Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Holden]

I was about to address those amendments. After the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members raised this in Committee, I said that I was looking at it.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 give way?

[Mr Holden]

I have only eight minutes, but I will give way once.

[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

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[John McDonnell]

And why.

[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

Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[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—

[John McDonnell]

indicated dissent.

[Grant Shapps]

He is saying no, but I believe that is the case.

[John McDonnell]

It is not true and you know that.

[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

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[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.

[Chris Loder]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[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.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[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.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Thursday 19th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[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)]

2. Whether he has made a recent assessment of the potential safety implications of roster patterns worked by seafarers employed on P&O Ferries’ vessels.

[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.

P&O Ferries

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts]

Yes, absolutely. The Secretary of State has been absolutely clear: he has said in terms that the chief executive’s position is untenable, and I agree.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

May I raise again the fact that the shipping companies have received over £2 billion of tonnage tax concessions, and P&O has been a major gainer from that? May we have an assurance from the Government today that no tonnage tax relief is now being paid to P&O and that, if necessary, we should seek to receive back some of the tonnage tax concessions that it gained? Why did it gain them? As a result of a commitment to protect and increase the number of British seafaring jobs.

[Robert Courts]

I confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we will be considering any actions that we can take. We will announce those as part of the package.

P&O Ferries and Employment Rights

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Before I make my main points, may I just say that I have heard reference to the tonnage tax a couple of times in this debate? Some of us have been dealing with the tonnage tax issue for more than 20 years, and, time and again, we have raised it with successive governments. The fact is that, although tonnage tax has now paid out something like £2.4 billion to shipping companies to enable them to promote and preserve British seafaring jobs, there has actually been a significant loss of seafaring jobs. I resent the fact that P&O has had tonnage tax money and has just brutally and grotesquely sacked 800 workers, as everyone has seen.

I was in Dover on Friday at a demonstration organised by RMT and Nautilus. Of course people were angry about losing their jobs, and of course some RMT members expressed their anger—I thought relatively politely—when MPs who had voted against the legislation to bring about hire and fire protections turned up. Nevertheless, there were two things that came out of the discussions that I had with RMT and Nautilus members. What they wanted from this debate was, first, the reinstatement of the jobs, and, secondly, legislation to prevent this from ever happening again.

I hope for some form of consensus today. Nothing that I have heard from the Secretary of State gives me any reassurance either that the jobs will be reinstated, or that there will be legislation brought forward to prevent this from happening to other workers. I listened in detail to the various actions that the Secretary of State said that the Government were taking. None of them gave me confidence that there was a sense of urgency about reinstating those jobs. I worry that the anger that we have heard expressed today will deflate and that those workers will be forgotten about over the coming weeks and months, and that, I believe, would be a tragedy.

[Karl Turner]

My right hon. Friend and I have campaigned as part of the RMT parliamentary group for many years on the fact that the national minimum wage does not apply on international routes. The Government changed that in June 2020 to apply to UK routes. Will he say something about that?

[John McDonnell]

I will come onto that. That was my second point. My first point is that we need to inject a sense of urgency into this debate. I have listened to what the Government have said, and the Government have listened to what the Opposition have said and to what their own Members have said. I would welcome the opportunity for the Government to meet us on a cross-party basis and that should include the Select Committee Chair, because in the next week—no later than that—I would like to see a report on the legislative changes that need to be brought together to enable this practice to be outlawed completely. We have legislated in emergency situations before.

The second point is that we are not dealing with a normal company. This is a state company; it is effectively owned by the Dubai state and we have a responsibility in international relations to point out to it that we will not tolerate this behaviour. We also have an international responsibility to work with others across Europe and elsewhere to make sure that it is not just our Government making this point, but other Governments working with us who want to uphold basic labour standards. This gives us the opportunity to bring forward an international initiative for which some of us have been arguing for some time.

The third point is that no one should underestimate the historic moment that we are at in terms of industrial relations in this country. No one should underestimate the anger in the wider trade union movement. Working people have woken up to what is happening. The point has been made in this House time and again, that if it can happen to these workers, no one is safe. If we are not seen to be acting responsibly, both as a Government and in this House overall, people will think that parliamentary politics is not working for them. What we will see is working people out there taking it into their own hands to enforce their basic rights to decent employment and security of employment. The responsibility is on us to act. Otherwise, I warn the Government that we will see a wave of industrial unrest, and not just from RMT or Nautilus, but from other unions, because others will see the significance of what is happening to working people.

We can avoid that by bringing forward legislation that installs in law the proper protections that working people need. I believe there should be some acknowledgment now of the seriousness of the situation we are in, and emergency action should be taken. I would like a report back to this House, next Monday and no later, on what action the Government, working cross-party, can bring forward.

Decarbonising Aviation

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I say to the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) that that was incredibly informative and really constructive. It was worth coming, if only for the entertainment. That was very good.

As the MP with Heathrow in his constituency, I obviously have a special interest. We have been through a brutal period over the past 18 months. It has been grim in terms of loss of jobs and the impact on the community. There are whole families who are dependent on work at the airport, and the situation has affected the local economy and the way of life and wellbeing of so many people.

My last conversation with the Chancellor before I stood down as shadow Chancellor was about the need to have an aviation strategy to deal with covid, and to build on that for the long term to tackle climate change. I said, although I was not listened to, that the best thing would be to get the industry together—employers, companies, unions and local communities. I said it was better to listen to the unions, because they are more independent of the fight that will go on between individual companies. The unions were already looking at how we could come through the covid crisis and be honest with people about the future. We cannot return to the way it was; we cannot return to a policy of continuous expansion. That cannot happen if we are really going to tackle climate change.

I have five points to make, and I am sorry if I bore people by repeating them in debate after debate. First, there is the principle of doing no further harm. The third runway will set us back and, as we go into COP, undermine people’s confidence that we are serious about tackling climate change. Let me give some background to the Prime Minister saying that he would lie down in front of the bulldozers. At his first election as the MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, I asked at my count, which was before his, “Will he make the same commitment as his predecessor, John Randall”—who people may remember is now in the House of Lords—“who said he would lie down in front of the bulldozers with me?” Of course, Boris could not help himself. As soon as the count was over, he got up and said, “I’ll be with you, John.” Bizarrely, when the vote came up in the House of Commons, he was on a one-day visit to Afghanistan. I suppose that was pure coincidence.

Before COP takes place, we need a clear statement opposing the third runway expansion at Heathrow. It is the iconic battleground in this country—and, in fact, in Europe overall—for tackling climate change. I welcomed Climate Camp into my constituency and it turned the third runway campaign from an nimbyist issue into a global one through the publicity and campaigning that took place. Climate Camp was 1,000 people turning up overnight, camping for a week and demonstrating and so on. It transformed the whole debate, but it will be insignificant in comparison with the protests that will take place if the Government try to force through a third runway, so we need a clear statement.

Secondly, we need to minimise the existing harms. That means managing demand, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said. The best way to manage demand is, to be frank, through taxation, including VAT and fuel duty, and through frequent flier policies. We should also be assessing whether, in the world of Zoom and Teams, the level of business travel using aviation is absolutely necessary. It behoves us all to question all our transport undertakings, but the Government need to publish guidelines to discourage unnecessary business travel.

Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Angus said, we need a scale of investment in research and development that we have just not seen under this Government or previous Governments, whose policies have been more about predict and provide to meet escalating demand. We now need a scale of investment in research and development in alternative fuels, including batteries enabling short-haul flights, which undoubtedly will be developed. I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from—he knows much more than me—but I think that with such investment, we have in our universities and research institutes the engineering creativity to be world leaders on that front. I am old enough to remember the incredible work that was done on engines including the RB211 up in Barnoldswick, where I worked at the time.

As we develop new methods, the Government then need to step in, as they did with cars, with some form of aviation scrappage scheme. Sometimes I resent handing over money to some of those companies because, as we have seen during the covid crisis, they have used it not necessarily to support the sector or the local economy, but to maximise their profits. A well-constructed scrappage scheme was undertaken—sometimes it is difficult to mention the name—by Peter Mandelson, and it was incredibly successful in transforming the environmental effect of the car industry. That is needed.

Finally, I will make a local plea: we need a just transition. If we are serious about a just transition, it means supporting the aviation communities that surround airports—in my constituency, that means Heathrow, but there are others. What they need now is support to develop alternative economies for the future.

One of the things that I suggested to the Chancellor before I stood down from the Front Bench is that, for my constituents in particular, but also for outer London, west London and all the other aviation communities, we need an individual taskforce bringing together the Government, local authorities, local communities, trade unions and the companies themselves to start planning the alternative skills training that is needed, the alternative investment, and other forms of logistics, including aviation and other employment opportunities. In that way, we can build confidence in the idea that we can decarbonise the aviation sector. At the moment, I do not think people have that confidence.

I make this plea: we are running out of time, and I do not want to keep doing this every year. This debate is like a hardy perennial. I do not want us to keep turning up and having this debate without seeing an awful lot of progress.

Regional Airports

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). I represent the constituency in which Heathrow is located, which in no way can be described as a regional airport—I apologise if he feels that I am Zoom-bombing the debate—but I think it is absolutely critical to have a discussion about the need for a new aviation strategy, as a result of the development of regional airports over the recent period.

The aviation national policy statement previously before the House is no longer relevant. Aviation movements have changed. The way in which aviation will be used in the future has changed dramatically. As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) said, we also now have to address aviation’s role in achieving net zero, as well as the impact of the pandemic. All of those factors need to be taken into account in the discussion of the future of regional airports.

The pattern of aviation is changing. We now know that the whole approach on which the last strategy and policy statement was based—with a major hub and a large number of regional airports that feed into that hub—no longer reflects the pattern of aviation. Even Howard Davies, the chair of the commission into the development of Heathrow and the potential for a third runway, identified that in the initial work and has confirmed it subsequently.

For my constituency, that means that we no longer want nor need a third runway at Heathrow, but we accept the need for investment in regional airports, because passengers simply want to fly point to point. In addition, we all want to overcome the environmental impact of aeroplanes coming from regional airports into Heathrow and outwards, which is wasteful and does not do regional economies any good whatever.

It is time for the Government to look at this matter overall. They need to look at a new national policy statement for aviation, which accepts that regional airports play a role in levelling up, of which there is no doubt; that the focus of concentration and investment should no longer be on a major hub at Heathrow and therefore a third runway is no longer necessary; and that if we are going to have an environmental aviation policy, it has to be localised and focus on minimising travel in some forms and, at the same time, on developing the science.

It is important that other hon. Members have time to speak in the debate about their own airports, so I have one final point. It is a plea from all of us for help on the pandemic. We are all hoping that we can come out of the pandemic as rapidly as possible, that people can start travelling again and enjoying their foreign holidays, and that we can maintain the level of jobs in our aviation sector. I still believe that will take some time and we have to be realistic, and therefore, communities that are dependent on aviation, on their local airports and on the aviation sector will need continuing support. I am worried about the run-down and closure of the furlough scheme.

The sector needs special assistance and our communities need longer term strategic support, particularly if jobs are to be shed in the sector. We need to ensure that we have a comprehensive strategy for the workers who will be displaced. That means investment in training and in developing local economies, which will be based on new high-paid, high-skilled jobs, particularly in artificial intelligence and technology, because many of our constituents who work in the aviation sector are highly trained. This is a time to stand back, put in motion some urgent measures to deal with the pandemic and then look at a long-term, stable aviation strategy that contributes to our economy and to tackling the existential threat of climate change.