reducing the impact on noise pollution, harmful

emissions of greenhouse gases is vital for the long-term health of

all of our population. The transport sector accounts for almost a quarter

of all greenhouse gases in the European Union. It has the

second-highest level of greenhouse gas emissions just behind energy

sector. Moreover, transport is the only sector in the use emissions

have risen since 1990 by a staggering 22%. I know the transport

select committee has been doing some work on this issue over quite a

number of years now. We'd come alongside our colleagues in the

Europe union have committed to reducing emissions in the transport

sector and meeting European emission standards. It was the UK that pushed

hardest on this issue. It would be a shame, this point, for Britain to

draw back. It's crucial this continues after Brexit. After all,

it's not just an issue I slid to the UK. We share RA with the European

Union and the rest of the world. It's this collaborative approach

which many are concerned we will lose if we end up leaving... When we

leave the European Union. This approach is critical to solve these

pan national borders. I recently had the opportunity to visit my own

constituency's University which has a low emission vehicle research

centre which benefited from ?3.6 million worth of research funding

and contrast from EU government bodies. With the member give way?

I'll happily give way. I thank him for giving way. He mentioned his

university there. One thing of concern to me as research funding

after the 2020 period. Will he join us and asking the Chancellor, as the

Transport Secretary to give a bit more certainty to the university

sector in the post-2020 world? Here, here! I frankly honourable

member for his intervention. It is something in a number of us have

brought up in the higher education Bill committee. It is welcome to see

the announcement that funding will be continued after leaving the EU.

As we have seen over the last few years. That Horizon 2020, for

example, which we have been a part of the many years now is something

the university sector is concerned about leaving. That leaves a huge

hole in higher education funding. It's something I hope the university

's Minster will consider as the bill passes over to the upper house.

Going forward. Back onto Bath University. They have prize-winning

research centres over there. And it's had a huge positive... A huge

positive impact in terms of measuring an understanding air

quality not just in the UK but in the European Union to. The project

which is being run spearheaded by my own university will be able to

receive some of the funding from the Chancellor announced earlier on

today with the expansion of local growth funds, it's topical given the

Volkswagen scandal has recently happened. Obviously this means that

Britain might end up having an opportunity to bring businesses like

BMW over to the UK to measure its air pollution levels. As Ford is

currently. It is important we set out our position in relation to

exiting the European Union we remain committed to meeting obligations on

European emission standards across the transport sector in order to

improve the lives, health and well-being of all residents.

I'm sure the Government has vowed at the forefront of their mind when

considering transport policies will relieve the EU.

My second point relates to instruction investment. I'd like to

focus on the importance of ensuring we maintain adequate investment in

transport, particularly road, rail and aviation. I welcome the

Government's commitment to completing the incredibly important

take just to project and the recent announcement of Heathrow Airport

expansion both are vital to the long-term development of our country

as a whole. During 2014 the European investment bank provided rendered of

more than ?6 billion to support long-term investment for a broad

range of the structure projects across the UK. 26% of these were in

transport and telecommunications sectors. It is an important funding

source for these projects. They have been instrumental in the creation of

the trans-European transport policy and the Forth Railway package which

aims to remove the remaining barriers to the creation of a single

European room area. I also hope the conversations will be happening as

we leave the EU in order to ensure that Britain still has adequate

training links with the European Union. By removing bottlenecks,

building missing cross-border connections on promoting integration

into operability between different modes of transport we can assure

that the UK benefits from an English such a plan which promotes economic

growth and job creation. Will the member give way? I am happy

to give way. I find him for being so generous

with his time. Does he agree that just as transport benefits benefit

business so does continued membership of the single market,

would he support but? I find him for his intervention.

Yes, I have said on many occasions I support measure of the single

market, how achievable buddies is up to the Government to end up

negotiating with the European Union. Fundamentally, I think our

businesses, not just my constituency but in the devolved nations would

suffer from having a reduction in access to the single market.

Similarly, in relation to the customs union as well. I think one

thing missed out earlier on in the speech by my right honourable member

for stolen was the fact that there was no cost implication selected in

his debate in relation to how ports might lose out as a result of

leaving the customs union. Mr Deputy Speaker, now is not the time to slow

down investment into transport sector. As we heard earlier on from

my honourable friend the Chancellor. With projects in my own

constituencies such as a link road on the completion of the

electrification of the great Western mainline still in need of finance

the Government must come mid to last investment that flows from our

leading designer leaving the European Union. I hope this debate

has been an opportunity to increase transport investment across the

south-west as a whole. The Autumn Statement did provide some welcome

news. However, this is a real opportunity to really address the

imbalance. It is disappointing that a recent IPPR report concluded that

the South West has the second lowest level of transport investment per

capita and per commuter anywhere in England. Without wishing to give too

much credibility to counterfactual history I question whether great

investment by the EU into the transport of research in the

south-westward have seen more residents vote to remain part of the

union? In conclusion, transport is one of

the EU's must reject common policies. On many occasions we've

been a driver for change in this area. Upon exit I very much hope

that the Government continues to invest heavily in the transport

sector whilst maintaining commitments to air quality and the

environment. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This

is a very welcome and timely debate. Transport is so vital to all that we

do whether it be to do with our economy functioning, people engaging

in their lives, it matters to everything we do.

There's been so little discussion in public and, indeed, in Parliament

about the implications for transport of our exit from the European Union.

In this short debate I just want to flag up a number of issues where I

think there are concerns and some of those concerns are unanswered. Also,

to seek some further information from the minister about how these

issues are being addressed. At the beginning of this debate the

secretary of state in his opening comments did make some remarks about

how he was addressing some of the issues of concern that have been

raised. He made reference to meetings he'd had with ministers of

conferences, he said he hoped that he had a meeting with the

President-elect of the USA shortly to discuss these issues with him. I

think there's a more basic question as well. Yes, there are big

questions to ask about how negotiations may be conducted and

what the Government's objectives might be. But there is another

question in relation to transport. We'll negotiations impact on

transport? Will they be conducted in their own right or will there be

part of a much wider negotiations so that nothing agreed for transport is

in fact agreed until agreements on everything, all issues involved in

this leaving EU? I've never heard that matter discussed. I think if of

concern. Potentially, it could mean that there are issues to do with

transport which appeared to be negotiated and then, somehow, they

lost or away. That's a fairly fundamental issue. I'd like to have

more answers on that from the Government. I think giving an answer

on that isn't giving away negotiating position it's telling us

how is usually the Government, as a whole, view transport issues and

perhaps gives us a guide as to how far we should pursue some of the

issues that have been raised today. And I think they will be raised

again. Honourable members have raised issues to do with different

sectors of transport and how they could be affected. Matters to do

with road, rail and air and sea. I come to some of those in a moment.

There are other matters, crosscutting matters which are

important with very little attention has been given in relation to

Brexit. The matter of passenger rights. There are complex

compensation packages being negotiated in Europe, one I think

finalised recently, or nearing completion, it is not at all clear

how that would affect British citizens at this stage. British

citizens be covered by those compensation packages now or in the

future? We simply do not know. What about security matters? Reference

has been made to the cross channel transport. Security is a very

important aspect of that. How is that going to be affected? We've

heard little about it. How is environmental issues going to

impact on us? During the recent investigation that has been

conducted in the Transport Committee remember the vokes Waugh enscandal,

attention was focussed on vehicle-Taipei parole. That's to do

with the European system for assessing vehicles in terms of their

environmental impact, to do with their performance and to do with

their safety. Although the Volkswagen episode, scandal, I must

keep using that word, that's what it is, did highlight some deficiencies

in the system, it is also important to recognise that having a

cross-European system in terms of vehicle-Taipei parole is very, very

important. There might be reason to strengthen that and change that in

some ways. But having that system does matter. How would we be

impacted in relation to that? Would the UK still be involved in that?

Would we be party to that, partners in it, influencing what happens? We

do not know. The whole question of accessibility to transport for

disabled people has been raised briefly in relation shot blue badges

scheme. The blue badges scheme which is very effective and important here

does have its European counterpart. What would happen to that? Has any

thought been begin to that? Is there any discussion on that? It is wider

too. It's European directives which call for proper access for disabled

people in relation to buses, coaches and trains to be implemented by

2020. It has been that European legislation that has driven changes

and improvements in access to public transport for disabled people. Will