Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging (Amendment) Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As a Bristol MP, I suppose I have to apologise for daring to take part in a debate that is primarily about our capital city, but millions of our constituents visit as tourists and come here to work, and as a nation we all want to see it as a healthy, safe and pleasant place for people to visit, and to live and work in, regardless of which constituency we represent.
I want to challenge the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who brought in the Bill, for saying that this is not an air pollution issue. It is clearly not an air pollution issue from his point of view. We know why he has brought the Bill forward: because of the elections coming up on 2 May. It is a desperate last-ditch attempt to try to boost the Conservative vote—and I think we know how that will turn out. Perhaps some Conservative Members ought to be out and about, talking to voters on the doorstep, rather than taking up our time here today, if they really want to influence the result of that election.
The hon. Member, who has left the Chamber now, may not feel that ULEZ is an air pollution issue, but I very much feel that it is because low emissions are a public health issue. In my role as shadow Climate Change Minister, people often come and talk to me about air pollution as though it is primarily a net zero issue, and we have seen some depressing attempts to make net zero part of the anti-woke culture wars by saying that net zero comes at a cost. We saw the Secretary of State for Transport buy into the whole conspiracy theory about 15-minute cities at party conference, which is incredibly depressing. Reducing emissions from transport is obviously very much part of our ambition to meet net zero, but the immediate driver is the need to clean up our air.
We have heard mention of the switch to electric vehicles. It is obviously the long-term objective that we want to ensure that all the vehicles on our roads reach safe emission standards. It was therefore disappointing that the Government rowed back the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles. The signal that that sent to the market and consumers was entirely counterproductive. Although initially there was some resistance to a 2030 target—rather than a 2035 target—within the car manufacturing trade, the trade then got with the programme and was critical of the Government for that row-back, because it affected sales. It had made the switch and was producing EVs; it is still bound by zero emission vehicle mandate, so it is making the new electric vehicles.
The most important thing we can do—this goes to the points about people not being able to afford cleaner vehicles that are compliant with the ULEZ—is to develop a second-hand electric vehicle market as quickly as possible. We do that by increasing new EV sales. The figure has gone down a bit, but it was the case that of new EV sales, 80-something per cent were fleet vehicles. We know that they then come on to the second-hand market pretty quickly. We have to bring down the cost of buying EVs—I can see the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) nodding—and we do not do that by pushing the ban back to 2035; we need to bring it in now.
We also need action on EV charging infrastructure. I will say thank you to the Government for providing some new money for charging infrastructure in the west of England—I think that Bristol is the best place outside London in this regard—but what is lacking is a national strategy to put the infrastructure into places where the market will not meet the need because there is not the necessary footfall, or whatever the driving equivalent is, particularly in our rural areas that depend on tourism. Those travelling down to Devon and Cornwall can use Exeter services, but after that it is pretty difficult to find somewhere to charge a car.
As I have an EV and cannot charge it at home because I live in a block of flats, I welcome the public charging points in Bristol. I spend far too much time sitting in car parks doing Duolingo and practising my very bad Russian while charging my car. It is quite sad when constituents spot me doing that. Although we need more charging points in our cities, including London, this is national infrastructure and we must roll it out to other parts of the country.
As I have said, I believe that the immediate imperative is not reducing transport emissions with the aim of reaching net zero but dealing with air pollution, which we know has a significant impact on people’s health and on children’s health in particular. When I was at school there was just one girl in my class with asthma, but nowadays the majority of kids in any inner-city primary school probably have it. Children are more vulnerable in this regard because their airways are smaller and still developing, because they are closer to traffic fumes because they are small, and because they breathe more rapidly. They are also more likely to develop more serious lung conditions in later life—although of course asthma can be very serious.
Moreover, air pollution affects the lung development of foetuses in utero, and increases the chance of miscarriage. If a mother is exposed to a large volume of air pollution during pregnancy the baby is more likely to be born prematurely and with a lower birth weight, which is correlated with the development of certain health problems as a child grows up. I pay tribute to groups such as Asthma + Lung UK and Mums for Lungs, which has been doing some very good campaigning in my constituency, while St George Breathing Better has been pushing for school street schemes to restrict the entry of high-emitting vehicles, especially when children are going in and out of schools.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I do not know whether my hon. Friend has found this in her constituency, but in mine there has certainly been a significant rise in the incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The response has not been particularly helpful in recent years, in terms of acknowledgment, proper diagnosis and speed of reaction to the problem; but that, too, relates to the air pollution issue.
Kerry McCarthy
I think that is true, and it is also connected with poor housing conditions. We have talked in this place before about the need to ensure that homes are fit for human habitation. A young boy tragically died recently because of the mould in his home. All these things are connected.
Kerry McCarthy
I was on the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee at the time, both of which took part in that inquiry. It was difficult to bring those Committees together, but the inquiry produced a really good, significant report, which we should still pay heed to when we as House think about what to do on this issue going forward.
John McDonnell
There seems to be a focus on motorists, but there is now a multiplicity of electric vehicles. I have got one of them. I used to have an electric bike, but I now have an electric scooter—not a sit-down scooter. I find it particularly effective in my constituency, although to be frank my constituents do frown when I turn up as the MP because they think I should be delivering a pizza. There is a multiplicity of vehicle options that we can deploy to tackle some of these air pollution problems, but we need more incentives from central Government to develop that multiplicity.
Kerry McCarthy
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I did have an e-bike; it was stolen from inside the Houses of Parliament. One would think that there would be nowhere more secure, but when the Queen was lying in state, whoever was acting as her security removed all the bikes and took off a £130 lock—presumably with an angle grinder or something—and my bike was not seen again. Try explaining to the insurance company that it was people from Buckingham Palace or from the Queen’s lying in state who took the lock off! That is another story, though.
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I used to hold the shadow green transport brief, and e-bikes are hugely important in allowing people to do those longer journeys. I could not make it up the hills in Bristol without a bit of extra help from an e-bike, but when it comes to delivery vehicles, one of the issues is deliveries inside the areas covered by zones. If we can have hubs outside the city centres and electric vans or e-cargo bikes making those deliveries, that could have a huge impact. Obviously, everybody making food deliveries and similar things really ought to be using clean modes of transport.
I am conscious of time, so I will finish my point about the Bristol scheme. There were concerns that it would lead people to take diversions and increase pollution outside the clean air zone, but air pollution outside the zone has also been measured as down: it has reduced by 7.8%, because the CAZ has encouraged a modal shift among people. I appreciate that people cannot always afford to make that shift in vehicles, but it has happened.
Another concern raised by opponents was that the CAZ would harm the local economy and communities by discouraging people from coming into the city centre. In fact, the opposite happened: retail footfall across four major retail hotspots in central Bristol actually rose from the previous year. There was also an argument that people would become isolated and stuck at home because they could not afford to pay the £9 charge, but again, that was not the case: the number of journeys into or through the CAZ per month was higher at the end of the year than at the start of the scheme, and the percentage of compliant journeys rose every single month. That is what we want to achieve.
It is the same with the landfill tax, for example. That tax is not about raising money because lots of people are sending stuff to landfill. If a landfill tax is effective, the revenues go down and down, year on year. There is actually an issue with the fact that the tax is not keeping pace with inflation at the moment, but assuming it is effective, the revenues will dwindle—it is the behaviour change that we want to make happen. As I said, ideally we would not have introduced a clean air zone, but we have made it work. It is also worth noting that the Government take £2 from every £9 CAZ charge, which we would very much like to be able to spend in Bristol instead.
Ruth Cadbury
As I have said, I will come on to the detail of the scrappage scheme later. I can address that point, because my constituency is crossed by the north and south circulars, so we have already been there.
As we know, the Bill proposes to amend
“the boundaries of the Greater London Low Emission Zone and Ultra Low Emission Zone”,
and provides that Transport for London—in other words, the London Mayor—
“may not make an order amending those boundaries without the consent of the Secretary of State”.
Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, transport in London is a devolved matter and the responsibility of the Mayor and TfL. As such, Parliament granted the power to make decisions on London-wide road-charging schemes to the Mayor. The proposed changes pose a threat to the powers of the Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority, and devolved places around the country. I am disappointed that the Minister has announced that the Government will support this Bill, given their long-standing position that local road-charging powers are the responsibility of the Mayor and TfL. Any support for such a Bill is regressive and anti-devolution.
The previous Mayor of London, before becoming Conservative Prime Minister, introduced the ULEZ, which came into operation in April 2019. In October 2021, he ensured its extension to the north and south circular roads. The current Mayor of London, as we know, then extended it to all of Greater London in August 2023. The Bill seeks to revert us to having the boundary at the north and south circular roads. I cannot see the logic in that.
Devolution is one of the key issues here, along with tackling air pollution. The ULEZ stems from Government legislation, which local government is required to abide by, and which was first championed in London by a Conservative Mayor of London. Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999—
John McDonnell
I served on the Bill Committee for that Act. At first, the Conservative party opposed the restoration of a Mayor for London and a Greater London Authority, but as we went through the legislation, an element of consensus built up, particularly in the local government community and among London MPs, about the sort of powers that the Mayor and the GLA should have, including around these sorts of issues. There was consensus that if we established these structures, they would need to be properly empowered, and then there was a debate about resourcing. The Bill before us flies in the face of the debate on that Act. As I say, I was on that Committee, and if I remember rightly, Glenda Jackson was the Minister.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank my right hon. Friend, who was a member of the Greater London Council, which was abolished by a Conservative Government who did not like what the Labour London government was doing —so much for respect for local politicians.
Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, transport and air quality in London are devolved matters that are the responsibility of the Mayor and Transport for London. The Bill is an affront to the principle of devolution, and the principle of allowing local leaders to make the decisions needed to deliver local priorities and meet objectives set by national Government. Air pollution is a health crisis. There is a national air crisis. Targets to tackle that are rightly set by central Government. Across the country, the Government have required and encouraged the introduction of clean air zones. The Bill is plainly party political point scoring, given that the Government have required and encouraged many other clean air zones across the country.
The Bill seeks to:
“Amend the boundaries of the Greater London Low Emission Zone and Ultra Low Emission Zone; to provide that Transport for London may not make an order amending those boundaries without the consent of the Secretary of State”.
The boundaries of the zone would be amended, so that the new boundary would be the edge of the inner zone —that is, the new boundary would be the boundary that was put in place in October 2021, before the zone was expanded up to, but not including, the north and south circulars. Given the concerns of drivers coming from Dartford and other places into London, what is the logic of removing ULEZ from outer London but not inner London? Surely the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) represents residents and businesses who drive into central London. Either oppose ULEZ or support ULEZ; this Bill is neither one thing nor the other.
The Bill will prevent TfL from amending the boundaries without the express consent of the Secretary of State. It would restrict the ability of the Mayor of London and TfL to make amendments to the charging area by forcing the Greater London Authority to request permission from the Secretary of State first, and would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consider London election manifesto commitments. It is very bizarre. The Bill means that there will be contradictory decisions made in different parts of the country. The Bill strikes me as being part of a historical antipathy on the part of Conservative Governments to Labour leaders in Greater London.
As others have said eloquently, this Government could do so much more to address air pollution. They could support the Mayor of London’s making the scrappage scheme more generous, so that nobody has any reason not to get rid of their non-compliant vehicle. If the costs for non-polluting vehicles came down, there would be no non-compliant vehicles polluting London. That is important because of the impact that pollution has on our communities and the people of this country.
Air pollution is the No. 1 environmental threat to public health in the UK. It contributes to up to 43,000 premature deaths every year in England. In his 2022 annual report, chief medical officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty outlined that outdoor air pollution in England
“still poses significant health threats”
to adults and children. An increasing body of evidence links air pollution to various cancers, lung and heart disease, dementia and stroke. It puts us all at greater risk of disease and shortens lives.
Furthermore, toxic air is holding back our public services and making it harder to treat other conditions. Public Health England estimates that air pollution will cost the NHS and the social care system £1.6 billion between 2017 and 2025. That rises to £5.56 billion when we include the impact of diseases for which the evidence of an association is less developed and still emerging. By 2035, that figure will reach almost £19 billion unless stronger action is taken. In addition, a report commissioned by the Clean Air Fund concluded that improving air quality could boost the UK economy by £1.6 billion each year, as a result of 3 million additional working days being worked, and a reduction in the rate of early retirement.
In 2019 in London, toxic air contributed to around 4,000 premature deaths. The greatest number of deaths attributable to air pollution were in outer London boroughs, mainly due to the higher proportion in those areas of elderly people, who are more vulnerable to the impact of air pollution. I hardly see her now, but I worked with a wonderful tenant activist in Brentford when I was a councillor. She has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and was confined to bed about 15 years ago; she has not been able to leave her bedroom because of COPD. She has lived all her life in Brentford, which has always had very high air pollution from the coke works and the proximity to the A4 and the M4. She is just one example, but we all know people who suffer from COPD, emphysema and a whole range of other life-limiting and life-damaging conditions.
If no further action is taken to reduce air pollution, around 550,000 Londoners will develop diseases relating to poor air quality in the next 30 years. The cost of that for the NHS and social care system in London alone is estimated to be £10.4 billion by 2050. More than half a million Londoners suffer from asthma and are more vulnerable to the effects of toxic air, and more than half of those people live in outer London. Toxic air is a social justice issue. The poorest Londoners, and Londoners from ethnic minority backgrounds, who are least likely to own a car, are worst affected by toxic air. Only 5% of the lowest-income Londoners own a car, yet they are more likely to suffer from toxic air.
Half of all the children admitted to hospital due to asthma in London are from minority ethnic backgrounds. How can we ever forget the case of Ella Kissi-Debrah, the first person in the world to have air pollution listed as a cause of death on her death certificate? She was a child who grew up in a flat overlooking a busy road in south-east London. I have met Ella’s mother. I have also worked with campaign groups such as Mums for Lungs. Parents are campaigning for us to do the right thing. They support the ULEZ and they ask us—I have had two or three emails on this already this week—to oppose this Bill.
I want to say a little about my constituency and why this issue matters there. From one end of my constituency to the other, we are affected by heavy traffic and, therefore, high air pollution. That can be seen from the maps. We have the A4, the M4 above, and the A316, which comes in from the M3. The north and south circular meet at their westerly point in my constituency. All those roads are all hugely congested and have very polluted air. The last ULEZ boundary went through the middle of my constituency, just inside the north and south circular. There, we have St. Mary’s Catholic Primary School and William Hogarth School next door to each other, alongside the A4 in Chiswick. The pollution at those schools is incredibly high. Parents there, led by one of the fathers, Andrea Carnevali, have campaigned for years to address the issue. Their campaign has meant that the issue of air pollution has got into the public domain locally.
Through their campaigning, those parents managed to get support from the Mayor of London for a green wall along the playground side of the wall to try to catch some of the pollution. They have also worked with paint manufacturers. Remarkably, air pollution levels inside a classroom can be reduced with a particular paint. The school was donated the paint to do measurements and assessments so that everybody could see its efficacy. Sadly, it is too expensive for schools to buy, because it is so specialist, but that is the sort of thing the Government should be supporting.
Until air pollution levels drop—they are starting to drop, and I will come on to that—children who go to St Mary’s, William Hogarth and other schools in my constituency and across London will be going into classrooms, playing in playgrounds, and walking and cycling to and from school in environments that are limiting their life expectancy.
I want to pick up on two letters I received from parents this week. This is from a mother who told me about her son. He used to attend a school situated just one block from the A4 as it goes into London through Chiswick and Hammersmith. She wrote that he
“used to suffer from asthma and he used to tell us how he could breathe so much better when we were away from London.”
He has died from cancer. His mother said:
“Although his primary tumour was in his left humerus, he died from the bone cancer which had spread to his lungs and we now suspect that it had been in his lungs for quite some time.”
That is why she has asked me to oppose the Bill today. She added another thing in her note:
“When I took my son to hospital once for something unrelated, I was on a ward with him with three other children who all had breathing difficulties. When I asked the nurse about this she said they consistently have children admitted for breathing problems.”
That reminded me of my visits to schools over the years, from when I was a councillor and subsequently as an MP. A growing number of schools have to have an asthma strategy and a growing bank of drawers full of asthma inhalers, just in case. Those inhalers are used. More and more children are using asthma inhalers day in, day out so that they are able to make the most of school.
The second email is in a way more general, but it still explains from a constituent’s point of view why I will oppose the Bill today. My constituent wrote:
“As the dad of two young boys who has to expose them to pollution every single day on the school run—particularly over Kew bridge”—
over the river, but highly polluted—
“I support any and all efforts to clean up London’s air.”
The ULEZ is a strategy to protect public health. In lieu of alternative policies that could address this horrific health challenge, the ULEZ is the most effective strategy we have for London, and that is why the Mayor for London is using it. The ULEZ is highly targeted. It helps to take the most polluting vehicles off London’s roads. Vehicles that do not meet certain emissions standards and are not otherwise subject to a grace period, discount or exemption must pay the charge to travel within the city. The charge is set to disincentivise frequent trips in non-compliant vehicles that would otherwise contribute more to air pollution. It incentivises people to change their travel behaviour—for example, to use public transport more or to replace their vehicle—while allowing occasional visitors and infrequent drivers an alternative.
The London-wide expansion has already been highly effective in reducing the proportion and number of older, more polluting vehicles on London’s roads. Data from the London-wide ULEZ first month report shows a 10 percentage point increase in vehicle compliance in outer London, with 95% of vehicles seen driving in London on an average day now meeting ULEZ standards. That is up from 85% when the consultation was launched in May 2022, and means that compliance rates in outer London have nearly caught up with inner London. As has been said, any net revenue raised from ULEZ will be re-invested back into public transport, including the expansion of bus services in outer London. I am not aware of bus services that have been cut, but there is no doubt that we could always do with more bus services—more frequent services, and more night and weekend services—so that fewer people are forced to get their car out in order to get to work, visit friends and relatives, and so on.
The ULEZ has been hugely successful in central and inner London, and has led to significant benefits. Harmful NO2 concentrations alongside roads, such as the A4 and the A316 in my constituency, are estimated to be 46% lower in central London and 21% lower in inner London than they would have been without the ULEZ. The number of schools in areas exceeding legal limits for NO2 fell by an amazing 96%, from 455 in 2016 to just 20 in 2019.
Mums for Lungs is keen to remind us of those figures. It says that on an average day, there are 77,000 fewer unique non-compliant vehicles compared with June 2023, as well as an overall reduction of 48,000 fewer non-compliant vehicles per day within the ULEZ zone. The ULEZ has helped to reduce all harmful NOx by 46% in central London, and by 21% in inner London. Monitors in the capital showed that London enjoyed the cleanest air on record in 2023 as a result of ULEZ.
There is still a long way to go for London to meet World Health Organisation air quality guidelines, and forecasts show that all of London will continue to exceed those guidelines in 2025 and 2030 without further action. That goes back to what the Government are doing. Beyond London, it is the UK Government’s view that clean air and low-emission zones are the preferred option for improving air quality in the shortest possible time, but more must be done to incentivise the use of low and zero-emission vehicles than what the Government are doing.
We are already beginning to see the expected benefits of expanding the ULEZ, and it is estimated that 5 million more people, including the constituents of some Conservative Members, are expected to breathe cleaner air as a result of expanding ULEZ to outer London. Modelling suggests that the current ULEZ is expected to reduce PM2.5 exhaust emissions in outer London by nearly 16%, leading to a 1.5% overall reduction in PM2.5 emissions—those are the ones that cause severe lung disease. It will lead to a reduction of nearly 10% in nitrogen oxide emissions in outer London, and to 146,000 fewer car trips overall, which is an almost 2% reduction. As one of my colleagues said earlier, the worst place to be in terms of air pollution is inside a car, so if fewer car trips are made that should mean that fewer people are exposed to emissions inside a car as well as externally. The ULEZ is expected to save 27,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions in outer London, so this is about not just air pollution, but climate change.
John McDonnell
The issue we have focused on today is respiratory conditions, but, like me, my hon. Friend has been working on air pollution issues around our airport. I do not know whether she will remember this, but when we looked at the matter perhaps 15 years ago, the issue we raised was the incidence of cancer—she has mentioned cancer itself. We then discovered the Chicago airport study, which linked cancer to air pollution and highlighted the significance of that for airports and the surrounding areas. We should not underestimate the impact that ULEZ could have, not only on overcoming respiratory problems, but on reducing cancer incidence in areas such as ours. A number of our key campaigners in the area have suffered from cancer and we consider that it is linked to the air pollution around the airport.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank my right hon. Friend for that. I have worked with him for many years on issues relating to Heathrow. We cannot separate the issues of vehicle congestion and air pollution from the issues around Heathrow airport, which does not do enough to incentivise its staff and its passengers to come to the airport by means other than car.
I said that I would cover the issue of scrappage. Having continued to listen to the concerns of Londoners, the Mayor and TfL expanded the scrappage scheme to provide support for more Londoners. The Mayor is providing a £210 million funding pot for the scrappage scheme to support all Londoners with an eligible car or motorcycle, as well as charities, sole traders and small businesses. It is the most generous scrappage scheme ever seen in the UK. As part of the scheme, any London resident with an eligible non-compliant car can apply for a grant of up to £2,000 to scrap it. Neighbours of mine have a nice little runaround car that cost £2,000 and is compliant, so anyone who says that it is not possible to buy a compliant car for that kind of money has not tried to do it.
Other more extended benefits are available. For example, disabled people who need to scrap or retrofit a non-compliant wheelchair-accessible car can apply for grants of up to £10,000 to scrap or £6,000 to retrofit. Charities, sole traders and businesses with fewer than 50 employees that are registered in London can apply for a grant of £7,000 to scrap a van, £9,000 to scrap a minibus, or £6,000 to retrofit certain vans or minibuses. They can also apply to scrap and replace a van or minibus with a fully electric vehicle, for which the grants are £9,500 and £11,500 respectively. Eligible organisations can scrap or retrofit up to three vehicles. As of 15 March 2024, applicants to the ULEZ scrappage scheme can donate their non-ULEZ compliant vehicle to support humanitarian and medical needs in Ukraine, in return for the same level of grant payment that is available to those who choose to scrap their vehicle.
The Government have provided scrappage funding for other cities, including Birmingham, Bristol, Sheffield and Portsmouth, but they have not provided similar arrangements for specific ringfenced funding for London. That is yet another sectarian attack by the Conservative Government on a Labour Mayor.
Air pollution is a health crisis, and targets to tackle it are rightfully set by central Government. Across the country, the Government have required and encouraged the introduction of clean air zones. The Bill is plainly party political point scoring, given that the Government have required and encouraged many other clean air zones across the country. This Bill is a challenge to the powers of the Mayor of London to make decisions that improve the health of Londoners—all Londoners. If successful, the Bill has the potential to do significant damage, reinforce inequities in public health and undermine the office of the Mayor of London. The Bill is an attack on devolution. The Mayor has a right to introduce measures within his powers to meet statutory targets set by central Government, but they are dictating how a democratically elected Mayor of London should run the city and that is counter to the principles of devolution. Labour is a party of devolution: we created the mayoral model in London, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and promoted local and regional decision making and funding across England. This Bill is an attack not only on devolution, but on measures to improve our environment and the health of our children and our children’s children.
We have to have solutions to the air quality crisis and the cost of living crisis, both nationally and locally. Labour is clear that the Government have a direct responsibility to work with local authorities to enable clean air zones and alternatives to them, and there needs to be a range of alternative air quality improvement methods, including re-routing traffic, land management, speed limits, better public transport and making it easier to acquire non-polluting vehicles. That responsibility should extend to helping to mitigate the impacts of any proposal that clears the strong thresholds set by the Government for a clean air zone. I do not hear about any alternatives from those on the Government Benches, so whose side are the supporters of the Bill on—continuing pollution or finding a solution to stop our children dying? I want to read out the end of the email that I received from the father I mentioned earlier:
“Pollution is too high in London, it makes us sick and long-term exposure can reduce cognitive ability.”
I am proud that London has the world’s largest clean air zone. The ULEZ is a brave and important policy which will be a historic legacy for the London Mayor.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on an issue that is of the utmost importance for my constituents. I draw all Members’ attention to Bill No. 12 on the Order Paper, which is my private Member’s Bill, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (Amendment) Bill. It is about clean air, taking action on mould and giving private landlords more powers to take action—and ensuring that they have to take action. My Bill is connected to the Bill we are debating, because my constituents often suffer the double whammy of living in poorer, cheaper housing that is on a main road. They are very unlikely to have a car—the majority of my constituents do not—and are more likely to suffer from the effects of air pollution and to have mould in their homes. Many of my constituents talk to me about this issue, so if we get to my Bill, I hope all Members will support it.
John McDonnell
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be better for us to spend parliamentary time looking at a comprehensive strategy that tackles air pollution and respiratory conditions, rather than going down this rabbit hole today? The issue she raises with her legislation, which I hope the Government will support, could be a foundation stone for us to tackle the problems of housing and respiratory conditions.
Fleur Anderson
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. There are many better things we could be discussing here than trying to turn back the clock on a progressive and life-changing policy that has been brought in by the Mayor. We could be discussing the Renters (Reform) Bill or action on respiratory health—or a whole number of things that my constituents would like to see us discuss instead of this Bill.
I object to the principle of the Bill, as well as its substance. The Bill proposes to
“amend the boundaries of the Greater London Low Emission Zone and Ultra Low Emission Zone; to provide that Transport for London may not make an order amending those boundaries without the consent of the Secretary of State”,
and legislates for connected purposes. In London, we voted to have a Mayor and voted for who that Mayor would be, and we support our Mayor in London making decisions about our roads. Parliament granted the power to make decisions on London-wide road charging schemes to the Mayor. This Bill is trying to take powers away from the Mayor—it is playing politics with our constitutional arrangements, and it is quite clear why.
Draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023
John McDonnell Excerpts(12 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
I am not sure I want that on the record.
The Minister has responsibility for transport, but I do not think that any Transport Minister, including him—when we have gone through lengthy industrial relations problems on rail and many of them are being concluded, and when we might be entering a period of relative industrial peace on rail—wants to carry out such a hugely provocative act, which could pour petrol on the fire and start the problems up all over again, but these proposals could do that, because people will be angry.
As has been mentioned, the reality is that a number of staff, because of the safety-critical role they play, will lose their basic right to strike, against all the international conventions and international agreements we have signed up to and against the human rights legislation we have endorsed over the years. They will lose their right to strike.
In addition, if we take the evidence that has been put before us all the way through this debate from those in the industry, the train operating companies, when they have been consulted, have clearly said that this legislation and its implementation in this sector will increase disruption. Even the Government’s own original impact assessment said that, and we can see why. It is because the Government are interfering in the basic right of trade unions to represent their members—the very reason they were formed.
But it goes further than that. This statutory instrument is retrospective. We in this House understandably have concerns about retrospective legislation, as most people feel it is unreasonable and irrational, but this legislation, in particular, will apply to current disputes, where ballots have taken place quite lawfully and the dispute is going ahead.
In addition, the onus placed on individual trade unions will almost undermine the operation of the Government’s proposal. Let us take just one example. The employer has to give seven days’ notice—fair enough. The trade union is then required to identify which workers are in the notice and whether they are its members, and it then communicates with them directly. But the employer can come back on the fourth day and vary the order, either to delete or include other workers. To be frank, I think the administrative burden on trade unions is such that it will place the whole process in jeopardy.
There is another element, which I had not noticed before, because it was not debated when the original legislation was brought forward: the introduction of Government control of picket lines in a way that was never rehearsed in the original debate. I do not know how many Government Members have been on picket lines—but we are expecting trade unionists to supervise the picket line and behaviour in relation to communication with members of staff, and to have before them and check through the full list of all those who have been identified as being required to work, when it comes to whether the picket line members can just talk to them.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is even more perverse than, isn’t it? Some of the people identified in the varied work notice could be trade union representatives—those we would expect to be on the picket line maintaining good order. It is a real concern that trade unionists are going to be identified, picked on and bullied through this legislation.
John McDonnell
It is a recipe for further conflict—I think for disaster—at every stage.
The Conservative party prides itself on the defence of civil liberties: not interfering in civil society organisations because that is an intrusive step by the state. But under this statutory instrument and the draft guidance, the Conservatives are actually telling trade unions how to write the letter to their members encouraging them to comply with the legislation and go to work. Now, unions will be almost forced to comply with that draft guidance, because if they use other language, as we have seen in the past, lawyers acting on behalf of the train operating companies or others will pick through it in precise detail. I have never seen this before: the state actually dictating the language to be used in a civil society organisation’s communication with its members. This has gone a step beyond anything we have seen in the past.
Let me explain the reality of industrial relations: if the Government try to prevent people from taking strike action, they will find other mechanisms. We have seen wildcat strikes in the past in our country; we have tried not to encourage them, because we want industrial relations to be orderly, but if people are told to go to work, instead they will go sick, they will work to rule, and they will not be as committed in the job as they should be. It is obvious that that will happen when the industrial relations climate is soured like that.
We have been trying to get absolute clarity from Ministers on whether the use of this legislation by companies is discretionary, and we have been given assurances that it is. But the reality in the rail industry at the moment is that it is not the companies that are engaged in the industrial relations conversations; it is the Government that are determining the industrial relations decisions, so it will be up to the Government, not the TOCs, to decide whether to employ this strategy to defeat the unions or to try to constrain the unions to reform in some way.
The Government should be careful what they wish for. To introduce this legislation and put petrol on the fire at this stage, just when there is the potential for negotiated settlements, a period of industrial relations co-operation and the development of a new spirit in the industry, could be completely counterproductive. The Government should think before they act in this way. I would rather the Minister wait for the impact assessment, which we have been promised but which has not been delivered, so that we can properly consider all the implications of this statutory instrument, and just hold back. What is the rush, particularly when negotiations to resolve some of the final disputes are taking place, and when the Government have withdrawn their plan for the closure of ticket offices, which was one of the major contentious elements of the dispute? This measure is precipitous and provocative, and it is dangerous for the future of our industry in the coming period. I urge the Government to think again.
Joanna Cherry
The Joint Committee made that point in our initial report. A trade union’s involvement in an illegal strike could result in damages of up to £1 million. Any individual worker who participated in a strike that was found to have been illegal could be dismissed. The difficulty with these draft regulations is that workers and trade unions may not be able to foresee the legality of action, which is why the penalties are particularly concerning. We pointed out that lesser penalties for individuals—suspensions rather than dismissals— would make interference with the right to strike more proportionate.
John McDonnell
Let me try to give a concrete example of what the hon. and learned Member is talking about. An employer can take a union to court and argue that it has not performed its role of encouraging workers to go to work. As a result, the strike is rendered illegal. Any individuals who participate in that strike would therefore lose their legal protection against unfair dismissal. We could have employers using this as an opportunity to sack a large number of their workers. They could shed workers at will.
Joanna Cherry
To be frank, these are the kinds of laws and consequences that workers in Russia and Hungary face. We do not want them here in the United Kingdom.
Of course there should be minimum service levels; I am not arguing against that. However, they should be reached through negotiation. When negotiations between unions and the employer break down, there should be arbitration. That is what happens in a lot of other European countries.
I am concerned that the regulations on passenger trains would allow an employer to require 40% of timetabled services to run. That would allow some employees to participate in strikes, but infrastructure services such as signalling would have to be provided between 6 am and 10 pm for a substantial number of priority routes. That gives rise to a risk that employees working on those lines would be effectively prevented from striking.
I have met the TUC to discuss its concerns about these draft regulations. It made a number of points, some of which have been covered already, so I will confine my remarks to those that have not been covered. It said the rail industry is highly complex, so the effect of the draft regulations on the right to strike is difficult to quantify without access to industry information. The impact of any work notice will depend on how an employer seeks to deploy it. The TUC is concerned that the regulations will prevent many workers from taking industrial action. It says that providing 40% of a service is likely to require a lot more than 40% of staff once consideration has been given to cover staff, for instance.
The TUC also fears that many infrastructure staff on priority routes, including signal operators, will be denied the right to strike completely because their presence is necessary for the routes to run. It shares the concern I articulated in my letter to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
The TUC also made the point that the Government seem to have given little consideration to safety and the role of transport workers in ensuring that passengers are safe. Overcrowding could be a real issue when only a partial service is running. Rail workers need to know that they can apply “work safe” principles and, if necessary, stop working. It needs to be clear that, in those situations, staff would not face legal consequences—or political opprobrium from the Government.
The TUC also raised the significant uncertainty over whether the draft regulations include or exempt those working on freight services. Will the Minister clarify that?
The main point I want to raise with the Minister, and on which I want an answer, is this: what assessment have the Government made of the extent to which the article 11 rights of those working on passenger rail infrastructure on priority routes would be protected in cases when services must be provided between 6 am and 10 pm on strike days? A proper, full assessment with regard to the law is required to have been made in that respect in order for this to be proportionate interference with rights under article 11. I do not believe that that has been done, and I do not believe this is proportionate interference.
Huw Merriman
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their points. I should start with the right hon. Member for Warley, given that I said I would come back to him. His question was along the lines of what steps will be required. It is a generic test—it is a legal definition that one would look at. I can read it to him. It is not off a blue Post-it note; it is actually in the guidance. To paraphrase, when a work notice has been issued by a relevant employer, a trade union is under an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure that its members named in the work notice comply with its requirements. In that regard, there is not that much of a role to play. I should make it absolutely clear—I think there were errors in some hon. Members’ starting points—that a work notice makes no differentiation between whether an employee is a member of a trade union or not, or whether they want to work or not. It is a generic test in that sense.
On the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, certain individuals may therefore find themselves on a work notice more than others, so some regard will be given to ensure that if a work notice has been given to an employee in one particular industrial action, they are not taken up the next time to ensure they have their right to strike. To go back to the right hon. Member for Warley, it is more that the trade union should not take any steps to stop that individual coming to work under a work notice, rather than it being required to do anything, but it is a test. I worked as an in-house lawyer for 18 years, and I often looked at what reasonable steps meant and how I would interpret that. There is enough precedent in court to do that.
John McDonnell
It is absolutely critical to get this clear. If a trade union leader engages in a debate during a dispute and argues that the offer from the employer is not satisfactory, and therefore that there should be a strike and people should take industrial action, does that influence the requirements of taking reasonable steps, or does it go beyond reasonable steps?
Huw Merriman
What the right hon. Gentleman is describing is the calling of industrial action in the first place. The idea behind these regulations, of course, is that, when industrial action has been called and an employer chooses at their discretion to issue a work notice—I will come back to that, because it is key that it is not the Government but the employer who decides—that is where the determination comes in. It is whether the trade union, after the work notice has been issued, is taking reasonable steps, so I would differentiate in that regard.
John McDonnell
So if that debate takes place while the strike is on, and the trade union general secretary urges their members to continue with the strike, does that influence it? Is that part of undermining and encouragement?
Huw Merriman
Well, I am going into a lot of detail here, and that would ultimately be for a court to determine. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is asking what happens if a person is known to be on a work notice and somebody reads out, “X must ensure they are taking industrial action.” The courts might argue that that is not a reasonable step, but hopefully our examples have given enough clarity.
Again, I want to be absolutely clear on this point. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, and I was interested in the point he made about Scotland. It is absolutely clear that it is down to each individual employer to determine whether they wish to issue work notices or whether they are able to gain enough traction from the workforce without the issuance of work notices. That is not a matter for Government; it is down to the employer. I was intrigued that the hon. Gentleman made it pretty clear that he would not give the same freedom to employers when it comes to ScotRail, because he seemed to intimate that it would not be taking part. He seems to be taking more of a forthright view of what the employer should do than the Government.
Oral Answers to Questions
John McDonnell Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman
The fact of the matter is, through both covid and the Barnett formula, the Scottish Government have been funded at levels that vastly exceed those available in England. If one is a Herefordian, as I am, one looks with astonishment at the increased levels of spending north of the border and wishes that, in many ways, a similar rural landscape such as our own were supported as well as that.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
The answer is no.
John McDonnell
Well, that answer was succinct, if nothing else. The Minister will know that a new chief executive has been appointed at Heathrow Airport Ltd, and he will inevitably meet that chief executive. When he does, will he take him through the costings of any road and rail infrastructure associated with the proposed development of a third runway? Heathrow has offered £2 billion to cover the cost. The Government’s airports commission calculated the cost at £5 billion, but we now believe that, because of the tunnelling under the M25 and the road links and rail links—in particular, the rail links for western and southern access—the cost of the scheme could be between £10 billion and £20 billion. Will he make it clear to the chief executive of Heathrow that not a penny of taxpayers’ money will go into subsidising the profits of the overseas owners of Heathrow?
Jesse Norman
It appears that the right hon. Gentleman knows a lot more about this than I do. Any expansion of Heathrow is a matter for it, as he will know. If that is financed, it will be by private finance for what is a private sector project. The Department has no position on this matter, because at some point the Secretary of State may need to be invited to decide on any development consent order, so we do not take a view.
Heathrow Airport Expansion
John McDonnell Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I did not think that we would ever be here again, but this is like the Monty Python dead parrot sketch—it is dead; it is not going to happen. My hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) put the matter forensically, defeating the whole argument that we should expand Heathrow.
I want to talk about the blight that the Heathrow expansion proposal has caused my constituents. It has been 40 years or longer. I have been there so long that I was present at the inquiry into the fourth terminal, which we all supported, by the way—we thought that it accommodated Heathrow well, and it was the size we wanted it then. At the fifth terminal inquiry, we opposed expansion. The inspector gave an indication that there should be no further expansion, because he was worried about the two issues that we presented him with: noise and respiratory conditions. What was happening to the lungs of children in our area was at virtually epidemic proportions.
At that stage, Heathrow said, “If we get a fifth terminal, we do not need and will not seek a third runway.” Can we remember that promise? The directors at Heathrow wrote to every one of my constituents and appeared on public platforms with me to read the letter out, to loud applause. Within six months, they were lobbying for a third runway. It was a scandalous betrayal of my community.
For the next 10 years, we put the case about the respiratory and health conditions, and we discovered more about cancers, coronary conditions and the mental health effects of being disturbed during a night’s sleep, and so on. Then the world changed and we all discovered something that others had told us about, but that we had not really believed in: climate change. We came together and, all of a sudden, what had been described as a nimbyist campaign became a global campaign. I joined a climate camp in my constituency. We had seminars at which local community members met climate campers, and we talked about the implications of climate change. We were so convincing that David Cameron went into the 2010 campaign—remember this one—with, “no ifs, no buts”, no third runway. We did not realise that once he got elected, he meant it for only one Parliament.
We then had the Davies commission, which came out in favour of an expansion and a third runway. Interestingly, in that commission, it was argued for the first time that the whole concept of the hub might be outdated, and that point-to-point and the development of regional airports was probably the future. That is where we are, and that is where we are going to go. There is no way that any Government that want to be re-elected will promote a third runway while trying to convince people that they will tackle climate change. It is not going to happen. Let us put Heathrow out of its misery and say that no Government will ever approve this, and no investor will ever speculate by investing in a project that will barely take off—pardon the pun. Why not just kill it off here, so that my constituents can enjoy the comfort of their homes?
I remind the Minister that the threat of a third runway means 4,000 properties in my constituency being demolished or rendered unliveable by noise or air pollution; that is 10,000 people being forced out of their homes. A third runway means the demolition of three schools, churches and the gurdwara, a number of community centres and our open spaces—the demolition of a whole community. If the Minister thinks that there is any chance that the community will not rise up against it, I tell him that that will happen right the way across London. If this Government or any Government try to move ahead with a third runway, it will be the most iconic climate change battleground in Europe.
Let us say to Heathrow that it is over, and that it must concentrate on improving the passenger experience and looking after its workers. It was this company that started fire and rehire. It needs to start paying decent wages, restore pensions and provide decent working conditions for all workers.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]
John McDonnell Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I welcome the introduction of a criminal offence, but I wonder who will be prosecuted and held liable in that instance. Will it be a company director? At what level of the decision-making process will an individual be held liable? I would be happy if the Minister secures wisdom and inspiration over the next few minutes.
Mr Holden
I will address that point later in my speech.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), I agreed in Committee to consider raising the maximum penalty for harbour authorities guilty of failing to comply with their duties under the Bill—I think the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was also referring to this—from a level 4 fine to an unlimited fine in England and Wales, or a level 5 fine in Scotland and Northern Ireland. On reflection, I decided to do so. That is why the Government tabled amendments 25, 26, 28 and 29 and subsection (6) of new clause 3.
These amendments will bring the penalties into line with those for service operators that commit an offence under the legislation. As hon. Members will remember, we discussed in Committee the possibility of a harbour authority also being an operator, which would create a discrepancy. We know that the reputational impact clearly did not stop P&O Ferries doing what it did, which is why we have this Bill.
To answer the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, the fines will be levied on the company, and they will be unlimited fines, except in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where level 5 fines are limited by legislation—the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland have not yet changed their legislation, so it will be up to them to mirror these changes. This will send a strong message that harbour authorities must comply with their duties under legislation. I thank the noble Lord Tunnicliffe for his interest in the level of fines when the Bill was considered in the other place.
Amendment 1 adds a regulation-making power to clause 1 to allow the Secretary of State to specify matters that must or must not be taken into account in determining whether provision for the carriage of persons or goods between two places by ship on two or more journeys constitutes a single service. Amendments 21 and 22 provide that this power is subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Bill applies to services for the carriage of persons or goods by ship, with or without vehicles, between a place outside the UK and a place inside the UK. The concept of service is not defined in the Bill, but it will be a question of fact whether ships on the same route are providing the same service, which will need to take account of all the circumstances of the particular case.
By adding a power to specify in regulations the factors that must or must not be taken into account in determining what is a service for the purpose of this Bill, we will be able to clarify the intended meaning of “service” if needed, such as if there is an inconsistency in interpretation across or between different harbour authorities and operators. This provision therefore allows the Department to react, if necessary, to how the definition of “service” is interpreted over time. This will ensure consistency in the application of the Bill, and it is therefore necessary for the effective implementation and delivery of policy objectives. Because the measure will be made through the affirmative procedure, hon. Members will be able to provide a degree of scrutiny.
We recognise this is a broad power with potential to adjust the interpretation of “service,” which is the Bill’s central concept. We plan to use the power only to clarify the intended meaning of “service,” if needed, not to alter the services in scope of the Bill. It is intended that the power will be used only if necessary and only in relation to circumstances that may become apparent once the Bill has been enacted. That being said, we accept that a high level of scrutiny for this power is appropriate. As such, the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 15 requires the tariff of surcharges to be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, as opposed to being specified by the harbour authorities. In other words, the amendment will switch the duty for setting the surcharge tariff from the harbour authorities to the Secretary of State. I thank the noble Baroness Scott of Needham Market for raising the issue in the other place, and the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) tabled a similar amendment that sought to reduce the role of harbour authorities in the compliance process by taking away their duty to set the surcharge rate, giving that role to the Secretary of State.
The surcharge is an important mechanism to deter operators from paying below the national minimum wage equivalent. We still consider that harbour authorities are reasonably placed to set the tariff of surcharges, given their proximity to services, but we have heard the concerns raised by the ports industry and, as promised, went away after Committee to consider it further. Having done so, we tabled amendment 15 to switch the duty for setting the surcharge tariff under the Bill from harbour authorities to the Secretary of State. This will not fundamentally change the compliance process, as ports will still have a role in imposing the surcharge, but they will not set the rate. I hope this alleviates the concerns that some Members expressed in Committee about the role of harbour authorities.
Amendments 16 and 18 to 20 are consequential on amendment 15. Amendment 16 removes the requirement for harbour authorities to publish the tariff of surcharges, as this will now be set in regulations. Amendments 18 to 20 make consequential changes to clause 12 to remove the ability to object to a tariff of surcharges specified by a harbour authority.
Amendment 17 confers a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying a time limit on objecting to a surcharge under clause 12. I promised in Committee to consider this further, in response to an amendment tabled by the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Glasgow East (David Linden). I had been considering it before Committee because there was a concern that things could drag on and, having considered it, I agree that a time limit on objections will provide greater certainty for harbour authorities by preventing objections from being raised long after a surcharge is imposed. We intend for the draft regulations to be subject to public consultation, and we will work with stakeholders to determine a reasonable length of time in which objections will be required to be made following the imposition of a surcharge.
Amendment 17 states that surcharges may be applied only for the purpose of providing shore-based welfare facilities for seafarers. The objective of this amendment is to ensure that funds collected from surcharges are invested in the welfare of seafarers and cannot be used for the functioning of harbour authorities. A similar amendment was tabled in Committee by the hon. Members for Glasgow East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, and it was supported by other Opposition Members, who expressed concern about a conflict of interest where a harbour authority and an operator are owned by a connected company, thereby weakening the surcharge’s financial disincentive. I thank the noble Baroness Scott of Needham Market for raising this conflict of interest in the other place. Although we do not think it is likely in practice that such an operator would seek to avoid paying the national minimum wage equivalent, and would instead continue to pay the surcharge to its connected company, this amendment reduces that theoretical risk. It is also in line with the Bill’s overall intention of improving the welfare of seafarers.
We understand that ports may object to amendment 17, as they might have used surcharge funds to cover the costs of administering the Bill. However, we do not expect surcharges to be paid routinely, so harbour authorities could never have relied on the surcharge to cover the costs of administering the Bill—they are minimal costs that harbour authorities should be able to cover through their harbour duties. This Bill leaves it open as to how the money can be applied to shore-based welfare facilities and so harbour authorities will have some flexibility on that. I hope that hon. Members will see that in tabling these amendments the Government have listened to the concern from across the House and from stakeholders, and that the Bill is better for it.
I will now turn to the amendments tabled by hon. Members of this House. Amendment 24 would require harbour authorities to request equivalence declarations from operators of services that call at their harbour on at least 52 occasions a year, instead of 120. That would mean that services calling at UK ports once a week, on average, would be brought into the scope of the Bill. The measures that may be taken under the Bill can be applied only to a narrow subset of operators with a close connection to the UK: those on a regular scheduled service determined by clear, objective criteria. This represents a focused and proportionate means to address a specific issue and avoids any wider impact on the diversity of shipping that makes use of UK ports. The figure of 120 has been arrived at following thorough consultation and bilateral discussions with industry and others.
Mr Holden
My understanding is that the initial consultation was on that broader thing, but the legislation that was introduced was always based on a figure of 120, because after that broad consultation we looked at various issues, including where an operator, perhaps from Holland, visits several European ports and then pops into the UK once a week. The minimum wage equivalence being introduced for those operators would be very minimal and would affect a small number of people. Obviously, where someone was based in Holland, visited several European ports and then popped into the UK occasionally, we would be bringing in real questions of international jurisdiction, particularly under maritime law, as to where those services were being operated from.
John McDonnell
I do not think that just popping in every two or three weeks is just popping in. I have been at this for a while and international law is always thrown against it. Will the Minister publish any legal opinion that he has on that matter, so that we could examine it, across the House, to ensure that it is true?
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.
David Linden
I rise to speak to new clause 4 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). I will come on to the substance of the new clause later, but for now I want to offer my support to the Opposition amendments before the House.
My fundamental position on the Bill has not changed. Yes, I think it is a welcome step in the right direction, but it is incredibly unambitious in tackling the scale of the problems unmasked by the exploitative behaviour of P&O Ferries. It remains a source of extreme frustration to me that, when the P&O debacle unfolded, politicians in this place talked a really tough game, yet the legislation put before the House has not met the scale of the challenge. Even worse, the British Government have reneged on their previous commitments and, I would argue, have watered down the Bill. For example, in clause 3, as it stands, the House effectively gives a green light to port-hopping, which is symptomatic of how this whole problem came about, ergo letting the free market exploit existing weaknesses in legislation and regulation. To be blunt, when it passes, this Bill will be a bit of a missed opportunity, and all that remains for us during its remaining stages is to try to ameliorate it.
For the purposes of brevity, I will refer to new clause 4 as the Hebblethwaite amendment. Throughout Second Reading and in Committee, we spoke about the importance of giving this Bill teeth and of tightening things up. If Members speak to seafarers, as I have done to those in my constituency, they will know that one big source of anger is the fact that senior management at P&O Ferries got away scot-free with their utterly disgraceful behaviour. If we are to go as far as passing this Bill, please let us at least make sure that it has the legislative teeth to deal with the some of these complete reprobates, who have patently exploited workers and should not be deemed fit and proper persons to hold directorship roles.
Let us start with Peter Hebblethwaite, the CEO of P&O Ferries, who was paid £325,000 a year before bonuses. This is a man, as others have said, who proudly admitted to a joint Select Committee of this House that he knew the actions he was undertaking as company director were illegal, but he proceeded anyway, and he even had the gall to say that he would do it all over again if he got the chance. I absolutely agree with the RMT general secretary, Mick Lynch, who said:
“Gangster capitalists should not be rewarded for their appalling employment practices; they should be punished with the full force of law.”
However, herein lies the problem, because passing this Bill without my new clause 4 would mean that Mr Hebblethwaite has carte blanche to again behave as he did in March last year. In summary, there must be individual consequences for directors who seek to exploit workers, and the Bill currently lacks a personal liability clause. That is exactly what my new clause would do by enshrining in statute the ability to deal with these gangster capitalists who seek to ride roughshod over seafarers and other workers.
At its most basic level, Hebblethwaite was responsible for the unlawful sacking of almost 800 seafarers, using a pathetic, cowardly, pre-recorded video message. Despite all that, he is already out there promoting himself again; indeed he was rewarded with a promotion at DP World. What kind of a broken, sick system sees almost 800 seafarers summarily sacked—and sacked unlawfully—yet the boss is given a plum promotion for showing ruthlessness and the sheer brass neck to shove two fingers up to Government?
So, the kind of person this legislation would penalise if they fell foul of the Act is one who admitted breaking the law, and one who used handcuff-trained, balaclava-wearing security guards to remove dedicated, unionised seafarers and replace them with non-unionised workers, many of whom are paid a fraction of the UK minimum wage. Even worse, after experienced crew were fired by Hebblethwaite, the UK coastguard repeatedly detained P&O ships for a lack of crew training, including fire safety and lifeboat drills. But still—yes, still—Hebblethwaite is allowed to retain his position as a company director, which makes a mockery of our legislative framework.
Only by adding new clause 4 to the Bill can we finally deal with these gangster capitalists who Government Ministers had tough words for last year. But what will they do this afternoon when the Division bell rings? Will they vote to bring the likes of Hebblethwaite to heal, or, now that the media circus has moved on, will their protestations be exposed as little more than hollow words?
This Bill is underwhelming and many of us are seeking to give it greater teeth to ensure that never again can a company director like Hebblethwaite take such a calculated risk with people’s jobs and livelihoods, knowing fine well that the consequences of doing so result in nothing more than a few uncomfortable column inches. We need to enshrine in statute a strict deterrent which makes personal liability a reality for the Peter Hebblethwaites of this world, because if this whole sorry episode has taught us anything, it is that bad bosses will continue to be bad bosses unless we hit them where it hurts. It is on that basis that I have tabled new clause 4.
John McDonnell
I have been working for 20 years for this legislation and I cannot tell the House how crushingly disappointed I am. I just did a Hansard search of my statements over the years. Way back in May 2003 I had a Westminster Hall debate on the application of the Race Relations Act 1976 to seafarers, and I said then that
“the disparity is that non-UK seafarers will be paid less than half the wage of the others. On some ships, they are paid less than the minimum wage. We have also seen the behaviour of some companies, such as P&O Ferries, where UK seafarers have been dismissed and replaced by Filipinos to reduce wage rates.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 132WH.]
I said, too, that the “moral case” for legislation was “overwhelming” and that we needed to act now because we had the opportunity to act, but we failed. I raised it again in 2004, when I cited the practice with regard to Irish crews who were replaced by seafarers from eastern Europe on exploitative pay and conditions. I raised it in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008; I raised it later in 2010 and 2012, urging the Government to implement regulations to outlaw pay discrimination against all seafarers working in UK territorial waters. It just went on: I can quote this on an annual basis.
As has been said, the proposed legislation has been prompted by what happened, so predictably, at P&O last year. It has been said that the litmus test of this legislation is whether it prevents another P&O. It will not. We may be able to do something on the margins of wages with regard to this, but, just as P&O has done, companies will exploit people on rosters, or the number of hours they work, or how much time they have to spend on ship; they will undermine their pensions, introduce accommodation charges, as other employers have done as well, and reduce crew numbers, which, as has been said, puts lives at risk. That is the behaviour of the worst employers in the shipping sector, and we need to legislate to tackle the worst. The only thing that will prevent another P&O is firm legislation against fire and rehire. A consultation is currently taking place, but we should bring forward measures as rapidly as possible.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]
John McDonnell Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Most of the points of detail have been raised by other Members, so I will not focus on those. I will vote for the Bill, but—I am not being party political here, because when it comes to the treatment of seafarers, I have been critical of every party that has been in national Government—the Bill is a mouse, and I do not think that it is a mouse that is going to roar. That is my worry about it.
I was pleased at the cross-party anger about P&O’s behaviour. I had expected that to result in a real opportunity to tackle the way in which seafarers are treated, and not just by P&O but historically. I have checked Hansard, and the first time I raised in the House the application of the minimum wage to seafarers was in the 2002-03 Session, which was 20 years ago. I blame the Chamber of Shipping, which has been mentioned, and its influence on successive Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments. Time and again, we have pointed out what is technically, in employment terms, a feudal relationship with many seafarers and the way they are treated. It is also a neo-colonialist relationship, given the recruitment practices across the globe. It is a level of exploitation that we would not tolerate in any other sector. People are working long hours in unsafe conditions, on low pay and with limited training. When they complain, they are replaced by labour that is brought to this country from across the globe. They are severely exploited.
Every time we have debated the issue and the Chamber of Shipping has realised that the game is up and that change is necessary—largely through public opprobrium, as happened with P&O, though perhaps not on the same scale in the past—successive attempts at reform by this House have resulted in a standard strategy to be pursued, which is that the Chamber of Shipping, working with the Government, obfuscates, seeks to limit change and the effectiveness of that change, and drafts trench warfare in legislation.
I will give a few examples. In 2002 I said that we should ensure that the minimum wage applied to seafarers in this country on the basis of the Race Relations Act 1976. When lobbying on the Race Relations Act, the shipping industry secured an exemption—the only sector that gained such an exemption. As a result, it was able to exploit workers. We ran a campaign and the Government put their hands up and said, “We accept that there is a wrong here, so we will ensure reform.” That reform was that people could be discriminated against based not on their race but on their nationality. What is the difference? That was the change in legislation.
From 2007 to 2009 we ran a campaign and I raised the issues in this House. When we sought to give some form of legal protection to people, we were told that they could have that legal protection only if they had employment links to this country—and that was ill defined. It just went on like that. I have example after example of us campaigning for reform and being met with obfuscation and the drafting of trench warfare, and the reform was largely frustrated. It just went on like that.
I raised the issue of accommodation charges in 2014. Again, the argument was that the charges would be relatively limited and that there would be no major impact on the seafarers. The companies then started increasing the charges and they got to ludicrous levels. What could the seafarers do? They had no choice over where they were going to sleep at night. They could not hire a separate boat to sleep on. The companies were ripping them off.
I can remember about 40 of us turning up to a Statutory Instrument Committee thinking that we had achieved a major victory—it was wonderful—whereby the minimum wage was going to apply to British waters. We all thought that meant territorial waters, but then there was a change of definition and we found that it applied only to internal waters—which just about applies to the Norfolk broads, to be honest.
That is what has happened year after year. I have had 20 years of this, so Members will understand my sense of frustration that leads to anger. That is why I think this Bill is a mouse. We will work together to improve it—that is what we will do. We will try to eradicate the loopholes that have been set out by virtually every Member who has spoken so far, including on the number of times a port is used, the way in which measures are enforced and the way in which the surcharge is defined. The Government cannot leave the definition of the surcharge to the harbour authorities. There will be another race to the bottom because they will want to attract companies to use their harbour on the basis that their surcharge is so low. Let us work together as a House to resolve those issues with this mouse of a Bill.
The Bill does not solve the problem of fire and rehire. I was with the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) in Dover. I think she has misunderstood what was going on in the RMT office. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) was receiving a briefing from the RMT that was offered to the Prime Minister and the leaders of other parties as well. I was in the room at the time, and there was no plotting or anything like that. It was about trying to ensure that points were raised in this House so that the Government could act more effectively.
Mrs Elphicke
I have notified the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras that I will be raising this issue. I was in that meeting along with a member of my team. It was very clear that what I was observing was not a conversation with the Labour leader but a conversation led by the Labour leader about what might happen the following week, including some very disparaging references about the Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), whom he sought to embarrass. I appreciate the perspective of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I recall him being there.
John McDonnell
We were both in the same room, but I suppose that it is like people witnessing an accident, in that there will be different interpretations. By no means was I calling the leader of the Labour party’s conversation an accident—that would be grounds for expulsion.
The Bill does not outlaw fire and rehire. That was used by P&O, whose example was followed very quickly by Heathrow airport in my constituency. If this Bill is the first stage of a reform package, we need to see the rest of it pretty promptly. That means not just introducing minimum wage legislation but looking at the wider exploitation of seafarers, including accommodation charges and safe crew levels. I am really worried. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) mentioned the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. Time and again, evidence is emerging that the exploitation of seafarers is not just about wages, but about how few seafarers there are on any particular ship and how the training they receive does not guarantee safety. Therefore, we need legislation to be introduced rapidly to ensure that seafarers are not only properly paid but properly trained, and that any ship that sails around our ports has an adequate number of crew on board.
At some stage—this applies to the overall debate as well as to this Bill—we will have to have another discussion about the regulation of the sector. This Bill relates to how it abides by payment of the minimum wage. I do not believe that the concept of harbours levelling the surcharge and then it being implemented or, I suppose, inspected by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is going to prove effective. That is a division of responsibility and I do not think it will work.
As other hon. Members raised earlier, the idea that a ship or company can simply be excluded from operating out of a particular harbour will not prove effective either. We must demonstrate seriousness of purpose, which is why the unions are arguing for detention of the ship when there is a refusal to abide by the measures that are going through in this Bill.
I hope that we will rapidly hear a report on the progress of the seafarers’ charter, which I thought would be included in the first legislation that we saw to attack the issues around seafarers and P&O in particular. I would also like to have had some strong evidence of the agreements that are coming forward in the cross-country negotiations taking place on these issues; can we have that in the new year? I also throw in that it is not just about the wages earned week by week, month by month, but about pensions, which are another form of wages. Seafarers’ pensions have been eroded over the years and, as a result, it is difficult to attract people to the job because of low pay, lack of pensions, insecurity and, to be frank, unsafe working conditions.
My final point comes back to the Chamber of Shipping. I am angry that, throughout the whole period that these activities have been taking place, when low pay has been inflicted on seafarers and their pensions have been under attack, shipping companies have taken £2 billion in tax relief from tonnage tax—in fact, they have laughed all the way to the bank. The tonnage tax has failed, and it has not produced the jobs that we were promised or encouraged the companies to behave as dutiful employers. I urge the Government to bring forward the whole programme of legislation that was promised as part of the development of the nine-point plan, as well as the seafarers’ charter, early in the new year. Unless we have that, there will be no secure employment and the long-term future of the sector will be at considerable risk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I thank hon. Members for all their contributions and join the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) in commemorating, 41 years on, the memory and service of the eight RNLI lifeboatmen from Mousehole who operated the Penlee lifeboat.
I think that everyone in the Chamber agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who put it bluntly by saying that all of us, especially at this time of year, are reliant on those who operate our ports and bring everything into our country. Ninety-five per cent of all of our trade travels by boat, and a lot of that comes into her constituency. That is why it is so important to all of us that we see the Bill progress.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Robert Courts) and for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) and, across the political divide, the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Easington (Grahame Morris), who all made the point that everyone in the House was shocked by the behaviour of P&O earlier this year, and they have come together in wanting to do something about it. It was particularly gratifying to see both the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) supporting the legislation and wanting to see good standards and raised standards not only through the Bill but through the Government’s nine-point plan.
I am glad that those on the Opposition Front Bench broadly welcome the Bill, as do the SNP representatives. I just point out to the SNP Front Bench that the RMT did meet my hon. Friends in the Department on Thursday. We are always happy to engage with unions and anybody else who is interested in bringing things to a head in that regard.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) was also very kind to praise the Government for dragging the French to start looking at issues in this space. I am glad that he is supporting those of us on the Government Benches who are leading our European partners forward on legislation in this space. More broadly, I am delighted that everyone across the House is supporting where we are going, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whose voice it is always a pleasure to hear.
I think we can all agree that the Bill is not a silver bullet, but it is a starting point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney said. I pay tribute to previous Ministers, including him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) who brought it forward. I look forward to picking up on many of the issues raised at later stages if I cannot address them at the Dispatch Box today.
I want to turn first to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), the Chair of the Transport Committee, who raised three points. First, on the International Labour Organisation, the measures in the Bill will be stronger than what it has brought forward. They are compatible with the ILO, but they will be stronger than what it has as a baseline. On which is the best body—the harbour authorities or the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—the MCA will have the power to investigate and prosecute offences under the Bill. It is responsible for the enforcement role, although port operators will collect the moneys. He made another important point on minimum wage corridors. We are looking at that across the piece at the moment. I mentioned France, but we are looking at other European counterparts for where we can have routes to really drive forward standards for workers across the country.
John McDonnell
Will the Minister write to us with some form of timetable on the agreements and when they will be ready?
Mr Holden
I would be delighted to update the right hon. Gentleman at a future point. We can perhaps go into that further in Committee. If he raises it at that point, we can perhaps take it further from there.
Those were the three points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South. I want to touch on a few more points.
One main point was the concern, expressed by many hon. Members including the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), about the potential for port hopping. The key thing is that the Secretary of State has the power to direct anybody who is trying to abuse the system.
On the civil investigation and the ongoing matters mentioned by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) relating to P&O, I think we can all agree about Mr Hebblethwaite—the way that he has tret his workers is totally unacceptable. Given the ongoing civil action, it would be inappropriate for the Government to comment at this time. However, after that point I will be happy to comment further.
I want to draw Members’ attention to the broader issue regarding the Government’s nine-point plan. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock made a point about global standards, which was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). We want to see them leading the world with the highest standards possible.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock and for Dover, the hon. Member for Easington and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney all mentioned training and quality. They are part of the seafarers’ charter, which we want to see driven further forward.
On rostering, an important point mentioned by the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East and for Weaver Vale, and my County Durham neighbour the hon. Member for Easington, we have commissioned an independent assessment of rostering and I look forward to its conclusions.
Offshore wind was mentioned by several hon. Members, including Members from Scotland. Under article 2 of the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order, on working in connection with the exploration of the sea or subsoil, basically if you are in the UK’s exclusive economic zone, there is a difference between that and the continental shelf. I look forward to further debate on that in Committee. It is a technical area, which is worth us looking at further.
The Bill marks great progress on the Government’s nine-point plan. It is a step forward, delivering a suite of measures to improve seafarers’ protections and welfare. It is not a silver bullet and will not solve every problem, but it will incentivise operators to pay fair wages, particularly for those with the closest ties to the UK, and recognise the pivotal role that they play in the movement of the UK’s goods and services. It will drive best practice.
Beyond the Bill, the UK will continue to be a leading voice on the international stage as the home of the International Maritime Organisation. That proximity will help us to work more closely with counterparts across the seas in driving forward better standards, as we have already seen from the reaction of France, Denmark, Belgium and other continental neighbours. We will continue to make progress on the rest of the nine-point plan and will work with our international partners to ensure a fairer deal for seafarers.
I wish you a merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I shall save my merry Christmases for the rest of the House until tomorrow evening when I reply to the Adjournment debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 17 January 2023.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mike Wood.)
Question agreed to.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords] (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(1) any expenditure incurred by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mike Wood.)
Question agreed to.
Night Flights: Impact on Communities
John McDonnell Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about expansion, and I will come on to that later.
The current night flight quotas are in place until October 2025. The Government have agreed to consult on proposals for the next regime over the course of 2023, but that will be of little comfort to many Londoners facing a further three years of disruption. Night flights are becoming an increasing issue across London. Data from the Civil Aviation Authority shows that night-time noise events from Heathrow affected 974,000 people in 2018—that is 140,000 more people than in 2006.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The hon. Lady may be coming on to this point, in which case I apologise, but over the years we have been arguing that this issue is not just about the numbers, but about the impact on physical health and mental health in particular, the stress and lack of sleep it causes and the consequences of those things for people’s quality of life. The Government have never really taken that into account, so I hope that she will be able to at least focus their attention on the real effects that this issue is having on people’s lives.
Sarah Olney
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention; he is absolutely right. The Government state that their policy is to
“limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise.”
We can see from the numbers already that the policy is not fit for purpose, but he is correct that it is not about the numbers, but about the impact on those who are affected.
Long-term exposure to nocturnal aircraft noise is strongly linked to sleep disorders, and lack of sleep or disrupted sleep can have a direct impact on people’s health. One study found that, for each additional 10 dB of night-time aircraft noise that communities are exposed to, there is an increase of between 14% and 69% in their risk of high blood pressure, increasing the risk of strokes and heart attacks.
A World Health Organisation study from 2009 also found that an individual may suffer from negative health impacts of sleep disruption even if they do not wake up at night. Other researchers have found links between long-term exposure to aircraft noise and an increased risk of obesity, depression and cardiovascular issues—and I do not need to cite a scientific study to explain the impact that a lack of sleep has on mental wellbeing, as so many right hon. and hon. Members have already mentioned it.
Sarah Olney
It is very kind of the Minister to give way again. Will he elaborate slightly on some of those numbers and whether it might be possible for members of the public and Members of Parliament to get a better understanding of when dispensations have been granted?
Sarah Olney
And also why, because they have no visibility, which makes it very hard for us.
Industrial Action on the Railway
John McDonnell Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is right to discuss the subsidy, which has been £16 billion as a whole through covid—or £16 billion committed, which means that we do not have the exact number yet for the amount of that which is still going towards the operations this year. One thing I can say to him is that without that support the railways simply would not have been able to operate. It is the equivalent of £160,000 per individual rail worker. To turn around and call these strikes is a heck of a way to thank taxpayers. We have lost around a fifth of the income from rail. I hear Mick Lynch, the leader of the RMT, claim that the Government are cutting the money that is going to the railways, but that is a fundamental misunderstanding on his part. The money that is missing is the £2 billion of passenger fares that are not being paid because people are not travelling.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
In my area, we witnessed the Paddington and Southall crashes. One of my constituents was a driver who lost his life. We were told then about the modernisation of safety inspections and it was the workers who pointed out what risks they caused. We hear today that there will be a 50% cut in the safety inspections of the infrastructure. Does the Secretary of State really think the British public have more confidence in his assessment of safety on the rails than in that of the workers who actually implement the safety inspections? I believe the British public expect the Secretary of State not to come in here ranting to provoke a strike but to behave with the dignity and responsibility of the high office that he holds.
Grant Shapps
As the House will recall from last week, the right hon. Gentleman receives donations from the very union that is going on strike—
Grant Shapps
He is saying no, but I believe that is the case.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I cannot have a dialogue. I recognise that there is a difference of opinion. It might have to be settled at another point. We will stick to this point and if the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) wants to raise the matter later, I will listen to him.
Rail Strikes
John McDonnell Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grant Shapps
Again, I will make a little progress. Of course for others who have no option but to travel, the strikes will mean huge disruption. They will mean thousands of people not being able to get to work, some of whom might lose their jobs and be added to the list of those who did during covid. These strikes will mean families losing money; the economy being dented by tens of millions of pounds every day, as businesses lose customers; children unable to get to their exams; and patients unable to get to hospitals.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The question was raised as to whether the Secretary of State or the Government had met the RMT, and he basically said, “Let the negotiations go”. I cannot recall the exact phrase he used. Mick Lynch, the general secretary of the RMT, has written to him today, “I am writing to seek an urgent meeting with the Government, without any preconditions, to discuss the national rail disputes prior to the planned strike action next week, and I would be grateful if this could be arranged without delay.” Will he respond—[Interruption.] We are trying to resolve this matter. Will he respond immediately to Mick Lynch, positively, that he will meet the union now?
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Let me clarify one point if I may. There has been reference to RMT donations to individual Members and the declaration of interests. I thought the declaration of interests was annual, but I make it absolutely clear that the RMT contributed to my constituency party during the general election, which I declared properly and of which I am proud. RMT members were the first to move at the TUC that the Labour party should be established; that union is part of our movement. I am proud to be supported by it and I am proud to be part of the RMT parliamentary group. That gives me a relationship with workers in the railway estate in my constituency, which enables me to speak with some authority—I try, anyway—on rail matters. Let me put that to rest: I am proud of the support that it gives to my constituency party.
John McDonnell
If it is on that, no, because there are more important points to be honest.
We need to return the debate to what the dispute is about. I refer to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). The union has three demands in the negotiations so I will make three points. The first demand is for no compulsory redundancies—compulsory is the key word. There has never been a time when the RMT has not negotiated job losses, but there has always been a principle that they should not be compulsory. I remember that Bob Crow never lost a dispute, and neither has Mick Lynch, because they are sensible about the nature of the disputes that they get into.
John McDonnell
Let me press on.
The union’s second demand is to get some form of inflation proofing of members’ incomes, and who can blame it when inflation is rising by anything between 7% and 11%? That is what ordinary working people want.
John McDonnell
Let me press on.
Let us also be clear about wages in the industry, which are linked. The median wage is £31,000. Drivers are largely represented by ASLEF, so the vast bulk of people who we are talking about are station staff, cleaners and others whose wages range between £20,000 and £30,000. We are not talking about people on very high wages, so inflation proofing is important to them at the moment
The third demand is where we have some problems—I understand that. It is that when there are changes in jobs and conditions of work, they should be subject to negotiation and—this is the difficult bit—agreement. We know that this dispute will be settled at some stage, so the issue is how bloody it will get. What we all have to do, as I say on the RMT parliamentary group as well, is to facilitate an exchange that enables a resolution.
That is why today’s letter is important. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is right to say, “Well, it was unconditional”, but it is unconditional from the Government as well. At the moment, it is important to just get everyone through the door. The Government have not put conditions on and neither has the union. The union has not asked for conditions from the Government, and nor should the Government ask for conditions from it. Often, in organising a ballot about industrial action, time limits are in place. At this time, when we are faced with the disruption that is there, an act of good faith such as sitting in the same room is important—it might not work.
Huw Merriman
I am in danger of agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman, who makes a very good point. It may well be, in return for giving way a little in saying, “Okay, we’ll sit down with you and then not strike”, that the RMT needs to hear that there will not be a need for compulsory redundancies, because the way the workforce works, voluntary redundancies should probably be taken up anyway and then that could be the natural progression.
John McDonnell
The hon. Gentleman knows what these negotiations are like. My background is the National Union of Mineworkers, then the TUC and so on—I have been a trade unionist for the last 50 years—and in every sort of negotiation, the key issue is just getting through that door. Once we get through that door and are face to face starting those negotiations off, anything can happen. We have all been there, and we can have a bloody great row, but at least we are talking. That is all the RMT is asking for.
Let me just say that Members need to know the atmosphere at the moment. I have been talking at various union conferences—I was at Unison yesterday and all the rest—and there is a concern that we are going back to the 1980s, and I saw what happened in the 1980s. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who is here, was an active miner at the time, and I was a member of the NUM head office. What happened then was that there was a Government will to somehow take on the trade union movement, and we got described as the “enemy within”.
If anyone thinks it is to their advantage politically to start taking the RMT on as the enemy within in this situation, they are sorely mistaken, because it is not just about the RMT. At every union conference I have been to, there is a real anxiety. There is an anxiety about protection of their members against this cost of living crisis, and I have to say that there is an anxiety about protecting themselves against some of the threats that have come from the Government—minimal services, bans on overtime and all the rest—which is inflammatory when we are trying to get a negotiated settlement.
John McDonnell
I do not have time, to be honest, or do I get a second extra minute? [Interruption.] I will give way.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is it not ironic, or does he not think it is ironic that, with a Prime Minister who talks about a higher-wage economy, the minute people start—
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I am trying to do that and face the right hon. Gentleman, which is not easy, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Surely it is ironic that, with a Prime Minister who talks about a higher-wage economy, the first time people come along just wanting to maintain wages—not let wages go lower—his Government are opposing it, with the right hon. Gentleman having to make a very reasonable case in this House pointing out why trade union members have to do what they are doing.
John McDonnell
Perhaps I pointed in the wrong direction, but I meant no disrespect to the hon. Member.
I have talked at several trade union conferences and I have been consulting trade unions in my own constituency, and the big fear at the moment is that their members are facing a potential avalanche of costs coming at them, and they have had their wages largely frozen for 12 years, with some having in effect had a wage cut. They do not see any light at the end of the tunnel, and they see a Government now threatening intimidatory legislation to undermine trade union rights further, so then we ask the question: what do they do? All they can do—this is all that is left to them—is to withdraw their labour, and that is what we are seeing.
This is not just in the RMT. Unite has 100 disputes taking place at the moment. The general secretary of Unison has for the first time—I have never heard this before—said to Unison members, “Go back to your branches and prepare for action.” The PCS is in dispute as well. If we look at what is happening, it is because we have working-class people frightened for their futures and deeply insecure about their futures. They are faced with a Government who, to be frank, on this particular issue will not even open the door for a meeting. That is why the atmosphere has been so fouled at the moment. I just think that Conservative Members should know that this is not the time for braying speeches; it is a time for consideration and an element of responsibility to be introduced into this debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Oral Answers to Questions
John McDonnell Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Morton
These are charges that all train operating companies pay, right across the country. I will not get into the detail of how they are worked out, but let us be absolutely honest: this Government are making a massive investment in the railways. That includes the £96 billion in the integrated rail plan. I know, Mr Speaker, that you are very keen to see investment and improvements in Chorley. No doubt we will have a conversation about that in future.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
Responsibility for ensuring roster patterns comply with international hours of work requirements lies with the owner-operators and flag state. It is for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, as the port state, to verify that those requirements are being met.
John McDonnell
May I rapidly explain to the Minister why I tabled this question? On the intensive Dover to Calais route, P&O wants agency crew to work over 230 round trips before a period of rest. The experienced local crew it replaced worked 18 round trips before a rest period. This is where P&O is cutting its wage bill; it is not just doing it through minimum wage avoidance. Will he take steps to ensure that the legislation announced last week will cover roster patterns, so that the remaining major employers of British seafarers, such as DFDS and Stena, which have reasonable roster programmes, are not undercut by the likes of P&O, both on pay and maritime safety?
Robert Courts
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. If there are concerns that the MCA is made aware of, those will of course be investigated. With regards to the action we would take, the legislation announced is relatively narrow in scope and deals with the minimum wage aspect. However, the point the right hon. Gentleman rightly raises is being considered as part of the fair ferries national framework agreement being developed by the Department in conjunction with the UK Chamber of Shipping, operators and the unions.