Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone
Mike Kane Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing the debate.
I am going to scrap my speech for a second. One of the great honours of living in London for part of the week is understanding how absolutely fantastic the public transport system is. If you try to get back to Manchester today on an Avanti train, Godspeed to you all. If you have tried to get across the Pennines over the last few months, Godspeed to you all. I have had the great honour in my nearly nine years as an MP to spend one day a month walking in London. I have done the London loop, so unfortunately I have walked through most of the places represented by the hon. Members present, including Orpington, Petts Wood, Ruislip, Wallington and Watford. What a beautiful place London is. I am still astonished by the quality of the public transport system, which is second to none on this planet and the envy of everybody outside this great conurbation.
Every year, 4,000 Londoners die prematurely due to poisonous air, and the greatest number of deaths are in outer London boroughs, with 11 Londoners dying prematurely every day. Air pollution is quite simply a matter of life and death; it makes our communities sick. Despite the Government’s promise that there would be no weakening of environmental targets post Brexit, it seems that they are refusing to match the EU standards, setting a weaker target while sentencing our children and communities to an unnecessary 10 years of toxic air.
The challenge is threefold: we must tackle toxic air pollution, we must deal with the climate emergency, and we must deal with traffic congestion. I was at the Sutton Ecology Centre at the weekend, and I saw just how congested the A232 is and the problems there.
Elliot Colburn
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the A232 is only congested because the Mayor of London has scrapped the A232 review that he promised to do?
Mike Kane
The A232 is actually congested because there are too many vehicles on it—that is what congestion is. London is a beautiful town, so I do not know why we allow it to happen. It is incredible to me.
The Government’s own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, says that the Government have failed to announce new targets, as they should have done under the Environment Act 2021, and that the new Government air quality targets are too weak and will condemn another generation to poor air.
We know that around 85% of vehicles driving in outer London already meet the pollution standards. Mayor Khan has introduced the biggest scrappage scheme yet: £110 million in support for Londoners on low incomes, disabled Londoners, micro-businesses and charities to scrap or retrofit their non-compliant vehicles. He has extended the exemption period for them and for community transport. As the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) said, the scheme was devised under the last Mayor of London, but it has taken Mayor Khan to implement it.
As was already pointed out, the Mayor also announced plans to add an extra 1 million kilometres to the bus network—much of that in outer London. Again, that requires leadership and support from central Government. The Government’s clean air fund excludes applications from London boroughs and the Greater London Authority. London’s share would amount to around £42 million, which would have gone a long way to expanding or supporting the Mayor’s £110 million scrappage fund.
I am a Greater Manchester MP. We have had problems. There are nitrogen dioxide sewers—controlled by Highways England—going through my constituency. If those roads were factories, they would have been shut down. They are simply not acceptable in this day and age. Local authorities were given a legal direction to clean up the air by 2024, and like Birmingham, Bradford and Portsmouth, they had to act, but Ministers have comprehensively failed to provide the necessary funding. Ministers need to help families and small businesses switch to electric vehicles, and they must take action to expand charging infrastructure. Plumbers who use their vans for work are being priced out of this revolution. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for having two brothers who are plumbers—wouldn’t we all want that?
This week, we learned that instead of charging ahead, the Government are slipping back on the charging infrastructure strategy. Rapid charging fund trials have been delayed, changes to planning rules have been kicked into the long grass, and take-up of the on-street charging scheme is anaemic. Labour’s plan for green growth will drive jobs, tackle the cost of living and help to clean up toxic air. There will be help for families with the cost of switching to electric vehicles, and we will provide the action we need to tackle toxic air. Britain is the only country in the developed world where private bus operators set routes and fares with no say from the public. That is not the case in London, but it is for bus services outside London. I was delighted to see the work that Andy Burnham has done as Mayor of Greater Manchester in setting the £2 fares, which the Government are now copying.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, who spoke eloquently about the problems of Putney High Street, which is one of the most polluted places in the country. As somebody who rides a bike to Richmond Park occasionally, I have to go and experience it. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies); he is in charge of his facts, and gave powerful personal testimony about asthma and his children.
Let me say this to Conservative Members, genuinely and from the bottom of my heart: where there are low-traffic neighbourhoods, and where cars are tackled, electoral popularity rises. Tackling air pollution is electorally popular. I look at the percentage chances of Conservative Members winning their seats in the next election. In Dartford, they have a 64% chance of losing. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) has a 57% chance of losing. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) has a 64% chance of losing. No wonder the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) is going on about the Lib Dems—they have a 52% chance of winning that seat.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Order. That is jolly interesting, but the topic is the ultra low emission zone.
Mr Holden
There is certainly no leadership from the Mayor of London, as we can see from all the hon. Members here, and there is certainly no leadership from the Lib Dems, who were too scared to turn up to this debate. I think the hon. Gentleman and I can agree on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington made a really important point about grace periods, because the exemptions are very limited. Points were also made by the hon. Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who spoke passionately about charities. Grace periods will be extended for disabled and disabled passenger vehicles as well as wheelchair-accessible private hire vehicles. Those categories will be exempt only until October 2027. Minibuses used for community transport, the charities my hon. Friend spoke about, will be exempt only until October 2025. Some of those charities are in outer London and many work across the south-east—they will not even be able to apply for the scrappage scheme.
In addition, NHS patients may be eligible to claim back under the Mayor’s plans, but only if they are clinically assessed as too ill to travel to an appointment on public transport. It is not about whether the transport is available, but about whether they are too ill to travel on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner made the really good point that it is not available at all in many parts of outer London. As he said, the choice just is not there for many of his constituents, and it is not there for many other Members’ constituents, either.
Currently, emergency vehicles are exempt from ULEZ and LEZ charges. However, the sunset period lasts only until October 2023, which is months away. Has an assessment been made of the impact on London services, including the ambulance service, the Metropolitan Police Service and the fire service? It will be interesting to see that, if there is one. There will also be an impact on the council tax bills of Londoners.
Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, asked questions about the Mayor’s authority. Specifically, they are concerned that the Mayor may apply ULEZ charges to motor vehicles that are current under the scheme today, such as compliant petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]
Mike Kane Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Today represents the 41st anniversary of the Penlee disaster when eight brave members of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution set out on a stormy night off the coast of Cornwall to rescue the crew of the Union Star. Having rescued four of them, another 16 were lost at sea. Today we remember the pain of that community in the south-west, and the bravery that those people show on a daily basis.
The maritime sector is responsible for transporting 90% of global trade and supplying the world with food, fuel, medicines and goods. The world’s 1.9 million seafarers are key workers. We as a nation ask a lot of them, and they do not let us down, as has been pointed out tonight, particularly during the pandemic. We owe our mariners and seafarers the most protection, and I use the word “protection” deliberately. We must protect their rights as workers, protect their pay and conditions, and protect their future.
We have seen what happens when bad bosses go rogue. We are a proud seafaring nation that was once the envy of the world. How could a Dubai-owned company, which was given millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money by this Government during the pandemic, sack 800 staff and seemingly get away with it? It has got away with it. It knew we have a weak Government, who might talk a good game—after all, at the time both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport said that the company would be criminally investigated and sanctioned. But that has not happened.
Peter Hebblethwaite, who was described by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) as the world’s worst boss—I have noticed it is a crowded field—cynically trampled on workers’ rights, and has gone unpunished and faced zero consequences. When P&O pulled the rug out from underneath its staff, and sacked them illegally over a pre-recorded Zoom call, I can honestly say that never in my political life had I seen such blatant abuse of workers’ rights at such a scale. That must not happen again. The Bill is supposed to strengthen protections for workers, and we will work with the Government to set out what the Bill can do. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said that the Bill does not address the situation that happened with P&O, so let us not fool ourselves. Until we start with criminal liabilities, and hike them up, as well as protection against criminal negligence, such companies will continue, and are continuing, to get away with it.
First, we will press for a reduction in the number of port visits to UK ports from 120 to 52 times a year. We will amend the legislation to ensure that HMRC’s involvement is stronger, and that its role is clear when it comes to ensuring that bad bosses comply with the minimum wage. We ask that the Bill ensures that fines are mandated for non- compliance with the national minimum wage, and that they are punitive enough to act as a deterrent. We will ask in Committee that if directors of those companies fail to pay the national minimum wage, they should be found criminally responsible. Our amendments, if accepted by the Government, will ensure that port operators are not their own authorities and are not marking their homework. There must be firm guidance on surcharges, and the Secretary of State should be responsible for establishing a method for collecting those fines. We cannot give ultimate power to port operators—bear in mind that P&O operates a port, and it is inconceivable that it would potentially be responsible for fining itself and its business competitors at the same time. We know that bad bosses will exploit any gaps in the Bill, and it is incumbent on us to ensure that a third party collects the fines, not individual port authorities.
We have had a full and thorough debate, and I thank hon. Members who have, towards the end of the year, turned up to participate in it. First, I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who said that the Bill is not the whole solution to the problem. He is absolutely right. I hope that, some time after the Bill has passed, his Select Committee will take it away and reflect on how successful it has been. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) is a doughty champion for the docks in her constituency, and she was exactly right to say that P&O’s action was a disgusting act of industrial vandalism. I note further that her council has been declared bankrupt tonight, so I wish it all the best and hope that it can come through its current problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) is another doughty campaigner who, in a tour de force, eloquently described the working conditions that these workers now face, with weeks and weeks at sea, on for 12 hours a day, seven days a week. He is right that the Bill needs improving,
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) for being the Minister through such turbulent times for both aviation and maritime. He put in a shift—in my opinion, on some days there is no fairness in politics. He said that P&O’s actions did not appeal to a British sense of fairness. I would say that they could not have happened in any country with proper employment laws. That is what really needs to change if we want to make progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) talked about morality. I rarely go into morality in politics because there is rarely a black-or-white day in this business, but he described P&O’s action as immoral—it was—and the Bill as a missed opportunity.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) started well, and I am sympathetic to the crisis in her coastal community. However, she strayed into errant Whips’ lines. She kept saying that Labour Front-Bench Members were silent on something, but she did not say what that was. I am happy to give way if she wants to tell me what we are silent on. On her criticism of unions, as a fellow traveller of faith, I will lend her my copy of Pope Leo XIII’s 1892 encyclical “Rerum Novarum”, which stood up for the rights of trade unions to organise. Labour Members will always stand up for that right.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) took us down a Netflix line for a while. He said that seafarers get poverty pay. It is poverty pay, but it is worse than that, because people now cannot get into these jobs. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) made a great speech. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said that the legislation is like a mouse. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) said that DP World’s pension deficit is the same as the amount it spent on a golf tournament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) talked about a bright future for our coastal communities and how those jobs that could have been the future of those communities now cannot be accessed. Labour will work constructively with the Government to strengthen the Bill by closing the loopholes that we know bad bosses will exploit and to ensure that our seafarers are protected.
Draft Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 2022
Mike Kane Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
As ever, Mr Vickers, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as it was to talk before the start of the Committee about all things relating to the mariners and Grimsby Town. I thank the Minister for his explanation—that quick Wikipedia tour of the history of the International Maritime Organisation—in which, without blushing, he did not mention P&O once. We do need to train up some British seafarers, but I shall come to that later in my speech.
We support the statutory instrument. The implementation of the amendments to the standards of training, certification and watchkeeping regulations will ensure that seafarers on specialised ships can undertake the required additional training and be issued with the necessary certification to demonstrate the appropriate level of competency. This will allow United Kingdom seafarers to take up employment on specialised ships. Furthermore, implementation will also ensure that training providers approved by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State can train and certify United Kingdom seafarers and those outside the United Kingdom as well.
The maritime sector is responsible for transporting 90% of global trade and supplying the world with food, fuel, medicines and goods. The training and development of the world’s 1.9 million seafarers is key for shipping as we move away from conventional fuels and transition towards alternative low and zero-carbon fuels and technologies. I was pleased to see the announcement earlier this month at COP27 regarding the green shipping corridor between the US and Norway and the Netherlands.
We know the value of highly skilled seafarers. Earlier this year, P&O Ferries sacked 800 staff without notice. We all remember the ships stranded with agency staff on board—agency staff who were, in many cases, unskilled and inexperienced. One such incident involved the European Causeway, a passenger ferry that can carry up to 410 passengers. When it suffered a total power failure 5 miles off Larne in County Antrim, three lifeboats were scrambled to its aid, along with a tugboat. Two and a half hours later it was escorted to port; it was only the good weather in the Irish sea that averted a serious incident.
Before entering service, all ships previously staffed by skilled P&O seafarers were required to undergo a full safety inspection before being operated by the new agency crew. The European Causeway failed its first inspection with 31 separate safety deficiencies, including life-saving appliances found to be “not as required” and incomplete emergency systems.
It is unconscionable that anybody with responsibility for safety at sea is not trained. Regulation 27 is headed:
“Safety familiarisation, basic training and instruction for all seafarers”.
Who is responsible for bearing the costs of the outlined seafarer training? The cost of some such courses runs into thousands of pounds. Some seafarers are paid just £5.50 an hour. It is no good having a nine-point plan if nobody acts on what is happening on our sea highways. There are responsible employers who want highly skilled and trained seafarers, but that is not the norm and there is no mandatory requirement or scope within the statutory instrument to make it incumbent on them. Surely training seafarers in safety is in everyone’s best interests. If Members will pardon the pun, we do not want to miss the boat on this. We must be as committed to a just transition as we are to decarbonisation and the move to green fuels in the industry.
I note that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has commissioned further research into the use of onshore simulators to train officer cadets. That also applies to ratings, as they too have watch duties. Will the Minister apprise me of the research into onshore training being equivalent to sea-time training? I know that it has attracted significant opposition from some within the industry, and in principle we support the proposal of trialling it and assessing the results to determine whether it should be made permanent. Some idea of timescales for that research would be helpful.
In the explanatory memorandum, I notice that the estimated cost of the impact on business, charities and voluntary bodies is £1.6 million. Is there a breakdown of how that is split and how charities, voluntary bodies and small businesses might afford it? The Opposition support any steps taken to improve the conditions and safety of seafarers. We would like Government to go further and commit to improving pay and conditions for seafarers across the board. We have made the case, time and again, for a just transition. Without a just transition, many workers will lose their livelihoods. In the case of maritime, many have spent a significant proportion of their life employed at sea and will not have the ability to work in the evolving professions. We will not oppose the statutory instrument, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Kane Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Earlier this year, the then Transport Secretary said of the P&O scandal:
“we will never support those who treat workers with such callousness”—[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 842.]
I now have evidence that its competitor, Irish Ferries, pays its seafarers just £5.50 an hour, yet in September Ministers awarded it a contract worth tens of thousands of pounds. How can the Government condemn the scandal of seafarers’ pay and then hand over taxpayers’ money without conditions to a company whose business model is based on poverty pay?
Mr Holden
We are looking speedily at this important matter at the moment. The Seafarers’ Wages Bill is coming to this House within the next few weeks to address many of these issues that the Opposition spokesman raises.
Draft Merchant Shipping (Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships) Order 2022
Mike Kane Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I had a few nice, dulcet things to say about the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but we do not have him in the Chair, so thank you for stepping into the breach; it is good of you.
I welcome the Minister to his place. North West Durham is a beautiful part of the world, and I know Lanchester well. I am sure Members agree that in his first outing at an SI Committee, the Minister has done extraordinarily well. I am also sure that we all came into politics to discuss statutory instruments about barnacles on boats. I might have to take some anti-fouling measures myself; I will check my deodorant, because the Minister is about the fourth or fifth on my watch as shadow spokesperson for aviation and maritime. I wish him well in his time in office.
That is enough of the niceties. The implementation of the convention will protect United Kingdom waters from harmful effects occurring from the use of prohibited substances, not just on UK ships but on non-UK ships visiting our waters. We will be supporting the draft order, as it is vital to take every step within our power to reduce the leaching of toxins into water.
There are two major and interlinked environmental challenges in the marine industry: reducing emissions, and preventing the transfer of invasive species through biofouling. The formation of barnacles and other unwanted attachments, such as molluscs and algae, increase the consumption of fuel and slow ships down. In order to address that, ships’ hulls are coated with anti-fouling paints. Historically, coatings such as lime and arsenic were used to coat the hulls, but advances in chemistry enabled that problem to be resolved in a modern and effective way using metallic compounds.
Bulk carriers, tankers and general cargo ships can spend long periods in ports being loaded and unloaded. Some might also be prevented from berthing for long periods by neap tides. In such cases, shallow water and temperate environments can lead to accelerated fouling. Many shipowners must deal with those challenging operations on a regular basis. Only today, there was an interesting article in The Times about the sequestration of Russian yachts and the need to keep them moving to stop their deterioration.
Many ships have unpredictable trading patterns and must find cargoes where they can. That can mean that after operating in an area such as the north Atlantic with a coating chosen for that environment, the ship is switched to tropical zones and operation in different climates. The lower the predictability in operations, the higher the risk for fouling on the ship’s hull, potentially leading to increased fuel consumption and higher environmental impact.
Coatings are usually developed for specific operating conditions, meaning that their anti-fouling performance is highly problematic. Any changes to the expected operating conditions mean that the coating will not perform as expected. The main factors that increase the probability of fouling are unfavourable conditions such as location and duration during long idling periods. Modern coatings have also been proven to leach into water, and the results have been devastating for marine ecosystems.
As people have tried to do the right thing by coating ships to prevent the formation of barnacles and the attachment of other undesirables, and thereby reduce fuel burn, the issue has recurred with the newer metallic compounds. Those compounds have been proven to cause sex changes in whelks and deformation in oysters, and they may have entered the food chain.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
This issue has a huge effect on the environment and on those who reside in our seas, particularly turtles, whales and larger fish, as well as whatever is attaching to ships. Whatever we do in our seas will ultimately have an effect on the food chain, as my hon. Friend said, and on those who inhabit that environment. Perhaps the Government will come back with something more concrete on the environment and the seas.
Mike Kane
Pope Francis reminded us in “Laudato Si’” that we are leaving an enormous pile of filth on this planet, so anything that we can do to reduce that filth and to ensure that it does not leach into the food chain of marine life is extraordinarily important. My hon. Friend is right to intervene to make that point.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
With your indulgence, Mrs Murray, I want to identify the problem of industrial fishing, which you will know a great deal about. It has precisely the same effect on the ecosystem that the hon. Gentleman talked about, and particularly on smaller sea creatures of the kind he mentioned. That is an aside, but it is relevant, given what we are discussing. I know that you will want to bring us back to the subject in hand.
The Chair
Absolutely. I think the shadow Minister would like to stick to the confines of the draft statutory instrument.
Mike Kane
Indeed I would, Mrs Murray. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is right that marine life is important, and the draft order is part of that. The Minister knows of the marine biology problems along the coastline of North West Durham, although we do not know what the issue is just yet.
A team at the University of Oldenburg’s Institute of Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment conducted a study on the matter, which was published in February 2021. The group is continuing its research, having found that most of the plastic particles in water samples taken from the German Bight—an area of the North sea that encompasses some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes—originate from binders used in marine paints. The hypothesis is that ships literally leave a kind of skid mark in the water, and that as a source of microplastics, it is of a significance similar to that of tyre wear particles from cars on land. I am sure that that will cross the Minister’s desk as part of his new portfolio with responsibility for roads.
Of all plastic entering the ocean, 94% ends up on the seabed, where it will take centuries to degrade. In the process, it will release chemicals, microplastics and nano-plastics, all of which are harmful for marine life and for the ecosystem balance. With that in mind, will the Minister apprise me of which, if any, of the anti-fouling coatings are proven not to leach microplastics into the sea? We do not want to replace one pollutant with another.
I notice that no consultation was done on this draft statutory instrument, but we broadly support its intention. However, we do not want to find ourselves here again in 20 years debating the leaching of microplastics into our waters.
Draft Merchant Shipping (Safety Standards for Passenger Ships on Domestic Voyages) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022
Mike Kane Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms McVey. You are not just my parliamentary neighbour, but a well known Liverpool fan, and there is a well known Manchester United fan right behind me—my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles. This humble Manchester City fan is going to have a smug smile all the way through—
Mike Kane
I recall discussing this issue at the height of covid—on St Patrick’s day during lockdown in 2021, some 18 months ago. That seems an extraordinarily long time ago. On doing further research, I was amazed to see that this statutory instrument addresses the final piece of the jigsaw recommended in the 2001 report by Lord Justice Clarke. There were 30 recommendations in that report, and all were accepted by the then Deputy Prime Minister, now Lord Prescott. The report followed an inquiry, as the Minister rightly said, into the sinking of the Marchioness, which was hit by a dredger in 1989. As she said, this caused the death of 51 innocent souls. To put it in context, I was 20 years old when that report was published. These measures are long overdue, and we will be supporting them today.
The regulations aim to provide suitable regulation for existing domestic passenger vessels to bring them in line with modern regulations, while being proportionate and practical. The Thames, which we overlook, is home to a large variety and number of passenger boats, which are a real draw for tourists and visitors to London and help to deliver tourists to places such as Kew gardens and Hampton Court, as well as being available for private charter. They employ many people in skilled jobs. It is because of the popularity of these boats that we must take action to improve safety standards for all. Every vessel must be safe, regardless of its age.
The River Thames, a water highway that we are all familiar with, is the busiest inland stretch of waterway in the country. The Port of London authority closely monitors ship movements on the Thames using modern systems not dissimilar to those used by air traffic controllers. Crew are better trained in safety drills and better certified now. Any ship built in the past 30 years must meet modern safety standards in relation to damage survivability, whether that is to keep it afloat should it start to take on water long enough to evacuate or rescue crew and passengers, or enable it to make its own way back to shore. However, those modern safety standards were not retrospectively applied to older ships, and that is where the concerns that we seek to address today lie.
This instrument covers life-preserving equipment such as lifejackets and lights for lifejackets, equipment to detect and extinguish fire, the availability of life rafts, alarms to warn when a ship is taking on water, and stability equipment. It feels unthinkable to me that in 2022, some 33 years since the Marchioness tragedy, we are discussing this matter.
I have read with some sympathy the feedback given during the consultation and understand the concerns raised by operators about their craft and the costs to their businesses of the safety improvements, but my concerns are to do with the safety of crew and passengers, which must be at the fore of any legislator’s mind. Although older boats have a reasonable safety record, I and—more important—the safety experts at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Port of London authority are of the opinion that this is more by luck than anything else. We cannot leave safety of crew and travellers to luck; it would be remiss of us to do so. Anyone working on or stepping on board a boat must have faith that they will be safe.
I have a couple of questions. When we discussed this matter 18 months ago, questions were raised about potential job losses. Were the unions involved in the consultation at any stage? Is there sufficient capacity in the industry to ensure that all older ships can be made compliant by the end of the two-year lead-in period? I was pleased to note in the explanatory memorandum that there is some leeway for businesses that seek to make the necessary changes to their vessels, provided they are engaging with the process. Who will monitor and define engagement with the process and how much additional time might that buy for businesses?
Almost 15 years ago, just outside the room we are in today, a vessel crashed into Westminster bridge. It had been pushed into the bridge by tides and was damaged, with an 8 foot below-the-waterline gash. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency expressed the opinion that, had the vessel that hit the bridge been an older style ship that was not compliant with the regulations contained within this instrument, it might have sunk, resulting in loss of life. Between 2010 and 2021 there were 511 incidents on the River Thames involving class V passenger boats, and almost 8% of those collisions or contacts involved older vessels in that class. Thankfully, none of the incidents resulted in fatalities, though there were injuries.
The Port of London authority has navigational safety at the heart of everything it does to ensure navigational safety along the tidal Thames—almost 100 miles from Teddington to the North sea. In line with its targets in the marine safety plan, there has been a significant reduction in serious incidents on the Thames, and the measures outlined in this instrument can only improve standards further for all. I look forward to fewer incidents and a reduction in the severity of those that do occur in the future.
Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 3) Regulations 2022
Mike Kane Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, after a historic weekend when Bolton Wanderers beat Accrington Stanley 3-2. You must be delighted. We also have a new Prime Minister-designate, and Government Members could not look glummer. Everybody should cheer up and wait by their phones: there could be a call coming their way any time soon.
The UK aviation sector was enormously impacted by the covid-19 pandemic. As the Minister said, 99% of all flights were grounded almost overnight. It was unbelievable really. The industry has started to recover but is still not back to where it was. The powers in the statutory instrument will enable carriers to better plan schedules and provide flexibility, while reducing the risk of short-notice cancellations. I hope that throughout the House we agree that the same-day cancellations that we have seen lately in the airline industry should never happen.
I will be brief as we will not oppose the regulations. We understand the significant challenges that the pandemic brought to the sector. Since March 2020 it has been necessary to reduce the 80:20 rule to 70:30. The reasons are multiple. When the skies reopened, there were issues with staffing at airports that were unprepared for the volume of travellers who wanted to fly again for holidays or to visit family, and it was necessary to intervene to protect consumers—although one might argue that had an aviation sectoral deal been provided, the jobs lost would have been retained and we would not have had to intervene again.
In six days, airlines will be in the winter season and will be flying winter timetables. As it stands, levels of air traffic are still not up to pre-pandemic levels, hovering somewhere around 80% of the levels for the corresponding period. We would not want to see airlines flying almost-empty flights in order to retain their slots. We do not want to see aviation fuel burn for no reason as ghost flights take off to protect grandfather rights to a slot.
I note that the consultation was carried out some time ago, from May to June 2022. At that time the country and the sector were in a very different position, but I will not labour the point about the chaos in airports that was front-page news for far too long. I note that there were a variety of responses from airlines and airports. Would it be possible for the Minister to apprise us of the formula used to arrive at the 70:30 requirement and the metrics used to do so? Will there be a retrospective assessment to see whether the change to 70:30 was correct?
Will the Minister assure me that, should we find ourselves meeting to discuss this matter again before the release of the summer 2023 timetables, the Government will re-consult? I very much hope that it will be unnecessary to do so or for Government to intervene, but we must not rule it out entirely. I hope that a full retrospective assessment and full consultation would be carried out.
Let me make a few points before I finish. This is not my first discussion of this nature since I came into my post, and I am sure it will not be the last. I wish to take the opportunity, as I do every time we discuss aviation, to make the case for airspace modernisation, the lack of which also prevents cleaner, greener, point-to-point flights. When will we see some progress? When we will see a real commitment to something on which the whole industry agrees and which would offer so many benefits? Perhaps the Minister could advise us as to what is causing the delay to the much-needed modernisation of our airspace in the United Kingdom?
Draft Merchant Shipping (Additional Safety Measures for Bulk Carriers) Regulations 2022
Draft Merchant Shipping (High Speed Craft) Regulations 2022
Mike Kane Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I see that Bolton Wanderers are lying seventh in the championship, but they have a game in hand, so there is hope yet of promotion at the end of the season. I know that I am allowed to digress for one time under your chairmanship of any Committee to discuss such matters.
I can see from the expression on the faces of Conservative Members that they came into politics to talk about bulk carriers and high speed craft regulations. I can see that they are all on their mobile phones checking the current update on them or perhaps—
Mike Kane
Are they tracking ships that sail in the night? Indeed. Enough of the nautical puns.
I genuinely welcome the Minister to her place; I have had to do that a few times now over the past few years. I thank the civil servants for their hard work in bringing Ministers up to speed so quickly, as is apparent today. It would have been nice if the Secretary of State, who directly answers for maritime matters, had been here, but the Minister is not a second preference and her presence is most welcome.
Let us get down to business. We are here to discuss the additional safety measures for bulk carriers. Of course we would never object to anything that improves safety and conditions for seafarers. We welcome the draft regulations to replace the Merchant Shipping Regulations of 1999. That will ensure that the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea 1974 is fully implemented.
As we all know, bulk carriers are vital in the world of commerce, as they carry unpackaged cargo such as coal and cement. Without those carriers and the brave work of those seafarers during covid we would not have kept our country stocked and supplied. The prime hazards associated with the shipment of solid bulk cargoes are those relating to structural damage due to improper cargo distribution, loss or reduction of stability during a voyage and chemical reactions of those cargoes. I note the updates relate to bulk carriers with empty holds and set standards to protect the watertight integrity of the ship, so ensuring that when loading there is an instrument that assesses the ships design and how its stability might be compromised during the process. That instrument was previously only required in bulk carriers over 150 metres in length. The updates bring in improved and updated standards on the maintenance and inspection of hatch covers, ensuring their integrity, and of single and double skinned carriers.
The primary aim of the bulk carrier statutory instrument is to facilitate the safe stowage and shipment of bulk cargoes by providing information on the dangers associated with said shipments. Those regulations will improve safety requirements and enable the UK to enforce them not just on UK ships wherever they set sail to, but to any non-UK ship when they are in our territorial waters.
Industry compliance is already high; all 29 UK flagged bulk carriers are already compliant with the standards outlined by the Minister. Given the size and nature of bulk carriers, it is vital they are safe, not only for seafarers but also for the environment. One only has to recall the bulk carrier that ran aground on a reef in Mauritius in July 2020, which then leaked oil, and caused an ecological disaster in the seas around the Indian Ocean islands. Four seafarers died while attempting to retrieve oil, and 1,000 tons of oil were eventually spilled into the ocean. More recently in waters off Gibraltar a bulk carrier ran aground and leaked oil into the oceans. Those accidents do happen but one must ask whether they would have been prevented had the additional safety measures been introduced sooner.
On enforcement, 10 regulations relate to enforcement and with one exception, they all apply to the owner and to the master. Will the burden on reporting failure to comply with the regulations under the merchant shipping legislation be placed upon the ports and harbours? Can the Minister confirm which agency will be responsible for carrying out any necessary enforcement? What are the penalties for failing to comply? If fines are to be imposed, what level of fines would be applicable? If the Minister cannot provide those answers now, I am happy to receive them in writing. Continuing with the theme of enforcement, can she confirm whether our international counterparts are aware of the forthcoming changes? In addition, were trade union representatives consulted while the regulations were developed?
The high speed craft regulations seek to make amendments to chapter 10 of the IMO’s International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea in relation to high speed craft. Those craft are typically rapid passenger craft but can also be cargo craft. Primarily, they operate domestically in UK waters, although some are known to operate between the UK and France. An example of a high-speed craft as defined in this SI is a Thames clipper. We can look out of our windows here on some days and see one. That category of vessel also covers hydrofoils and air-cushioned vessels such as hovercraft. I learned so much about pollution and hovercraft when we recently discussed a SI on the subject in this room.
We have many SIs to pass on account of a backlog, and I look forward to attending another one next Tuesday morning, and I am sure the Minister does as well.
The proposed regulations on high speed craft will further improve safety standards on those craft and will give powers to the UK to enforce those requirements against UK high speed craft, wherever they may be in the world, and also to use the same powers over non-UK high speed craft when in UK waters. Am I correct in assuming that theh international enforcement body is aware of the regulations, as I note there were only three responses to the consultation? Or perhaps it, too, was unable to distil the definition of the vessels affected because the formula was impenetrable to many. Indeed, in the explanatory memorandum the Law Society of Scotland asked whether the formula to determine whether a vessel is a high speed craft could be simplified. I share its concern.
I am assured that high speed craft know what they are, and are registered as such, and already compliant. Do the proposed regulations represent an international standard of which all high speed craft are aware? Is the criteria to determine high speed craft the same the world over? Are international high speed crafts aware they are in that category for enforcement purposes? If a high speed craft is found to be in breach of the regulations, I notice that the first option is a fine. There is no mention of the amount of the fine, so perhaps the Minister can apprise the Committee of that.
I welcome the opening up of the satellite service provider market that could drive down prices, but we would not want to see a reduction of standards. I raise the issue of standards because my attention was drawn to a line in the consultation that says that the risk-based assessment outlined in the legislation
“enables more flexibility for both industry and government in the application of safety standards.”
How and by whom will this be monitored ongoing? With that solely in mind, again were unions consulted? I have to say that the words “flexibility…in…safety standards” should send a shudder down all our spines.
We would never oppose anything that sought to improve safety standards on vessels, and for that reason, assuming we receive assurances from the Minister on the points I have raised, we will not oppose the measures.
As I have said in previous Committees, we have a backlog of a large number of SIs to get through. We are trying to clear that delegated legislation, and I would be interested to learn whether the Minister has any update on how and when we will clear the current backlog.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Kane Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It was an honour to attend the anniversary mass for Sir David Amess at the Tomb of St Peter with the all-party parliamentary group on the Holy See on Friday. It was a truly moving moment.
It has been five months since the Government promised to take legal action against P&O Ferries. Given that the chief executive himself admitted to this House that he had disregarded employment law and would do so again, when will the Insolvency Service finally deliver its decision and strike him off as a director?
Liverpool Port Access: Rimrose Valley
Mike Kane Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) on securing this debate after many months—in an honest fashion I am sure—on an issue that is so important to both him and his constituents, many of whom are here in the Public Gallery. I extend the common courtesies to welcome the Minister to his place. I hope that he has his phone on today; hopefully good news will come, and I look forward to seeing him across the Dispatch Box on many more occasions.
I cycled the trans-Pennine trail recently, and went to both Hornsea and Southport. I did not quite go through the Rimrose Valley, but I was in that neck of the woods. What a beautiful neck of the woods it is past the Liverpool loop line going north. It is a very nice bit of our country. The locals have campaigned for five years around this well-loved urban parkland, which they do not want to see tarmacked over to provide a new dual carriageway. It is a big landmark in their campaign today that their MP has secured this debate.
Liverpool is vital, not just for the city region of Merseyside or the north-west of England, but for the United Kingdom generally. Some 40% of all Irish sea trade comes through there—31 million tonnes. It is the fourth biggest port in the UK. We are facing west and, having left the European Union, its expansion looks secure in the years to come. We are talking about almost 12 km of port along that coastline.
Peel and the port of Liverpool are making some major investments that we welcome, particularly at my end—I will not say the better end—of the Manchester ship canal. I had the pleasure of visiting Port Salford recently to see the trimodal development there that will regenerate the west of Manchester, with the ship canal, new rail links and the M60 motorway.
We cannot look at this issue in isolation. There are other large developments in the Merseyside region. I had the pleasure of being at a Merseyside maritime conference recently. I took the famous ferry across the Mersey and saw the new Everton stadium going up, in addition to what the Liverpool city region Mayor, Steve Rotheram, and the councils, are doing there. They are really upping the pace of regeneration of the city region.
As shadow maritime Minister, my colleagues and I will always welcome efforts to improve infrastructure to support the economic growth of the maritime sector. However, in my view, these plans are not ambitious enough, particularly when measured against the Government’s own green agenda and that of National Highways.
Residents living near the port already have a low life expectancy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle said, it is 12 years lower than the national average. South Sefton already experiences some of the worst air quality in the country. My constituency of Wythenshawe and Sale East is divided down the middle by the M56, so I know the problems that poor air quality brings.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) said, the transport sector is the UK’s single biggest contributor of CO2 emissions. It is also the only sector in which we have seen emissions go up, not down. In Greater Manchester, where the Government are forcing Mayor Burnham to reduce emissions, guess what? National Highways does not have to reduce its emissions as part of that plan. A new road being constructed would only increase port-related traffic, with HGVs being the worst polluters on our roads. There has to be a better way of doing this.
I have spoken with local elected representatives, who I believe are best placed to understand the unique issues associated with a port operating alongside their residential communities. It is a basic issue of subsidiarity. Government cannot just set up city regional Mayors in Greater Manchester, Sheffield, Doncaster and Liverpool and then ignore the powers they have given them. Local politicians and the people they represent are best placed to help fashion local policies and transport infrastructure.
I have heard from local Members about the community cohesion that comes from having this kind of space in a heavily industrialised and urban area of north Liverpool. I hear it provides opportunities for safe, clean and active travel, which is so important and is one of the things I commend the Government on—particularly the last Administration and the last Prime Minister, who was so keen on this and put investment in. I hear that it is a well-used commuter corridor and, in addition, it offers a vital habitat to many species. We must look at alternatives to the scheme, and listen to councillors, MPs, the Metro Mayor and local residents, but there is a more fundamental issue: building a road through a valued green space is a very 1980s answer to the issue of road congestion. It is a “one more lane will solve it” attitude, but we know that one more lane does not solve things because of the impact of induced demand; we know that if we build more roads, we will attract more traffic.
I have not checked with the House of Commons Library, but a news article recently stated that there are now 40 million licensed vehicles on our roads. We want the freedom to drive—that is important—but that figure has almost doubled in the last 30 years and it is not sustainable, because we see the solution as just building and building more roads. We need a Government who are committed to an integrated and innovative transport strategy, including investments in the railways and particularly east-west connectivity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) said. We still do not have that connectivity.
There was a guy called Daniel Adamson from Manchester. He came up with the idea and built the ship canal. He coined the phrase “northern powerhouse” in the 1860s, describing an economic region from the Mersey basin to the Humber estuary that would be connected. If that were connected properly, it would be the 10th-biggest economic unit on the planet, but we do not have that connectivity, as we all know. I know that the Minister knows it, because he represents a constituency not far off that corridor.
The money allocated to this project could and should be spent on sustainable solutions to port access, such as rail freight capacity, not least because of the climate emergency that we are facing, the public health crisis associated with air pollution, and the substantial loss and degradation of green space. A new road is not the solution, when we can be creative, as we have been at the port of Liverpool, with a purpose-built rail terminal on the banks of the ship canal, allowing co-ordinated onward transport.
The campaigners are not seeking merely to shift the issue from Rimrose Valley, away from the A5036 and on to another borough or area. They are keen to find the right solutions, the best technology, the right route and the right location. It is my view that we should support them and my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle in doing so.