Hinkley Point C Statement BBC Parliament on BBC Two

Order, the Secretary of State for business, energy and industrial

strategy. Secretary Dr Greg Clark. Thank you very much and with your

permission, I would like to make a point on the Hinkley point. As the

House knows on July 28, following the decision by the board of EDF to

approve the investment decision of the ?18 billion project to build a

new plant in Somerset, I announce that the Government carefully

consider all elements of the project before entering into a contract with

EDF and that we would make a decision by the early autumn. This

decision is made with two important changes. On the Hinkley project, the

Government can prevent the sale of EDF's controlling stake prior to the

construction. The agreement will be confirmed in an exchange of

Government and the EDF. Existing legal powers and the new local

framework will mean that the Government is able to intervene once

it is in operation. Further more, and even more importantly, we'll

reform the wider legal framework for future foreign investment in British

critical infrastructure. The reforms will have three elements. Firstly,

after Hinkley, the British Government will take a specials

share in all future nuclear new build projects. This will ensure

that significant stakes cannot be sold without the Government's

knowledge or concept. This will allow the Government to advise or

direct the ONR to take action to protect national security as a

result of change. Thirdly, the Government will

significantly reform the ownership and control of critical

infrastructure to ensure that the full implications of foreign

ownership are scrutinised for the purposes of national security. This

will include a review of the public interest regime and theEnter prize

Act 2002 and the introduction of cross-cutting national security

requirement for the continuing Government approval of the ownership

and control of critical infrastructure. These changes will

bring Britain's policy framework for the owner and control of critical

infrastructure into line with other major economies. This will allow the

UK Government to take a fair and consistent approach to the national

security implications of critical infrastructure, including nuclear

energy in the future. These changes mean that while the UK will remain

one of the most open economies in the world, the public can be

confident that foreign direct investment works always in the

country's best interests. This ?18 billion investment in Britain

provides an upgrade in our supply of clean energy. When it begins

producing electricity in the middle of the next deckate, it will provide

7% of the UK's electricity needs giving secure energy to six million

homes for 60 years. Furthermore, it must be stressed that the contracts

negotiated shows all of the construction risk on I vestors

alone. Consumers will not pay a penny unless and until the plants

generate electricity. The proposed strike price of ?92.50 reducing to

?9.50 constains insurance against any crossover rollover of

construction and future high gas prices which have been volatile. It

compares broadly with the costs of other clean energy, whether offshore

winds with the additional costs of intermittency, or gas with carbon

capture and storage for example. # Hinkley has it long overdue in the

UK creating 26,000 jobs and apprenticeships providing a huge

boost to the economy, not only in the south-west but in every part of

the country through the supply chain of firms big and small that will

benefit. EDF have confirmed that UK businesses are set to secure 64% of

the value of the ?18 billion investment being made - the biggest

single capital investment in the UK today. But as the first of a wave of

new nuclear plants, we expect the experience of rebooting the nuclear

industry to mean that this should... The cost should reduce for future

new nuclear power stations of which another five are proposed. Mr

Speaker, in any consideration of nuclear power, safety will always be

the number one consideration. The construction of Hinkley Point C will

be under the close scrutiny of the Office of Nuclear Regulation, which

is independent of the industry and of ministers. The Office of Nuclear

Regulation has the power necessary to halt construction or have

amendments to any part of the plant if at any point it is not completely

satisfied with the safety of any part of the reactor and its

associated construction. Unlike in the past, the long-term

decommissioning costs for the plant will be provided br explicitly as

part of the funded decommissioning programme at a level that has been

assessed independently as prudent and conservative. Mr Speaker, any

investment at that provides significant electricity supplies for

the next two generations of British people and businesses requires and

deserves serious consideration. It was right that the new Government

should have taken the time to consider all components of the

project. Having reviewed the project, they said that the other

changes announced today will, for the first tie, remedy the weaknesses

of the previous regime for critical infrastructure. It's important that

the right balance between welcoming foreign investment and ensuring it

serves the national interest is made. That is exactly what the

changes will achieve. The investment will secure 7% of the UK's

electricity needs for 60 years, helping replace existing nuclear

capacity, which is due to be decommissioned in the decade ahead.

The electricity generated will be reliable and low carbon and so,

completely compatibility with our climate change objectations and

Hinkley Point C will inaugurate a new era of UK nuclear power with

UK-based businesses benefitting from almost two thirds of the ?18 billion

value of the project with 26,000 jobs and apprenticeships created.

All of the jobs are good for Britain. It's now right that we

support the major upgrade - the first of many to the infrastructure

on which our future depends and I commend this statement to the house.

I think the Secretary of State for the 13 minutes notice of the

statement. Let me be clear. This is an important project that must now

go forward without any further interruption or delay. The Secretary

of State is aware that by intervening on July 28 after EDF's

final investment decision, the Government put at risk 25,000

well-paid jobs, well-qualified jobs. He know that is the delay not only

risks the ?18 billion of investment into UK jobs and infrastructure, but

also rocked confidence in investors who now believe that the Prime

Minister doesn't understand the significance that companies attach

to the taking of a final investment decision. He's aware of the Ernst

and Young index which shows that Britain has fallen from fourth to

13th in terms of attractiveness for low carbon. This has unsettled

investors further. I now have a number of specific questions. In the

meeting with the President, did the Prime Minister attempt in any allow

to isolate the building of the reactor from the deal at Hinkley C?

Two - if she did? What was the Chinese response? 4 - every member

of this house will agree that the Government has primary

responsibility to safeguard our national security. But neither the

Secretary of State nor the Prime Minister have ever been clear about

what they consider to be the security risks associated with the

current deal. So will he set these out now so that the House and the

public can take a decision as to whether the modifications he is

proposing adequately reflect the risks he believes exist? 4 -

specifically, can he set out specifically whether the Government

was concerned with the intellectual property of the EPR reactor? And if

so, is he aware that two such reactors are already under

construction in China. And 5 - were they concerned with the potential

for a cyber attack? And if so, did he not consider that given the

importance of the Chinese as having the kite standard in order to market

the technology around the world, that would undermine the reason why

the Chinese wanted to be involved in the project in the first place. Six

- the Secretary of State wishes to dodge the questions. If he does by

pleating that he doesn't wish to discuss security matters. Then how

can he assure the House and the public that the' mendments he is

proposing are sufficient to meet the risks and challenges that justified

a near fatal delay of the project. But, Mr Speaker, we must address the

sole argument that the Government has actually presented as well as

those that they have not. They have claimed that they have introduced

significant new safeguards into the package, in particular that they

will be able to require notification from owners or operators of nuclear

sites of any change of ownership or part ownership. But Mr Speaker, the

Secretary of State already has such powers. Will the Secretary of State

acknowledge that he concurrently -- can currently prevent the sale of

any of the UK's critical infrastructure, and if this is the

case, can he explain why he believes that the proposed new powers add

significantly to the public interest regulations in the Enterprise Act

2002, or are they merely window-dressing to make it appear

that the Government's intervention has achieved something, no matter

how much appearances may indicate to the contrary. Is he aware of the

House of Commons briefing paper entitled Merges in the Public

Interest Test. This particularly highlights that energy security is

already covered by national security and the Government already has the

powers to prevent such a sale. Is he also aware that in the House of

Lords during the passage of the Energy Act, my nobel friend Lord

Putnam introduced an amendment to introduce energy security as a

public interest. Government lawyers then advised that in cases where a

merger posed a genuine and serious threat to what is described as

societal needs such as energy supply, this would be covered by the

existing provision in the 2002 Act regarding national security. So

ministers would be empowered to directly intervene? Mr Speak erk,

the Government created a crisis -- Mr Speaker, the Government created a

crisis and had a dispute with one of the key future trading partners and

in the end, all they've done is pretend to give themselves powers

which they already possessed. This statement is window-dressing. It is

face-saving by a Government who talked big and eventually backed

down with a whimper. The Secretary of State should explain whether he

has reviewed changes to technology that have occurred in the past ten

years and in particular Smart Grid's battery storage technology and

energy efficiency levels to manage the electricity supply in such a way

as to reduce the base for low base power that Hinkley supplies. Order,

I think that the honourable gentlemen has concluded. His time is

up. Secretary of State. Thank you very much. The Honourable Gentleman

raised a number of points, a large number of points and I will address

them. I think that we share the view that

we should have the views and be a world leader in the important energy

industries. But I don't think that he will think of me as churlish that

it was the absence of a long-term energy policy, during the 13 years

in which Labour were in Government in which our nuclear fleet was known

to be coming to the end of its life and no decision was taken to replace

them. It's fallen to this Government to make the long-term decisions for

the security of this country. And instead of the approach of making

like the ostrich and hoping that the problem would go away, this

Government is looking to the future, providing the upgrade to the

long-term energy security that we need. In terms of his position

today, I'm afraid, Mr Speaker, I'm as confused by it as ever. His

position is no more credible. He seemed to be criticising the Prime

Minister and the Government for taking the serious decision to

review the components of a very important deal. That seems to be the

input of the intervention. However, he said that this had damaged our

confidence. But when the announcement was made on July 29th,

the Honourable Gentleman told the BBC, "I'm hoping that what they, the

Government will do, is take 2-3 months to seriously review it".

Sohail much for the -- so, so much for the suggestion that we shouldn't

have had the review in the first place. However, I'm not sure what

the purpose of the two or three months would be, because the very

same day, as I have it, he said that he'd already made his mind up. He

said, "I wouldn't scrap the proposal, the project, because I

welcome the jobs and I welcome the 7% of electricity that this will

produce for the nation." So this is the honourable member that was

urging the Government to take longer to review something. The conclusions

of which he'd already had in the first place. Mr Speaker, the

contrast between the seriousness and the forensic approach that this

Government has taken is, I think, marked. The points that the

Honourable Gentleman raises, I will address. In terms of the powers on

to the enterprise act, they're subject to thresholds, takeover

thresholds and what we are doing is ensuring that any change in

ownership or control of whatever size will be covered by a national

security test and that seems to be sensible. On the particular point of

Hinkley, of course, it was the case until we had negotiated or proposed

the changes to the this, that EDF was at liberty to sell its stake,

its majority stake in this very important investment without even

needing to have the permission of the UK Government. So it seems to

me, no more sensible and prudent to have agreed perfectly and straight

forwardly with EDF that the consent of the British Government be

required. And I'm surprised that the Honourable Gentleman, who I would

have thought would take a prudent view of matters of national

security, should suggest - and again it's not clear what he is suggesting

- that we should not make these changes. When we come to debate

these things in future, he will set out whether he opposes the measures

that we're taking to safeguard and to entrench the same kind of regime

for national security that we have in this country that other advanced

economies enjoy. In terms of future investments, I was very clear in my

statement that this is the first of what we hope will be a series of new

nuclear investments. It is very important that we replace the 20% of

power generated by nuclear power with another contribution to a

diverse energy mix from nuclear, and in so doing, we are creating new

jobs, new opportunities and major advances for the UK economy. Mr John

Redwood. I welcome proposals to make it more difficult for foreign

interests, especially national interests and governments to buy our

national infrastructure. And does the Secretary of State agree with me

that future power stations would be much better financed by private

sector British investors or even on occasion by Treasury investment,

rather than foreign investors who will now be able to take enormous

sums of money out of our country for 25 years or more while the project

is up and running, which is a cost on the balance of payment that is we

really don't want. I would say to my Rt Honerable friend that I look at

the investment into the UK economy. I hope as we develop our nuclear

programme and we develop the skills and the supply chain that there

will, indeed, be British companies that will invest in the various

parts of the supply chain of new nuclear. In fact, we expect that to

happen. 64% of the value going to UK companies. But I think that it is an

important part of the deal that the consumer and the taxpayer will not

pay a penny for the construction costs, unless and until it generates

electricity. Now, knowing the record that there has been of cost overruns

and delays to new nuclear power stations, I think it is prudent that

that risk is held by the investors rather than by the taxpayer in this

case. I'd like to thank the Secretary of State for the advance

copy of the statement and for the courtesy call this morning to

explain the Government's decision and welcome the fact that we are

having this statement before the recess to allow the opportunity for

questions. I do think that it is unfortunate, though, that the

Government has decided to take the gamble with Hinkley. There are

improvements that the Secretary of State has outlined but the deal

still remains a rotten one. The ?30 billion that it will cost the

billpayer. He may say that the risk is with EDF and construction

companies but 25% over budget and four years late and it will still

make a profit for Berkley. That will be at the expense of the billpayer.

If we don't pay a penny until it is built, or even if it is built late,

what fills the gap? We know that coal is due to come off the system

by 2025 when this is meant to be coming on. If the gap is there, if

the gap is five years. What will fill it? And at what cost? So I

think that the cost of this project, possibly the biggest single object,

most expensive object in history is too much. But what really concerns

me is the opportunity cost that we have here because we can't spend the

money twice. We can't have the engineers working on things twice

and we can't have the grid producing the electricity to be consumed

twice. And we could spend this money better. We could use our expertise

better and we could use it to develop an industrial strategy which

this Government has said is part of its new strategy. But that

industrial strategy will mean foreign ownership. It will mean

foreign investment and it will mean foreign profit and indeed, we --

instead, we could be developing the home-grown industries that would see

our country flourish, investing in clean carbon capture, investing in

offshore wind, investing in storage, investing in solar. These things

would all be better spent. So can I ask the Secretary of State to invest

in the energy of the future, not the energy of the past? Mr Speaker, I'm

grateful for the courteous words that the Honourable Gentleman

started the words with and he started talking about investing in

the future energy sources rather than the past. I would point out to

him that given the SNP's record of energy forecasts in recent months

that perhaps they might keep their crystal balls to themselves, if I

can put it that way! And again, in terms of understanding the

injunction that the Honourable Gentleman gives to invested review.

It is very important and he will know that Scotland has a very high

proportion of renewable investment. But I'm confused by his party's

position on this. Because the SNP, as I understand it, has stood on a

platform of nuclear-free Scotland, but it seems to be with their

fingers crossed behind their back because they're happy to rely on the

two nuclear power stations funk functioning in Scotland which are

producing low carbon electricity. The former lead of the party wrote

to EDF to say that he was happy to extend the life of the power plants

well into the 2020s. So he wants to condemn his cake and eat it and then

have another slice, it seems to be. In terms of the point that he made

about overseas velt, we do want to attract over -- investment, we do

want to attract overseas investment, a vote of confidence in this country

that investors are working with us to have this major upgrade of our

infrastructure. We welcome that across different sectors and he's

wrong that this is at the expense of opportunities that we have in this

country. Because, of course, one of the features of this deal is that it

doesn't burden the public balance sheet and the Chancellor and the

chief secretary have been wise to make sure that the UK balance cheat

remains able to support other investments because this is provided

through that. Mr Speaker, thank you. With your indulgence, please could I

thank the Secretary of State and my Rt Honerable friend for making

exactly the right decision in how important it is that the Bridgewater

and West Somerset constituency. I ib invite the Secretary of State to

visit the the Hinkley power station and look at what we need to build at

Cannington. But future to the letter that I sent him, that we need the

last bit of funding to ensure that the infrastructure to deal with this

in the local area is up to scratch so we can deliver the power plant on

time and on budget to the benefit of the United Kingdom. Can I return the

compliment and thank my honourable friend for his level-headedness and

patience while the review has been conducted. It is an extremely

important investment for his area. I am looking forward greatly to coming

with him to visit Hinkley and he's absolutely right that investments

such as the college that will provide these skills that will going

to charge ahead the whole of the south-west and the rest of the

country, the supply chain extends to all parts of the United Kingdom and

my honourable friend for Suffolk Coastal will also be a beneficiary

of this. It does require an upgrade to the local infrastructure and I

will respond to the LEP on that. I had a very positive conversation

with the Somerset Chamber of Commerce earlier this week who were

very clear that the benefits of what was then the proposal would be

considerable and game-changing for Somerset. He will be aware that

Britain's two most respected economy and finance publications, the

Financial Times and the Economist have both out very stronkly against

Hinkley on value for money and on energy grants with the Economist

describing it just last month as a white elephant before it is even

built. Can he confirm that nothing he has announced today is an

improvement on the dreadful deal negotiated by the former chancellor

on guaranteed price? Absolutely dreadful. Well, I don't agree with

the Honourable Gentleman. I think that it is a good deal and it

secures 7% of our energy into the future and it incumbent on him and

his honourable friends to say that given that the 20% of nuclear

capacity will be decommissioned over the next ten years, how are they

going to replace it if they're not going to be forward looking and make

positive decisions like we've made. Can I welcome my Rt Honerable

friend's statement which is good news for the sector and my

constituents in Brad well-on Sea. Can I assure him that my

constituents welcome the prospect of Chinese investment with the long

history of nuclear investment. Does he agree that any nuclear power

station will be staffed by British employees and that the cyber

security evaluation centre, which he says is technology provided by

Huawei, provides a good precedent for providing security concerns? My

Rt Honerable friend is right. And it seems that it is important to

welcome overseas investment but we should have a regime of powers that

other economies benefit from. That is something that mature countries

would expect to have and that is what we're going to have as a result

of the changes. Mr Speaker, having pressed the pause button, why is the

Secretary of State now pressing the fast forward button? Doesn't he

recognise that this project does not represent value for money, as the FT

have pointed out? Does he accept that the cost to consumers has gone

from ?6 billion to ?30 billion and that now, his Government are willing

to put in public subsidies - something that they said under

Coalition would not happen. And of course, this is happening at a time

when the cost of renewables is plummeting? No, Mr Speaker. I've

said that the construction costs are entirely financed by the private

investors in this site. And again, I think that it is important that we

do have a long-term, consistent approach to energy policy. And I

think that in so far as this could be cross-party, I think that that is

beneficial. It is especially ironic that two Liberal Democrat energy

secretaries were closely involved in the negotiation of the deal. We have

a different view already. Mr Speaker. Could my Rt Honerable

friend confirm that at the end of its life, this new power plant will

have generated the most expensive energy in the history of energy

generation. Can you tell us if you agree with the National Audit Office

that in its lifetime, consumers will have ended up subsidising EDF to the

tune of $30 billion. And what's going to happen to the mountains of

nuclear waste that this will generate? What I will say is that

the securing for 60 years, a reliable source of energy is a good

investment in the future of stability for our energy supplies

and that's worth having. And it is impossible to know what the

alternatives would be during that time and we have seen very volatile

energy prices. Sir Winston Churchill's policy on energy was

that diversity and diversity alone was the key. I think that that is

the right approach. When it comes to decommissioning, as I said in my

earlier answer, this is provided for explicitly in the contract. EDF say

that this will mean 1,500 jobs at offices in Bristol as well as the

jobs associated with the plant and I'm meeting with them on Monday and

going down to Hinkley to discuss that. But these are incredibly

expensive jobs given what we've already heard about the deal. Does

the minister really think that this is value for money? And would it

perhaps not be better spent investing in the renewable sector,

which would mean jobs in the south-west. I do and I'm slightly

confused to the demeanour of the party opposite who, it seemed in the

rather confusing reply of the shadow minister, to be welcoming the

project going ahead. Certainly, the trade unions in the south-west and

across the country, which I would imagine the honourable lady speaks

to, are very positive. The National secretary for energy for the GMB

said "giving a thumbs up to Hinkley is vital to fill the growing hole in

the UK's energy needs." Frances O'Grady welcomed it. I think when

she goes back to her constituency, she might talk to some of the unions

who are delighted on behalf of their members. Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I

welcome this announcement that it brings ?465 million worth of

contracts to south-west businesses and a ?4 billion boost to the

south-west economy. But would be the minister agree, or the Secretary of

State agree that we've got to look at the decisions in the context and

the fact that we have a fleet of nuclear power stations from the '60s

and '70s that are going to close over the next ten years and these

decisions aren't about either or, it's that we need both? That is

exactly why long-term planning is essential. We have around 20%, 19%

of our electricity generated by nuclear power. If we don't renew it,

it will fall to 2% by 2030. It seems to be the prudent thing to do to get

on with replacing it. Thank you Mr Speaker. I welcome the decision

that's been taken. It's been a long time coming and it's a shame that

it's been delayed over and over again. My constituency has more that

will be built hopefully in the not too distant future, which is

incredibly important for economic development. Can the Secretary of

State assure me that the future nuclear programme will not be beset

by delay after delay after delay. One of the reasons why we're so keen

to inaugurate this new programme of nuclear engineering in this country

is to be able to replace the nuclear power stations that have been

decommissioned but to build up in communities like hers, the skills

that can make a valuable contribution to local life and to

our national economy. Mr Speaker. I welcome the building of the new

fleet or the starting of the new fleet of nuclear power stations. The

opportunity that it provides for British manufacturing. Will my Rt

Honerable friend do all he can to ensure that in the deals, we'll buy

the best of British? Indeed, I've agreed with EDF in the last 24 hours

that they have made a commitment to me that 64%, by value, of the

contept, will be spent with UK companies, which -- content, will be

spent with UK companies which shows the tangible benefit to the economy.

The minister said that the Hinkley decision won't burden the national

balance sheet, so could he clarify the status of the offer made by the

previous chancellor of the exchequer to give EDF a Treasury guarantee of

?2 billion to supplement the company's liquidity and something

that they say puts the taxpayer at risk. I'm delighted to answer that.

EDF have confirmed that they will not be taking up that ?2 billion

guarantee so that the taxpayer is fully insulated from the cost of

construction. I welcome the Secretary of State's statement

today. Can he confirm that he will work with businesses and the Chamber

of Commerce in the UK to build on this nuclear partnership and attract

new business into the UK? I will, indeed. We do want to have good

investment opportunities for countries around the world and China

right across the United Kingdom has been an important and valued source

of investment and it's important that we build on it. In light of the

announcement today, is the Secretary of State now admitting that when the

Government entered into the original contract, they failed to protect

national security and critical infrastructure? You know what I

would say to the honourable lady. Despite the injunction of her

colleague on the front bench is that taking the opportunity seriously to

review before signatures were given has allowed us to improve the

security of the arrangements. That seems to be a wholly good thing that

I hope she'd welcome. Mr Speaker, the Secretary of State is right to

point out that nuclear energy provides a valuable part of UK

energy security. But that's only provided we have the fuel in order

to put in them. The fuel for reactors in the UK are made in the

constituency and filed. Can the Secretary of State assure me that

all efforts will be made to ensure that nuclear fuel, four new reactors

for UK will be made in the UK where at all possible? Indeed and I had

he's be happy to visit my honourable friend's constituency to see for

myself the production there. I very much welcome the review but I've got

to say that I'm astonished that a review of the strike price was not

part of it. A strike price that will close to ?120 per mega-Watt hour and

rising with inflation. Can I ask the Secretary of State, was there

serious examination of the cost for bill payers as par of the review? Of

course, we looked at every component part and for a new nuclear power

stationing the first in a generation for this country, to have it

constructed at no risk to the taxpayer or the bill pair, I think

is a considerable achievement and represents good value. Mr Speaker,

this is good news for my constituency as it means now that

we're going to have a third nuclear power station built. Good news

travels fast. I've already had the local radio station desperate to get

an interview and also to congratulate the Secretary of State

for all of the hard work of what he's done for my constituents. Would

he agree with me that we could meet together very shortly to have a

meeting of how to speed up the five proposed reactors in the future? And

also would he help me as quickly as he possibly can? I would be very

happy as always to meet my honourable friend and I consider the

invitation accepted. Mr Speaker, we have an excellent Secretary of State

and he's come to this House and made a very full statement. But... He

gave details of the statement quite rightly to the Opposition spokesman

and the SNP statement, but he also gave it in advance to the BBC. I

read all of this on the BBC website. That's not how this House works. And

it may be that -- precious spin doctors are still prevalent in

departments. That has got to stop. The House has to be informed first

and would the Secretary agree, that is the convention of this house? I

understand the point that my Rt Honerable friend makes and I hope

that he will concede that I've come to the house at the earliest

opportunity. Decisions like this have consequences for financial

markets and it is the norm to, at the opening of the markets to

disclose them. He can be absolutely assured and I'm sure that he will

accept this, that my sense of responsibility to this House is very

clear m my mind, but we need to have an orderly conduct of business when

it comes to important implications of financial markets too. Thank you

very much Mr Speaker. I welcome the announcement on golden shares and I

also very much support what my Rt Honerable friend said about future

British investment perhaps through a UK investment bank and UK pension

funds as being very important. But can he confirm to me where the

currency risks, particularly on the subsidy payments in the future out

of the C if. Ds will arise? The contract is expressed in pounds. And

the construction risk is entirely with the investors. I very much

welcome the long-term investment in the low carbon energy and the 25,000

jobs this will create. Could the skeact confirm EDF's commitment --

Secretary of State confirm EDF's commitment to jobs for smaller

businesses such as James Fisher Nuclear in my constituency? I'm sure

that that particular firm will attest to that. Certainly the

Somerset Chamber of Commerce were very clear that the orders that had

been placed already during the period of preparation of the site

has been very beneficial to that county. Thank you Mr Speaker. This

is obviously a massive infrastructure project and I welcome

that the Secretary of State has had to say around the opportunities for

supply chains and I hope that that will extent to the steel industry

and I strongly urge the Secretary of State to get out there and make the

case that all of the steel used in this should be British. And can I

put in a particular plug for Corby Tubes. Which are of excellent

quality, I know. I think that the commitment that EDF have given me

that 64% by value of the work will be with UK firms will be of

particular benefit to firms such as the one he mentioned and to the

supply chain right across the country. I'm grateful to the

Secretary of State. Order. Minister of State for the Department

of Transport. Mr Speaker, the assessment of the impact of the for

transport investment and internationally respected analytical

framework for schemes which includes the impact on jobs, growth and

regeneration. May I welcome the minister to this place and say how

pleased I am that the department has the benefit of his experience and

wisdom of my Lincolnshire colleague, and I'm not just saying that because

I'd like his help with the road, please!

(LAUGHTER) Every day this summer, my

constituents, tourists and I had to wait up to 45 minutes to pass

through the traffic lights at Horncastle where the very busy A 153

crosses the busiest A 158. The single carriageway roads cannot cope

with the volume of traffic between the city of Lincoln, the market town

of Louth and the east coast. Will my Rt Honerable friend meet me and

local councillors to discuss what can be done to get rid of the bottle

next, to help local residents and businesses and to encourage even

more tourism to the wonderful Lincolnshire coast. The honourable

lady is a an articulate campaigner in the interests. She will know that

all counties of our great country are dear to my heart, but none more

so than my own county of Lincolnshire. I am familiar with

this part of the county. I do understand the pressures on the

roads there. I will be more than happy to meet her councillors to

discuss it. Indeed I will go further, Mr Speaker, because that's

alone not good enough. I want to hold a round table meeting with all

concerned parties in my department and ask my officials to look at

specifically what she said. And if I might say so, her complimentary

words were most welcome. She could have added, for future reference,

dexterity and determination in the light of recent events, duribility!

Will the minister give a firm commitment for high speed 2 to go

ahead with a very clear timetable? And will he accelerate work in

Trans-Pennine links from Liverpool to Hull so that the UK's economy can

be supported and this can assist in the rebalancing of the economy

across the whole of the UK? The honourable lady and I, Mr Speaker,

were together earlier this week at a meeting discussing a whole range of

issues and the takes of the IPPR Report, including the significance

of the Trans-Pennine connection. It is very important that we see all of

our transport needs, not just in terms of north/south links but also

in terms of east/west links and I know a number of members who

represent constituencies on the east of England like I do and the west of

England like she does to recognise that. I'm more than happy to look at

the options. She will know that we are considering a range of ways of

making those plings real. She in her role as the select committee

chairman will want to test me further on the subjects when no

doubt she calls me beforehand. Will my Rt Honerable friend have

particular regard to the reports from the Great Eastern and West

Anglian task forces chaired by two of his colleagues about the

contribution they can make to the future prosperity of the Anglian

region so that there can be a reliable rail structure on which the

splendid new trains that are to come can run more efficiently? Mr

Speaker, as you know, I have a deep regard for the past and my

relatively recent past reminds me that the reviewed tested me on these

matters in my last incarnation in the Department of Transport when he

made similar arguments about the importance of the links. I do look

forward to receiving and studying that report and when I do so, I'm

more than happy to have further discussions with him on the

contents. But no-one can argue that he hasn't made his case powerfully.

I hope that the Rt Honerable member realises how lucky he is to have

further conversations with the Minister for Transport! Not all of

us have that. Infrastructure is important. Which is why that the

highways has announced the closure of the A 34. This stretch of road is

the main access route to the Freeport shopping centre,

much-needed works are required, but it's due to start next week until

December 23rd at a cris mass shopping centre. Will the minister

endeavour to work with me to work with the Highways Agency to see the

error of their ways? If I might make a general point rather than

specific. The first day I was in this particular job, I met the

Highways England, as they're now called and was very clear that one

of the things that they have to do better is to give proper notice of

plans, which they have and to communicate with all interested

parties, including members of this house, and to be very clear about

the length of time, particularly with decisions they make and their

implications will take. And obviously the case in point is

there. On the specific, I wasn't aware of it, but this is what I'm

going to do. I will meet the Highways England today, this day,

and I will raise that particular issue and by tomorrow, I will speak

to the honourable lady about it. My Rt Honerable friend is decks

terrous, determined and extremely distinguished. The A 34 is one of

the most important roads for the company taking freight from the

south coast to the Midlands. It is becoming increasingly dangerous. Two

recent crashes caused fatalities. Will my Rt Honerable friend, now

that I've called him determined, hold a round table with me and other

Oxfordshire MPs to discuss the safety and free running of the A 34?

My table grows ever more round! (LAUGHTER)

I'm none the worse for it by the way. But I am familiar with that

road. He will know that it is a scheme which has had a number of

suggestions made for its improvement. It is important that

the house understands that there are always demands on different roads

and different ideas about how those demands be met. And the process that

we're enjoidge gauged is that we -- engaged in is to study it carefully

and the kind of consultation that the Honourable Gentleman recommends

and I'm happy to talk to him. The Government talks about rebalancing

the economy and it's interesting that the minister just said about

improving east/west links in the north. Can I make one suggestion

that I hope he'll take forward. Can we extend the M 65 all the way to

Scotch Corner. This needs to be done. There are millions of people

in the north-east who need connecting directly to the

north-west in the Manchester region and this would be vital to rebalance

the economy. Again, the Honourable Gentleman is known for making that

case and the case of the links that would be sufficient to give further

boosts to his economy. There have been scurrilous suggestions that the

northern powerhouse has falted in some way. Let me tell you this. The

northern powerhouse is not only alive and well, it will thrive under

this Government and that will include the kind of infrastructural

investments necessary, not only to provide transport links, but to

boost economic growth, build skills and spread opportunity. That's the

kind of Government we are, Mr Speaker. A Government with big ideas

that puts them to action for the benefit of our people. Number two Mr

Speaker. Thank you, following the this, we have remobilised the team

and working towards the final design for the enhancement programme as set

out in the review last year. Work to increased capacity on the route has

already started. Mr Speaker, the East Midlands regions have the

lowest level of rail spending per head in every one of the last six

years. We've discovered that the pausing and unpausing of the elect

riification of the Midlan Mainline wasted almost ?40 million and cost

countless jobs in the supply chain. Now there are rumours that it could

be cans EDF have confirmeded again. Can he take this opportunity to

confirm that the line will be electrified all the way to

Nottingham and Sheffield by 2023? And will he commit to real action to

ensure there will are no further delays or broken promises? I

congratulate you on carrying that out when she might return to the

front bench to continue in that role. She makes an important point

about the importance of the east line to the East Midlands. In my

view, the supply chain in the East Midlands doesn't just depend on the

one project, but the investment of 660 trains for East Anglia is just

one way of safeguarding that particular supply chain. But the

wider points that she makes about the work on this line is that it is

worth bearing in mind that we've already completed ten kilometres of

new line in this stretch. Nearly nine kilometres of the new existing

line improved as well. Over 3,000 new piles put into place. Ten

kilometres of new earth works. Ridges, a new via duct, so the work

is ongoing on this particular line and we will be looking to improve

capacity as well through the franchising arrangements. I'm

delighted to hear that the Northern Powerhouse is alive and well and

would the minister agree with me that if it is to have real effect,

then it is important that the investment in connectivity, not just

between cities but also between the towns of the north, is made? And I'd

like to thank ministers for the initial investment in the by pass,

but would ministers also look at the business case for the reopening of

the railway station? As someone born and bred in a town very close to one

of the salt town, I am very well in my 40 years of the connectivity at

the heart of Cheshire. I know the road good and the planned station

and I look forward with working with you on the business case. Before the

pause, the elect riification was due to be completed by 2020. That is

also the date when all trains have to comply with the new disability

lem slayings. What is the Government now going to do between 2020 and

2023 when the old trains on the line with the slam doors don't comply

with the legislation? Is he going to abandon the legislation or put in a

temporary rolling stop? We take accessibility issues on the railways

extremely seriously and the gentleman is right to point out the

commitments that we made. We're currently examining how best to

increase capacity at the line, particularly at peak hours when

there is a risk of standing on some stretches so we're looking carefully

at how to deliver on this. In the plans to re-enter guise the

electriification, can the pair say that the stations in my

constituencies, haven't been missed out of the original one? I am not

familiar with that particular branch line at this stage but I will

certainly look into it and discuss it with my officials and write to

the Honourable Gentleman. The faster line speeds that electriification

will bring, will the minister look to increase the half hourly service

to Keterring, that was reduced to half hourly? There are always a

number of timetabling and scheduling opportunities that come about

through any reprofiling of the line and the changes of the works in it

so we will, of course, feed that into all of the consultations that

occur as to how best to make shoes use of the reprofiling of the line.

Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, the safety of the public is the top priority

and we're looking to understand the safe use of drones and we're

continuing to adapt and strengthen the use of regulations of the use of

drones, the current regulatory framework and the clear rules on

safety and strong penalties for misuse with the commercial

commission system which ensures responsible use of the emerging

technology. That thank you Mr Speaker. I asked him what assessment

he made of the effect on aviation safety. How real is the risk? I know

that he knows it was discussed at the trade union Congress this week

and there's great concern about it, but we really need to know what the

risk is and what steps the Government is taking before we end

up with the inevitable ministerial statement about lessons learned.

Well, the Honourable Gentleman is right. He's right about the TUC

discussing it yesterday and we had a word about that earlier. They have a

right to raise this too, because of course, it is an emerging technology

and the risk is dynamic. We need to keep constant analysis in place

about what that poses and it's not just irresponsible use. It could be

manelevent use. They could be used by all kinds of agents to do all

kinds of things. So the assurance that I give him is that I will make

sure that my department is continuing that an l a sis, making

sure that the -- analysis, making sure that the regulatory framework

is fit for purpose for the analysis and the best thing for me to do with

that is to come back to the House and give regular reports on how

that's going. The Honourable Gentleman always takes a diligent

interest in the affairs of the house and he's raised an important issue

which is entirely bipartisan but one that we need to take importantly. My

constituent tells me that drones are not only an issue of danger to

aircraft, but also it affects privacy, it affects copyright law.

And also, is a danger to people who might be visiting the castle and

then the drone running out of power and falling on people's heads. So

when are we going to see tighter instructions and education about how

to use drones? Intellectual property rights, Mr Speaker, incidentally, is

the phrase I was looking for earlier. And you found it! Just to

be absolutely clear, Mr Speaker, we do take drones very seriously as I

said in answer to the first question. And anyone who "reklessly

permits their drone -- recklessly permits their drone to cause damage

to property or person can face a fine of imprisonment"". So we're not

taking this lightly. But the point that we made is that because this

tech the House of Lordsingy is evolving, it's very important that

we do proper work to look at the scale and type of danger we face and

then the regulatory framework can be fit for purpose. Thank you Mr

Speaker. Just wondering if the department have any co-operation

with the MoD in relation to a security and the threat that the

drones pose for security? Indeed. Obviously given that I've recently

arrived back from the Home Office where I was the minister for

security, that was something that the MoD and the Home Office took

very seriously indeed. So he can be absolutely sure that across

Government, we're looking at this matter because, as I said earlier,

it's not just about irresponsible use, it could be manolevent use like

you imply. Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer this

question together with question 7. The Government is committed to

delivering the important infrastructure projects that this

country needs, including delivering runway capacity in the south-east on

the timetable set by the Airport's Commission. We're currently

undertaking further work, including assurance of the airport's

commissions evidence and on airport quality and the decision will be

made shortly. The new Transport Secretary, a fierce advocate of the

UK exiting the EU has done more than enough already to wreak economic

havoc. Because he could take the new position to mitigate some of the

damage to putting an end to the stud runway debacle? And if not, will he

apologise to businesses and commuters in Scotland for putting

their economic interests on the line? Mr Speaker, I would remind the

honourable lady that some of the things said about our economy have

not proved to be the case. And that actually, under this Government, our

economy continues to do well. What I'd also say to her is that this

Government retains and will always retain a commitment to the economy

and the people of Scotland as part of one United Kingdom and the

decision we seek to take on runway capacity in the south-east, whatever

it may be, Mr Speaker, will be the decision that is also designed to

benefit the whole United Kingdom by improving our connectivity so the

world. Thank you Mr Speaker. When reminded of his words, "no ifs, no

buts, no third runway". The previous Prime Minister said this summer. I

think the current position from the Government is October for a decision

on Heathrow, although the current Prime Minister seems to be erasing

all evidence of her previous position to this. After ?20 million

and the Davis debacle, it does look like it's going to be a free vote.

Can you confirm or deny this? Because to my constituents, it looks

like it is protracted. Order, we do need shorter questions. Mr Speaker,

the honourable lady is going to have to wait for us to set out the plans.

I've said today, we're committed to taking the decision shortly. I

regard this as an important decision for our nation, one we need to get

on with. We have, of course, seen a significant change in the

administration across the summer. It is right and proper that the Prime

Minister and I are sufficiently prepared to take the decision we

need to take and we will make sure that we are suitably prepared. Will

my Rt Honerable friend agree with me that if we want to keep London as

the hub airport for western Europe, it is crucial that we deal with the

capacity problems that currently affect Heathrow in particular? This

saga has been going on for so long. Can I ask my Rt Honerable friend

that he ensure that is we don't have any further delays in reaching the

conclusion on the Davis Recommendation, and that that can I

tell him - there is only one obvious answer, and that that is Heathrow.

Mr Speaker, as you know there, are delivering opinions across this

House. It is right and proper that the Government looks at all three

options recommended to us by the Davis Commission in a way, to assess

the strengths and weaknesses of what is offered and take the right

zpition in the interests of our nation and I can -- in the right way

in the interest of our nation and I can assure you that that is what

we'll do. As Britain leaves the European Union, we'll have to

develop more markets in Asia and the Far East. That will mean more

passenger traffic and freight traffic. Is it then not possible

that we preserve Manston as an airport in the national interest? Mr

Speaker, I obviously understand how people feel about the future of

Manston and I know how controversial it is and has been. I can simply say

to him that this Government would be perfectly supportive of proposals to

develop a freight hub at Manston, but it has to be a matter for the

local community, the owners and the local authority and I hope that the

right decision in the interest in of the nation.

MUSIC: Powerful by Major Lazer