Seaborne Freight

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the awarding of a contract to Seaborne Freight as part of his no-deal contingency planning.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

The Government are working towards ensuring that we leave the European Union in March with a sensible agreement for the future, through the withdrawal agreement that the House will consider next week, but any responsible Government need to plan for all eventualities. As part of that work, the Department for Transport has been undertaking a wide range of activities to mitigate the impact on the transport system of a potential no-deal EU exit, particularly around the movement of freight. For example, my Department has been delivering measures such as the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018, which puts systems in place if a permit system is required to ensure that UK heavy goods vehicles can continue to be used in the EU.

We have also put in place Operation Brock as a replacement for Operation Stack, in order to deal with disruption at the channel ports. This is not simply a Brexit-related measure. We do not want to see any repeat of the issues that Kent faced in 2015, with the closure of the M20. If there is any disruption at the ports, for whatever reason, Operation Brock should keep the motorway open while we prepare the long-term solution of a lorry park. Yesterday, Kent County Council and my Department carried out a live trial of one part of Brock, on the route from Manston. We were satisfied with the number of vehicles that took part, which was more than enough to determine a safe optimum release rate from Manston to the port of Dover via the A256 and caused minimal traffic disruption along the route.

This is a range of examples of the sensible contingency planning that a responsible Government are carrying out to ensure that we are prepared for a range of outcomes. We remain committed to ensuring that movement across the UK border is as frictionless as possible, whatever the outcome. However, without planning, there could be significant disruption to the Dover strait, particularly if no agreement is reached. Given the importance of these routes to the UK economy, it is vital that we put in place contingency plans to mitigate any disruption that might occur in a no-deal scenario.

The Department is working with the port of Dover and the channel tunnel—as well as with our French counterparts, at both official and ministerial level—to ensure that both operate at the maximum possible capacity in all instances. Those discussions are positive and I am confident that everyone is working constructively to ensure that the Dover-Calais route—particularly at the port of Dover—and the tunnel continue to operate fluidly in all scenarios. However, in order to ease any pressure on those routes, my Department has completed a proper procurement process to secure additional ferry capacity between the UK and the EU. Following this process, three contracts were awarded to operators, totalling a potential of £103 million. Almost 90% of that was awarded to two well-established operators: £46 million to Brittany Ferries and about £42 million to DFDS. These contracts provide additional capacity on established routes, and through additional sailings and, in some cases, additional vessels, into ports in northern Europe and other parts of France.

A third, smaller contract, which is potentially worth £13.8 million, was awarded to Seaborne Freight, a new British operator, to provide a new service between the port of Ramsgate and Ostend. Let me stress that no money will be paid to any of these operators unless and until they are actually operating ferries on the routes we have contracted. No money will be paid until they are operating the ferries. No payment will be made unless the ships are sailing, and of course, in a no-deal scenario, money will be recouped through the sale of tickets on those ships.

As I believe the House knows, Seaborne is a new operator looking to reopen that route, which closed five years ago. As a result of this, we ensured that its business and operational plans were assessed for the Department by external advisers, including Slaughter and May, Deloitte and Mott MacDonald. These included Seaborne’s plans to charter vessels for service, as is common across many transport modes including airlines and rail operators. We also conducted searches on the directors of Seaborne via a third party, and found nothing that would prevent them from contracting with the Government.

I make no apology for being willing to contract with a new British company, particularly one that has a large number of reputable institutional backers. We contracted with Seaborne Freight because the service it proposes represents a sensible contingency in the event of disruption on other routes. I am also pleased that this award supports the port of Ramsgate, which operated as a commercial ferry port as recently as 2013 and has taken roll-on roll-off services as recently as last year. I am looking forward to seeing ferry services resume from this port. The infrastructure work required to make that possible has already started, and it is one of the most visible and symbolic elements of how seriously my Department is taking contingency planning for all Brexit eventualities.

[Andy McDonald]

The Transport Secretary has awarded a £14 million contract to a company with no money, no ships, no track record, no employees, no ports, one telephone line, and no working website or sailing schedule. Two of Seaborne Freight’s directors would not pass normal due diligence requirements. One of them, Ben Sharp, is already under investigation by a Government Department. Did the Department for Transport consult other Departments about Mr Sharp’s fitness as a company director? Ben Sharp quit his business activities in the Gulf leaving a trail of debt behind him. His company, Mercator, was merely a shell finding vessels for security companies. Is it correct that he operated without the licence he needed pursuant to the Export Control Order 2008? Did he operate without that licence? Yes or no?

It is abundantly clear from the promissory note published by “Channel 4 News” that Sharp owed and still owes Mid-Gulf Offshore more than $l million, and many more companies besides. How is it that Slaughter and May, Deloitte and Mott MacDonald were instructed to restrict their due diligence examination to the face value of the presentation put to them by Seaborne? Why on earth have they been allowed to restrict their investigation to the present company and not to consider the trading history of the individuals concerned, particularly Ben Sharp? The mayor of Ostend has made it clear that Seaborne cannot berth at his port as it has no bank guarantees and no contract with Ostend. It is without capital. Who is investing in Seaborne? Who is paying for the dredging of Ramsgate?

This is a shoddy and tawdry affair, and the Secretary of State is making a complete mess of it. This contract is likely to be unlawful and it violates every current best practice guidance issued by Whitehall. When will he realise that this country cannot continue to suffer the consequences of his gross incompetence? Why is this calamitous Secretary of State still in post?

[Chris Grayling]

I am not even going to address the idiocy that the hon. Gentleman has just come up with. He has made a number of allegations, which I suggest he goes and makes elsewhere. I am simply going to say this: the Government have let a contract for which we will pay no money until and unless ferries are running. That is responsible stewardship of public money. On other matters, from the due diligence we have done, there is no reason to believe that anyone involved in this business is not fit to do business with the Government. I say this again: we are not spending money unless these ferries operate.

Drones: Consultation Response

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I should like to thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of half of his statement—that is a new trick, just giving me some of the pages—but I have to say to him: is that it? Announcing the end of a consultation exercise does not constitute action; nor does it go any way towards restoring confidence in his capabilities; nor does it go any way towards addressing the justified anger of the hundreds of thousands of passengers who had their travel plans thrown into chaos ahead of the festive season after the malicious and sustained drone attack at Gatwick airport. In fact, his statement serves only to highlight the damage that his dithering and delaying have caused.

It is not only Labour Members who are critical. Colonel Richard Kemp, a former intelligence chairman of the Cabinet’s emergency Cobra committee, said:

“It is amazing that this kit”—

the kit to defeat drones—

“was not in place and that we have had to wait two days for it to be installed. This drone incident is hardly a surprise. They’ve been known about for years.”

And Lord Dannatt, the former head of the Army, said:

“By any analysis, the fiasco at Gatwick over the last few days has been a national embarrassment of near-biblical proportions. With most of Europe already sniggering at the United Kingdom over our Government’s inept handling of Brexit, we did not need to add more lines to the pantomime script.”

Of course, right hon. and hon. Members will vividly recall the Secretary of State describing the ennoblement of General Dannatt as a “political gimmick” by the Labour party, only for him then to realise that the former Army chief was in fact ennobled by—you’ve guessed it—the Conservative party.

It is good to learn that the Government might finally listen to the advice of industry on extending drone exclusion zones around airports to some 5 km, but it is unfortunate that this advice was not considered sooner. It is also unfortunate that the drone incursion at Gatwick airport in July 2017 did not serve as a warning to the Secretary of State. He clearly learned no lessons from that incident, and he was totally negligent in failing to bring forward measures to better protect national infrastructure. The Government’s approach to drones has been chaotic, and the industry clearly has no faith in his ability to deal with serious incidents. It was no surprise to learn from the media that, during the Gatwick incident, the Secretary of State was stripped of his command by the security services due to his inaction. An effective Transport Secretary would have taken decisive action once the threat was known and understood. Earlier and clearer direction from him would have given airports the confidence to invest in anti-drone technology. His prevarication has delayed investment in detection and prevention measures. Why did he not ensure that proposals were brought forward to universally license such technology for use at airports?

Labour has repeatedly warned Department for Transport Ministers over the last several years that they needed to take action on drones, yet nowhere near enough has been done. The drone consultation closed five months ago, yet the Gatwick fiasco still happened, and it is abundantly clear that the Department is totally distracted by having to deal with this Government’s chaotic Brexit, including extending the duties of departmental staff to handing out blankets, sandwiches and hot drinks to lorry drivers who find themselves trapped on the M20. Following the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, which fell before the last election, the Government have found the time to legislate on space flight and air travel organisers licences, as well as vehicle technology and lasers during this Parliament, but their failure to bring forward detailed plans on drones has had disastrous consequences.

It is frankly astonishing that there were no plans in place across the Government Departments to deal with a drone attack. Why was there no urgent, clear and effective response? The drones Bill will seemingly include powers for the police to enforce any new laws or regulations relating to drones. Greater police powers are welcome, but they are meaningless without more resources. What arrangements does the Secretary of State intend to set out to enable airports to act urgently in the event of a hostile drone incursion? What steps will he take to give confidence to airports that their actions will be permitted and lawful? Drone licensing and registration are not due to come in until November 2019. Should not the Secretary of State accelerate the introduction of such provisions in all circumstances? Developing drone technology presents huge public policy challenges that demand a sweeping, cross-departmental response across Government. My fear is that the rhetoric we have heard from the Government today is many miles away from reality, and is it not stark-staringly obvious that this Secretary of State is not up to the job?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

I have been following the Select Committee inquiry very closely. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman mentions Bristol, because bus passenger numbers have gone up by 42%. He raises a valid point, because punctuality, the timing of bus arrivals and departures, and journey times are key to increasing bus patronage, which is why we are increasing funding to make sure that information is available.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Since 2010, bus funding has been almost halved, fares have been increased by over 50% and thousands of routes have been cut, shrinking the network to its smallest size in decades. Does the Minister agree with the United Nations assessment of Tory transport policy:

“Abandoning people to the private market in relation to a service that affects every dimension of their basic well-being is incompatible with human rights requirements.”?

[Ms Ghani]

I would rather stick to the facts. We make over £1 billion of funding available for concessionary bus passes every year, and we continue to be committed to that. Some £250 million is paid to support bus services up and down the country. There is no denying that there are challenges in some parts of the country. However, the hon. Gentleman forgets to note that bus patronage is up by 42% in Bristol, up by 38% in South Gloucestershire and up by 31% in Central Bedfordshire. There are services that are working right, and local authorities are working with bus providers to make sure that up-to-date information is available.

[Andy McDonald]

Just as Conservative Members ridicule complaints about the state of our roads, the Government have dismissed the UN report as political. Let me tell the Minister that the decision to axe vital public services to fund tax cuts for millionaires, now that is political. Now the Prime Minister has declared that austerity is over, will the Minister commit to reversing these cruel and harmful cuts that are denying people their human rights?

[Ms Ghani]

I am afraid that Labour Front Benchers have run out of anything positive to say about any part of our transport infrastructure, even to support buses across the country. As I said, there is £1 billion of funding for concessionary bus travel. We are making franchising available to those mayoral authorities that wish to take it up, but they refuse to do so. [Interruption.] I do not know whether this is just going to go back and forth, but the fact is that we are putting funding into bus services, making sure they are greener, making sure that more information is available and making sure that more people can catch a bus.

Road Safety

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

Mr Speaker, it is kind of you to acknowledge your own temporary distraction, but I am afraid that the one to which I was referring was rather more intentional.

Having roads in an acceptable and safe condition is vital to us all, whether we are car drivers, lorry drivers, bus passengers, cyclists, pedestrians or horse riders. In fact, most of us are more than one of those.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am very interested in what the Secretary of State has to say about the state of our local roads. If that is such an important issue, why do we have a £9 billion backlog and why did the Budget only address 5% of it?

[Jesse Norman]

As hon. Members know, there are many widespread and varying estimates of the backlog. The Government are putting in place a comprehensive programme. We have already seen the largest investment in strategic roads for, I think—in real terms, certainly—the last generation or more. I would like to think that the excellent investments that we have made in pothole fixing will continue in the years to come, but the hon. Gentleman will know that these things are ultimately dependent on the spending review to be announced next year.

Ministers and Members of Parliament receive plenty of correspondence on the matter of potholes. The condition of the road also regularly appears among the top concerns in public opinion surveys, and this was a major issue raised by respondents to our recent cycling and walking safety review call for evidence. That is why a further £420 million was made available to highways authorities in England outside London for highway maintenance—to support authorities to keep bridges and other structures safe and open, to help repair potholes or stop them forming, and to undertake further minor highway works where necessary. We will be announcing individual allocations to highways authorities shortly, but I am sure that Members across the House will welcome this funding, which comes in addition to over £6 billion that we are providing to local highway authorities in England outside London between 2015 and 2021, including £296 million for a pothole action fund, which is being allocated to local highway authorities between 2016 and 2021 to help repair potholes.

The Chancellor also announced a further £150 million in the Budget to improve local traffic hotspots such as roundabouts. It is our intention that this funding will help to improve existing local road junctions, to ease congestion bottlenecks and to improve reliability—not only to improve access, but to make sure that these junctions are safer for all road users. Further details will be announced in due course.

Infrastructure is one thing but effective education is another. We are improving training for new drivers to familiarise them with the conditions that they will encounter on the roads. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency is developing new materials to improve learners’ awareness of hazards in different weather and lighting conditions. As the House will be aware, new legislation is in force allowing learners on motorways when accompanied by an approved driving instructor. Learner drivers are already gaining experience and we will have a new generation of drivers who are confident in using our motorways.

We are also taking action against the most dangerous kinds of behaviour. Evidence repeatedly shows that the use of mobile phones, and drink and drug driving, give cause for concern. Tackling these dangerous forms of behaviour has long been an element of our road safety strategy.

Transport

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2018 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from Questions to the Secretary State for Transport on 11 October 2018.

[Andy McDonald]

The reality is that the policies of this Government have directly increased harmful emissions from road transport. Bus funding has been slashed, plug-in car grants cut, and there is chaos in the transition to electric motor vehicles and trains. Will the Secretary of State wake up and accept that he cannot continue to crawl along in the slow lane when it comes to tackling climate change?

[Jesse Norman]

I apologise for being the same person that I was when I answered the previous question and not the Secretary of State, but let me pick up on the hon. Gentleman’s points. In August, 12% of new vehicles were electric, and that is because electric vehicles are beginning a fast S-curve of take-up. They have been heavily supported by this Government, and they will continue to be so supported.

[Official Report, 11 October 2018, Vol. 647, c. 275.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman):

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald):

The correct response should have been:

Rail Review: Terms of Reference

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I wish to thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, which was actually announced three weeks ago, on 20 September. Although the title of this statement is, “Rail Review: Terms of Reference”, he has not provided me with these terms or the names on the panel. Seemingly, the document sits in the Library, as yet unseen—a fat lot of use that is when we are here to discuss it.

The Department for Transport’s press releases are very fond of exaggerated claims, historical or otherwise, so the froth around the Secretary of State’s rail review announcement was to be expected. We were told that it would be “far-reaching”, “sweeping” and “root and branch”. Really? I am surprised that the Department did not say that it would be the most comprehensive rail review since the Victorian era, or since the time of Brunel, as it usually does. These absurd and ridiculous claims undermine rail policy debate and belie a tragic reality. His review is not far-reaching, sweeping or root and branch. It is none of those things. It is a predetermined prevarication and a way for him to cover up his disastrous failure to run the railway properly and to kick it into the long grass for a year. It offers precisely nothing to the millions of rail passengers who have endured months of misery since the timetabling crisis in May.

A Government review is one of the oldest tricks in the political book. It is usually a good way of kicking a difficult decision into the long grass, so fair play to him—or was it the Prime Minister’s idea? Under the Conservatives, over the past eight years, rail reviews have practically come along with the frequency of buses—McNulty, Brown, Shaw, Hendy, Bowe, Laidlaw, and Hansford. I could go on.

Is it not the truth that we do not need another review to tell us what is wrong with the railway? Why do we need a rail outsider to tell us what we know already? Is this the expertise that we need? Also, can the Secretary of State tell us how many days a month Keith Williams will contribute to the review? My sources tell me one day a month. Hardly worth the bother, is it? The fact that the permanent secretary at the Department for Transport was desperately ringing around retired rail executives urging them to join his review panel tells us something.

Does not this show that the Government are out of touch with the rail industry? What is more, the rail industry has called for public ownership to be considered as part of the review—it is the Rail Delivery Group if the Secretary of State wants the reference. This review has no credibility in the rail industry.

I know that the Minister told a conference fringe meeting in Birmingham last week that rail franchising is broken—I am pleased that we can both agree on something, but we differ on how to move forward. He thinks that bolting together operations and infrastructure into individual partnerships on the east coast or Southeastern is the way forward for rail. In fact, his review is simply a 12-month prelude to justifying this proposal, which no one in the rail industry takes seriously or thinks is workable. It is ironic that, as an ardent Brexiteer, he is doing so much to perpetuate a rail operation system that enriches those foreign Governments who own the majority of rail franchises. His review offers nothing for the private UK supply side businesses, which are the backbone of British industry. Will the review consider the roles of the DFT or the ORR? Practically everything starts or finishes with the Department. Will he suspend all current franchise competitions while this review is underway—Southeastern, East Midlands and west coast? Will he come back to the Dispatch Box and confirm that he will now reward the failure of Govia by re-letting the Southeastern contract to it in the coming weeks?

The rail industry and rail passengers have had a battering this year with failed franchises, a timetabling crisis and cuts to promised investment. There is an ongoing lack of leadership. Will not this 12-month review create even more paralysis, confusion and uncertainty when rail desperately needs stability? It is unacceptable that passengers on GTR and Northern face further inflation-busting fare rises in January. Will the Secretary of State support Labour’s call for a fare freeze on those routes—in addition to compensation?

We need to put the railway back together as a unified whole. The British public are crying out for an accountable railway. They are desperate for a system that is simpler and more efficient. Above all, our railways need to be run in public ownership for the public interest, and his review will do none of those things.

[Chris Grayling]

I keep hearing from the Opposition that returning to British Rail would deliver transformation for the British public.

[Andy McDonald]

I didn’t say that.

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman says that he did not say that, but when he talks about an integrated state monopoly, what else is he talking about except for returning to the days of British Rail? Labour might give it a different name, but it will still be British Rail. The reality is that Labour Members cannot explain the benefits that their policy would actually bring, and their leader does not even know which part of the railway is privatised and which is nationalised. They say their policies will cost nothing, yet the Library says that even taking back control of the rolling stock will cost £17 billion. On the “World at One”, the shadow rail Minister could not even explain how Labour’s policy would work. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is disappointing to see the RMT continuing to strike when none of its members face the loss of their jobs or a loss of money.

[Andy McDonald]

It is about safety.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

Yes I have—not only have I read the report, but I have talked to Sir John Armitt, head of the National Infrastructure Commission, about the implications of the work it is doing. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman. This is the first I have heard about the issue from him, but if he wants to come and bring with him representatives from his local authority, he is welcome to have that conversation.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

This month’s United Nations climate change report offers a chilling glimpse of the apocalypse of drought, flooding and human displacement that we face should global warming not be restricted to 1.5 °C. Given the contribution made by road transport to the UK’s greenhouse emissions, was the Prime Minister’s boast yesterday that fuel duty has been frozen for seven years, at a cost of £46 billion, ill-judged? Has the Secretary of State failed to provide the leadership necessary for the road transport sector to play its full part in reducing emissions?

[Jesse Norman]

I will leave the Secretary of State to answer for himself in future questions and conversations, but there cannot be much doubt that the goal is to balance the effective use of all modes of transport with the important need to make a transition to low emissions as fast as possible. We are doing so at a great pace, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the many decisions that have been taken about improving air quality across the country, of the zero emission vehicle summit that we held in September, and of the Birmingham declaration that was world-leading in bringing other countries to the table.

[Andy McDonald]

The reality is that the policies of this Government have directly increased harmful emissions from road transport. Bus funding has been slashed, plug-in car grants cut, and there is chaos in the transition to electric motor vehicles and trains. Will the Secretary of State wake up and accept that he cannot continue to crawl along in the slow lane when it comes to tackling climate change?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

One wonders.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

May I take this opportunity to convey my very best wishes to the NHS—the greatest social achievement in British history—and also to convey my best wishes and a happy birthday to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)?

Quite clearly from yesterday’s PMQs, the Prime Minister is clueless about the sharp decline in bus ridership that her Government have presided over. I hope that the Secretary of State has a better analysis of the collapse in rail passenger usage—although I am not holding my breath. Can he explain last month’s figures from the Office of Rail and Road that show the biggest fall in passenger journeys since privatisation? Is he not alarmed that there were 2 million fewer journeys on GTR year on year and millions fewer journeys on South Western Railway?

[Joseph Johnson]

As I said, the decline in passenger journeys is a relatively recent phenomenon. Passenger kilometres continue to grow. It is difficult to determine exactly why we have this decline in season tickets, but we believe that it is due to factors such as strikes and recent station closures. In areas outside of London where there have not been those factors, we have not seen similar declines in passenger journeys.

[Andy McDonald]

Poor, very poor. The fact that the Minister is not more alarmed by this sorry state of affairs will be of great concern to millions of long-suffering passengers. It has never been clearer that there is something very seriously wrong with the railways on his watch, with franchising failure, timetabling chaos, broken promises on investment and people shifting from rail to road. He says that he does not run the trains—which is self-evident, by the way—but, for goodness’ sake, does he not realise that he has to step in and get a grip before our great railway hits the buffers?

[Joseph Johnson]

Labour’s policies of nationalisation would be no panacea for the challenges we face. Indeed, those challenges spring to a very large extent from the publicly owned parts of the rail industry—namely, Network Rail, the part that is in state control. We see passenger interests as best served by bringing together in partnership the very best of the public and private sectors, as the Secretary of State set out in his strategic vision for rail last November.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for enhancing our parliamentary education by explaining the words, “I move”. We are wiser because of your guidance.

The Opposition recognise the Bill as necessary for Brexit preparations and it is right that the Government prepare for contingencies on leaving the European Union. A failure to retain an essentially unchanged operating environment would damage the UK haulage industry and the wider economy, which is why we believe the Government should continue to use the community licence post Brexit. We hope the measures in the Bill will never be used, but it is imperative that the Government press ahead with their trailer safety review and report to the House next year.

I thank the Government for co-operating with Labour to improve the legislation. I also place on record my thanks to colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and staff both in this House and in the other place whose hard work helped to secure improvements relating to trailer safety and to increase Ministers’ accountability to Parliament in relation to the powers given to the Secretary of State in the Bill.

I heard what the Minister said regarding the allocation of permits. I cannot let the moment pass without adding my note of caution on including such careless words in legislation as

“may include first come, first served or an element of random selection”.

Using that sort of language in statute brings us to a poor place.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) for her superb campaign on trailer safety following the tragic death of three-year-old Freddie Hussey from her constituency. She has also summoned a safety summit in her constituency, which has been so effective. She will be warmly congratulated by all hon. Members.

Road haulage is vital for the UK economy. Any post-Brexit arrangement that impedes the ease of transit of goods, or that places additional costs or administrative burdens on hauliers, will damage the sector and the wider economy and must be avoided. The haulage industry has been clear about the threat of additional administrative and financial burdens and the risks presented to UK supply chains.

Throughout the Bill’s previous stages, Labour has done all it can to reduce the disruption that would be caused if the measures become necessary, but the negotiations will determine how much damage and disruption Brexit will cause to such industries in respect of the retention of the community licensing scheme. Broader issues such as whether we will be part of a customs union and avoid the introduction of customs checks at the border, and the consequential gridlock of our ports and roads, are also a matter for the negotiations. I have visited a number of ports during my time as shadow Secretary of State for Transport and the consequences of failing to retain an unchanged operating environment are stark.

It is concerning that the Government’s calamitous attempts at negotiating Brexit make it increasingly likely that the measures in the Bill will not be a contingency but will be put into effect. Unfortunately, the negotiations are not something we are able to address as a part of the Bill. I do, however, believe we have improved this necessary but hopefully never-to-be-used legislation. Labour will be voting in support.

[Mr John Hayes]

I will be very brief. This is an important Bill. As the shadow Secretary of State said, it is a contingency measure. It is a belt and braces exercise to ensure we can guarantee the seamless transport of goods across the continent. There are many hauliers in my constituency and they will be looking at this matter with some concern. It is right to say that Brexit represents a significant change. I take the view that it represents a significant opportunity. None the less, seamless transport and travel are vital, particularly in respect of fresh goods. We live in a just-in-time age, where the movement of goods in very quick order is necessary to meet the expectations that have been created as a result of that culture.

The measure, which we do not expect to come into force, is none the less important to achieve those objectives. It is the right thing for the Government to do. Had the Government failed to bring something of this kind forward, Opposition Members and others would have perfectly reasonably said that we were not being sufficiently diligent. The diligence associated with a proper approach to the defence of the interests of hauliers and others obliges the Bill we are considering tonight. It is in that spirit that it has been considered through time.

I want to pay particular attention to the points made earlier by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and, if I may do so on her behalf, reiterate them. It seems to me important that the Government recognise that it will be necessary to review the provisions should they come into force and it would be perfectly reasonable for Government Ministers to confirm that that might happen. I do not think it necessarily needs to be on the face of the Bill, but it is perfectly reasonable for Ministers to give her an assurance, as a result of the compelling argument she made earlier, that that kind of process will occur. It is what good Governments do: they consider measures carefully, check how they are working in practice and commit to looking at them again if and when necessary.

Similarly, to re-emphasise a point I made earlier—many of the points I make in this House are worth amplification, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker—it is important that the methodology for the allocation of permits is what it needs to be. It should not be merely what is suggested here, as the shadow Secretary of State and others said, and the hon. Member for York Central emphasised. It may well take a very different shape from that which is identified here. It is therefore very important that the Government are very flexible about what needs to be done to allocate permits in a way that is efficient and effective.

[Andy McDonald]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, while it may well be right to retain flexibility on the allocation of permits, to put in the Bill that they could be allocated on a first come, first served basis could mean people in sleeping bags waiting for permits to be handed out or some random selection? This is serious stuff. Should we really be using such vague and indeterminate language in the Bill?

[Mr Hayes]

In an ideal world, where I was still sitting on the Government Front Bench—I know that is most people’s ideal—I would have to respond to that point formally on behalf of the Government. As I no longer have those responsibilities, I will leave it to those who are now missioned to deal with these matters formally to respond.

The Secretary of State has done the right thing in bringing the Bill forward. As I said earlier, had he not done so, he would have been criticised. I do not expect it to be used, but it will provide considerable reassurance to hauliers and others. We are constantly told by the critics of Brexit that the biggest problem of all is uncertainty. Well, this Bill is not uncertain, but it is about doing what is necessary to alleviate uncertainty by dealing with the matter with appropriate diligence and salience. To that end, the Bill has my full support.

There is one final thing: I say to the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that to come to the party late, improperly dressed, and to not understand what a trailer registration scheme really means is not clever or wise, and he would be better not to come to the party at all if he is going to make such a mess of it. With that cutting aside, I conclude my remarks.

National Policy Statement: Airports

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Airport expansion in the south-east of England has been a deeply contentious and divisive issue for 50 years. If the motion is agreed to, it will generate many winners, not least the shareholders of Heathrow Airport Ltd, but it risks making losers of many, including the communities in which thousands of people will lose hundreds of homes. I regret to say that the Government have not been direct and clear with those communities and, as I will point out, the Government are demanding that they make sacrifices based on flawed information. Their potential loss should not be ignored or devalued.

I respect voices in industry and the significant voices in the trade union movement who have concluded that the best interests of the country are served by proceeding. Having faithfully and carefully assessed Labour’s four tests against the revised national policy statement, I have to respectfully disagree.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend mentions the trade unions. Will he confirm that the Trades Union Congress and Unite the union—they have written to all Labour MPs—support this project? Will he also confirm that Michael Dugher, who, as shadow Secretary of State for Transport, wrote the four tests has come out in support of going ahead with Heathrow expansion today?

[Andy McDonald]

I respect the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend, who has been entirely consistent in his support for this project for many years. I acknowledge his point about union support, but there are unions that support Heathrow expansion and those that do not. My predecessor was responsible for writing the tests, and it is my job to implement them—my predecessor has a new career.

I remind the House that the UK’s aviation and aerospace industries are world leaders. They bring services to hundreds of millions of passengers, generate tens of billions of pounds in economic benefits and support nearly 1 million jobs. Labour wants successful and growing aviation and aerospace industries across the UK. The industries and their workforces deserve a sustainable and strategic plan for the future, and they currently have neither.

Mr Speaker,

“I hope that the Secretary of State recognises that as a result of today’s announcement, nobody will take this Government seriously on the environment again.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 366.]

Those are not my words, but the words of the current Prime Minister during a 2009 debate in which she opposed the expansion of Heathrow. Nearly 10 years on, I entirely agree with her. Given how she and her Transport Secretary have approached this issue, nobody should take this Government seriously on the environment.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the glaring absence of any genuine carbon mitigation policy framework, tonight’s votes will break down into two camps of those who believe we can negotiate with climate physics, and those who do not?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I hope shortly to be able to address in some detail.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I must confess that I am a waverer on Heathrow expansion. I do not like the air quality dangers we face or the Government’s target to do something about air quality by 2040, by which time 1 million people will have died. People in the north of England, in Yorkshire and in Huddersfield want to know what investment they will get. This is yet another massive investment in London and the south-east.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend raises two significant points about air quality and investment across the United Kingdom. I hope to address them in great detail as I proceed with my speech.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andy McDonald]

I will make some progress, because I am aware that many Members want to speak.

This has not been a great year so far for the British transport system, with meltdown on the railways and growing frustration across the transport industry about the Government’s “It will be all right on the night” approach to Brexit. Last week’s news from Airbus struck like a thunderbolt, so the proposal to undertake a large-scale infrastructure project in the UK should be a good news story. The expansion of our hub airport should be very good news indeed—except it is not.

The Government have not done the work to support the development of this project. Their case is riddled with gaps and is fundamentally flawed. Yet again, this Secretary of State has made a complete shambles of a vital national project. Yet again, he is not putting the relevant facts before Parliament. Today’s vote has been scheduled just days before the Government’s own advisory body, the Committee on Climate Change, is due to publish a report that is expected to warn that increasing aviation emissions will destroy Britain’s greenhouse gas targets. It appears that the vote on the national policy statement has been planned for today so that hon. and right hon. Members are left in the dark about how much the Secretary of State’s plan will obliterate the UK’s climate change commitments. That is not only reckless, but shows contempt for Parliament and for the environment.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Is not my hon. Friend slightly missing the point? Aviation—across the world and into Europe—will continue and grow, so the real question is whether it will be going into Schiphol, Frankfurt or Charles de Gaulle airports, or whether we will create investment, protect the well-paid, unionised jobs at Heathrow, and create opportunities for the youngsters of the future.

[Andy McDonald]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention but, of course, we must always ensure that any growth is delivered sustainably—that has to be the point.

Hon. Members will not have the opportunity to see the hugely important Committee on Climate Change report before they vote. Global warming is the single most important issue facing the world, yet Members of this House are being asked to vote today without full knowledge and without the full set of facts.

That is outrageous behaviour from the Government, and from the Secretary of State in particular. The Justice Committee said last week that his multi-billion pound reforms to the probation service in 2014 will never work. In his two years as Secretary of State for Transport, he has laid waste to the railways, slashing and burning and leaving a trail of scorched earth. Rail electrification cuts, franchising meltdown and timetabling chaos have caused misery to millions. His mismanaging of airport expansion, as he has mismanaged other areas of transport, will present much bigger risks, with immensely more serious consequences.

The Transport Secretary has consistently demonstrated poor judgment and a reliance on incomplete, unreliable and non-existent evidence, yet he stands here today and expects the House to take his word for it—to take a leap of faith with him. Labour has been clear that we will support airport expansion only if the very specific provisions of our four tests are met. We are not against expansion; we are against this option for expansion, as presented.

The north-west runway is too risky and it may be illegal. There are simply too many holes in the case. There are too many hostages to fortune for the taxpayer and for any future Government.

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy McDonald]

I will give way, and I will then make progress.

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State. He says that climate and the expectation of meeting our climate responsibilities are vital, but does he accept that Professor Dame Julia King, who is a member of the Committee on Climate Change, sat on the Davies commission and fully endorsed its report?

[Andy McDonald]

The critical word is that it “could.” That is the important point—not that it will, but that it is quite possible that it could. There is an awful lot of work to get from one place to the other.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is setting out a powerful case regarding the four tests. The Secretary of State said that one of the key selling points is connectivity with our regional airports, but that will be only up to 15% of the new capacity. He has already indicated there will be 100 extra flights a day from Scotland, and as that 15% of new capacity is for all the regional airports and the Crown dependencies, it does not sound like a very good deal to me.

[Andy McDonald]

There are grave misgivings on the whole issue of regional connectivity, which I will address, but first I will deal with the tests.

Can the airport actually be built? It is not clear that it can. Heathrow’s borrowing costs depend on whether it can increase landing charges at what is already the most expensive airport in the world. The Government have provided no guarantees that landing charges will be held flat. Astonishingly, there are no details or costings on the upgrades to the M25 and the wider transport system in London and around the airport that are required for expansion. That uncertainty risks yet more transport infrastructure investment being sucked into the south-east of England at the expense of the rest of the country. It is simply staggering that this information has not been provided.

The cost-recovery clause that the Government signed with Heathrow, as highlighted by the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), is an enormous liability for future Governments and represents a significant risk to taxpayers. For those reasons, Labour has concluded that the third runway is not in fact deliverable.

Ensuring the health and safety of our country for our children and grandchildren should be the most important priority for each and every Member of this House. Some 40,000 people die prematurely each year because of poor air quality. Despite the superficial public relations initiatives from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, this Government have dithered and delayed on dealing with air quality and carbon emissions.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying. He makes a good case for why he will not be able to support Heathrow, but what would his alternative be, given that growth in the sector will happen whether we have Heathrow or not? We will simply be handing business to other airports.

[Andy McDonald]

We should consider which airports they may be, because—

[Michael Fabricant]

Frankfurt, Amsterdam—

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is listing names from overseas, but how about others—Birmingham, Newcastle, Manchester?

On test 2, we are being asked today to support a significant expansion in UK aviation capacity without a plan from the Government for tackling aviation carbon emissions. The Secretary of State did not even mention climate change in his statement to the House on 5 June.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

I am going to plough on, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. Plenty of people want to speak. I know he has just walked into the Chamber, but I want to crack on.

The Government have still not set out aviation’s place in the overall strategy for UK emissions reduction, despite their having a legal requirement to do so. According to the Department for Transport’s own projections, this plan for Heathrow expansion will cause the Government to miss their carbon emission limits. The Government argue that they can reduce emissions through technology, but their only proposal is a hypothetical case study by a consultant that contains a disclaimer professing that there is

“significant uncertainty around the results of the study and the conclusions that are drawn”.

That is not a credible position.

[Mary Creagh]

The economic case for Heathrow is unarguable, but the environmental case is unconscionable. The Department’s analysis—this is from the study my hon. Friend talks about—refers to two ways to reduce carbon emissions from flights: one is single-engine taxiing; the other is ensuring that 12% of fuels in aeroplanes are renewable. Neither of those is currently in operation in Heathrow or any other airport in the world.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point because this whole process is predicated on banking technological achievements that do not currently exist. We must be more thoughtful about this.

The Committee on Climate Change’s last progress report saw the UK failing to stay on track to meet its 2030 carbon targets. The CCC publishes its latest report on Thursday, and it reportedly will detail just how badly the Government are performing. The third runway will increase the number of flights by 50%, as per the Airports Commission report—table 12.1; page 238—yet any increase in aviation emissions will require other sectors to reduce their emissions beyond 85%. That is astonishingly imbalanced. The Department’s own projections show that a new runway at Heathrow will directly lead to a breach of at least 3.3 million tonnes of the 37.5 million tonnes carbon dioxide limit for 2050 set by the CCC without new policies to mitigate emissions.

[Chris Grayling]

It might be helpful if the House were to understand whether the hon. Gentleman’s position is that there should be no expansion of aviation at all.

[Andy McDonald]

I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to provide some clarity from the Dispatch Box about the breach of the CO₂ limits that I have just described, but instead he asks that question. In fact, we know that we are talking about considerably more than that. It is utterly absurd for the Government to ask the House to vote on expanding Heathrow without a plan for reducing aviation carbon emissions. Under the revised NPS, there is a very real risk that aviation’s carbon emissions will be higher in 2050. Furthermore, the Department for Transport is not due to publish a new aviation strategy until 2019.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is right that the environmental case against Heathrow expansion has always been unarguable; what has changed is that the economic case is also now very strongly against it. The net present value is plus or minus £2 billion to £3 billion over time. The case for Gatwick, which would be much easier to build and would involve far less grief, is much easier than that, so whether on economic or environmental grounds, Heathrow is a non-starter.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes a powerful point, which many commentators have identified, about the various economic arguments.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

I will not take any further interventions; it was well timed, but too late.

This Parliament will not know the Government’s plan for keeping UK aviation emissions at or below 2005 levels by 2050 until next year—talk about carts and horses! This scenario, where aviation targets are exceeded, would place an unreasonably large burden on other UK industries. I do not believe it is acceptable or fair to ask other sectors of the economy to make reductions to compensate for aviation emissions. The UK Government call themselves a climate leader, but only last week the EU raised its carbon reduction target to 45% by 2030, which is above that set by the Paris agreement, whereas this week the UK Government support an aviation plan that will increase emissions without a clear plan to reduce them. The revised NPS is simply not consistent with the obligations set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. We are being asked to give the Transport Secretary a blank cheque on the environment. On the issue of climate change, this fails to meet test 2.

Airspace modernisation is vital to the future of this country. Only through modernisation can we improve the structure and management of UK airspace, to handle growth and realise the economic benefits. The process and consultation to make these changes is at an early stage and there are many years ahead, yet airspace modernisation is critical to noise levels at an expanded Heathrow. Once again, we are being asked to accept promises on noise without a broad framework for the future. That is not good enough and this is yet another gaping hole in the Government’s case.

It is difficult to clearly assess the noise impact at Heathrow until the airspace modernisation programme is more advanced. Precise details of new flight paths will not be known for several years, and this represents another significant uncertainty. The Transport Committee’s excellent report called on the Government to set clear noise targets, but in the revised NPS they are not proposing any new targets. Do they really care about noise levels?

The revised NPS states that

“the Secretary of State will consider air quality impacts over the wider area likely to be affected, as well as in the vicinity of the scheme. In order to grant development consent, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that, with mitigation, the scheme would be compliant with legal obligations that provide for the protection of human health and the environment.”

That provides no indication as to how the air pollution can be managed. Much of the additional air pollution is largely outside Heathrow’s control. The Government have been repeatedly dragged through the courts over their failure to address the air pollution crisis, so it would be generous to assume that they will now suddenly address these issues in the context of a decision over an expanded Heathrow. That the key issue of tackling air pollution could turn on the judgment of the Transport Secretary does nothing to afford us any comfort whatsoever.

What of the regional economic benefits? The revised NPS says that if the third runway is built, up to 15% of all new routes will need to be reserved for the domestic market. There are considerable uncertainties around that pledge. The Government say that public service obligations will ensure compliance, but “up to 15%” could mean as little as 1%, and PSOs apply to cities rather than airport-specific locations. Late last week, the Government announced they would use PSOs to ensure domestic connectivity. They have not said where they will be used, how many will be used, what percentage of routes will be guaranteed through this method or if they will be permanent. In addition, PSOs would make domestic routes exempt from air passenger duty. That tax cut was not considered in the business case, and the Government have not stated its cost to the public purse. Surely this represents an uncosted subsidy to Heathrow Airport Limited. It is simply incredible that the Government would announce such a subsidy at the eleventh hour before a vote on the NPS.

The Government’s stated case for expanding Heathrow is dependent on a number of other conditions being met, including measures to constrain growth at regional airports in order to ensure that Heathrow expansion can meet the UK’s climate change obligations. I cannot support the restriction of other UK airports to facilitate expansion at Heathrow. Rather than improve regional connectivity, it has been said that a third runway at Heathrow will have a substantially negative impact on the UK aviation industry as a whole. Regional airports will also lose around 17 million passengers per annum, as Heathrow’s share of the UK aviation market rises from 21% today to 27% in 2050.

Government claims for the economic benefit of expanding Heathrow do not include the costs of the improved public transport links needed to keep road traffic at current levels. Transport for London estimates that expenditure of £10 billion to £15 billion is required for new surface access; Heathrow and the Airports Commission say the figure will be closer to £5 billion—so what is the correct figure? The absence of clear proposals, projections and costs in relation to surface access are a major failing of the revised NPS. Labour is not satisfied that the taxpayer interest will be protected. We are also concerned that the lack of a clear surface-access plan will result in yet more transport investment being sucked into the south-east of England. Furthermore, our view is that there are too many uncertainties that could undermine the economic benefits of a third runway at Heathrow. We are not assured that the number of jobs that have been promised will be forthcoming, given the number of variants that could undermine the economic benefits of the case.

For all those reasons, I am not convinced that regional connectivity and shared economic benefits will in fact be delivered by the proposed expansion. I acknowledge the case made for expansion, but I believe that the price of a third runway at Heathrow is currently simply too high. I am greatly aware that right hon. and hon. Members from all parties will wish to weigh up the issues carefully before they cast their vote, and I of course utterly respect the decision that each and every one of them will make. But, given my grave misgivings as to the process itself and the manner in which it has been conducted, I can only conclude that to proceed at this juncture, given all the circumstances, would be the wrong thing to do.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I would respect the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, if he accepted a runway in his constituency south of Heathrow, but he refused.

Look at how much corporation tax has been paid by this company over the past 10 years: £24 million. It has been borrowing to pay dividends more than its profit ratios. That is the nature of the company we are dealing with. It is a company and an operation at Heathrow that has lied to my constituents. When it got the fifth terminal, a letter was sent to my constituents. I had meetings with the directors of Heathrow and they were beside me saying, “We will not seek a third runway.” Within 12 months, they were lobbying for one. We were told by a former Conservative Prime Minister, “No ifs, no buts, no third runway”. They never told us that promise was for one Parliament. The existing Prime Minister backed that guarantee to my constituents.

These are the consequences for my constituents that hon. Members need to know: 4,000 homes will go; 8,000 to 10,000 people will be forcibly removed from their community, the biggest forced removal of human beings since the Scottish highland clearances; and a church, a temple, community centres, open spaces and even our hospices are now threatened. That is what it means to my community. Two schools—where will they go? It is no good offering them 125% compensation. You cannot compensate for the loss of your whole community. We have a housing crisis in our area on a scale not seen since the second world war. We cannot house our existing population. Where will they go? Two schools, at least, closed, with another one, most probably, after that. We have not got enough places for our existing pupils. Where will they go? We cannot find sites to build the new schools we currently need.

Those who get forced out might be the lucky ones, because the ones left behind are already breathing in air that is already poisoned above 2010 EU limits. No effective mitigation measures have been demonstrated to us tonight. We know the health consequences—respiratory conditions and cancer—yet the Government have refused to undertake a comprehensive health assessment.

[Andy McDonald]

Is my right hon. Friend as surprised as I am that there is nothing specific in the revised national policy statement that adequately sets out a framework for dealing with our air pollution crisis?

[John McDonnell]

We have 9,000 people a year in London dying from air pollution, yet there is nothing in the Government proposals that goes anywhere near even thinking about tackling these issues. Those are the consequences for my community, despite all the promises they have been given that their homes would be secure. These are villages that have been there for 1,000 years, to be wiped off the face of the earth—and for what? To ensure that a company maximises its profits. This is a company owned by Ferrovial, which was founded by Franco contracts, by the Chinese state and by Qatar. It is shipping profits abroad, rather than reinvesting in this country. That is what this vote is about tonight.