Road Safety: Schools

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I ask them to limit their speeches to around four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on securing this important debate and on her excellent contribution.

One key aspect of road safety around schools is drop-off and pick-up time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) has mentioned. I took action on that issue previously as a councillor—I continue to take action on it as an MP—working with fellow councillors, the local authority, the school leadership, the police and residents at Oakfield primary academy, where there had been problems the likes of which have been alluded to.

In Warwickshire, Eastlands primary school in my constituency was the site of a county council school street pilot scheme. Prior to that, there was what the council described as “inconsiderate parking”, “congestion”, and sometimes “complete gridlock” and a “threat to safety”. As I am sure we can all agree, that is a perennial problem, but the school street approach can help. In the case of the pilot scheme, restrictions were introduced using a traffic order. Two park-and-stride car parks gave parents alternative places to park and a new school crossing patrol on a busy road was implemented, all of which helped.

My experience in this space has led me to some observations, which the Minister will perhaps consider. Far more people are driving their children to school now than ever before. We may be able to do things with more public transport, safer cycle paths and more active lifestyles and walking, which are relevant to Government priorities for the NHS and transport in the long term. Some schools are in tightly packed residential streets, and that cannot be overcome in the short, medium or perhaps even long term. More children are attending schools away from their home address through either parental choice or local authority allocation. That can have an effect, because more journeys are being taken, so perhaps more work can be done on capacity.

Council enforcement can be done only when traffic regulation orders are in place, and they can be created only when a proper survey has taken place. Again, resources will then be an issue. I have spoken about this to the police, to which the public often turn. It can enforce only in some cases, and, with the best will in the world, it will never be able to enforce in this matter regularly. It is therefore vital that a partnership approach is used, whereby the school leadership liaises with parents and educates students, local residents are involved in discussions so that their frustrations are heard, the council and local councillors are aware and active, and the police are kept informed. I have tried to use that approach, and I have liaised with local residents. In the case of Oakfield primary, in my constituency, I encouraged a local business, Cemex, to pay for cartoon signs—I am sure we have all seen them around schools—designed to prevent people parking on grass verges or kerbs near the school. That has helped, as well.

More broadly, schools can consider other innovative options, such as arranging for students in some areas to walk to school. However, I am acutely aware that we need not to overburden hard-pressed teachers with additional responsibilities. They are already, quite understandably, reluctant to become quasi-traffic enforcement officers when dealing with people who are, after all, the parents of their students. I therefore welcome the Government’s renewed guidance, helping councils to deliver school streets that work for schools and local communities. I also commend the Government’s Active Travel England agency for recently releasing guidance to local authorities to help them implement school streets. It is important work.

In conclusion, there is no panacea, sadly, but more can definitely be done. I am glad that Warwickshire county council, working with local borough councils, hopes to introduce more school street schemes, focusing on primary schools. Those schemes can have a profound effect on improving the health of young people, reducing the risk of disagreements between parents and local residents, and, most importantly, making our schools much safer for our young people.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Would the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) like to make some remarks? We will then move on to the Front Bench at eight minutes past.

Airport Expansion

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

I thank my hon. Friend for his chairmanship of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I was a proud member for many years, looking at the circular economy, which this Government are taking forward. The Government have committed to delivering greener transport, including through SAF, airspace modernisation and the other measures that I laid out. I am proud of that range of measures. The Front-Bench across this Department are decarbonising the transport sector further and faster in the first six months of this Government than in 14 years of the last.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The Minister has made a great deal of the position of my party on Heathrow airport. As he is such a fan of our Focus leaflets, I am sure he will know from my own that I have consistently raised airport noise, opposition to the expansion of Heathrow, sustainable aviation fuel and airspace management in this place. How will he make the airspace management plan fit with any forthcoming emissions and capacity management framework? We have yet to hear from the Government about that, but the Liberal Democrats consider it vital to the future sustainability of the air transport industry in this country.

[Mike Kane]

I am generally very grateful for the Liberal Democrats’ support for airspace modernisation. It is complicated and difficult. We are throwing our hat over the wall in trying to reach it. It will be easier in certain parts of our country than others, but we have already taken action. We set up the airspace modernisation design service. We are bringing the best and the brightest together. If we can make the planes fly in a straight line, we will use less carbon. It is the lowest of low-hanging fruit for carbon reduction in the aviation sector, and we are moving at pace on it.

Flight Cancellations

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I can sympathise with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I thank him for tabling the urgent question, because we consistently have the same problem at Edinburgh and other Scottish airports, with a lack of connectivity and the disruption that that causes. I understand that the weather was a key reason for the delays this weekend, but another was delays at air traffic control, which is under pressure because of staff shortages and rising traffic. Eurocontrol, the main organisation supporting European airspace, has warned that to keep passengers safe and stop disruption better co-ordination is required between aircraft operators, airports and others across the continent.

Will the Minister tell me what conversations the Secretary of State has had with European partners on building resilience in air traffic control? Do the Government have confidence in the robustness of air traffic control in the UK to serve our connectivity properly?

[Mike Kane]

Officials engage regularly with their counterparts across Europe and the European Union. The Government have committed to airspace modernisation, which will improve resilience. I look forward to support from Liberal Democrat Members in the near future as we progress towards modernising airspace right across our great nation and nations.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats’ first principle is to put the rail user at the heart of any new arrangements for rail passenger services. We are ultimately agnostic about public or private ownership so long as what the Government propose clearly delivers the improvements on our railways that are so desperately needed. I thank Ministers for their prior engagement and for today’s debate. I am aware that the Bill is only a step towards more comprehensive legislation later in this Parliament. We Liberal Democrats have tabled three amendments to address three core issues that are relevant to the Bill but might become even more relevant to any future Government plans.

Amendment 21 is aimed at keeping passenger experience under review. Public confidence in our rail system has been falling year on year. Greater scrutiny is needed of how nationalisation will impact day-to-day travel. Our amendment will ensure that getting a fair deal for passengers is the guiding principle of the Bill.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that an essential part of that is addressing the problems that the railways face now? Although the Liberal Democrats are agnostic on nationalisation, as my hon. Friend says, the problems that customers face now are about pricing and timetabling, and this Bill will not address them.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and repeat that it remains to be seen how quickly that can be addressed. That is really our main point—we will scrutinise the Government on how quickly these changes can be delivered, because that is what all our constituents are really asking for.

Our amendment would ensure that an annual report was published on the effects of public sector contracts, particularly on the ticketing system. Fare hikes, delays and cancellations all contribute to a loss of confidence. Despite that, passenger numbers are up; people want to use our railway as a clean, green way to travel. We agree with the Government that competition is not working as intended, but we cannot expect nationalisation to be a silver bullet that solves all the issues with our rail services. It is therefore vital that the Government get a clear picture and are fully transparent about the public experience throughout the change.

The current ticketing system is simply not fit for purpose. Complicated and inconsistent ticketing is a barrier to rail travel. If we are to meet our climate commitments, green travel must be encouraged. I often hear from my constituents that they find it hard to understand when a ticket is best value for money, which highlights the need to simplify the entire system. When people buy a ticket, the best value fare should be clear and should be displayed first. There have been cases where operator-owned ticket machines have had an in-built bias to sell their own company’s tickets even if they are not the best value. Commuters should not have to jump through hoops to find the most effective price.

Amendment 21 would also require a look at the effects of nationalisation on digital season tickets and compensation for delays and cancellations. Delay repay is another big issue on our rail network. In the last reporting year, train operators closed 7.6 million delay compensation claims. That figure was 30% higher than the previous year even though passenger journeys were only 16% higher. However, current operators treat delay repay claims differently: while some passengers can get automatic compensation if their journey is delayed, others have to fill in complicated forms and have to wait. A unified approach to delay repay is clearly needed to improve passenger experiences, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) that it is absolutely vital that passengers see such changes very quickly, rather than having to wait for a whole-system change.

The same is also the case with season tickets. Annual passes for similar-length rail journeys differ immensely across the country depending on the operator. An annual report scrutinising how nationalisation affects those inconsistencies is essential to reducing them. To ensure that passengers get a fair deal from nationalisation, I urge Members to support our amendment 21.

Amendment 20 aims to bring people further confidence as rail companies are brought into public ownership. The amendment would establish an independent body to review contracts made by the Transport Secretary and public companies. That body would put the customer at the heart of services, as well as delivering, putting commuters first and holding operators to account. The amendment would ensure that if the independent body did not agree with a proposed contract, the Secretary of State must explain to Parliament why they were going ahead. To give the public confidence in our railways, the process of contract allocation must be kept under scrutiny and be fully transparent.

Our third amendment is amendment 22, which would require the Government to review how the transition to public ownership affects services such as Merseyrail and Transport for London. Those services are already under public control, but in those cases the control is local, not national. The amendment would allow more services to be operated by local public bodies in the future—we have discussed that in our pre-meeting. The review would not simply look at direct impacts, but engage with the local public bodies themselves on their capacity and their wish to deliver such services.

If the new Government are serious about devolution, the option for combined authorities to deliver services must be on the table. We have already seen how devolved authorities can deliver rail services effectively. Transport for London and Merseyrail are two such examples. If devolved authorities wish to deliver rail services, there must be a way for them to have discussions with central Government. I understand that such a proposal might be for the future, but it is important we put a marker down here. Amendment 22 provides a mechanism for that process.

Nationalisation must be a means to an end. The public at large do not care who is running the trains as long as there are good services and travel is affordable. Our Liberal Democrat amendments would ensure that the legislation has the passenger at the heart of any changes and that the public get value for money.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

My right hon. Friend is spot on, as always. I thank him for his work, because ultimately that project would not have got off the ground without the campaigning and partnership that he provided. It just shows that a superb MP working in the community, and the Access for All stations fund, which has delivered 240 projects and will deliver more, is a winning partnership.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Passengers in my constituency of Edinburgh West face consistently overcrowded trains from ScotRail, which was taken into public ownership by the Scottish Government in 2022; an unreliable service from Avanti; and now a staggering pilot from London North Eastern Railway, in which east coast main line prices from Waverley to King’s Cross will increase by 123% in some cases. Does the Minister agree that that is not providing a good service to the people of Edinburgh, or those anywhere else on that line? It is the wrong move when we are trying to encourage more people on to the railways.

[Huw Merriman]

The trial with LNER tries to give passengers greater flexibility. They can now get on a train 70 minutes either side of the one that they booked, rather than just the one fixed train. Only 11% of fares are impacted in that trial, and 55% are better value than before. Working with our partners at LNER, we are trying to flatten out demand, rather than having crowded trains followed by quieter trains. We hope to change the number of passengers on trains, which would make for a better service overall. I will happily write to the hon. Lady, because I believe that the trial has great merits. We sometimes have to be bold and try fares and ticketing reform. If we do not, we will never change the system that many criticise for being too complex.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

We recognise this important issue. The Secretary of State has had the question put to him by local stakeholders. He is considering the matter and will respond in due course.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to support local authorities to transition to low-emission buses.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

Our policy has been to support the introduction of zero-emission buses, which will reduce emissions, support manufacturing and improve the passenger experience. The Government are committed to supporting the introduction of 4,000 zero-emission buses and achieving an all zero-emission bus fleet across the UK. I am pleased to inform the House that since February 2020, an estimated 4,200 zero-emission buses have been funded across the UK, including Scotland, of which 1,600 are on the road.

[Christine Jardine]

Lothian Buses, which covers my constituency, has removed 15,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from its footprint, including by introducing several electric buses. Together with the tram and the low-emission zone, that is helping to reduce pollution, particularly in Corstorphine, which has one of the worst air pollution records in the country. Would the Government consider giving all local authorities greater powers and resources to franchise bus services and simplify the application system, to reverse the ban on local services setting up their own companies? How will the Government improve the measures already mentioned and introduced, as we fight to tackle what is still 25% of the pollution that we face every day?

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Lady for her multiple questions. The Government have committed to look into municipal buses by the end of the Parliament. On devolution, we are happy to work with local authorities right across England and Wales on devolution settlements and what more can be done. I was delighted to visit Lothian Buses to see its fantastic red, white and gold livery right across the streets of Edinburgh and the wider region. I saw the excellent work it is doing on the ground, not just on local bus service provision but being a responsive service to the local community she represents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call Christine Jardine.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

T2. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I promise that I will not ask for multiple answers—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can Members please observe the proceedings? It is important.

[Christine Jardine]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I promise that I will only ask for one answer this time.

Without a price stability mechanism for sustainable aviation fuel, which will be crucial in bringing down our carbon footprint, the UK risks falling behind the SAF mandate by 2030. A homegrown sustainable aviation fuel industry could contribute £2 billion a year to this economy. In order for that to happen—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Make a guess at that, Minister. I am not going through another five minutes.

Rail Ticket Offices

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I would certainly be delighted to meet him and any other hon. and right hon. Members who wish to meet me to discuss this issue. Again, let me set out the process, which has been triggered by the train operators setting out their plans. There is a period of time— 21 days—for members of the public to respond. There is then a 35-day period for the transport groups, London TravelWatch and Transport Focus, to assess what is being said at each station. If they are not convinced, they will work with the train operator, and if that mechanism cannot reach an agreement on these matters, it will go to its ultimate stage, which is with the Secretary of State.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Many Members have mentioned the impact on those with accessibility problems, and I would urge the Minister to take that into account. For my constituents in Edinburgh West, the closures announced by LNER, CrossCountry, Avanti West Coast and TransPennine all affect stations on the main line route. Can the Minister tell us how he is going to address the perception, which is growing, that people are not being encouraged on to public transport, and that accessibility to the south of the United Kingdom from Scotland, particularly from Edinburgh, is being undermined?

[Huw Merriman]

As part of this process, a number of stations will not be included. They tend to be bigger hub stations, as we call them, so Edinburgh is not included in that regard. I may be in danger of repeating myself, but the reason I sat down on the very first day this came up with those who represent disability and accessibility groups is that I was concerned they would feel that such a change may not be a positive for them. I wanted to work with them to understand how we can make this change positive, and how we can deploy more staff into the spaces where they will be able to access them more than they can right now. I continue to work with those groups, and I give the hon. Member the assurance that that process will remain. Of course, after the consultation and at the end point, all the current accessibility requirements will have to be met under these proposals, as they are under the existing set-up.

Heathrow Airport Expansion

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. An expanded Heathrow would see an additional 175,000 trips every day. That is more than the daily rail arrivals to the whole of Birmingham, yet the proposal does not have a plan for how to deal with it. I shall say more on that later. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

What about green aviation? We are told that green aviation and green tech will catch up. Are we close to the breakthrough in alternative fuels, carbon capture or battery-powered planes that would make an expanded Heathrow sustainable and viable? No, we are not. In 2010, the aviation industry pledged to source 10% of its fuels from sustainable sources by 2020. We are in 2023; how is that going? Only 0.05% are sustainable fuels. There are no electric aircraft currently in development that could be commercially viable for long-haul flights. The green aviation revolution that could make the Heathrow expansion environmentally viable is a long way from taking off.

So what is the case against? I will talk about climate change, air quality, noise and transport. First, on climate change, the expansion is fundamentally incompatible with the Government’s own net zero target. Heathrow is the largest single polluter in the UK. Its emissions account for half of all UK aviation emissions. Its expansion proposals of 260,000 additional flights a year, on top of the existing 480,000, will increase carbon dioxide emissions from air travel by a staggering 9 million tonnes a year. As I said, that is more than the entire carbon emissions of Luxembourg.

The Government recently published their jet zero strategy; is that the answer? No. The strategy makes no attempt to set out what share of the transport carbon budget the aviation sector should be allocated or how that would be divided between airports, and it fails to articulate circumstances in which airport expansions could be compatible with climate change targets. Heathrow is just one of many airports across the UK with ambitions to expand, yet the Government has no overarching framework to guide airport expansion plans throughout the country.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an important speech. I also have an airport in my constituency, and it is investigating sustainable fuels. The French Government have announced that they will ban short flights when a train is an alternative; does the hon. Lady agree that such ideas should be part of the strategy we hear about from the Government? Part of the net zero strategy should be to reduce the number of ridiculously short flights in this country. I do not mean island-hopping; I mean flights between cities that are unnecessary and no one would even think about taking if we had better train routes and train services.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for that useful intervention. The need for investment in other areas instead of this expansion is the whole argument.

If we are really going to meet the net zero target, we cannot rely on the increasing long-haul flights that we are talking about at Heathrow. Can the Minister be clear about the trade-offs? If a third runway is built, does that mean that growth must be curbed at all other UK airports in order for the UK not to breach its carbon targets?

Air quality is also a major issue for my constituents in Putney. The additional 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that an expanded Heathrow will produce must end up somewhere. Unfortunately for residents in Putney, it will be dumped on our high street, school playgrounds and green spaces such as Putney heath.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this vital debate. We MPs across south-west London, along with councillors and thousands of our residents, are absolutely united on this issue. Liberal Democrats across south-west London have a saying that we want a better Heathrow, not a bigger Heathrow. We are not on a crusade against the airport. We recognise the importance that it brings to our communities, capital city and country, in terms of trade, tourism and employment, but we are unequivocally opposed to a third runway at Heathrow. The project is dead in the water on every possible front.

The hon. Member for Putney made a powerful environmental case against expansion, and the economic outlook is also bleak for airport expansion. The project is not financially viable for Heathrow itself, which is already in £15 billion of debt, and it is about time that the Conservative Government actually come out, unequivocally recognise that the economic, environmental and health case is absolutely clearcut, and take it off the table. We have had broken promises from this Conservative Government in the past, and we need them to come out and oppose a third runway at Heathrow.

We know that, according to the Department for Transport’s own calculations, the economic benefits are modest at best. At worst, the project would have a net-present value of minus £2.2 billion. The environmental argument against Heathrow expansion is simple: the more planes in the sky and idling on the runway, the more damaging emissions we pump into our atmosphere. As the hon. Member for Putney said, Heathrow is the biggest source of carbon emissions in the UK. If a third runway goes ahead, growth at all other UK airports would have to be halted to keep within our carbon targets, which sinks the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

With the World Meteorological Organisation recently warning that we will breach the 1.5° temperature increase in the next few years, now is the time to invest in a cleaner aviation industry and develop green technologies to cut back on emissions. One resident went as far as saying to me that building a third runway at Heathrow would be a bit like opening a brand-new coal mine slap bang in the middle of south-west London. Based on their voting record in recent months, perhaps that is why the Conservatives are so supportive of it.

At a local level, increased capacity at the airport would bring much more congestion on to our roads. That would mean more air pollution and dirty air, which my constituents and their children would breathe.

Another important consideration, which has already been referenced, is the level of constant noise from the airport experienced by residents day and night. There is a real sense in the community, and among local action groups such as Teddington Action Group, that the noise pollution is just not taken seriously by this Government. It is not monitored properly; its effects on public health have not been thoroughly investigated or reviewed; and adequate protections have not been put in place. That is despite plenty of evidence in respect of both the mental and physical health impacts of noise pollution and our children’s ability to concentrate and learn. The Liberal Democrats want to see an independent noise ombudsman reinstated and far more robust regulations on night flights, especially during the summer months, and to look at making noise a statutory nuisance.

A third runway would only intensify disruption, particularly with the prospect of airspace modernisation, whereby we could see a significant redrawing of flightpaths over London, with fewer planes over some parts of the capital but increased flights and much more intense noise in other areas. The term “noise sewers” has been used in other countries that have implemented airspace modernisation.

[Christine Jardine]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and some powerful points. She mentioned airspace modernisation; I wonder, listening to what she has to say, whether if she shares my concern that any attempt to expand Heathrow at this stage might undermine airspace modernisation and delay any improvements we have been hoping for over the past few years.

[Munira Wilson]

The problem with airspace modern-isation, and the feedback I get from some of my community groups, is that the process is not transparent at all. We have no idea whether there will be benefits or a worsening of noise impacts on the local communities around Heathrow airport. That, combined with a third runway, spells a lot of trouble for our local communities.

Since the last general election, we have gone from one Prime Minister who threatened to lay down in front of the bulldozers at Heathrow—but who was tellingly missing for a critical vote in the House of Commons on Heathrow expansion—to another who actively supported expansion, although luckily her tenure was short lived. Our current Prime Minister has taken a leaf out of their book, talking tough on climate change and net zero while instructing his Chancellor to slash air passenger duty on domestic flights. I hope the Minister will clarify the Prime Minister’s position on the third runway project. In particular, as the hon. Member for Putney said, we need a review of the airports national policy statement; it is five years old, and the analysis is completely out of date, especially given the pandemic. We need a commitment to a national aviation strategy that addresses the sector as a whole, not just Heathrow.

To conclude, I speak on behalf of thousands of residents across Twickenham and south-west London, as well as London Liberal Democrat MPs, Richmond Council and members of the Greater London Assembly, when I say that we wholeheartedly and vehemently oppose a third runway at Heathrow airport. We will mobilise against any further plans. It is bad for the environment, bad for local communities, bad for our net zero targets and even potentially bad for our economy. It is time that the Government woke up, smelt the kerosene and opposed Heathrow expansion.

Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I recognise that this measure was based on data carefully collected. However, does the Minister not accept that the figure of once a week would bring into scope an awful lot of shipping with seafarers who do have a close connection to the UK, and that once a week might be a fairer figure?

[Mr Holden]

I understand what the hon. Lady is saying and I will address that point directly in a moment, after I have gone through the main points of why we are pushing back on this suggestion. The rationale for the high-frequency criterion is to ensure that seafarers affected by the policy are only those with close ties to the UK by virtue of their working on services that regularly call in UK ports. That covers the overwhelming majority of passenger ferries. We have assessed this using Department for Transport data, which has also been backed up by the Chamber of Shipping’s written evidence to the Public Bill Committee. Crucially, this focuses the Bill on the short-sea services, clearly justifying the seafarers’ connections to the UK and therefore a UK-equivalent level of pay protection. Reducing the frequency with which services must call at UK ports before coming into the scope of the Bill’s requirements to include weekly services would dilute the concentration of the Bill in protecting seafarers with the closest ties. It would then bring into scope some deep-sea container services which we do not feel can legitimately be said to have close ties to the UK. Services that might visit many ports in a foreign country, perhaps coming to the UK once a week, would also be included, which gives rise to the question of whether we would be legislating for another country.

Furthermore, the national minimum wage equivalence will apply only in UK waters and therefore would extend to a cargo service dropping off once a week for a matter of hours, with marginal if any impact. The proposal therefore has multiple downsides, and I hope the hon. Lady can understand why we are looking at it in that sphere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I will write to the right hon. Gentleman about that to see whether we can publish anything further. I just say that a full consultation took place, and the details of it have been fully in the public domain. We have arrived at this position having considered all the implications of the proposal. On a major number of issues the Government have moved significantly in this area. I have listened to Members from across the House and in the other place to address their concerns. However, on this specific issue the scope would be widened to operators that really are not UK operators; they are from other countries and would just be popping into UK ports. That would have major international implications, as I am sure he can understand.

[Christine Jardine]

rose—

[Mr Holden]

I will take one final intervention.

[Christine Jardine]

I appreciate that the Minister is giving up a lot of time on this. However, would most people listening to this debate not feel that vising a port once a week is a regular, substantial amount of presence, and that we would be missing out a substantial number of people?

[Mr Holden]

I think the hon. Lady is incorrect on this point. We are talking about someone based overseas who visits a UK port once a week for a matter of hours and who may be operating in the territorial waters of another country for the overwhelming majority of their working time. This would be similar to someone employed under a British lorry driver’s licence going over to do deliveries in another country as well. There is this idea that we would suddenly change things for those few hours that people were perhaps at a UK port, but that would be inconsistent with our obligations and it raises real issues associated with our interactions with other port operators, particularly across the North sea, and with our friends and allies in Europe, who are looking at similar legislation. We have been working on that with our European partners. We are already in conversations with the French on this issue and on others. The UK is leading the way on legislation in this area of regular services, but we have to do it in such a way that it also fits with international maritime law. We also need to ensure that we are on the same page as our friends and partners across the continent.

Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). Like him, I feel that a consensus is emerging in this place tonight. We all welcome the Bill, but we welcome it as a first step and see the flaws in it. I would like to reassure the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) that there is not really any opposition to the Bill, and reassure her constituents that everybody in this House feels very strongly about what happened to those workers who had given their careers, and in many cases their lives, to P&O.

As the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) said, P&O is an iconic company in this country. To many people, it epitomises our seafaring tradition and the merchant marine—people see that in P&O. Like Cunard, P&O is synonymous with the image of Britannia and the waves, so when I look back to March, it is not easy to put aside the shock that came with the news that it had treated almost 800 of its staff so shamefully. It is clear from the reaction in the House tonight that none of us here has been untouched by what we remember from that time. The RMT estimates that 75% of those 800 UK seafarers worked on the Dover-Calais route, as well as on services out of Hull, Liverpool, Cairnryan and Larne. Just about every port in the UK was affected and had constituents who were affected, and landlocked constituencies had families who were affected by what happened. What was also significant about it was that it exposed a major flaw in UK employment legislation as it affects seafarers, and the potential for that major flaw in UK law to be exploited by others.

The Liberal Democrats support the Bill, which has three main principles at its core. Seafarers with close ties to the UK who work aboard services in scope of the Bill but do not qualify for the UK national minimum wage will receive fair pay. The Bill will disincentivise the race to the bottom that we have talked about in employment standards among operators. It will protect the reputation of the UK maritime sector, of which P&O is such an important part, following the disgraceful actions of that company.

However, there are flaws in the Bill. The Liberal Democrats in the other place had three main concerns: the lack of sufficient protections for seafarers; compliance with international conventions and agreements—of which the Bill potentially challenges a number—and the practicalities of implementation and enforcement, which have been raised by the UK Chamber of Shipping, the British Ports Association and trade unions. The RMT in particular wants to see changes to the Bill, including amendments to prevent port-hopping and other avoidance techniques by operators, and to introduce collectively agreed standards for roster patterns, pension rights, crewing levels and training schemes.

When the Bill moves forward into Committee, I urge the Government to take on board those concerns and to ensure that the Bill is improved in the way that I think we all—on both sides of the House—would like to see, for the wellbeing of seafarers, not just at the moment but in the future, in an industry that is in the DNA of this country.