:00:25. > :00:31.Order, the Secretary of State for business, energy and industrial
:00:32. > :00:37.strategy. Secretary Dr Greg Clark. Thank you very much and with your
:00:38. > :00:41.permission, I would like to make a point on the Hinkley point. As the
:00:42. > :00:48.House knows on July 28, following the decision by the board of EDF to
:00:49. > :00:52.approve the investment decision of the ?18 billion project to build a
:00:53. > :00:55.new plant in Somerset, I announce that the Government carefully
:00:56. > :00:58.consider all elements of the project before entering into a contract with
:00:59. > :01:10.EDF and that we would make a decision by the early autumn. This
:01:11. > :01:17.decision is made with two important changes. On the Hinkley project, the
:01:18. > :01:22.Government can prevent the sale of EDF's controlling stake prior to the
:01:23. > :01:26.construction. The agreement will be confirmed in an exchange of
:01:27. > :01:31.Government and the EDF. Existing legal powers and the new local
:01:32. > :01:35.framework will mean that the Government is able to intervene once
:01:36. > :01:40.it is in operation. Further more, and even more importantly, we'll
:01:41. > :01:45.reform the wider legal framework for future foreign investment in British
:01:46. > :01:49.critical infrastructure. The reforms will have three elements. Firstly,
:01:50. > :01:53.after Hinkley, the British Government will take a specials
:01:54. > :01:58.share in all future nuclear new build projects. This will ensure
:01:59. > :02:14.that significant stakes cannot be sold without the Government's
:02:15. > :02:19.knowledge or concept. This will allow the Government to advise or
:02:20. > :02:21.direct the ONR to take action to protect national security as a
:02:22. > :02:27.result of change. Thirdly, the Government will
:02:28. > :02:29.significantly reform the ownership and control of critical
:02:30. > :02:33.infrastructure to ensure that the full implications of foreign
:02:34. > :02:37.ownership are scrutinised for the purposes of national security. This
:02:38. > :02:42.will include a review of the public interest regime and theEnter prize
:02:43. > :02:45.Act 2002 and the introduction of cross-cutting national security
:02:46. > :02:48.requirement for the continuing Government approval of the ownership
:02:49. > :02:52.and control of critical infrastructure. These changes will
:02:53. > :02:55.bring Britain's policy framework for the owner and control of critical
:02:56. > :02:59.infrastructure into line with other major economies. This will allow the
:03:00. > :03:05.UK Government to take a fair and consistent approach to the national
:03:06. > :03:07.security implications of critical infrastructure, including nuclear
:03:08. > :03:11.energy in the future. These changes mean that while the UK will remain
:03:12. > :03:14.one of the most open economies in the world, the public can be
:03:15. > :03:22.confident that foreign direct investment works always in the
:03:23. > :03:26.country's best interests. This ?18 billion investment in Britain
:03:27. > :03:30.provides an upgrade in our supply of clean energy. When it begins
:03:31. > :03:35.producing electricity in the middle of the next deckate, it will provide
:03:36. > :03:40.7% of the UK's electricity needs giving secure energy to six million
:03:41. > :03:44.homes for 60 years. Furthermore, it must be stressed that the contracts
:03:45. > :03:49.negotiated shows all of the construction risk on I vestors
:03:50. > :03:56.alone. Consumers will not pay a penny unless and until the plants
:03:57. > :04:03.generate electricity. The proposed strike price of ?92.50 reducing to
:04:04. > :04:06.?9.50 constains insurance against any crossover rollover of
:04:07. > :04:10.construction and future high gas prices which have been volatile. It
:04:11. > :04:14.compares broadly with the costs of other clean energy, whether offshore
:04:15. > :04:24.winds with the additional costs of intermittency, or gas with carbon
:04:25. > :04:31.capture and storage for example. # Hinkley has it long overdue in the
:04:32. > :04:34.UK creating 26,000 jobs and apprenticeships providing a huge
:04:35. > :04:39.boost to the economy, not only in the south-west but in every part of
:04:40. > :04:43.the country through the supply chain of firms big and small that will
:04:44. > :04:49.benefit. EDF have confirmed that UK businesses are set to secure 64% of
:04:50. > :04:54.the value of the ?18 billion investment being made - the biggest
:04:55. > :04:59.single capital investment in the UK today. But as the first of a wave of
:05:00. > :05:04.new nuclear plants, we expect the experience of rebooting the nuclear
:05:05. > :05:08.industry to mean that this should... The cost should reduce for future
:05:09. > :05:12.new nuclear power stations of which another five are proposed. Mr
:05:13. > :05:17.Speaker, in any consideration of nuclear power, safety will always be
:05:18. > :05:21.the number one consideration. The construction of Hinkley Point C will
:05:22. > :05:24.be under the close scrutiny of the Office of Nuclear Regulation, which
:05:25. > :05:29.is independent of the industry and of ministers. The Office of Nuclear
:05:30. > :05:32.Regulation has the power necessary to halt construction or have
:05:33. > :05:36.amendments to any part of the plant if at any point it is not completely
:05:37. > :05:40.satisfied with the safety of any part of the reactor and its
:05:41. > :05:43.associated construction. Unlike in the past, the long-term
:05:44. > :05:47.decommissioning costs for the plant will be provided br explicitly as
:05:48. > :05:51.part of the funded decommissioning programme at a level that has been
:05:52. > :05:55.assessed independently as prudent and conservative. Mr Speaker, any
:05:56. > :05:59.investment at that provides significant electricity supplies for
:06:00. > :06:03.the next two generations of British people and businesses requires and
:06:04. > :06:07.deserves serious consideration. It was right that the new Government
:06:08. > :06:13.should have taken the time to consider all components of the
:06:14. > :06:16.project. Having reviewed the project, they said that the other
:06:17. > :06:22.changes announced today will, for the first tie, remedy the weaknesses
:06:23. > :06:27.of the previous regime for critical infrastructure. It's important that
:06:28. > :06:30.the right balance between welcoming foreign investment and ensuring it
:06:31. > :06:33.serves the national interest is made. That is exactly what the
:06:34. > :06:38.changes will achieve. The investment will secure 7% of the UK's
:06:39. > :06:42.electricity needs for 60 years, helping replace existing nuclear
:06:43. > :06:46.capacity, which is due to be decommissioned in the decade ahead.
:06:47. > :06:52.The electricity generated will be reliable and low carbon and so,
:06:53. > :06:55.completely compatibility with our climate change objectations and
:06:56. > :07:00.Hinkley Point C will inaugurate a new era of UK nuclear power with
:07:01. > :07:07.UK-based businesses benefitting from almost two thirds of the ?18 billion
:07:08. > :07:10.value of the project with 26,000 jobs and apprenticeships created.
:07:11. > :07:13.All of the jobs are good for Britain. It's now right that we
:07:14. > :07:18.support the major upgrade - the first of many to the infrastructure
:07:19. > :07:27.on which our future depends and I commend this statement to the house.
:07:28. > :07:31.I think the Secretary of State for the 13 minutes notice of the
:07:32. > :07:34.statement. Let me be clear. This is an important project that must now
:07:35. > :07:40.go forward without any further interruption or delay. The Secretary
:07:41. > :07:44.of State is aware that by intervening on July 28 after EDF's
:07:45. > :07:47.final investment decision, the Government put at risk 25,000
:07:48. > :07:53.well-paid jobs, well-qualified jobs. He know that is the delay not only
:07:54. > :07:56.risks the ?18 billion of investment into UK jobs and infrastructure, but
:07:57. > :08:00.also rocked confidence in investors who now believe that the Prime
:08:01. > :08:04.Minister doesn't understand the significance that companies attach
:08:05. > :08:09.to the taking of a final investment decision. He's aware of the Ernst
:08:10. > :08:14.and Young index which shows that Britain has fallen from fourth to
:08:15. > :08:20.13th in terms of attractiveness for low carbon. This has unsettled
:08:21. > :08:23.investors further. I now have a number of specific questions. In the
:08:24. > :08:27.meeting with the President, did the Prime Minister attempt in any allow
:08:28. > :08:32.to isolate the building of the reactor from the deal at Hinkley C?
:08:33. > :08:36.Two - if she did? What was the Chinese response? 4 - every member
:08:37. > :08:39.of this house will agree that the Government has primary
:08:40. > :08:42.responsibility to safeguard our national security. But neither the
:08:43. > :08:46.Secretary of State nor the Prime Minister have ever been clear about
:08:47. > :08:49.what they consider to be the security risks associated with the
:08:50. > :08:55.current deal. So will he set these out now so that the House and the
:08:56. > :08:59.public can take a decision as to whether the modifications he is
:09:00. > :09:03.proposing adequately reflect the risks he believes exist? 4 -
:09:04. > :09:08.specifically, can he set out specifically whether the Government
:09:09. > :09:13.was concerned with the intellectual property of the EPR reactor? And if
:09:14. > :09:17.so, is he aware that two such reactors are already under
:09:18. > :09:21.construction in China. And 5 - were they concerned with the potential
:09:22. > :09:26.for a cyber attack? And if so, did he not consider that given the
:09:27. > :09:31.importance of the Chinese as having the kite standard in order to market
:09:32. > :09:34.the technology around the world, that would undermine the reason why
:09:35. > :09:38.the Chinese wanted to be involved in the project in the first place. Six
:09:39. > :09:42.- the Secretary of State wishes to dodge the questions. If he does by
:09:43. > :09:47.pleating that he doesn't wish to discuss security matters. Then how
:09:48. > :09:51.can he assure the House and the public that the' mendments he is
:09:52. > :09:55.proposing are sufficient to meet the risks and challenges that justified
:09:56. > :09:58.a near fatal delay of the project. But, Mr Speaker, we must address the
:09:59. > :10:03.sole argument that the Government has actually presented as well as
:10:04. > :10:06.those that they have not. They have claimed that they have introduced
:10:07. > :10:10.significant new safeguards into the package, in particular that they
:10:11. > :10:14.will be able to require notification from owners or operators of nuclear
:10:15. > :10:20.sites of any change of ownership or part ownership. But Mr Speaker, the
:10:21. > :10:27.Secretary of State already has such powers. Will the Secretary of State
:10:28. > :10:30.acknowledge that he concurrently -- can currently prevent the sale of
:10:31. > :10:34.any of the UK's critical infrastructure, and if this is the
:10:35. > :10:38.case, can he explain why he believes that the proposed new powers add
:10:39. > :10:42.significantly to the public interest regulations in the Enterprise Act
:10:43. > :10:46.2002, or are they merely window-dressing to make it appear
:10:47. > :10:50.that the Government's intervention has achieved something, no matter
:10:51. > :10:53.how much appearances may indicate to the contrary. Is he aware of the
:10:54. > :10:57.House of Commons briefing paper entitled Merges in the Public
:10:58. > :11:00.Interest Test. This particularly highlights that energy security is
:11:01. > :11:04.already covered by national security and the Government already has the
:11:05. > :11:08.powers to prevent such a sale. Is he also aware that in the House of
:11:09. > :11:15.Lords during the passage of the Energy Act, my nobel friend Lord
:11:16. > :11:20.Putnam introduced an amendment to introduce energy security as a
:11:21. > :11:24.public interest. Government lawyers then advised that in cases where a
:11:25. > :11:29.merger posed a genuine and serious threat to what is described as
:11:30. > :11:33.societal needs such as energy supply, this would be covered by the
:11:34. > :11:38.existing provision in the 2002 Act regarding national security. So
:11:39. > :11:45.ministers would be empowered to directly intervene? Mr Speak erk,
:11:46. > :11:49.the Government created a crisis -- Mr Speaker, the Government created a
:11:50. > :11:53.crisis and had a dispute with one of the key future trading partners and
:11:54. > :11:58.in the end, all they've done is pretend to give themselves powers
:11:59. > :12:02.which they already possessed. This statement is window-dressing. It is
:12:03. > :12:06.face-saving by a Government who talked big and eventually backed
:12:07. > :12:09.down with a whimper. The Secretary of State should explain whether he
:12:10. > :12:15.has reviewed changes to technology that have occurred in the past ten
:12:16. > :12:18.years and in particular Smart Grid's battery storage technology and
:12:19. > :12:24.energy efficiency levels to manage the electricity supply in such a way
:12:25. > :12:28.as to reduce the base for low base power that Hinkley supplies. Order,
:12:29. > :12:32.I think that the honourable gentlemen has concluded. His time is
:12:33. > :12:37.up. Secretary of State. Thank you very much. The Honourable Gentleman
:12:38. > :12:39.raised a number of points, a large number of points and I will address
:12:40. > :12:54.them. I think that we share the view that
:12:55. > :12:57.we should have the views and be a world leader in the important energy
:12:58. > :13:02.industries. But I don't think that he will think of me as churlish that
:13:03. > :13:06.it was the absence of a long-term energy policy, during the 13 years
:13:07. > :13:10.in which Labour were in Government in which our nuclear fleet was known
:13:11. > :13:16.to be coming to the end of its life and no decision was taken to replace
:13:17. > :13:23.them. It's fallen to this Government to make the long-term decisions for
:13:24. > :13:27.the security of this country. And instead of the approach of making
:13:28. > :13:30.like the ostrich and hoping that the problem would go away, this
:13:31. > :13:34.Government is looking to the future, providing the upgrade to the
:13:35. > :13:40.long-term energy security that we need. In terms of his position
:13:41. > :13:45.today, I'm afraid, Mr Speaker, I'm as confused by it as ever. His
:13:46. > :13:48.position is no more credible. He seemed to be criticising the Prime
:13:49. > :13:52.Minister and the Government for taking the serious decision to
:13:53. > :14:00.review the components of a very important deal. That seems to be the
:14:01. > :14:06.input of the intervention. However, he said that this had damaged our
:14:07. > :14:11.confidence. But when the announcement was made on July 29th,
:14:12. > :14:17.the Honourable Gentleman told the BBC, "I'm hoping that what they, the
:14:18. > :14:22.Government will do, is take 2-3 months to seriously review it".
:14:23. > :14:26.Sohail much for the -- so, so much for the suggestion that we shouldn't
:14:27. > :14:29.have had the review in the first place. However, I'm not sure what
:14:30. > :14:33.the purpose of the two or three months would be, because the very
:14:34. > :14:37.same day, as I have it, he said that he'd already made his mind up. He
:14:38. > :14:40.said, "I wouldn't scrap the proposal, the project, because I
:14:41. > :14:44.welcome the jobs and I welcome the 7% of electricity that this will
:14:45. > :14:47.produce for the nation." So this is the honourable member that was
:14:48. > :14:51.urging the Government to take longer to review something. The conclusions
:14:52. > :14:56.of which he'd already had in the first place. Mr Speaker, the
:14:57. > :14:59.contrast between the seriousness and the forensic approach that this
:15:00. > :15:04.Government has taken is, I think, marked. The points that the
:15:05. > :15:09.Honourable Gentleman raises, I will address. In terms of the powers on
:15:10. > :15:14.to the enterprise act, they're subject to thresholds, takeover
:15:15. > :15:18.thresholds and what we are doing is ensuring that any change in
:15:19. > :15:23.ownership or control of whatever size will be covered by a national
:15:24. > :15:29.security test and that seems to be sensible. On the particular point of
:15:30. > :15:35.Hinkley, of course, it was the case until we had negotiated or proposed
:15:36. > :15:42.the changes to the this, that EDF was at liberty to sell its stake,
:15:43. > :15:45.its majority stake in this very important investment without even
:15:46. > :15:51.needing to have the permission of the UK Government. So it seems to
:15:52. > :15:55.me, no more sensible and prudent to have agreed perfectly and straight
:15:56. > :15:59.forwardly with EDF that the consent of the British Government be
:16:00. > :16:03.required. And I'm surprised that the Honourable Gentleman, who I would
:16:04. > :16:07.have thought would take a prudent view of matters of national
:16:08. > :16:10.security, should suggest - and again it's not clear what he is suggesting
:16:11. > :16:14.- that we should not make these changes. When we come to debate
:16:15. > :16:18.these things in future, he will set out whether he opposes the measures
:16:19. > :16:23.that we're taking to safeguard and to entrench the same kind of regime
:16:24. > :16:28.for national security that we have in this country that other advanced
:16:29. > :16:32.economies enjoy. In terms of future investments, I was very clear in my
:16:33. > :16:36.statement that this is the first of what we hope will be a series of new
:16:37. > :16:43.nuclear investments. It is very important that we replace the 20% of
:16:44. > :16:46.power generated by nuclear power with another contribution to a
:16:47. > :16:51.diverse energy mix from nuclear, and in so doing, we are creating new
:16:52. > :16:59.jobs, new opportunities and major advances for the UK economy. Mr John
:17:00. > :17:02.Redwood. I welcome proposals to make it more difficult for foreign
:17:03. > :17:05.interests, especially national interests and governments to buy our
:17:06. > :17:08.national infrastructure. And does the Secretary of State agree with me
:17:09. > :17:14.that future power stations would be much better financed by private
:17:15. > :17:17.sector British investors or even on occasion by Treasury investment,
:17:18. > :17:22.rather than foreign investors who will now be able to take enormous
:17:23. > :17:26.sums of money out of our country for 25 years or more while the project
:17:27. > :17:33.is up and running, which is a cost on the balance of payment that is we
:17:34. > :17:37.really don't want. I would say to my Rt Honerable friend that I look at
:17:38. > :17:40.the investment into the UK economy. I hope as we develop our nuclear
:17:41. > :17:46.programme and we develop the skills and the supply chain that there
:17:47. > :17:50.will, indeed, be British companies that will invest in the various
:17:51. > :17:57.parts of the supply chain of new nuclear. In fact, we expect that to
:17:58. > :18:03.happen. 64% of the value going to UK companies. But I think that it is an
:18:04. > :18:08.important part of the deal that the consumer and the taxpayer will not
:18:09. > :18:13.pay a penny for the construction costs, unless and until it generates
:18:14. > :18:19.electricity. Now, knowing the record that there has been of cost overruns
:18:20. > :18:25.and delays to new nuclear power stations, I think it is prudent that
:18:26. > :18:30.that risk is held by the investors rather than by the taxpayer in this
:18:31. > :18:34.case. I'd like to thank the Secretary of State for the advance
:18:35. > :18:36.copy of the statement and for the courtesy call this morning to
:18:37. > :18:39.explain the Government's decision and welcome the fact that we are
:18:40. > :18:43.having this statement before the recess to allow the opportunity for
:18:44. > :18:46.questions. I do think that it is unfortunate, though, that the
:18:47. > :18:50.Government has decided to take the gamble with Hinkley. There are
:18:51. > :18:56.improvements that the Secretary of State has outlined but the deal
:18:57. > :19:03.still remains a rotten one. The ?30 billion that it will cost the
:19:04. > :19:07.billpayer. He may say that the risk is with EDF and construction
:19:08. > :19:12.companies but 25% over budget and four years late and it will still
:19:13. > :19:18.make a profit for Berkley. That will be at the expense of the billpayer.
:19:19. > :19:22.If we don't pay a penny until it is built, or even if it is built late,
:19:23. > :19:27.what fills the gap? We know that coal is due to come off the system
:19:28. > :19:31.by 2025 when this is meant to be coming on. If the gap is there, if
:19:32. > :19:35.the gap is five years. What will fill it? And at what cost? So I
:19:36. > :19:39.think that the cost of this project, possibly the biggest single object,
:19:40. > :19:44.most expensive object in history is too much. But what really concerns
:19:45. > :19:48.me is the opportunity cost that we have here because we can't spend the
:19:49. > :19:51.money twice. We can't have the engineers working on things twice
:19:52. > :19:55.and we can't have the grid producing the electricity to be consumed
:19:56. > :20:00.twice. And we could spend this money better. We could use our expertise
:20:01. > :20:04.better and we could use it to develop an industrial strategy which
:20:05. > :20:07.this Government has said is part of its new strategy. But that
:20:08. > :20:11.industrial strategy will mean foreign ownership. It will mean
:20:12. > :20:14.foreign investment and it will mean foreign profit and indeed, we --
:20:15. > :20:19.instead, we could be developing the home-grown industries that would see
:20:20. > :20:24.our country flourish, investing in clean carbon capture, investing in
:20:25. > :20:28.offshore wind, investing in storage, investing in solar. These things
:20:29. > :20:32.would all be better spent. So can I ask the Secretary of State to invest
:20:33. > :20:37.in the energy of the future, not the energy of the past? Mr Speaker, I'm
:20:38. > :20:41.grateful for the courteous words that the Honourable Gentleman
:20:42. > :20:43.started the words with and he started talking about investing in
:20:44. > :20:50.the future energy sources rather than the past. I would point out to
:20:51. > :20:53.him that given the SNP's record of energy forecasts in recent months
:20:54. > :20:59.that perhaps they might keep their crystal balls to themselves, if I
:21:00. > :21:04.can put it that way! And again, in terms of understanding the
:21:05. > :21:07.injunction that the Honourable Gentleman gives to invested review.
:21:08. > :21:11.It is very important and he will know that Scotland has a very high
:21:12. > :21:16.proportion of renewable investment. But I'm confused by his party's
:21:17. > :21:21.position on this. Because the SNP, as I understand it, has stood on a
:21:22. > :21:25.platform of nuclear-free Scotland, but it seems to be with their
:21:26. > :21:34.fingers crossed behind their back because they're happy to rely on the
:21:35. > :21:38.two nuclear power stations funk functioning in Scotland which are
:21:39. > :21:43.producing low carbon electricity. The former lead of the party wrote
:21:44. > :21:47.to EDF to say that he was happy to extend the life of the power plants
:21:48. > :21:51.well into the 2020s. So he wants to condemn his cake and eat it and then
:21:52. > :21:56.have another slice, it seems to be. In terms of the point that he made
:21:57. > :22:00.about overseas velt, we do want to attract over -- investment, we do
:22:01. > :22:05.want to attract overseas investment, a vote of confidence in this country
:22:06. > :22:09.that investors are working with us to have this major upgrade of our
:22:10. > :22:15.infrastructure. We welcome that across different sectors and he's
:22:16. > :22:18.wrong that this is at the expense of opportunities that we have in this
:22:19. > :22:22.country. Because, of course, one of the features of this deal is that it
:22:23. > :22:26.doesn't burden the public balance sheet and the Chancellor and the
:22:27. > :22:31.chief secretary have been wise to make sure that the UK balance cheat
:22:32. > :22:36.remains able to support other investments because this is provided
:22:37. > :22:40.through that. Mr Speaker, thank you. With your indulgence, please could I
:22:41. > :22:44.thank the Secretary of State and my Rt Honerable friend for making
:22:45. > :22:50.exactly the right decision in how important it is that the Bridgewater
:22:51. > :22:58.and West Somerset constituency. I ib invite the Secretary of State to
:22:59. > :23:04.visit the the Hinkley power station and look at what we need to build at
:23:05. > :23:08.Cannington. But future to the letter that I sent him, that we need the
:23:09. > :23:13.last bit of funding to ensure that the infrastructure to deal with this
:23:14. > :23:17.in the local area is up to scratch so we can deliver the power plant on
:23:18. > :23:22.time and on budget to the benefit of the United Kingdom. Can I return the
:23:23. > :23:26.compliment and thank my honourable friend for his level-headedness and
:23:27. > :23:33.patience while the review has been conducted. It is an extremely
:23:34. > :23:37.important investment for his area. I am looking forward greatly to coming
:23:38. > :23:41.with him to visit Hinkley and he's absolutely right that investments
:23:42. > :23:46.such as the college that will provide these skills that will going
:23:47. > :23:49.to charge ahead the whole of the south-west and the rest of the
:23:50. > :23:55.country, the supply chain extends to all parts of the United Kingdom and
:23:56. > :23:59.my honourable friend for Suffolk Coastal will also be a beneficiary
:24:00. > :24:04.of this. It does require an upgrade to the local infrastructure and I
:24:05. > :24:09.will respond to the LEP on that. I had a very positive conversation
:24:10. > :24:13.with the Somerset Chamber of Commerce earlier this week who were
:24:14. > :24:18.very clear that the benefits of what was then the proposal would be
:24:19. > :24:24.considerable and game-changing for Somerset. He will be aware that
:24:25. > :24:28.Britain's two most respected economy and finance publications, the
:24:29. > :24:33.Financial Times and the Economist have both out very stronkly against
:24:34. > :24:36.Hinkley on value for money and on energy grants with the Economist
:24:37. > :24:40.describing it just last month as a white elephant before it is even
:24:41. > :24:44.built. Can he confirm that nothing he has announced today is an
:24:45. > :24:47.improvement on the dreadful deal negotiated by the former chancellor
:24:48. > :24:52.on guaranteed price? Absolutely dreadful. Well, I don't agree with
:24:53. > :24:57.the Honourable Gentleman. I think that it is a good deal and it
:24:58. > :25:02.secures 7% of our energy into the future and it incumbent on him and
:25:03. > :25:05.his honourable friends to say that given that the 20% of nuclear
:25:06. > :25:09.capacity will be decommissioned over the next ten years, how are they
:25:10. > :25:12.going to replace it if they're not going to be forward looking and make
:25:13. > :25:16.positive decisions like we've made. Can I welcome my Rt Honerable
:25:17. > :25:20.friend's statement which is good news for the sector and my
:25:21. > :25:28.constituents in Brad well-on Sea. Can I assure him that my
:25:29. > :25:33.constituents welcome the prospect of Chinese investment with the long
:25:34. > :25:38.history of nuclear investment. Does he agree that any nuclear power
:25:39. > :25:44.station will be staffed by British employees and that the cyber
:25:45. > :25:49.security evaluation centre, which he says is technology provided by
:25:50. > :25:55.Huawei, provides a good precedent for providing security concerns? My
:25:56. > :26:00.Rt Honerable friend is right. And it seems that it is important to
:26:01. > :26:05.welcome overseas investment but we should have a regime of powers that
:26:06. > :26:08.other economies benefit from. That is something that mature countries
:26:09. > :26:13.would expect to have and that is what we're going to have as a result
:26:14. > :26:17.of the changes. Mr Speaker, having pressed the pause button, why is the
:26:18. > :26:21.Secretary of State now pressing the fast forward button? Doesn't he
:26:22. > :26:26.recognise that this project does not represent value for money, as the FT
:26:27. > :26:31.have pointed out? Does he accept that the cost to consumers has gone
:26:32. > :26:34.from ?6 billion to ?30 billion and that now, his Government are willing
:26:35. > :26:37.to put in public subsidies - something that they said under
:26:38. > :26:41.Coalition would not happen. And of course, this is happening at a time
:26:42. > :26:46.when the cost of renewables is plummeting? No, Mr Speaker. I've
:26:47. > :26:50.said that the construction costs are entirely financed by the private
:26:51. > :26:55.investors in this site. And again, I think that it is important that we
:26:56. > :26:59.do have a long-term, consistent approach to energy policy. And I
:27:00. > :27:03.think that in so far as this could be cross-party, I think that that is
:27:04. > :27:07.beneficial. It is especially ironic that two Liberal Democrat energy
:27:08. > :27:11.secretaries were closely involved in the negotiation of the deal. We have
:27:12. > :27:18.a different view already. Mr Speaker. Could my Rt Honerable
:27:19. > :27:22.friend confirm that at the end of its life, this new power plant will
:27:23. > :27:26.have generated the most expensive energy in the history of energy
:27:27. > :27:31.generation. Can you tell us if you agree with the National Audit Office
:27:32. > :27:35.that in its lifetime, consumers will have ended up subsidising EDF to the
:27:36. > :27:40.tune of $30 billion. And what's going to happen to the mountains of
:27:41. > :27:45.nuclear waste that this will generate? What I will say is that
:27:46. > :27:52.the securing for 60 years, a reliable source of energy is a good
:27:53. > :27:56.investment in the future of stability for our energy supplies
:27:57. > :27:58.and that's worth having. And it is impossible to know what the
:27:59. > :28:05.alternatives would be during that time and we have seen very volatile
:28:06. > :28:07.energy prices. Sir Winston Churchill's policy on energy was
:28:08. > :28:13.that diversity and diversity alone was the key. I think that that is
:28:14. > :28:18.the right approach. When it comes to decommissioning, as I said in my
:28:19. > :28:24.earlier answer, this is provided for explicitly in the contract. EDF say
:28:25. > :28:27.that this will mean 1,500 jobs at offices in Bristol as well as the
:28:28. > :28:31.jobs associated with the plant and I'm meeting with them on Monday and
:28:32. > :28:34.going down to Hinkley to discuss that. But these are incredibly
:28:35. > :28:37.expensive jobs given what we've already heard about the deal. Does
:28:38. > :28:41.the minister really think that this is value for money? And would it
:28:42. > :28:44.perhaps not be better spent investing in the renewable sector,
:28:45. > :28:48.which would mean jobs in the south-west. I do and I'm slightly
:28:49. > :28:53.confused to the demeanour of the party opposite who, it seemed in the
:28:54. > :28:59.rather confusing reply of the shadow minister, to be welcoming the
:29:00. > :29:03.project going ahead. Certainly, the trade unions in the south-west and
:29:04. > :29:07.across the country, which I would imagine the honourable lady speaks
:29:08. > :29:11.to, are very positive. The National secretary for energy for the GMB
:29:12. > :29:18.said "giving a thumbs up to Hinkley is vital to fill the growing hole in
:29:19. > :29:23.the UK's energy needs." Frances O'Grady welcomed it. I think when
:29:24. > :29:27.she goes back to her constituency, she might talk to some of the unions
:29:28. > :29:32.who are delighted on behalf of their members. Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I
:29:33. > :29:35.welcome this announcement that it brings ?465 million worth of
:29:36. > :29:38.contracts to south-west businesses and a ?4 billion boost to the
:29:39. > :29:42.south-west economy. But would be the minister agree, or the Secretary of
:29:43. > :29:46.State agree that we've got to look at the decisions in the context and
:29:47. > :29:50.the fact that we have a fleet of nuclear power stations from the '60s
:29:51. > :29:53.and '70s that are going to close over the next ten years and these
:29:54. > :29:56.decisions aren't about either or, it's that we need both? That is
:29:57. > :30:02.exactly why long-term planning is essential. We have around 20%, 19%
:30:03. > :30:06.of our electricity generated by nuclear power. If we don't renew it,
:30:07. > :30:12.it will fall to 2% by 2030. It seems to be the prudent thing to do to get
:30:13. > :30:16.on with replacing it. Thank you Mr Speaker. I welcome the decision
:30:17. > :30:20.that's been taken. It's been a long time coming and it's a shame that
:30:21. > :30:26.it's been delayed over and over again. My constituency has more that
:30:27. > :30:29.will be built hopefully in the not too distant future, which is
:30:30. > :30:33.incredibly important for economic development. Can the Secretary of
:30:34. > :30:37.State assure me that the future nuclear programme will not be beset
:30:38. > :30:43.by delay after delay after delay. One of the reasons why we're so keen
:30:44. > :30:49.to inaugurate this new programme of nuclear engineering in this country
:30:50. > :30:52.is to be able to replace the nuclear power stations that have been
:30:53. > :30:55.decommissioned but to build up in communities like hers, the skills
:30:56. > :30:59.that can make a valuable contribution to local life and to
:31:00. > :31:04.our national economy. Mr Speaker. I welcome the building of the new
:31:05. > :31:09.fleet or the starting of the new fleet of nuclear power stations. The
:31:10. > :31:13.opportunity that it provides for British manufacturing. Will my Rt
:31:14. > :31:20.Honerable friend do all he can to ensure that in the deals, we'll buy
:31:21. > :31:26.the best of British? Indeed, I've agreed with EDF in the last 24 hours
:31:27. > :31:32.that they have made a commitment to me that 64%, by value, of the
:31:33. > :31:37.contept, will be spent with UK companies, which -- content, will be
:31:38. > :31:41.spent with UK companies which shows the tangible benefit to the economy.
:31:42. > :31:44.The minister said that the Hinkley decision won't burden the national
:31:45. > :31:50.balance sheet, so could he clarify the status of the offer made by the
:31:51. > :31:56.previous chancellor of the exchequer to give EDF a Treasury guarantee of
:31:57. > :31:59.?2 billion to supplement the company's liquidity and something
:32:00. > :32:04.that they say puts the taxpayer at risk. I'm delighted to answer that.
:32:05. > :32:09.EDF have confirmed that they will not be taking up that ?2 billion
:32:10. > :32:17.guarantee so that the taxpayer is fully insulated from the cost of
:32:18. > :32:21.construction. I welcome the Secretary of State's statement
:32:22. > :32:25.today. Can he confirm that he will work with businesses and the Chamber
:32:26. > :32:29.of Commerce in the UK to build on this nuclear partnership and attract
:32:30. > :32:37.new business into the UK? I will, indeed. We do want to have good
:32:38. > :32:40.investment opportunities for countries around the world and China
:32:41. > :32:44.right across the United Kingdom has been an important and valued source
:32:45. > :32:50.of investment and it's important that we build on it. In light of the
:32:51. > :32:54.announcement today, is the Secretary of State now admitting that when the
:32:55. > :32:58.Government entered into the original contract, they failed to protect
:32:59. > :33:03.national security and critical infrastructure? You know what I
:33:04. > :33:09.would say to the honourable lady. Despite the injunction of her
:33:10. > :33:13.colleague on the front bench is that taking the opportunity seriously to
:33:14. > :33:16.review before signatures were given has allowed us to improve the
:33:17. > :33:21.security of the arrangements. That seems to be a wholly good thing that
:33:22. > :33:26.I hope she'd welcome. Mr Speaker, the Secretary of State is right to
:33:27. > :33:29.point out that nuclear energy provides a valuable part of UK
:33:30. > :33:33.energy security. But that's only provided we have the fuel in order
:33:34. > :33:36.to put in them. The fuel for reactors in the UK are made in the
:33:37. > :33:40.constituency and filed. Can the Secretary of State assure me that
:33:41. > :33:45.all efforts will be made to ensure that nuclear fuel, four new reactors
:33:46. > :33:52.for UK will be made in the UK where at all possible? Indeed and I had
:33:53. > :33:55.he's be happy to visit my honourable friend's constituency to see for
:33:56. > :34:00.myself the production there. I very much welcome the review but I've got
:34:01. > :34:05.to say that I'm astonished that a review of the strike price was not
:34:06. > :34:11.part of it. A strike price that will close to ?120 per mega-Watt hour and
:34:12. > :34:15.rising with inflation. Can I ask the Secretary of State, was there
:34:16. > :34:21.serious examination of the cost for bill payers as par of the review? Of
:34:22. > :34:25.course, we looked at every component part and for a new nuclear power
:34:26. > :34:29.stationing the first in a generation for this country, to have it
:34:30. > :34:34.constructed at no risk to the taxpayer or the bill pair, I think
:34:35. > :34:38.is a considerable achievement and represents good value. Mr Speaker,
:34:39. > :34:41.this is good news for my constituency as it means now that
:34:42. > :34:45.we're going to have a third nuclear power station built. Good news
:34:46. > :34:49.travels fast. I've already had the local radio station desperate to get
:34:50. > :34:52.an interview and also to congratulate the Secretary of State
:34:53. > :34:56.for all of the hard work of what he's done for my constituents. Would
:34:57. > :35:00.he agree with me that we could meet together very shortly to have a
:35:01. > :35:05.meeting of how to speed up the five proposed reactors in the future? And
:35:06. > :35:08.also would he help me as quickly as he possibly can? I would be very
:35:09. > :35:15.happy as always to meet my honourable friend and I consider the
:35:16. > :35:19.invitation accepted. Mr Speaker, we have an excellent Secretary of State
:35:20. > :35:26.and he's come to this House and made a very full statement. But... He
:35:27. > :35:30.gave details of the statement quite rightly to the Opposition spokesman
:35:31. > :35:35.and the SNP statement, but he also gave it in advance to the BBC. I
:35:36. > :35:42.read all of this on the BBC website. That's not how this House works. And
:35:43. > :35:46.it may be that -- precious spin doctors are still prevalent in
:35:47. > :35:49.departments. That has got to stop. The House has to be informed first
:35:50. > :35:54.and would the Secretary agree, that is the convention of this house? I
:35:55. > :35:58.understand the point that my Rt Honerable friend makes and I hope
:35:59. > :36:01.that he will concede that I've come to the house at the earliest
:36:02. > :36:05.opportunity. Decisions like this have consequences for financial
:36:06. > :36:09.markets and it is the norm to, at the opening of the markets to
:36:10. > :36:15.disclose them. He can be absolutely assured and I'm sure that he will
:36:16. > :36:19.accept this, that my sense of responsibility to this House is very
:36:20. > :36:23.clear m my mind, but we need to have an orderly conduct of business when
:36:24. > :36:29.it comes to important implications of financial markets too. Thank you
:36:30. > :36:35.very much Mr Speaker. I welcome the announcement on golden shares and I
:36:36. > :36:38.also very much support what my Rt Honerable friend said about future
:36:39. > :36:42.British investment perhaps through a UK investment bank and UK pension
:36:43. > :36:45.funds as being very important. But can he confirm to me where the
:36:46. > :36:53.currency risks, particularly on the subsidy payments in the future out
:36:54. > :36:59.of the C if. Ds will arise? The contract is expressed in pounds. And
:37:00. > :37:06.the construction risk is entirely with the investors. I very much
:37:07. > :37:13.welcome the long-term investment in the low carbon energy and the 25,000
:37:14. > :37:17.jobs this will create. Could the skeact confirm EDF's commitment --
:37:18. > :37:21.Secretary of State confirm EDF's commitment to jobs for smaller
:37:22. > :37:25.businesses such as James Fisher Nuclear in my constituency? I'm sure
:37:26. > :37:30.that that particular firm will attest to that. Certainly the
:37:31. > :37:34.Somerset Chamber of Commerce were very clear that the orders that had
:37:35. > :37:38.been placed already during the period of preparation of the site
:37:39. > :37:46.has been very beneficial to that county. Thank you Mr Speaker. This
:37:47. > :37:49.is obviously a massive infrastructure project and I welcome
:37:50. > :37:53.that the Secretary of State has had to say around the opportunities for
:37:54. > :37:57.supply chains and I hope that that will extent to the steel industry
:37:58. > :38:01.and I strongly urge the Secretary of State to get out there and make the
:38:02. > :38:05.case that all of the steel used in this should be British. And can I
:38:06. > :38:09.put in a particular plug for Corby Tubes. Which are of excellent
:38:10. > :38:15.quality, I know. I think that the commitment that EDF have given me
:38:16. > :38:20.that 64% by value of the work will be with UK firms will be of
:38:21. > :38:23.particular benefit to firms such as the one he mentioned and to the
:38:24. > :38:25.supply chain right across the country. I'm grateful to the
:38:26. > :38:55.Secretary of State. Order. Minister of State for the Department
:38:56. > :39:03.of Transport. Mr Speaker, the assessment of the impact of the for
:39:04. > :39:05.transport investment and internationally respected analytical
:39:06. > :39:11.framework for schemes which includes the impact on jobs, growth and
:39:12. > :39:15.regeneration. May I welcome the minister to this place and say how
:39:16. > :39:19.pleased I am that the department has the benefit of his experience and
:39:20. > :39:24.wisdom of my Lincolnshire colleague, and I'm not just saying that because
:39:25. > :39:27.I'd like his help with the road, please!
:39:28. > :39:32.(LAUGHTER) Every day this summer, my
:39:33. > :39:36.constituents, tourists and I had to wait up to 45 minutes to pass
:39:37. > :39:42.through the traffic lights at Horncastle where the very busy A 153
:39:43. > :39:45.crosses the busiest A 158. The single carriageway roads cannot cope
:39:46. > :39:51.with the volume of traffic between the city of Lincoln, the market town
:39:52. > :39:54.of Louth and the east coast. Will my Rt Honerable friend meet me and
:39:55. > :39:59.local councillors to discuss what can be done to get rid of the bottle
:40:00. > :40:04.next, to help local residents and businesses and to encourage even
:40:05. > :40:14.more tourism to the wonderful Lincolnshire coast. The honourable
:40:15. > :40:19.lady is a an articulate campaigner in the interests. She will know that
:40:20. > :40:24.all counties of our great country are dear to my heart, but none more
:40:25. > :40:28.so than my own county of Lincolnshire. I am familiar with
:40:29. > :40:31.this part of the county. I do understand the pressures on the
:40:32. > :40:36.roads there. I will be more than happy to meet her councillors to
:40:37. > :40:39.discuss it. Indeed I will go further, Mr Speaker, because that's
:40:40. > :40:43.alone not good enough. I want to hold a round table meeting with all
:40:44. > :40:47.concerned parties in my department and ask my officials to look at
:40:48. > :40:52.specifically what she said. And if I might say so, her complimentary
:40:53. > :40:56.words were most welcome. She could have added, for future reference,
:40:57. > :41:08.dexterity and determination in the light of recent events, duribility!
:41:09. > :41:13.Will the minister give a firm commitment for high speed 2 to go
:41:14. > :41:17.ahead with a very clear timetable? And will he accelerate work in
:41:18. > :41:22.Trans-Pennine links from Liverpool to Hull so that the UK's economy can
:41:23. > :41:26.be supported and this can assist in the rebalancing of the economy
:41:27. > :41:31.across the whole of the UK? The honourable lady and I, Mr Speaker,
:41:32. > :41:36.were together earlier this week at a meeting discussing a whole range of
:41:37. > :41:41.issues and the takes of the IPPR Report, including the significance
:41:42. > :41:46.of the Trans-Pennine connection. It is very important that we see all of
:41:47. > :41:51.our transport needs, not just in terms of north/south links but also
:41:52. > :41:55.in terms of east/west links and I know a number of members who
:41:56. > :41:59.represent constituencies on the east of England like I do and the west of
:42:00. > :42:03.England like she does to recognise that. I'm more than happy to look at
:42:04. > :42:07.the options. She will know that we are considering a range of ways of
:42:08. > :42:10.making those plings real. She in her role as the select committee
:42:11. > :42:17.chairman will want to test me further on the subjects when no
:42:18. > :42:21.doubt she calls me beforehand. Will my Rt Honerable friend have
:42:22. > :42:26.particular regard to the reports from the Great Eastern and West
:42:27. > :42:32.Anglian task forces chaired by two of his colleagues about the
:42:33. > :42:36.contribution they can make to the future prosperity of the Anglian
:42:37. > :42:40.region so that there can be a reliable rail structure on which the
:42:41. > :42:45.splendid new trains that are to come can run more efficiently? Mr
:42:46. > :42:51.Speaker, as you know, I have a deep regard for the past and my
:42:52. > :42:56.relatively recent past reminds me that the reviewed tested me on these
:42:57. > :42:59.matters in my last incarnation in the Department of Transport when he
:43:00. > :43:02.made similar arguments about the importance of the links. I do look
:43:03. > :43:06.forward to receiving and studying that report and when I do so, I'm
:43:07. > :43:11.more than happy to have further discussions with him on the
:43:12. > :43:17.contents. But no-one can argue that he hasn't made his case powerfully.
:43:18. > :43:23.I hope that the Rt Honerable member realises how lucky he is to have
:43:24. > :43:28.further conversations with the Minister for Transport! Not all of
:43:29. > :43:34.us have that. Infrastructure is important. Which is why that the
:43:35. > :43:39.highways has announced the closure of the A 34. This stretch of road is
:43:40. > :43:42.the main access route to the Freeport shopping centre,
:43:43. > :43:47.much-needed works are required, but it's due to start next week until
:43:48. > :43:51.December 23rd at a cris mass shopping centre. Will the minister
:43:52. > :44:01.endeavour to work with me to work with the Highways Agency to see the
:44:02. > :44:05.error of their ways? If I might make a general point rather than
:44:06. > :44:08.specific. The first day I was in this particular job, I met the
:44:09. > :44:12.Highways England, as they're now called and was very clear that one
:44:13. > :44:15.of the things that they have to do better is to give proper notice of
:44:16. > :44:18.plans, which they have and to communicate with all interested
:44:19. > :44:22.parties, including members of this house, and to be very clear about
:44:23. > :44:26.the length of time, particularly with decisions they make and their
:44:27. > :44:29.implications will take. And obviously the case in point is
:44:30. > :44:33.there. On the specific, I wasn't aware of it, but this is what I'm
:44:34. > :44:36.going to do. I will meet the Highways England today, this day,
:44:37. > :44:46.and I will raise that particular issue and by tomorrow, I will speak
:44:47. > :44:50.to the honourable lady about it. My Rt Honerable friend is decks
:44:51. > :44:55.terrous, determined and extremely distinguished. The A 34 is one of
:44:56. > :44:59.the most important roads for the company taking freight from the
:45:00. > :45:04.south coast to the Midlands. It is becoming increasingly dangerous. Two
:45:05. > :45:08.recent crashes caused fatalities. Will my Rt Honerable friend, now
:45:09. > :45:12.that I've called him determined, hold a round table with me and other
:45:13. > :45:19.Oxfordshire MPs to discuss the safety and free running of the A 34?
:45:20. > :45:26.My table grows ever more round! (LAUGHTER)
:45:27. > :45:32.I'm none the worse for it by the way. But I am familiar with that
:45:33. > :45:36.road. He will know that it is a scheme which has had a number of
:45:37. > :45:42.suggestions made for its improvement. It is important that
:45:43. > :45:45.the house understands that there are always demands on different roads
:45:46. > :45:51.and different ideas about how those demands be met. And the process that
:45:52. > :46:00.we're enjoidge gauged is that we -- engaged in is to study it carefully
:46:01. > :46:04.and the kind of consultation that the Honourable Gentleman recommends
:46:05. > :46:06.and I'm happy to talk to him. The Government talks about rebalancing
:46:07. > :46:09.the economy and it's interesting that the minister just said about
:46:10. > :46:14.improving east/west links in the north. Can I make one suggestion
:46:15. > :46:18.that I hope he'll take forward. Can we extend the M 65 all the way to
:46:19. > :46:23.Scotch Corner. This needs to be done. There are millions of people
:46:24. > :46:27.in the north-east who need connecting directly to the
:46:28. > :46:33.north-west in the Manchester region and this would be vital to rebalance
:46:34. > :46:38.the economy. Again, the Honourable Gentleman is known for making that
:46:39. > :46:46.case and the case of the links that would be sufficient to give further
:46:47. > :46:49.boosts to his economy. There have been scurrilous suggestions that the
:46:50. > :46:57.northern powerhouse has falted in some way. Let me tell you this. The
:46:58. > :47:02.northern powerhouse is not only alive and well, it will thrive under
:47:03. > :47:05.this Government and that will include the kind of infrastructural
:47:06. > :47:09.investments necessary, not only to provide transport links, but to
:47:10. > :47:12.boost economic growth, build skills and spread opportunity. That's the
:47:13. > :47:17.kind of Government we are, Mr Speaker. A Government with big ideas
:47:18. > :47:30.that puts them to action for the benefit of our people. Number two Mr
:47:31. > :47:35.Speaker. Thank you, following the this, we have remobilised the team
:47:36. > :47:40.and working towards the final design for the enhancement programme as set
:47:41. > :47:45.out in the review last year. Work to increased capacity on the route has
:47:46. > :47:49.already started. Mr Speaker, the East Midlands regions have the
:47:50. > :47:53.lowest level of rail spending per head in every one of the last six
:47:54. > :48:00.years. We've discovered that the pausing and unpausing of the elect
:48:01. > :48:06.riification of the Midlan Mainline wasted almost ?40 million and cost
:48:07. > :48:10.countless jobs in the supply chain. Now there are rumours that it could
:48:11. > :48:13.be cans EDF have confirmeded again. Can he take this opportunity to
:48:14. > :48:17.confirm that the line will be electrified all the way to
:48:18. > :48:24.Nottingham and Sheffield by 2023? And will he commit to real action to
:48:25. > :48:29.ensure there will are no further delays or broken promises? I
:48:30. > :48:33.congratulate you on carrying that out when she might return to the
:48:34. > :48:36.front bench to continue in that role. She makes an important point
:48:37. > :48:40.about the importance of the east line to the East Midlands. In my
:48:41. > :48:44.view, the supply chain in the East Midlands doesn't just depend on the
:48:45. > :48:47.one project, but the investment of 660 trains for East Anglia is just
:48:48. > :48:51.one way of safeguarding that particular supply chain. But the
:48:52. > :48:55.wider points that she makes about the work on this line is that it is
:48:56. > :48:59.worth bearing in mind that we've already completed ten kilometres of
:49:00. > :49:03.new line in this stretch. Nearly nine kilometres of the new existing
:49:04. > :49:09.line improved as well. Over 3,000 new piles put into place. Ten
:49:10. > :49:13.kilometres of new earth works. Ridges, a new via duct, so the work
:49:14. > :49:18.is ongoing on this particular line and we will be looking to improve
:49:19. > :49:21.capacity as well through the franchising arrangements. I'm
:49:22. > :49:25.delighted to hear that the Northern Powerhouse is alive and well and
:49:26. > :49:29.would the minister agree with me that if it is to have real effect,
:49:30. > :49:33.then it is important that the investment in connectivity, not just
:49:34. > :49:37.between cities but also between the towns of the north, is made? And I'd
:49:38. > :49:41.like to thank ministers for the initial investment in the by pass,
:49:42. > :49:47.but would ministers also look at the business case for the reopening of
:49:48. > :49:54.the railway station? As someone born and bred in a town very close to one
:49:55. > :49:59.of the salt town, I am very well in my 40 years of the connectivity at
:50:00. > :50:03.the heart of Cheshire. I know the road good and the planned station
:50:04. > :50:08.and I look forward with working with you on the business case. Before the
:50:09. > :50:13.pause, the elect riification was due to be completed by 2020. That is
:50:14. > :50:17.also the date when all trains have to comply with the new disability
:50:18. > :50:22.lem slayings. What is the Government now going to do between 2020 and
:50:23. > :50:26.2023 when the old trains on the line with the slam doors don't comply
:50:27. > :50:31.with the legislation? Is he going to abandon the legislation or put in a
:50:32. > :50:34.temporary rolling stop? We take accessibility issues on the railways
:50:35. > :50:37.extremely seriously and the gentleman is right to point out the
:50:38. > :50:41.commitments that we made. We're currently examining how best to
:50:42. > :50:45.increase capacity at the line, particularly at peak hours when
:50:46. > :50:51.there is a risk of standing on some stretches so we're looking carefully
:50:52. > :50:56.at how to deliver on this. In the plans to re-enter guise the
:50:57. > :51:00.electriification, can the pair say that the stations in my
:51:01. > :51:04.constituencies, haven't been missed out of the original one? I am not
:51:05. > :51:08.familiar with that particular branch line at this stage but I will
:51:09. > :51:13.certainly look into it and discuss it with my officials and write to
:51:14. > :51:17.the Honourable Gentleman. The faster line speeds that electriification
:51:18. > :51:22.will bring, will the minister look to increase the half hourly service
:51:23. > :51:27.to Keterring, that was reduced to half hourly? There are always a
:51:28. > :51:30.number of timetabling and scheduling opportunities that come about
:51:31. > :51:34.through any reprofiling of the line and the changes of the works in it
:51:35. > :51:39.so we will, of course, feed that into all of the consultations that
:51:40. > :51:49.occur as to how best to make shoes use of the reprofiling of the line.
:51:50. > :51:53.Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, the safety of the public is the top priority
:51:54. > :51:56.and we're looking to understand the safe use of drones and we're
:51:57. > :51:59.continuing to adapt and strengthen the use of regulations of the use of
:52:00. > :52:03.drones, the current regulatory framework and the clear rules on
:52:04. > :52:07.safety and strong penalties for misuse with the commercial
:52:08. > :52:11.commission system which ensures responsible use of the emerging
:52:12. > :52:15.technology. That thank you Mr Speaker. I asked him what assessment
:52:16. > :52:20.he made of the effect on aviation safety. How real is the risk? I know
:52:21. > :52:23.that he knows it was discussed at the trade union Congress this week
:52:24. > :52:26.and there's great concern about it, but we really need to know what the
:52:27. > :52:31.risk is and what steps the Government is taking before we end
:52:32. > :52:33.up with the inevitable ministerial statement about lessons learned.
:52:34. > :52:39.Well, the Honourable Gentleman is right. He's right about the TUC
:52:40. > :52:43.discussing it yesterday and we had a word about that earlier. They have a
:52:44. > :52:49.right to raise this too, because of course, it is an emerging technology
:52:50. > :52:53.and the risk is dynamic. We need to keep constant analysis in place
:52:54. > :53:00.about what that poses and it's not just irresponsible use. It could be
:53:01. > :53:05.manelevent use. They could be used by all kinds of agents to do all
:53:06. > :53:09.kinds of things. So the assurance that I give him is that I will make
:53:10. > :53:14.sure that my department is continuing that an l a sis, making
:53:15. > :53:18.sure that the -- analysis, making sure that the regulatory framework
:53:19. > :53:23.is fit for purpose for the analysis and the best thing for me to do with
:53:24. > :53:28.that is to come back to the House and give regular reports on how
:53:29. > :53:32.that's going. The Honourable Gentleman always takes a diligent
:53:33. > :53:41.interest in the affairs of the house and he's raised an important issue
:53:42. > :53:45.which is entirely bipartisan but one that we need to take importantly. My
:53:46. > :53:55.constituent tells me that drones are not only an issue of danger to
:53:56. > :53:59.aircraft, but also it affects privacy, it affects copyright law.
:54:00. > :54:03.And also, is a danger to people who might be visiting the castle and
:54:04. > :54:09.then the drone running out of power and falling on people's heads. So
:54:10. > :54:15.when are we going to see tighter instructions and education about how
:54:16. > :54:18.to use drones? Intellectual property rights, Mr Speaker, incidentally, is
:54:19. > :54:25.the phrase I was looking for earlier. And you found it! Just to
:54:26. > :54:29.be absolutely clear, Mr Speaker, we do take drones very seriously as I
:54:30. > :54:39.said in answer to the first question. And anyone who "reklessly
:54:40. > :54:43.permits their drone -- recklessly permits their drone to cause damage
:54:44. > :54:47.to property or person can face a fine of imprisonment"". So we're not
:54:48. > :54:51.taking this lightly. But the point that we made is that because this
:54:52. > :54:55.tech the House of Lordsingy is evolving, it's very important that
:54:56. > :55:01.we do proper work to look at the scale and type of danger we face and
:55:02. > :55:04.then the regulatory framework can be fit for purpose. Thank you Mr
:55:05. > :55:11.Speaker. Just wondering if the department have any co-operation
:55:12. > :55:19.with the MoD in relation to a security and the threat that the
:55:20. > :55:22.drones pose for security? Indeed. Obviously given that I've recently
:55:23. > :55:26.arrived back from the Home Office where I was the minister for
:55:27. > :55:32.security, that was something that the MoD and the Home Office took
:55:33. > :55:35.very seriously indeed. So he can be absolutely sure that across
:55:36. > :55:41.Government, we're looking at this matter because, as I said earlier,
:55:42. > :55:49.it's not just about irresponsible use, it could be manolevent use like
:55:50. > :55:53.you imply. Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer this
:55:54. > :55:56.question together with question 7. The Government is committed to
:55:57. > :56:00.delivering the important infrastructure projects that this
:56:01. > :56:04.country needs, including delivering runway capacity in the south-east on
:56:05. > :56:08.the timetable set by the Airport's Commission. We're currently
:56:09. > :56:11.undertaking further work, including assurance of the airport's
:56:12. > :56:17.commissions evidence and on airport quality and the decision will be
:56:18. > :56:24.made shortly. The new Transport Secretary, a fierce advocate of the
:56:25. > :56:27.UK exiting the EU has done more than enough already to wreak economic
:56:28. > :56:31.havoc. Because he could take the new position to mitigate some of the
:56:32. > :56:35.damage to putting an end to the stud runway debacle? And if not, will he
:56:36. > :56:39.apologise to businesses and commuters in Scotland for putting
:56:40. > :56:46.their economic interests on the line? Mr Speaker, I would remind the
:56:47. > :56:50.honourable lady that some of the things said about our economy have
:56:51. > :56:53.not proved to be the case. And that actually, under this Government, our
:56:54. > :56:58.economy continues to do well. What I'd also say to her is that this
:56:59. > :57:02.Government retains and will always retain a commitment to the economy
:57:03. > :57:06.and the people of Scotland as part of one United Kingdom and the
:57:07. > :57:09.decision we seek to take on runway capacity in the south-east, whatever
:57:10. > :57:14.it may be, Mr Speaker, will be the decision that is also designed to
:57:15. > :57:19.benefit the whole United Kingdom by improving our connectivity so the
:57:20. > :57:24.world. Thank you Mr Speaker. When reminded of his words, "no ifs, no
:57:25. > :57:27.buts, no third runway". The previous Prime Minister said this summer. I
:57:28. > :57:31.think the current position from the Government is October for a decision
:57:32. > :57:36.on Heathrow, although the current Prime Minister seems to be erasing
:57:37. > :57:40.all evidence of her previous position to this. After ?20 million
:57:41. > :57:44.and the Davis debacle, it does look like it's going to be a free vote.
:57:45. > :57:49.Can you confirm or deny this? Because to my constituents, it looks
:57:50. > :57:53.like it is protracted. Order, we do need shorter questions. Mr Speaker,
:57:54. > :57:57.the honourable lady is going to have to wait for us to set out the plans.
:57:58. > :58:00.I've said today, we're committed to taking the decision shortly. I
:58:01. > :58:04.regard this as an important decision for our nation, one we need to get
:58:05. > :58:07.on with. We have, of course, seen a significant change in the
:58:08. > :58:11.administration across the summer. It is right and proper that the Prime
:58:12. > :58:14.Minister and I are sufficiently prepared to take the decision we
:58:15. > :58:20.need to take and we will make sure that we are suitably prepared. Will
:58:21. > :58:26.my Rt Honerable friend agree with me that if we want to keep London as
:58:27. > :58:33.the hub airport for western Europe, it is crucial that we deal with the
:58:34. > :58:39.capacity problems that currently affect Heathrow in particular? This
:58:40. > :58:46.saga has been going on for so long. Can I ask my Rt Honerable friend
:58:47. > :58:50.that he ensure that is we don't have any further delays in reaching the
:58:51. > :58:55.conclusion on the Davis Recommendation, and that that can I
:58:56. > :58:59.tell him - there is only one obvious answer, and that that is Heathrow.
:59:00. > :59:02.Mr Speaker, as you know there, are delivering opinions across this
:59:03. > :59:07.House. It is right and proper that the Government looks at all three
:59:08. > :59:12.options recommended to us by the Davis Commission in a way, to assess
:59:13. > :59:15.the strengths and weaknesses of what is offered and take the right
:59:16. > :59:20.zpition in the interests of our nation and I can -- in the right way
:59:21. > :59:24.in the interest of our nation and I can assure you that that is what
:59:25. > :59:27.we'll do. As Britain leaves the European Union, we'll have to
:59:28. > :59:33.develop more markets in Asia and the Far East. That will mean more
:59:34. > :59:39.passenger traffic and freight traffic. Is it then not possible
:59:40. > :59:44.that we preserve Manston as an airport in the national interest? Mr
:59:45. > :59:48.Speaker, I obviously understand how people feel about the future of
:59:49. > :59:53.Manston and I know how controversial it is and has been. I can simply say
:59:54. > :59:56.to him that this Government would be perfectly supportive of proposals to
:59:57. > :00:00.develop a freight hub at Manston, but it has to be a matter for the
:00:01. > :00:04.local community, the owners and the local authority and I hope that the
:00:05. > :00:10.right decision in the interest in of the nation.
:00:11. > :00:17.MUSIC: Powerful by Major Lazer