(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Grand CommitteeThat the Grand Committee takes note of the Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
My Lords, I will speak also to the Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations.
The stated purpose of these regulations is to bring Great Britain’s vehicle type approval regime into closer alignment with the European Union legislation—legislation which, of course, applies in Northern Ireland as a result of the protocol/Windsor Framework. That objective, I say in passing, inevitably raises serious and wider questions regarding implications of the Windsor Framework and the Government’s trajectory of regulatory convergence with the European Union, despite the UK having no role in shaping the rules with which it is expected to comply.
Ministers argue that such alignment is necessary to reduce friction within the United Kingdom’s internal market. However, the practical effect of these regulations is not to preserve that market but to formalise its division. They explicitly acknowledge and entrench the existence of two separate regulatory systems within our country—one applicable to Great Britain and another in Northern Ireland, which remains bound by the EU single market for goods. Indeed, paragraph 5.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the no. 2 regulations talks about the removal of barriers for vehicle manufacturers
“wishing to sell vehicles on both GB and EU/NI markets”.
Therefore, these regulations do not resolve the fundamental issue; they institutionalise it. They reinforce the reality of a United Kingdom operating under two distinct vehicle type approval regimes. This situation—that division of regulatory regimes—is causing real problems for car dealers and ordinary consumers and customers in Northern Ireland through additional costs, reduced availability of vehicles, and burdensome administrative complexity. It is a position that, in my view, is wholly unsustainable for the United Kingdom.
I put it to the Government that in reinforcing the division of the UK into two separate and distinct vehicle type approval schemes, they must realise that they are acting in contradiction of Section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which says that Ministers must have special regard to Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom and to the need to
“facilitate the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
Whatever else these regulations do, they do nothing to meet those criteria and to restore Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market. Until the Government address the underlying structural issue of dual regulatory regimes, businesses and consumers will continue to bear the costs of a flawed system.
I come to the real and practical problems that consumers and businesses now face in Northern Ireland as a result of the dual regulatory regime, even after these regulations come into force. In the first 10 months of this year alone, the car market in Northern Ireland is down by 6%, and in the rest of the United Kingdom it has increased by 5%. That represents a reduction in turnover of approximately £50 million. Matters are expected to deteriorate significantly as we approach next year, when full implementation of the GB type approval scheme is due to come into force.
We have seen some very stark consequences already. The best-selling car in Northern Ireland, the Vauxhall Corsa, cannot be sold in Northern Ireland as things stand; it can be sold in the rest of the United Kingdom, but it cannot be sold in Northern Ireland. Renault, Citroën, Peugeot, Fiat, Jeep, Alfa Romeo, Vauxhall, Nissan and Jaguar Land Rover are not dual-approved. BMW is making dual-approved cars, but they are still Great Britain-designated when leaving the factory. This industry in Northern Ireland supports 17,600 employees. If we keep on the present course, job losses will be an unavoidable reality, consumer choice will continue to be greatly restricted and the costs for consumers—including hard-working families in Northern Ireland—will rise sharply.
This is not theoretical; it is already happening. The National Franchised Dealers Association of Northern Ireland has given oral and written evidence to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Committee for the Economy on a number of occasions, most recently just last week. Its message, as it stated to Members of the Assembly —who, by the way, unanimously agreed across all parties that this was a serious and important issue that needed to be addressed—was one of profound frustration. It expressed exasperation at the degree to which the free flow of vehicles within the United Kingdom is being obstructed. It said in its evidence last week that there has been little meaningful progress in identifying a workable solution; that sentiment is shared in the Northern Ireland Assembly and by elected representatives in Northern Ireland.
The Government have given assurances, but action to remove the fundamental problem has been lacking. Businesses and customers cannot operate on the basis of promises that something may be done at some unspecified point in the future. Action is needed now or at the start of next year; otherwise, we are going to face immense problems. It is simply not logical or defensible that Northern Ireland should be excluded from the UK-wide car market, which accounts for 2 million units per year; the Northern Ireland market accounts for 45,000 units a year. We are old that this system exists to protect the EU single market, yet the reality, according to the evidence given to the Assembly, is that, in the first 10 months of this year, only six vehicles moved into the Irish Republic. That is the scale of the so-called risk.
This system is doing so much damage to consumers in Northern Ireland, whom it is designed to protect. It is destroying the UK internal market and, with it, reducing competitiveness, undermining consumer choice and placing livelihoods in jeopardy. Consumers will increasingly and inevitably turn to Great Britain, where there will be greater choice and lower prices, to purchase vehicles. Manufacturer incentives and deals that are available on the mainland are not, and will not be, accessible in Northern Ireland, exacerbating the trend. Why should citizens in Northern Ireland be disadvantaged in this way? Sales at Vauxhall, one of the leading manufacturers in terms of market share, are up by 16% in Britain and down by 59% in Northern Ireland. That is not market fluctuation; that is structural failure.
With all of this, I fear that Northern Ireland is becoming increasingly marginalised. Our consumers are viewed as less valuable and attractive and are increasingly inaccessible within the manufacturers’ supply strategies. Car dealers and franchises in Northern Ireland will no longer have access to the UK unsold stock pipeline, as vehicles will be produced primarily to GB standards. This will fundamentally change the ability of local dealers to source and supply vehicles competitively.
Market distortion is inevitable. Great Britain-based dealers will pre-register vehicles and actively market them into Northern Ireland, or consumers will simply travel to England, Scotland or Wales to access better value and wider choice. That is not a functioning internal market, which is the Government’s obligation to uphold under the internal market Act.
It will also become increasingly difficult for dealers to sell new electric vehicles, particularly as compliance requirements tighten. Dealers will be forced to stockpile EU-compliant vehicles to maintain availability, creating significant additional cost burdens. Meanwhile, consumers in Northern Ireland will be excluded from the very consumer offers targeted at clearing unsold pipeline stock across Great Britain.
The EU, and thus Northern Ireland, is due to adopt new emissions standards in the coming years in respect of plug-in hybrids, as well as applying the new general safety regulation phases 2 and 3. This will drive divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland new car markets even more. They will also increase benefits-in-kind taxation costs in Northern Ireland. These costs are based on different utility factor categorisations allocated by the EU to Northern Ireland and by the UK Government to Great Britain. This is expected to work out to some £4,000 extra for a Northern Ireland consumer of a new car compared to the rest of the United Kingdom.
The NFDA asked last week: why is it acceptable, under the Windsor Framework, for consumers in Northern Ireland to have less choice and yet pay higher taxes than the rest of the United Kingdom? The Government have spoken about future equalisation measures, and I have no doubt we will hear that again today. However, that provides little comfort for customers standing in showrooms today, or after the Christmas holidays and in the new year, or for dealers, who face the immediate prospect of the problems that these measures create.
The Government say that there is no technical impediment to manufacturers dealing with dual-type approval. They say that it is legal for them to do it, but permitting something and making it legal is very different from the actual practice of businesses, which of course want to operate within the law, but they operate on the basis of what makes sense commercially. Manufacturers are not taking guidance from government officials; they are, naturally and inevitably, pursuing separate type approvals wherever it gives them commercial advantage—that is what is happening. As I said, sometimes cars are made dual approved, but on leaving the factory, they are designated as either EU or GB type approval. The reason given by manufacturers for pursuing single-type approvals is that they are restructuring their internal engineering processes and systems on the assumption of progressive divergence between EU and GB standards over time. That is the commercial reality they are preparing for. Even those manufacturers who have opted for dual-type approval do so only as an interim measure, expecting future divergence and prepared to adapt their approvals accordingly. They will move away from EU standards if they believe there is a commercial benefit in doing so.
As I said, the Government will say that we need not worry about all this because we will converge with the EU and adopt its standards. However, that is not sufficient to meet the here and now; it is not sufficient to meet will happen in the next six months to a year. In reality—according to the evidence given to the Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for the Economy—we are not going to have 100% convergence in any case, so manufacturers will always say that they are going to build according to the GB regulations; it is a far bigger and more profitable market compared with doing something to accommodate the 45,000 sales in Northern Ireland. Some manufacturers have indicated that they will exit the Northern Ireland market entirely, as the volume simply does not justify the cost and complexity of operating under these incredibly complex conditions.
We are going to have restricted consumer choice, increased prices compared with the rest of the UK, higher benefits-in-kind taxation, differing vehicle specifications, customer confusion, reduced stock availability and prolonged delivery times. The Government must now acknowledge that this is unsustainable. It is not protecting trade but suppressing it. It is not safeguarding jobs but placing them at risk, and it is eroding Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market.
I thank my noble friend for that. I think her proposed remedy is the right one, which is to meet people who know what they are talking about and listen to them. If that is part of the solution here, I am sure that we should do that.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I think we are all agreed that this is a very serious issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, for people in Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, mentioned constitutional issues. I have sought in this debate to emphasise the practical problems, which are the outworking of some of these wider issues on the constitutional front that in my view are totally unnecessary, but we have to find solutions. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for his reply to this debate and for the tone and content of what he has said, in that he is going to take this away, take it seriously and talk to colleagues and those who matter to try to find solutions. That is what we would love to see happening. Up to now, I do not think there has been enough urgency, if I may say so, as the deadline has crept up and up. I am grateful to the Minister for his commitment. Knowing him and the way in which he operates, I know he will hold fast to that, and that will, I hope, deliver results.
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberProvided that a suitable proposition comes forward for the expansion of Heathrow, it is inevitable that all the things that the noble Baroness mentions will have to be considered in the round in that. I am sure that she also includes surface access to the airport and a good passenger experience. She will know that we await a proposition from Heathrow and/or any other interested parties in the expansion of Heathrow, but I have no doubt that, when that is received, consideration will be given to all the things that she talked about.
My Lords, obviously, the impact of the closure of Heathrow is massive and has reputational and other consequences for this country. But travellers and business depend so much on other airports throughout the United Kingdom—such as Belfast, which has been mentioned, given the lack of alternatives, for obvious reasons. Does the Minister know what work is going on at present in airports in Northern Ireland, and throughout the United Kingdom, to examine resilience and the threats to those airports?
The noble Lord may know that I am tolerably familiar with the essential nature of flights from Northern Ireland to mainland England, Wales and Scotland because of the Union Connectivity Review. In particular, I had to answer a question quite recently about the reliability of the first flight on Monday mornings, which clearly contains quite a large proportion of Members of both Houses. I repeat that I strongly recommend to the operator that, come what may, it operates that flight if it operates nothing else. I do not know currently what is going on in other airports in Britain to look at resilience, but I have no doubt that the outcome of the Kelly review and the—I will make sure I get the right initials—NESO review will be closely studied by all those airports because that is undoubtedly the case. Noble Lords can be reassured that the transport community as a whole takes a close interest in what happens in one place.
Incidentally, I have seen—noble Lords might have expected me to—a review that Network Rail started on Saturday morning about the resilience of its power supplies, because in these circumstances you would start those sorts of reviews before you knew even what the cause was. That is a perfectly rational thing to do. So I have little doubt that that is going on in respect of other UK airports currently; I do not know that it is, but whether or not it is, I have absolutely no doubt that they will study very closely the results of the Kelly review and the NESO review—I would rather not use the initials, but it is too easy to do—to make sure that they are all as resilient as they can be.
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, on the issue of whether any laws were broken, it is very clear that there needs to be some kind of law to prevent this kind of despicable mass firing and rehiring of hundreds of workers in the way that P&O has acted. Since employment law is a devolved matter, certainly in the case of Northern Ireland, will she undertake on behalf of the Government to liaise with the devolved Governments about any changes that are being thought about? Further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, can she assure me that the Government have looked at the specific issue of supplies coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland? We depend an awful lot on our air and sea connectivity. Given the problems of the protocol, can she tell us that the specific channel between Larne and Cairnryan has been examined by the Government?
I can reiterate that all of the routes previously operated by P&O Ferries and currently temporarily suspended are being reviewed by the Government; we are assessing and ensuring that capacity is available. The noble Lord talks about an incredibly difficult and complicated area; of course we will have conversations with the Northern Ireland Executive and, indeed, all devolved Administrations about how we can ensure decent standards for those seafarers who work on the international routes.
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeMy Lords, today the department of agriculture in Northern Ireland said that the number of regulatory checks required by the bizarre and unnecessary Northern Ireland protocol equates to 20% of all similar checks across the entire European Union. That is more checks in Northern Ireland than are carried out by any single EU member state, even the biggest. Think about that; it is an absolutely horrendous situation, and that is with the grace periods still in force. If they end, as the EU and anti-Northern Ireland interests start demanding, then each of the 1,350 retail lorries arriving in Northern Ireland per week, which at present require a single declaration, will require 20,000 to 30,000 between them. That is absolutely unacceptable—it is nearly the same amount as for the entire EU, and it would be for the internal UK movements of lorries delivering from and to the UK. We need to get real here. I welcome the action by the Government yesterday, but it is not a permanent solution. Can the Government ensure that this scandalous situation is addressed very quickly for the long term?
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberUnlike the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who kept us waiting for four minutes—until the last sentence of his speech—to know whether he was going to support this project, may I say at the very start that I and my colleagues will be supporting the Government on this tonight? This is a project of national interest. It is one on which our economy depends, and that will help us in our pursuit of increased productivity, in our pursuit of being a global trading nation and in regenerating the regions. As someone from Northern Ireland, that is an important aspect of this particular project, because we rely on connectivity.
We have had Members telling us today that we can have regional airports or hubs in different regions all across the country, but the truth of the matter is that most regional airports are not in the centre of populations that can support all the international connections that are needed, and we therefore need an international hub. If we are going to have an international hub, we need to have local connections. Given that places are currently at a premium at Heathrow, the only way to get those connections, despite what the Scottish nationalists have argued, is to expand Heathrow. They cannot wish for more flights into Heathrow and say that they are ambivalent about whether it should be expanded. This is important to us for that reason.
Northern Ireland is of course an exporting part of the United Kingdom. High-value engineering exports and high-value food exports depend on having a good cargo infrastructure to enable us to send our goods across the world.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest domestic cargo trade between Heathrow and any regional airport is that to Belfast City, which will double if Heathrow is expanded?
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberThe most fundamental point is that Heathrow has committed, and will be held, to a plan that: first, does not increase the current level of road transport to the airport; and, secondly, increases public transport access to the airport to 55% of those using it. Those will be obligations that it will have to fund. The Government’s financial advisers have said that that is viable and investible. There are question marks about what schemes are actually part of the surface access. Some of them we have to do anyway. For example, we are about to start improvements to the M4, which will benefit Heathrow and improve access, but they are not solely about Heathrow. There are, however, some very clear obligations in terms of actual deliverables that the airport will have to meet and pay for.
I welcome the fact that the new Government have made this important decision and I welcome the fact that they have made the right decision. In Northern Ireland, there is a wide consensus that Heathrow is the right decision. It will lead to thousands more jobs, and major investment in tourism and business. I therefore warmly welcome what the Secretary of State has said. I also welcome what he said about slots and domestic connectivity, but may I press him on whether there will be any Barnett consequentials through investment and infrastructure?
First, I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support, and for the support of his party and colleagues in Northern Ireland. It is very much my belief that Northern Ireland will benefit enormously from this decision, and so it should. I hope it benefits not simply in terms of connectivity: I hope to see some of the work being done in Northern Ireland as we aim for a UK-wide supply chain and encourage the airport to achieve that. On other aspects, we will work hard to ensure that we deliver the best possible outcome for all parts of the United Kingdom, that we listen and consult, discuss issues such as the one he raised and try to make sure it is as beneficial as possible to the people he represents.
(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberI have outlined exactly the scenario that the Government are going to follow, and when I come back to the House I hope that I can count on my right hon. Friend’s support.
The Secretary of State referred to the role that other UK airports play in our aviation success story, and I am sure he would want to add Belfast City and Belfast International to the list. For us, regional connectivity is key; the air links between London and Belfast are vital to grow our economy. The prospect of 5,000 new jobs in Northern Ireland alone as a result of this proposal is very welcome, but will he look carefully at the issue of guaranteed slots at Heathrow for Northern Ireland, because it is essential for our economy that those slots are maintained and indeed increased?
That follows on, in a way, from the points made by the Scottish National party earlier about the importance of slots available to airports, not just in Scotland, but in Northern Ireland. When I appeared before the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs in the previous Parliament that was one of the important issues its members wished to raise with me, and obviously we will want to consider it.
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberI guess that one of the issues with topical questions for Northern Ireland is that matters are often more complex because of devolution. Mr Speaker has rightly been generous in allowing urgent questions, which provide another route for consideration of urgent matters in Northern Ireland.
I very much support the proposition put forward by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. The Democratic Unionists very much support the introduction of topical questions and urgent questions for Northern Ireland matters. I do not accept the argument about complexity: every Department has complex issues to deal with and Northern Ireland issues are no more complex. I thus urge the House authorities and the Government to consider this very carefully.
I am afraid that I am not in a position to change my earlier response. Urgent questions provide a route to raise urgent matters. The complexities of devolution are a fact, which makes it more difficult for Members to ensure that their question is pertinent to topical questions and is one to which Ministers can respond.
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I am grateful for that contribution. We must continue to consider APD. We live in a competitive world and we want a competitive market, but we also want a level playing field with competing airports across Europe, such as those in Spain, particularly Barcelona. A temporary APD holiday would be in line with the Government objectives of making best use of existing capacity and promoting links to emerging economies and economic growth near regional airports.
I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He may be aware that in Northern Ireland, international flights are exempt from APD, because it is now a devolved matter for the Northern Ireland Executive. I heartily endorse what he and the Transport Committee have suggested. Although we have devolved power, as a result of intense competition from Dublin international airport just down the road, which has zero APD, it is nevertheless a major cost to the Northern Ireland block grant, meaning that the money cannot be spent in other important areas such as health, education and so on. I agree totally with what he says about the need for action at a UK level.
I look forward to flying from Manchester to Belfast on Friday morning to represent Wythenshawe in Falcarragh over the weekend. However, we could not secure a route from Manchester to Londonderry airport. We need further connectivity between UK airports.
Clearly, strict rules would be needed to prevent airlines from churning from one airport to another to create new routes. The route would need to introduce net additional capacity from the UK. The Treasury could also review the impact of APD on the economy and on connectivity, as there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that high rates have damaged connectivity. To give just one recent example, AirAsia ceased operations in the UK, citing APD levels as the primary cause.
There is also a case for greater liberalisation of access to UK airports, particularly regional airports. Given that the UK long-haul carriers have consolidated their services at Heathrow, airports elsewhere must rely predominantly on overseas carriers to provide direct scheduled links to long-haul destinations. The Government have gone some way towards further liberalising foreign access; the last aviation framework document said that access would be granted, even without reciprocity, on a case-by-case basis. However, where there are concerns about issues such as state aid, access may still be refused and UK airlines have the right to object. But if UK airlines are not interested in serving points directly from airports such as Manchester, the Government should be prepared to open the market to airlines that are.
Aviation is vital to Britain’s competitiveness and future economic success. It is undoubtedly a key driver of our regional economies and a catalyst for the UK’s economic growth and jobs. Through mechanisms such as APD and the regional airport connectivity fund, the Government should continue to look at how they can maximise support for our regional airports, which would increase connectivity, remove pressure from congested airports in the south-east, and help to create additional capacity for jobs and growth throughout the UK. Supporting regional airports is a win-win situation not only for our regional economies but for the UK as a whole.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Yes, I can remember the 1982 World cup. I was in the stadium when Billy Armstrong scored—
Sorry—Billy Hamilton passed to Gerry Armstrong. I remember that very well. However, on the issue the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) raises, we have similar opinions, and we want to see an impact for all the regional airports.
Let me give some background information about Belfast. The city has sizeable port, airport and logistics infrastructure, which supports more than 26,000 jobs and generates more than £60 million gross value added for the local economy. In May 2013, almost 140,000 passengers flew between Northern Ireland and the rest of the world, representing 2.5% of the total for the UK regions. It is worth noting that that does not include Northern Irish passengers who transferred to the Republic of Ireland by road or rail to start their journey. Clearly, the interest in air travel is greater than ever, and the figures for people flying globally from Northern Ireland’s airports in just one month are substantial.
Some weeks ago, I attended a Northern Ireland chamber of commerce and industry reception. Everyone there was committed to ensuring that we better utilise air travel and interested in how we do that. Small businesses emphatically believe that connectivity will encourage inward investment and facilitate export growth in Northern Ireland. The Federation of Small Businesses recently carried out a poll of its members, and 96% agreed or strongly agreed that air connectivity can and will encourage inward investment and export growth. Clearly, there is a willingness among businesses to support connectivity. A further 93% of the FSB’s members described George Best Belfast City airport as having a positive impact on the local economy. Good air links are therefore vital for the Northern Ireland economy, and the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East made the same point about regional economies generally.
The most pressing issue for small businesses is having more destinations and routes available to them. That can be critical for businesses looking for new markets to export to, or looking to secure investment or business from other parts of the UK. For a country such as Northern Ireland, which exports most of what it produces, it is important to have contacts with the outside world—on the UK mainland and beyond.
Northern Ireland has the largest percentage of small businesses in the UK relative to its size. Recently, Brian Ambrose, the chief executive of Belfast City airport, revealed the airport’s desire to have more routes to European destinations. With that in mind, the airport has set about improving infrastructure and encouraging exports from the airport. However, it is subject to a so-called “seats for sale” restriction, which puts a bit of a limit on things. The airport reports that if it could develop as much as it wished, the extra passengers would contribute another £13.2 million gross value added and there would be a further 270 jobs. Clearly, we could do a lot more if we had the connectivity and the opportunity.
Some 86% of the FSB’s members were supportive of the airport’s move. The critical factor for Belfast City airport is the impact of aircraft noise on local residents. That is a big issue that has to be addressed. If it can, the potential for the airport is great, and the airport will develop further.
The 2003 White Paper on air transport recommended that the planning agreement for Belfast City airport be reviewed. It said the scope to develop capacity at Belfast International airport within existing boundaries was significant and should be supported. It also said that the development of City of Derry airport should be carried out in conjunction with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. This is not about British Airways and Aer Lingus; it is about how we can best work together to develop connectivity.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee concluded in 2012 that it was critical to ensure that Northern Ireland continued to have access to Heathrow, as the UK’s hub airport, and I believe that is true. Like me, the Northern Ireland chamber of commerce and industry sees Heathrow as critical to our regional airport development—that applies to Belfast City, Belfast International and City of Derry airports. The Northern Ireland Executive have stressed the importance of the route, and Northern Ireland’s unique access position within the United Kingdom should be reflected in emerging aviation policy. We must maintain Northern Ireland’s links with the USA through Belfast International airport, and consider extending Northern Ireland’s direct links with long-haul destinations, as has been suggested. Devolution of air passenger duty is a key part of that. Tourism Ireland has recommended potential routes, making the case for carriers. Northern Ireland’s direct connectivity with mainland Europe continues to increase, and new destinations are in the process of being confirmed.
Belfast City airport’s almost 3 million passengers amount to nearly 10,000 a day, and the core catchment area is 75% of Northern Ireland. The annual passenger figure for Belfast International has been more than 4 million; 65% of passengers were on domestic flights and 35% on international flights. City of Derry airport has also contributed greatly to the numbers travelling, mostly to holiday destinations. It is vital to maintain those links, which will help to promote business links, enterprise development and inbound tourism.
The Heathrow hub—and Gatwick, to a lesser extent—can only improve with greater connectivity, more flights and the road and rail infrastructure already referred to taking passengers quickly and on time to their international flights or UK mainland destinations. The three Northern Ireland airports, George Best Belfast City airport, Belfast International airport, and City of Derry airport, all want and intend to be part of that. With the help and support of the Westminster Government, that can and must happen.
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberI am aware that my hon. Friend is pursuing this matter vigorously—indeed, she made her own submission—but it is right that we wait until we have carefully considered the arguments and options in the report before taking a view. I am sure the House will want to do the same.
Before we make any further changes, the House will know that we already have two classes of Members of Parliament—those who take their seats and are properly accountable in parliamentary terms for their expenses, and those who do not take their seats and can spend representative money on party political campaigning, with no accountability. When will the Government address that issue?