Work Capability Reassessments

Debate between John McDonnell and Julie Hilling

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Julie Hilling]

What concerns me is those people who will always have such a condition or who have a progressive condition, meaning that they will only get worse. What about them? To continue to reassess them and put them through that stress feels absolutely wrong—I cannot think of a better word—

[John McDonnell]

Cruel.

[Julie Hilling]

Cruel, yes. Why are we doing that to that group of people who will never get better?

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Julie Hilling

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I wish I hadn’t bothered now! We must not go back to that level of debate. The hon. Gentleman is one of the most intelligent new Members of the House, and I have even started to read his books. We must not get dragged down into such trite debates. We will meet separately and work together to develop a strategy to enhance the economic benefits of Heathrow for both our communities, as I did with his predecessor. The debate is not about whether to close Heathrow; it is about how to strike the right balance between enhancing the employment benefits and protecting the environment, and that is all that these amendments do. They simply say to the Secretary of State and the CAA, “You need to take into account the environmental implications and the effects on local communities.”

What has happened in Sipson has not been taken into account. BAA is still buying properties and letting them out on a short-term basis. The community is therefore continuously blighted. There is no compensation for the local businesses—the butcher, the hairdresser, the local post office and pub. Their loyal clientele is now gone, and some of those businesses are closing down while the others can no longer earn a living.

We have met BAA and I have met Colin Marshall. I pushed the boat out and took him for a coffee in central Hayes. I sought to see whether at least some support could be devised for those local businesses to tide them over while they build up the loyal base again as best they can. The answer was no. Only two weeks ago, the board rejected that request. What is happening now? It is offering a small element to try to tart up the front of the shops—that is all.

That is the sort of blight that has occurred as a result of the activities of BAA—well not BAA, but Ferrovial, the Spanish company founded by a fascist under Franco that has now exploited my community to maximise its profits and ship them abroad to prop up the construction corporation, which is now having financial trouble. So I welcome the opportunity that these amendments would provide to place that duty on the CAA and the Secretary of State to ensure that the impact on local communities is taken into account. If these duties were in place now, BAA would have to introduce a compensation scheme for those local businesses in Sipson; it would have to stop blighting the overall area; it would have to introduce a scheme to compensate my constituents for the noise pollution they are experiencing; and it would have to drive down its operations that are producing such air pollution in my area.

I finish by saying that some of my local schools around Heathrow have a box into which children put their pumps when they go into class in the morning. They do so because they suffer from such a range of respiratory conditions, particularly asthma. In Hillingdon, we now specifically train our teachers on how to deal with asthma attacks in class; this is as a result of the air pollution, particularly that from the airport itself. The amendments are some of the most significant in terms of attempting to affect the environmental impact of aviation in this country that we have seen for many a year, and they should be treated seriously. New clause 6 should be treated seriously, because the noise affects not only people’s enjoyment, but their health, as has been shown in recent research. I am pleased that new clause 6 is being put to the test in the House tonight. Even if the Government cannot accept the other amendments, I would welcome it if they would think again, as we go into this consultation on aviation overall, to see how we can build in better environmental protections for the local communities against the expansion and operations of aviation overall.

[Julie Hilling]

I will not speak for long, but I wish to express the enormous disappointment, among not only the green groups, but the many people who live near airports and are affected by them, at the fact that the Government did not put an environmental duty in the Bill. I accept that the amendments that we are proposing do not go as far as we would have wanted this Bill to go. However, the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) demonstrated exactly why we need at least to include these amendments in the Bill and to continue to work for the future to ensure that those measures operate across all airports.

There is great concern worldwide about air travel’s effect on the environment and the damage it can do to the ozone layer, but many more people are concerned about what happens day to day. They are concerned about the effect of airports on their daily lives. Noise is the most obvious issue we talk about when we debate airports and although it is, of course, a very serious issue, it affects a smaller group of people than other environmental concerns.

Similarly the actual flight makes up only a small part of the carbon footprint of any journey by air. We also need to consider: the environmental costs of getting people to the airport by road and rail; the cost of road congestion, which is a huge issue in my community in Greater Manchester; and the cost to the environment of the car parking spaces that seem to spread across the fields, particularly around Heathrow and Gatwick, where we seem to grow cars instead of crops.

Of course the industry faces competing priorities. Its main priority has to be getting passengers to their destination in the most profitable way possible. Profits—or at least costs—are even more important for regional airports, many of which are struggling to survive at the moment. For airports it is about having as many flights as possible. Airports such as Heathrow are having to work out how to squeeze them into the restricted air and ground space. It is about getting passengers to the airport in the easiest way possible because the operators need to ensure that passengers choose to travel with them in the future. To believe that operators will consider environmental issues out of the goodness of their hearts seems somewhat naive.

Manchester, my local airport, does what it can to be a good neighbour. It has invested greatly in rail links and other mitigating measures and it is now investing in Metrolink to bring more people to the airport. I do not believe, however, that a vague requirement, rather than an absolute duty, is enough.

As was discussed in Committee, I do not believe that passengers make a choice because of the green credentials of their airport. I am sure that other passengers, like me, work out where they want to go, what price it will be and how easy it will be to get to the airport. Deciding whether to fly or catch a train might be my one environmental consideration, but I do not make any further considerations in choosing where to go. Furthermore, as has been said, other regulators, such as the Office of Rail Regulation, have a duty as regards environmental concerns. It seems a bit perverse when we are considering new duties for the CAA not to say that it should have an environmental duty.

We must say to the aviation industry that the environment is a big issue, both in terms of its carbon footprint and for those who live near airports, who are extremely disappointed that the Government have not used the Bill as an opportunity to consider the problems and do something about them. Yes, the amendments are not all that we would want, but they are a start. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support them, particularly those people who have argued long and hard about their environmental concerns.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Debate between John McDonnell and Julie Hilling

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I shall be brief. I make a plea to put an item on the Leveson agenda. As a result of the work of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Leveson will be looking at the ethics of journalism. There have been calls in the House today and throughout the debate over the past three weeks for greater adherence to the Press Complaints Commission code of conduct.

The commission’s code of conduct is based on the National Union of Journalists code of conduct, which was first developed in 1936. Every NUJ member has to sign the code when they become a member of the union. It is policed by the ethics council, and there is an ethics hotline to advise journalists. The code includes the principle that a journalist

“strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair”.

Journalists must obtain their material

“by honest, straightforward and open means”

and do

“nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest”.

There is also a conscience clause in the code of conduct, which says that

“a journalist has the right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of an editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the code.”

Where the NUJ is organised, that code has worked.

Some Members will remember when, back in 2006, the Daily Star tried to produce a racist front page, but the workers, backed by their union and Members on both sides of the House, refused to publish it because of the damage it would do to community relations. The code of conduct did not work at News International because the NUJ was cleared out. News International used a loophole in the law. It set up the News International staff association, which was not certified as an independent union by the Government’s certification officer, yet it was still used to argue that there was a pre-existing union agreement, so the NUJ was not recognised. As a result, the journalists were not protected by a union.

We heard the description of the working atmosphere in Wapping—the bullying, the victimisation and the pressure put on journalists to produce material by whatever means. Someone described it as the development of a culture of sewer journalism. The House was warned. In 2004, when the Government were considering the last but one employment Bill, the NUJ briefed us all and urged us to introduce a conscience clause that would enable journalists to be protected when they refused to do anything against the code. That was rejected. I moved the amendment at the time, but it was rejected. The argument made by the previous Government was that it went

“too far in constraining employers.”—[Official Report, 29 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1364.]

It was opposed by Members on both sides of the House.

We were warned again by the NUJ, though. It came back in 2009 to present evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. It urged the Committee to reconsider the introduction of a conscience clause that would protect journalists standing up against bullying employers who sought to introduce work or material into their work that was against the code of conduct. The Committee ignored that evidence and request, however, and made no recommendation on it. I urge the Leveson inquiry to examine the introduction of a conscience clause backed by statute to protect journalists who refuse to go into the sewer and use the methods that we have all condemned in these recent debates.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the public largely believe what they read in the newspapers and what they see on the television and internet, and that one of the most important things that can come out of this whole sorry affair is a media that now tell the truth?

[John McDonnell]

I think that we will arrive at that situation only if we enforce the code of conduct and if journalists and employers know where they stand and that, if they breach the code, journalists can stand up and be protected in law if they refuse to practise the sort of journalism we have seen recently. The Leveson inquiry should consider anti-trade union legislation, which has been used to undermine employees’ rights at places such as News International when unions have tried to protect members who have simply stood up for quality and ethical journalism.

Railway Industry

Debate between John McDonnell and Julie Hilling

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Westminster Hall

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

I shall make several brief points. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I chair the RMT parliamentary group, as the Minister will know. We are hoping that through the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and ASLEF, we can have a dialogue with the Government during this key period when critical decisions are being made about the future of rail. I would welcome an early ministerial meeting to discuss the interim McNulty report when it is published in November. It is a pity that it was not published before the comprehensive spending review, because it would have been helpful to see whether it influenced some of the decisions that will be announced tomorrow.

The RMT group met with Roy McNulty last week for an informal discussion of some of its concerns about what happened in the past and what seems to be occurring under this Government. We were hoping that there would be a more objective discussion about the future structure of rail in this country, but it appears that any prospect of looking at an integrated railway system under public ownership—even some element of public ownership in the structure which would enable a public sector comparator—has been ignored again.

I still cannot comprehend why we cannot at least consider using one of the franchises as a public sector comparator. We know from the experience in the south-east that when Connex was brought back into public ownership for a period, it ran more efficiently, more effectively and more profitably than most other franchises across the country. We hoped that the previous Government would at least maintain it in public ownership so that there could be a public sector comparator.

If Members trawl through Hansard, they will see question after question over past years in which Ministers were asked why we cannot have a public sector comparator. They were also asked what calculations and assessments had been made in respect of other systems across Europe that are under integrated public ownership, so that we could at least make some judgment of the private franchising system that has been in operation in this country for the past two decades.

Several lessons have come out of independent comparisons. It has been found that integrated systems under public ownership, without a panoply and multiplicity of various agencies—my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) listed 24 different companies and four or five regulatory bodies or Government decision-making bodies—are more efficient as well as more cost-effective. I am concerned that in Mr Roy McNulty’s review there is still a prejudice even against examination of a public sector option or role in any part of our system beyond Network Rail.

Briefly, on investment, the rail industry overall, including management and unions, hopes that commitments will be given by the Government in the comprehensive spending review statement to high-speed rail—we look forward to the consultation starting in January—and to Crossrail. That would at least allow us to see a longer-term future for investment in the infrastructure that we so desperately need.

I compliment the previous Government, who at least committed themselves to Crossrail and to bringing forward high-speed rail, although I was critical of some of the delays in investment. We need this Minister to tell us that that long-term programme is secure.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) discussed rolling stock. Even under this Government, we need a discussion about investment in rolling stock, which would stimulate British industry rather than the import market. With a limited amount of investment and a commitment to the purchase of rolling stock, there is potential to rebuild the rail manufacturing base in Britain. This relates largely to what my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) said about the loss of skills over years if we do not invest in the rolling stock manufacturing base of our country.

Any lifting of the cap on protected fares will fly in the face of everything that the Government, when they were in opposition, said about their commitment to the development of rail as one of the key transport mechanisms that will help us to protect our environment. The threatened increases of anything up to 37% to rail fares on some routes, and now the threat of increased fares on London underground, undermine the Government’s green credentials from the outset. I hope that there will be some acknowledgment in the comprehensive spending review of the role that rail plays in tackling climate change, and therefore the importance of maintaining fares at a reasonable level.

Passenger numbers have increased dramatically over the past 13 years, largely as a result of the increase in economic activity. As we go into recession, there will inevitably be a reduction of passenger usage, and there will be a temptation to make up the funding gap by increasing fares. That would be completely counter-productive: it would push more people off public transport and, as a result, have a dramatic impact on our policies to tackle climate change and our environmental policies overall.

Finally, let me raise a staffing issue. The treatment of the Jarvis workers was a disgrace. The way in which they were notified of the loss of their jobs was appalling. They have almost been turned into roaming serfs looking for work. We hear stories of people having to move around the country on zero-hour contracts, and even of people putting up camps near to where they can bid for work the following day.

I raised the matter with the previous Government and said that there should have been an intervention by the Government and Network Rail, and that the contracts and staffing levels could have been maintained. Things were badly handled then, and there is a need for this Government to intervene now, because this is not just about how individual staff are treated; it is also about the expertise that we need for the future.

Surely to God we have learned lessons in the past that if we do not maintain expertise, and therefore do not maintain the track effectively, there will inevitably be accidents, loss of life and serious injury. We have had so many inquiries—surely we have learned the lessons. I urge this Government to intervene, to look at what happened in the displacement of ex-Jarvis workers and their expertise, and to see what can be done to secure not just their jobs but also their expertise for the long term.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I declare an interest in the debate, as I have a constituency development plan with the TSSA.

On the staffing point, does my hon. Friend agree that if we break up Network Rail, we will create not only more insecurity for workers, but a bidding structure for them? When rail was first privatised, the bidding war for drivers made the cost much more expensive because each franchise then bid for certain expertise.

A more important issue is safety. Already there is erosion of track inspection and other safety elements. If we fragment the industry further, especially track control, we will certainly make accidents, such as those at Grayrigg, Hatfield and so on, more likely.

[John McDonnell]

I could not have said that more eloquently. My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I urge the Government to tread carefully when making decisions on franchising and the integration of track with operations, because we have seen what has happened elsewhere. Mr Armitt said that when companies have gained franchises in other sectors, they seek to “sweat the assets” to maximise their profits. That eventually has an implication for safety. Having a nationally integrated system would overcome those issues.

My hon. Friend also referred to the transaction costs involved both in that sort of breaking up and in individual franchising. The Government should carefully examine Roy McNulty’s work and the transaction costs that will result. On London Underground, I was assured by the previous Government that Metronet was a one-off failure and that Tube Lines would be secure, but we then had the failure of Tube Lines. The estimated cost of those franchises and setting up the public-private partnership was £400 million on consultancies, accountants and lawyers alone. The Government should learn lessons from the past.

On London Underground staffing, despite what people read in newspapers, RMT and TSSA have taken industrial action because 800 jobs will go if London Underground does not reconsider its position. Those 800 staff are based at stations including Hayes and Harlington in my constituency. If we lose those staff, we lose security and safety at those stations in the lead-up to the London Olympics. We are trying to put on a display for the world so that when people come here to enjoy the Olympics, they can travel in comfort and absolute safety. It would be a retrograde, short-sighted step to lay off those 800 staff, particularly at this key time.

I urge London Underground to return to the negotiating table and to seek a settlement with the two unions. Otherwise, there may be a long, bitter and protracted dispute that will affect the travelling public in a way that will jeopardise their safety in the long term. The dispute is a principled one. It is not about wages, but about looking after the safety of the travelling public. That is why I support it and have appeared on picket lines. There may be a role for the Government. If London Underground remains intransigent, the Government should intervene, because the matter is important.

I welcome this important debate engendered by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. I urge the Minister to meet the union groups, to discuss the McNulty report on the long-term future, and perhaps to return to the matter in six months to monitor progress on the Government’s initial decisions.