Night Flights: Impact on Communities
Munira Wilson Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting me the opportunity to have this debate on this issue. It is quite well attended, which is nice to see. I welcome the Minister, my former colleague on the Public Accounts Committee, to his place. It is a pleasure to see him here. I understand that he is going to be the Minister for Hammersmith Bridge, so I look forward to our many constructive communications.
Night flights are the most intrusive form of aircraft noise and there is clear evidence that they harm both the physical and mental health of residents who live under flightpaths. This summer, the delays and chaos at Heathrow airport resulted in an increased number of flights landing through the night. For my constituents and for many others across west and south-west London, that disturbance resulted in countless sleepless nights.
This disturbance is completely avoidable. Night flights are by no means essential for airport operations. These flights can and should be moved and it is within the Government’s remit to ensure that that happens.
I therefore have two asks of the Department for Transport. My primary call is for a ban on scheduled flights at Heathrow airport between 11 pm and 6 am. That is the only way we can be sure that residents will not continue to suffer from noise disruption. If the Government will not commit to that, they must commission a full independent analysis of the impact of night flights on the health of local communities, the environment and the UK economy to inform future policy development.
Sarah Olney
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) first.
Munira Wilson
It is as if we were co-ordinated.
I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour on securing this important debate. My constituency of Twickenham is, of course, that bit closer to Heathrow and further along the flightpath, so I wholeheartedly welcome and support the two asks that she is making of the Minister today about trying to balance the economic benefits of night flights against the health risks and the distress that they cause to constituents. Does she agree that the Government could start by looking at extending the night-time restriction to 10 pm, from 11.30 pm, given the large number of frequent late-night departures that are blighting my constituents’ sleep?
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We would like to see night flights restricted as much as possible to increase the amount of sleep that our constituents can get.
Rail Service Reductions
Munira Wilson Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), my constituency neighbour, on securing this important debate and thank her and the Minister for allowing me time to speak.
As my hon. Friend has already laid out so eloquently the economic and environmental case for incentivising and supporting rail travel, I want to focus specifically on the South Western Railway consultation—how it has been run, the rationale behind it, and the impact on my constituency.
Let me be clear, my constituents and I absolutely understand the dramatic impact that the pandemic has had on passenger numbers and the huge fluctuations that this has caused as a result of the lockdowns. We recognise the need for emergency and temporary—I repeat “temporary”—timetables, which have been in operation for the past 18 months. However, the proposals to permanently slash services by up to 50% for some stations are fundamentally flawed. They are flawed in terms of timing and they are flawed in terms of rationale and how the consultation was conducted. The impacts for busy suburban stations where there are no tube alternatives to reach central London—as in my constituency—are unacceptable.
On the timing, as my hon. Friend has said, we still have no idea what long-term travel patterns will look like—we are still in a pandemic. My constituents are bemused as to why decisions are being taken now on permanent service levels. It is my understanding from the emergency measures agreement between SWR and the Department for Transport that the DFT suspends the performance and financial arrangements from the original franchise agreement and that, during this period, it is up to the Secretary of State to set these targets. These extraordinary measures have been taken precisely because the impact on passenger numbers could not have been foreseen and continue to be volatile.
It is for that very reason that now is the wrong time to be using passenger numbers as the basis for long-term decisions about timetables. SWR has itself described the future passenger volume projections as “a guess” and conceded that more analysis is needed. Therefore, SWR needs to continue running its current temporary timetable, adjusting the number of services as demand increases, conduct more analysis on changing passenger numbers and undertake a consultation on any permanent changes once new travel patterns are better understood—probably in six to 12 months’ time.
On the rationale, it beggars belief that the central argument deployed by SWR is because punctuality and service levels have increased during the pandemic. I cannot use unparliamentary language here, but it seems as though SWR has only just discovered that bears do indeed relieve themselves in the woods. Of course, fewer services mean more punctual services. That is blindingly obvious. It should not be a case for slashing services. Importantly, at the time of the contract award, SWR promised improvements in punctuality without the need for service reductions, so it must fulfil these previous commitments and provide a punctual and reliable service without the proposed drastic cuts.
This consultation was run over the summer holiday period with only strategic stakeholders, not the people who use the services. The commuters themselves have not had a chance to have their say, and they will only be consulted once the timetable has been decided just before it is implemented. That is no consultation at all.
On the impact for my constituents, I have made it clear both to the Minister and to SWR management that the proposed cuts are wholly unacceptable. Not to reinstate the Hounslow loop service off-peak will slash direct services to London by half for residents of St Margarets and Whitton, resulting in only a half-hourly service to and from Waterloo for much of the day in comparison with every 15 minutes or so prior to the pandemic. That is certainly so for St Margarets; there is a spacing issue at Whitton that I think can be tackled in a different way. A reduction of services by 50% at these zones 4 and 5 London train stations is inconceivable, particularly as leisure travel is due to return, or projected to return, to 105% of pre-pandemic levels.
Peak-time service reductions through Hampton Wick and Teddington will result in 15% capacity reductions. Those stations are already back to being very busy in the morning, and there is great concern about overcrowding if these cuts are implemented.
On the impacts, it would be remiss of me not to mention the Shepperton line, which affects Hampton and Fulwell in my constituency. There are no proposed cuts, but, frankly, if it is cut any more, there would not be a service left. I would ask the Minister to comment on whether he thinks, in 2021, it is acceptable to have one train service an hour from Hampton, which is a busy residential area. It also has a growing life sciences business, which is doubling its workforce on an annual basis at the moment. We should be boosting those services.
I will finish by saying that here we are, on the eve of COP26, and we cannot have a car-led recovery. We need to be incentivising rail travel—these cuts will simply push people into their cars—and we need a clear plan to boost rail travel post pandemic. It is clear that these cuts are financially driven, but they are financially illiterate, because we will have all the fixed costs of the network remaining in place while passenger numbers are depressed and revenue is therefore reduced.
I would be grateful to the Minister if he confirmed what level of savings the Department for Transport and the Treasury hope to gain from these cuts. The local and London-wide economy cannot afford these cuts, our planet cannot afford these cuts and residents in Whitton, St Margarets and Teddington cannot afford these cuts. I ask the Minister to intervene and stop these plans, or at the very least delay them.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I agree with the hon. Lady, but we need to have timetables on which to base things. We also need the flexibility to respond to demand.
As the hon. Lady describes, the pandemic has changed how people use our railways, and the railways need to respond. As I have said to industry audiences many times, the rail industry has never had to compete for its market, which has always come to it. Lots of commuters in her constituency and mine will have stories about having to stand for long distances on journeys because there was no alternative. Now, however, trains are having to compete to win their market back for the first time ever. We need to get it right, but it is a time of flex. We need the certainty of timetables so that people come back to rail as and when they feel comfortable, which I hope and expect they will in big numbers.
SWR and Network Rail have started to plan for a baseline timetable that can balance three important considerations: the performance of service, the attractiveness of offer, and the efficiency of cost. It is right and proper that they should have consulted stakeholders when embarking on such an ambitious endeavour.
Munira Wilson
On the question I asked in my speech, what cost savings are the proposed cuts expected to deliver?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am not sure that I have the exact figure in pennies. If I have not, as I flick through my notes at the same time as reading my speech, I shall respond to the hon. Lady in writing.
Working in partnership with Network Rail, SWR is proposing changes that will deliver 89% of pre-covid levels of service and 93% of capacity. That is an uplift from today’s 85% of pre-covid service levels and 85% of capacity, against a backdrop of a forecast 76% of pre-covid passenger footfall returning by December 2022. To put that in a different context and perhaps give it some colour, there are currently 1,164 trains departing Waterloo on a normal weekday, but if the plans in the timetable consultations go through, that will rise to 1,338.
I am sympathetic to the concerns of both hon. Ladies about the level of service on public transport, especially from an environmental perspective. We had a conversation earlier about air pollution and the consequences of more car journeys. That is why having a high-performing railway is important, because only by ensuring that the rail offer is a quality one that is as reliable and attractive as possible will we get passengers back on to the railway, which we all know is one of the greenest ways to travel.
SWR tells me that the service levels set out in the consultation leave enough flexibility for it and Network Rail to introduce additional services in future as and when demand returns. I cannot stress enough that I am keen to see that that level of flexibility based on demand is ensured and can be articulated and demonstrated in some way to hon. Members so they can see what is going on with services.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Richmond Park will agree that reliability is the most important aspect of a good timetable, which is why I am keen for SWR to introduce the new class 701 Arterio train at the earliest opportunity. That new fleet of trains will offer even greater capacity than we have now and a promise of even better reliability, which will mean an even more robust train service.
Consultations are an exercise in gathering thoughts from stakeholders. They are only the beginning, not the end of the process. SWR and Network Rail will continue to work with stakeholders to make sure that their passenger offer is fit for purpose. If it is not, I will ask them to adjust it.
Munira Wilson
On the point about being flexible in response to demand, will the Minister commit to publishing passenger figures as the new timetable is implemented?
Chris Heaton-Harris
That is a sensible idea. It is not something we do regularly, so I will endeavour to make sure that we publish passenger figures as quickly as possible so that people can see the level of demand as it, hopefully, increases massively and services can therefore be brought back.
I will ensure that SWR and Network Rail continue to work with customers, communities and stakeholders. Where the business cases stacks up and there is a need for additional capacity, I will ensure not only that those arguments are carefully assessed but that the railway is flexible and responds to demand.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Munira Wilson Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for that question and for allowing me to visit this wonderful station in his constituency. Network Rail’s canopy works—the canopy is truly beautiful, Mr Speaker—are planned for completion by the end of November this year. Network Rail’s works at Kettering, including the mainline route enhancements, have created 16 jobs, while East Midlands Railway has created 70 jobs there.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
There is a consultation, which the hon. Lady well knows about, at this point in time. I am told that South Western Railway intends to provide 93% of its pre-covid capacity should that consultation be agreed to. I continue to monitor the situation.
Munira Wilson
It is clear that SWR’s proposals to slash services by about half from busy stations in my constituency, such as St Margarets and Whitton, is being driven by the demands in its contract with the Department for Transport. So will the Minister intervene and review his contract with SWR to avoid these drastic cuts to services on which local residents rely and for which they pay a very high price? It is far too soon to be making decisions about post-pandemic services.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am watching the situation and looking forward to hearing back from SWR about the consultation. I have been talking about this very much with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who has a similar campaign to that of the hon. Lady on behalf of his constituents. SWR has sent the consultation out to more than 3,500 stakeholders—MPs and other elected representatives, passengers and so on. Everybody knows that the number of passengers is still very much below the pre-pandemic level. We are relying on the results of that consultation to try to determine what future services need to look like.
Oral Answers to Questions
Munira Wilson Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grant Shapps
May I say on behalf of everybody how fantastic it is to see my hon. Friend back in the House in her rightful place? She is absolutely right about the changes in how people will commute going forward, because the world has of course changed. I am sure that people will come back to the railway, but perhaps in a more flexible way, and I can reassure her that we will be setting out more details of our view about how ticketing should work, not least through the Williams-Shapps review.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Lady will know that the whole House voted for the Heathrow plans, as she stated, but we will shortly be bringing forward our transport decarbonisation plans, which will discuss in full and in detail our ambitious plans to decarbonise the entire transport sector, including the aviation sector. She is right to say that we have increased our ambition on this front, and we are the only major leading nation that will set out such an ambitious set of plans to decarbonise the entire sector.
Oral Answers to Questions
Munira Wilson Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
The Government are working at pace to ensure the recovery of the aviation sector, and Departments are working closely together to progress options in support of individuals affected.
Robert Courts
As I have said, the Government are quite clear that they regret some of the decisions that have been taken, although these are of course commercial decisions. What I welcome is the agreement in principle between BA and Unite on behalf of cabin crew, which encourages the spirit of partnership between employees, the airlines and the union, which I am sure the hon. Member will join me in encouraging across the sector.
Munira Wilson
As has already been noted, while it is welcome that British Airways has potentially dropped some of its bully-boy tactics of threatening to fire and rehire its workforce on much worse conditions, it comes too late for many employees who had taken the difficult decision to take voluntary redundancy, such as the single father in my constituency who could not afford to feed his family on 40% of pay. What steps is the Minister’s Department taking to support such individuals, because his Department’s response to the Transport Committee report said that it was the Government’s ambition to support these individuals where possible?
Robert Courts
It absolutely is the Government’s intention and desire to support these highly trained and highly valued members of our workforce. At the end of the day, we need to concentrate very much on the recovery and restart. The Government have already moved quickly to rebuild consumer confidence, collaborating with industry and the unions and across the sector. It is through that that we will ensure the vitality of the sector and those who work for it.
Aviation Sector
Munira Wilson Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), on his new role—long may it continue—and I thank the Government for their £8.5 billion of investment in the aviation sector,
What has been shocking in this pandemic has been the way aviation companies have responded and treated their employees, and by far the most shocking has been British Airways, which is what I want to speak on today. It is about fairness and the lack of fairness displayed in companies such as British Airways, which I feel has been using the pandemic as an excuse to liquidate its assets and move it transnational base out of Britain and overseas.
Today, I want to speak on behalf of constituents in places such as Marlow, Beaconsfield, Flackwell Heath and Hedgerley who have worked for British Airways, some for 20 or 30 years, and who have been left with virtually nothing. As we move towards October, can we look at how businesses are going to respond when the furlough scheme ends and how we treat companies such as British Airways that hold valuable slots at Heathrow?
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I am sure that, like me, the hon. Member has heard many heartbreaking stories from constituents treated appallingly by this nation’s flag carrier. Will she call on her own Front Bench to ban this fire-and-rehire policy it is using? There is a private Member’s Bill before us tomorrow. The Government should be taking this on, because it is a practical and obvious way they can step in to back BA employees.
Joy Morrissey
I thank the hon. Member for raising the important issue of how we can hold companies such as British Airways to account. It is an issue of fairness. If it is going to liquidate not only its assets but its British employees, we should look at which companies are retaining the highest percentage of British employees and think about how we can reallocate the slots to them. There should be a reward for fairness.
Free Travel for Under-18s: London
Munira Wilson Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Cadbury
I believe that they have not. They certainly did not discuss the implications because it came, as I said, out of the blue. It is good to know that local authorities are assessing the impact.
London is the UK’s most congested city, with the lowest levels of car ownership and the greatest numbers of families living in poverty. Free travel for under-18s was introduced by a Labour Mayor, and since 2006 subsequent Mayors, including the current Prime Minister, have retained the policy.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this very important debate. I am particularly concerned about the impact that this will have on students who go to further education colleges. I have Richmond upon Thames College in my own constituency. We know that a quarter of college students are on free school meals, so does she agree that the policy is hitting hardest the most needy who are trying to educate themselves?
Ruth Cadbury
I absolutely agree with my neighbour’s point. My son went to Richmond upon Thames College, and many students journey from far too far away to be able to cycle. As she so rightly says, the proposal hits the poorest hardest—the very families that need all the help that they can get to ensure that their children can achieve and prosper. It is those families who are doing worst in the covid crisis. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, 700,000 children in London are estimated to be growing up in poverty.
Oral Answers to Questions
Munira Wilson Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Maclean
Of course the Government would be concerned by the incidents that the hon. Gentleman mentions. Ensuring the safety of drivers making deliveries is of paramount importance, and the Government do not want anyone to feel unsafe or unsure about whether they have the necessary equipment to work safely. That is why detailed guidance has been issued to all transport workers, in conjunction with our colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Kelly Tolhurst) [V]
The Department and I are working with airlines, airports and unions to understand the full impact that covid-19 is having on the sector and its workers.
Munira Wilson [V]
Many of my constituents are long-serving members of British Airways staff, yet they face redundancy or being stripped of their terms and conditions, despite BA furloughing some 23,000 staff. Does the Minister think that is responsible behaviour by Britain’s flag carrier? What pressure is she bringing to bear on the company? Will she guarantee that any bail-out will come with stringent and binding conditions on reducing carbon emissions?
Kelly Tolhurst
I understand that it is a worrying time for airline staff and their families. I have been speaking regularly with companies across the sector to encourage them to draw down on the unprecedented support package. Terms and conditions of employment are for negotiation between the employee and the employer, but we in the Department stand ready to support any workers affected.
Airport Expansion
Munira Wilson Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kelly Tolhurst
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to make sure that the whole UK benefits from economic prosperity, particularly in the north; that, hopefully, is what I will be working on in the coming months in this role. It is absolutely true: as I have said, will repeat and will keep repeating, airport expansion is a core part of our increasing UK connectivity —not just in the UK, but abroad.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
As a result of the judgment by the Court of Appeal, we now know that a third runway at Heathrow flies in the face of the Government’s climate change commitments. We know that a third runway at Heathrow and the associated emissions and noise will have a significant detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of my long-suffering constituents in Twickenham, and many well beyond. We know from a New Economics Foundation report last week that expansion at Heathrow will actually take money and jobs out of the regions, which flies in the face of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Is it not now high time that the Government revisited their national policy statement and ruled out not only a third runway at Heathrow once and for all but all other runways at other airports in the UK, given the impact on climate change?
Kelly Tolhurst
I am sorry that the hon. Lady is against our desire and ambition to make sure that prosperity and connectivity reach all parts of the UK, particularly given the importance of the south-east to the economy and being able to introduce the investments that we need in the north. As she outlined, we—this Government—are committed, under this Prime Minister, to make sure that we adhere to our environmental obligations. We have been clear that any expansion of Heathrow airport would need to meet the strict criteria around noise, climate change and pollution.
Transport
Munira Wilson Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy McDonald
I am aware that many people want to speak, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will carry on.
Labour set 2030 as the date for ending the sale of new diesel and petrol cars. The Government’s new target of 2035 is not ambitious enough for our climate, our industries and our motorists. It is also deeply worrying to hear that the Government may be planning to scrap the £3,500 electric car grant when it expires next month. Perhaps the Transport Secretary can confirm whether that is the case when he comes to the Dispatch Box.
Electric vehicles are already cheaper over the lifetime of a vehicle, and up-front costs are likely to fall sharply by the mid-2020s. It makes sense for the supporting industry and for reducing emissions that motorists should transition soonest. Last year, Labour announced plans to invest £3.6 billion in a vast expansion of the UK’s electric vehicle charging network and to offer 2.5 million interest-free loans for the purchase of electric vehicles, saving buyers up to £5,000. Furthermore, our plans included the introduction of a targeted scrappage scheme to replace cars over 10 years old powered by fossil fuels with new electric cars. We would also have put 30,000 electric cars on UK streets through publicly owned community car sharing clubs. In contrast, the Government have repeatedly slashed EV subsidies and have failed to invest any of the electric vehicle charging infrastructure fund announced in 2017. Not only is that preventing the UK from making necessary emission reductions, but it leaves our motor manufacturing industries lagging behind foreign counterparts.
In the midst of an air pollution crisis, active travel remains massively underfunded. The Government are predicted to miss their own cycling targets, achieving just a third of the 800 million extra trips that they hoped for by 2025, and much of the growth in cycling is limited to London. Labour set out plans to boost cycling and walking and to make England one of the most cycling and walking friendly places in the world, making our towns and cities cleaner and greener, and transforming the environment, travel opportunities and quality of life right across the country. The emissions-reducing plan would also have addressed the local air pollution crisis and the epidemic of ill health caused by sedentary lifestyles. This investment in walking and cycling would, for the first time, have made active travel a genuine option for the many, not just the brave.
The plan included: doubling cycling for adults and children; building 5,000 km of cycleways; creating safe cycling and walking routes to 10,000 primary schools; delivering universal affordable access to bicycles and grants for e-bike purchases; and providing training for all primary school children and their parents, extending training to secondary schools and making training available for all adults.
Aviation emissions are a particular issue: in the UK, they have more than doubled since 1990, while emissions from the economy as a whole have fallen by around 40%. The Government plan to build a third runway at Heathrow. According to the Department for Transport’s projections for Heathrow expansion, the UK’s legally binding targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 will be missed. The Government should rule out any expansion that is not compatible with our climate targets. Who are we expanding airports for?
Andy McDonald
I have already indicated that I will not give way because so many people want to speak.
Fifteen per cent. of the UK’s population accounts for 70% of all flights, and half the country does not fly at all in any given year. Ahead of a possible tax cut for the aviation industry next month, Ministers should be thinking more imaginatively, such as replacing air passenger duty with a fair and just levy that targets frequent flyers. The Government’s advisory body, the Committee on Climate Change, has called for the introduction of a frequent flyer levy. Such a move could reduce demand for flying without penalising the annual family holiday in the sun, instead making it more expensive to fly out for a weekend at the second home in Provence for the umpteenth time that year.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank the Labour Front-Bench team for moving this motion, and I welcome the unanimity across the Chamber, and the growing sense of urgency among the public, on taking tougher action on the climate emergency. The question arises as to whether the political rhetoric matches the reality in terms of policy and action.
So the two areas I wish to focus on briefly are rail and aviation. The motion calls for a cut in rail fares while the Government fix the mess that is the railways. Sorting out that mess has to start with the travesty of a “service”—if we can even call it that—that is South Western Railway. SWR dominates my email inbox and my Twitter feed. Commuters in my constituency are reliant on SWR and they are at their wits’ end, as not a day goes by without problems: lost income; lost working hours; lost time with loved ones; missed medical appointments; and just the general stress of not being able to get a rail service that is not constantly delayed or cancelled. This is just not acceptable. Those who live on the Shepperton line, which serves Hampton, are disproportionately affected, because it is a branch service, which is often cut. On other lines, such as the Teddington loop, there are regularly skips of stations when trains are delayed. Residents are telling me that as a matter of course they are driving part of their journey, which is not helping to cut emissions. All that is coupled with the 27-day strikes we saw in December, where there was no proper compensation, and the financial situation the company finds itself in. As the Secretary of State has said, the situation is unsustainable. I have written to him to ask for a meeting to discuss this matter, and I hope he will get back to me, granting me and other colleagues a meeting to discuss this important issue.
We need to do much more to expand our railways if we are to tempt people out of their cars and away from domestic flights, in order to reduce emissions. So I particularly welcome the motion’s call to bring aviation emissions within the UK’s climate targets. It is therefore somewhat surprising—no, negligent—that neither this Opposition motion, nor anything we have heard from those on the Government Benches today calls for the cancellation of a third runway at Heathrow.
I am disappointed that the amendment that I tabled with Liberal Democrat colleagues has not been selected for debate. Heathrow is the UK’s biggest single source of carbon emissions, and a third runway would increase carbon emissions by up to 9 million tonnes, making achieving net zero significantly harder. Indeed, the Committee on Climate Change said in 2016 that the construction of a third runway might break the Government’s own climate change laws. How can the Conservatives or Labour be serious about their commitment to tackle climate change unless they join my Liberal Democrat colleagues and me in calling very clearly for a third runway to be cancelled?
Heathrow expansion is projected to increase the number of flights by 300,000 annually. My constituents and many other people across south-west London already have their lives blighted by noise and air pollution, and over half a million people in the area surrounding Heathrow suffer noise levels above World Health Organisation standards. There is air pollution from surface transport, as well as particulates from flights, which go well beyond the airport boundary, despite the claims of Heathrow and, indeed, the Department for Transport. According to some studies, particulates travel up to 16 to 22 km downwind.
The Prime Minister does not even have to keep his promise of lying down in front of the bulldozers to stop a third runway. He has the power to cancel it at the stroke of a pen, and it is time that Labour came off the fence. Its spokesperson suggested that it might be shifting its policy. Heathrow expansion is bad for climate, bad for our health and wellbeing, and—
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the £220 million announced recently by the Government for bus investment. Mine is the only constituency in the whole United Kingdom that has a British-owned bus-building company. That is an essential strategic measure by the Government, especially if they invest in bus building in Northern Ireland. It will affect every constituency in this country, whether in Aberdeen or Cornwall, because it is a bus-building company owned by British entrepreneurs and invested in by British taxpayers. It is also the home of the hydrogen bus. The opportunity is in our hands to make Northern Ireland and, indeed, the UK the flagship for hydrogen power as a public transport solution and a world leader in use of that zero-emissions product and world-leading technology.
Hydrogen power is much more advanced and cleaner than battery power. Batteries are a fantastic opportunity for cars and other vehicles, but we must remember that if we buy a battery car, the entire battery component will need to be replaced in seven years’ time. Of the old battery component, 50% gets recycled, and the other 50% can only go to landfill, increasing a problem that we must still address.
I welcome the £1 billion investment in a battery gigafactory here in the United Kingdom. That is a great opportunity, but it pales into insignificance when we consider that China has monopolised world battery production. Indeed, one factory alone on the Chinese mainland employs 260,000 people. We cannot catch up with world battery production, so our nation needs to lead the way with new technology and solutions such as hydrogen power, which was mentioned by the Secretary of State—and I believe we can.
Jo Bamford, with his Ryse technology and the Bamford Bus Company, and Hugo Spowers, with his Riversimple Rasa hydrogen car, have demonstrated that entrepreneurs are looking at ways of using hydrogen power as a new solution beyond batteries. Batteries are fantastic for lightweight, short-range applications, but hydrogen offers a solution for distance and heavyweight vehicles such as buses, lorries, trains and ferries. Who knows what it could offer in the future for aviation? Members today have talked about low emissions for transport, but hydrogen is a zero-emissions solution, so let us grasp it. What plans do the Government have for hydrogen investment in the United Kingdom? What can they offer to investors in innovative new technologies that will turn waste into energy?
I support the third runway at Heathrow, which is a brilliant opportunity for investment and aviation. Some 51% of people who fly from Northern Ireland to England are coming here to do business. We need a third runway because Heathrow has reached capacity. We have to remember that 95% of the global economy lies within reach of a single direct flight from Heathrow. Heathrow has facilitated £118 billion of trade outside the EU in the last 12 months alone. It is a wonderful airport, and it must—
Ian Paisley
No, we are not destroying our planet; don’t be silly. Accelerating investment in sustainable alternative fuels will only happen if we increase air passenger travel.