Covid-19: Support for Aviation, Tourism and Travel Industries

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Westminster Hall

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

With Heathrow in my constituency, naturally I am worried about what is happening in both aviation and tourism. The number of people claiming unemployment benefit in my constituency has risen by more than 220% in the first year of the pandemic, so there is an urgent need for action.

I will make four brief points. First, I agree with the criticisms of the Government’s list system made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). The system is confusing and ineffective, and it needs reform based on the data we now have, but whatever system we use, it needs to be properly resourced. Also, there has been a lack of sufficient staffing support for border control at Heathrow. That has put existing staff under intense pressure, and even put their health at risk.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) raised the issue of the quarantine system resulting at times in the abysmal treatment of families who have been forced to quarantine at great expense. On arrival at Heathrow, they have been crowded on to buses, often unsafely, and they often find that the booking for their original accommodation has been cancelled. When placed in accommodation, they are provided, exactly as my hon. Friend said, with inedible, inadequate or unsuitable food.

Secondly, my constituents—the workers in those sectors—want to get back to work and to get back to earning a decent living, but they know that doing so safely will take time. They are not unrealistic about that, so it is critical that the Government recognise the fact that some sectors will need continuing support. As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) said, precipitously ending the furlough scheme and the financial support being provided now will force many of my constituents into either losing their job or having their wages cut even further. The Government need to provide some certainty and reassurance to the companies and the workers in those sectors that there will be continuing support to get them through the remainder of the pandemic.

My third point, regrettably, is that the appalling practice of fire and rehire, which has taken hold in our economy, started initially on any scale at Heathrow. Thanks to Unite, we fought off the worst aspects of the first wave of that attack on my constituents, but that does not mean that the threat has gone away. Other companies are persisting in what is effectively workplace bullying. That is why we need urgent legislation to ban the practice, not the mealy-mouthed, broken-promise approach that we have seen from the Government so far.

My fourth point is that, as we come through the current crisis brought on by the pandemic, we need to recognise that we must face up to the next crisis, which is the existential threat of climate change. The Climate Change Committee today criticised the Government for setting wonderful targets with no means to deliver them, and that is exactly the situation in aviation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) said, we need a sustainable aviation strategy, and we need it fast. It should be based on a clear, just transition programme so that communities such as mine are given resources to develop a local economic strategy that will ensure we benefit from the environmentally sustainable aviation sector and have access to skilled and well-paid jobs in other developing sectors of the economy. We need that urgently, if not tomorrow.

Finally, as a west London MP, I want to say this: let us end the ludicrous nonsense that building a third runway will in any way comply with our climate change duties.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

No comment from me today on that one.

Aviation, Travel and Tourism Industries

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I just say gently to the Minister that the Government need to get real in this debate. Even the industry’s figures suggest that it will take at least until 2023 to 2025 for aviation demand to recover from pre-crisis levels. A report by the New Economics Foundation and the TUC suggests that as many as 17,000 jobs could be lost from the sector even if demand returns, thanks to automation and changes to working practices. That could have a devastating impact on my community. In fact, it already is and that has not been helped, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said, by the behaviour of companies such as BA and Heathrow forcing through fire and rehire strategies to cut wages and terms of employment. I thank Unite the union for the work that it has done and the campaign that it has waged against that.

The reality is that we need a concrete and very effective aviation recovery strategy. That means a recognition by the Government that they simply cannot precipitately turn off the support that they have provided so far. We need a continuing job support and retention scheme specifically designed for this sector, just to give us the breathing space for the strategy for recovery to take place. Of course, any recovery or future strategy for aviation must be a green recovery, but this transition to an environmentally sustainable aviation sector will be successful only if it is a just transition. For my constituents, this means providing workers with the training and expertise needed to work in a lower emission and increasingly automated sector. However, it also means providing support and training to enable workers to shift into other emerging industries and sectors. Arrangements are also needed that put protections in place for lower-skilled and lower-paid workers, who will be the most vulnerable, as we have seen.

I also say to the Government that we need to think through the support that is needed to develop local economic strategies for hearty airport communities such as mine and those other Members have raised in the Chamber today. Any review of aviation policy must strike an equitable balance between the benefits that aviation brings and its adverse environmental, economic and health costs. That is why the “growth at all costs” mantra in Government must end. The review of aviation taxation is also necessary to fund the new strategy. As a final point, if levelling up is to be meaningful, Heathrow expansion competing against regional airports has to be cast into the dustbin of aviation history.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—New CAA general duty: net zero aviation emissions—

‘(1) In subsection 70(2) of the Transport Act 2000, after paragraph (d) insert—

“(da) to ensure the achievement of net zero aviation emissions by 2050 and a progressive and material reduction in aircraft noise impacts, in each case pursuant to guidance to be provided by the Secretary of State.”’

This new clause would amend the CAA’s duties, as set out in the Transport Act 2000, so that it is required to meet net zero emissions and reduce noise impacts.

New clause 3—Reduction of noise from military aircrafts—

‘The Secretary of State must consider in any airspace change proposal the inclusion of measures to reduce the noise pollution arising from military aviation.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consider including measures to reduce noise pollution from military aviation in any airspace change proposal.

New clause 4—Consultation on airspace change proposals—

‘(1) Where a consultation on an airspace change proposal is underway but not completed before the passing of this Act—

(a) the consultation must be stopped, and

(b) a new consultation must be started.

(2) A consultation under subsection (1) includes a consultation being conducted by an airport or group of airports.

(3) The airspace change proposal that is the subject of the consultation may not be progressed until the new consultation under subsection (1)(b) has been completed.

(4) The new consultation must take account of any externalities arising from the airspace change proposal including—

(a) air pollution,

(b) noise pollution, and

(c) road traffic congestion.”

This new clause would require any consultation on an airspace change proposal underway at the time the Act is passed to be stopped, and a new consultation started. It also specifies externalities the new consultation must take account of.

New clause 5—Financial Impact Assessment on the Airspace Change Organisation Group—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must conduct an impact assessment of the effects of this Act on the costs of the Airspace Change Organisation Group (ACOG) for a period of two years, beginning with the day this Act comes into force.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the impact assessment required by subsection (1) within six months of the day this Act comes into force.

(3) The Secretary of State must include within the report required by subsection (2) a plan to manage the impacts identified within the report.’

This amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to investigate and publicise the financial impact on the air industry of compliance with the Act.

Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 4 at end insert—

‘(e) prepare an assessment, including a financial assessment, of—

(i) any externalities arising from an airspace change proposal that has been prepared or implemented, and

(ii) the geographic distribution of these externalities.’

This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to direct a person involved in an airspace change proposal to carry out an assessment of any externalities arising from the proposal.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 5, at end insert—

‘(1A) For the purposes of subsection 1(e), “externalities” include—

(a) air pollution,

(b) noise pollution, and

(c) road traffic congestion.’

This amendment is linked to Amendment 3.

Amendment 5, page 2, line 14, at end insert

‘modernisation of controlled airspace as part of the’.

This amendment will narrow the scope of direction by the Secretary of State to cases where a direction relates to airspace modernisation, so that enforcement orders may not be used in cases unrelated to airspace modernisation.

Amendment 6, in clause 3, page 3, line 2, at end insert

‘modernisation of controlled airspace as part of the’.

This amendment will narrow the scope of direction by the Secretary of State to cases where a direction related to airspace modernisation, so that enforcement orders may not be used in cases unrelated to airspace modernisation.

Amendment 2, page 3, line 34, at end insert—

‘(9) When the airspace change proposal relates to airspace used by military aircraft, the Secretary of State for Defence must require the cooperation of Military Air Traffic Control with the CAA to ensure the airspace change proposal incorporates measures to reduce military aircraft—

(a) noise; and

(b) pollution.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Defence to reduce noise and pollution from military aircrafts where an airspace change proposal relates to airspace used by military aircrafts.

Amendment 1, in clause 5, page 4, line 29, at end insert—

‘(6) The CAA must publish emissions, noise and health impact information associated with the airspace change proposal as part of their consultation process.’

This amendment would establish a transparency duty on the CAA to publish emissions, noise and health impact information.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I wish to speak to new clauses 1 and 2 and amendment 1, standing in my name. I will seek to be as brief as possible, Mr Deputy Speaker; with your permission, I will aim to speak for no more than 10 minutes. Over the years, I have tried to use every legislative or policy debate opportunity to place the issues of noise and emissions at the heart of every discussion in this House on the future of aviation policy. These amendments seek once again to do just that.

I think I am the only Member of the Commons who can claim to have attended every major planning public inquiry and court case relating to the expansion of Heathrow airport over the last nearly 50 years. Over the years, I have attended as an interested local resident, then as the local Greater London Council councillor, then as the Member of Parliament for the Heathrow area. In addition to the deeply felt worries of local residents about the demolition of their homes and villages, two issues have been the consistent basis of challenge in these inquiries and legal contests. They are the impact of noise, and the impact of emissions on the community in the immediate area, as well as across large areas of London and now more widely.

At the terminal 4 inquiry, there was general support for limited expansion of the airport, as long as there were conditions attached to any permission to expand in relation to noise. By the time of the terminal 5 inquiry, a great deal of that support had turned to opposition, as the noise agreements had proved so ineffective in guaranteeing people’s quiet enjoyment of their homes, gardens and open spaces. By that time, much more evidence had emerged about the effect of noise on health, and about air pollution as the cause of severe respiratory conditions, vascular problems and cancers. It was because of the environmental impact that the planning inspector recommended that there be no further expansion at Heathrow after terminal 5. Heathrow Airport wrote to me and my constituents saying that if it was granted terminal 5, it would not need or seek a third runway. Of course that was a lie, and within six months it was publicly lobbying for a third runway.

Subsequently, we have also grown aware of the role that emissions play in climate change. I find it hard to comprehend why, despite our facing the existential threat of a climate emergency; despite knowing that 40,000 people a year die from air pollution; and despite all that we now know about the health implications of noise and sleep impairment, consideration is still being given in Government to airport expansion. We need to ensure that all the aviation legislation we consider addresses the critical issues of noise and emissions, which is what these new clauses and amendments seek to do.

I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me explaining the Government’s attitude to my amendments. On a positive note, I see from this correspondence that although the Minister does not support my new clauses or amendments, he does not disagree with the intention behind them. I welcome his commitment to ensuring that the issues raised by them are addressed in any future review of air navigation guidance and noise policy.

Let me briefly run through the new clauses and amendments, and some questions in response to the Minister’s position. New clause 1 would place a statutory duty on the Civil Aviation Authority to reduce, minimise or mitigate significant adverse noise impacts of aviation. The Minister has argued in correspondence that applying a new general duty to all the CAA’s functions is not desirable because safety must remain the primary duty in the context of section 70(1) of the Transport Act 2000. The intention of the new clause is not to reduce safety as a priority, but rather to raise noise and emissions reductions up the priority order. It should be the duty of all public bodies to ensure that we are safe from noise, air pollution and climate change.

The Minister states that the CAA must take account of any guidance on environmental objectives given to it by the Secretary of State, and that is true. However, the effect of the legislation is to subordinate all the environmental matters to section 70(2)(a) and the duty

“to secure the most efficient use of airspace consistent with the safe operation of aircraft and the expeditious flow of air traffic”.

Noise and emissions are always reduced to being second-class citizens in this ranking order.

The Secretary of State has powers under section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to limit numbers and types of craft active during the night period at Heathrow and the other airports designated under the Act, so one question that needs to be addressed now is whether this section should be amended to include limits on numbers and types of aircraft during the day as well.

The Minister referred in correspondence with me to the consultation on noise caps in the aviation strategy Green Paper, and said that noise reduction would be looked at again as we come through the pandemic. I welcome that, but the Green Paper applied to all airports other than Heathrow, and so does not provide communities under Heathrow flight paths with any certainty for the future. I would welcome it if the Minister considered amending the aviation national policy statement to ensure that a noise cap was considered in relation to Heathrow and potential expansion there.

The Minister has stated that noise restrictions should be placed on airports, and not, as in new clause 1, on the airspace around the airport. He argues that the latter would—I quote—“create a significant burden on the airspace change process and add great complexity to the day-to-day management of airspace.” That response unfortunately highlights my concern that enhancing capacity is prioritised over reducing the harm to overflown communities and the environment. In my view, airspace and airport capacity should be increased only subject to strict noise and emission reduction conditions. That is a role that the CAA should have a hand in playing. Giving permission to expand capacity on the basis of asserted benefits that cannot be translated into conditions, and whose delivery the regulator cannot monitor and enforce, is not consistent with the Government’s stated policy on noise or climate change.

New clause 2 would amend the CAA’s duties, as set out in the Transport Act 2000, to require it to achieve net zero emissions and reduce noise impacts. The Minister has asserted that the Government cannot support this amendment because the word “ensure” would make it difficult for the Civil Aviation Authority to accept any proposal that did not reduce emissions and aircraft noise, regardless of the overall benefits of the proposal. However, section 70(2) of the 2000 Act is intended to list all the factors that the Civil Aviation Authority must consider. None is supposed to have a greater weight than the others, and a variety of language is used for the different objectives—everything from “secure” to “satisfy” and “take account of”. Some hierarchy of responsibility seems to be emerging in the discussions about the role of the Civil Aviation Authority and what should be taken into account. I do not see why “ensure” would be any more problematic than, for example, “secure”. We need clarity about the role that the CAA can play in ensuring that we can move towards net zero emissions, because it plays an important role in tackling climate change by developing an environmental aviation strategy.

Amendment 1 would place a transparency duty on the Civil Aviation Authority to publish emissions, noise and health impact information. The Minister has said that assessments covering noise, health, local air quality and greenhouse gas impacts must be submitted by proposers along with any formal airspace change proposal, and he argues that they are subsequently published on the CAA website. My amendment would simply require this information to be published more clearly, alongside the proposed changes. That would help deepen community understanding of the proposals and the alternative options.

Last week, the Government announced kickstart funding for the airspace modernisation strategy. The Minister must ensure that local communities have a genuine voice in this process. It is vital that the redesign of airspace delivers mutually balanced outcomes for the industry and local communities alike. The Government should commit to publishing assessments of the noise and health impacts of concentrated flightpaths before any final strategy is signed off.

I thank the Minister for the courteous way in which he has responded to my amendments to the Bill in correspondence. He offered a meeting, which unfortunately, due to last-minute business in the House to which I was committed, did not take place. However, the issues we are addressing today go well beyond this legislation, so I hope he will agree to meet me and a few colleagues to take the discussion further, as this is so important to communities living close to airports—and, given the concerns we all have about climate change, all our constituents.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who speaks with great authority on this particular topic. I am also grateful, as he was, to the Minister for his kind consideration of the issues I have raised about the Bill as it has proceeded to this point.

I would like to speak to my amendments: new clause 4, which would seek to halt, or essentially cancel, and then start new consultations on airspace changes that are currently under way; and amendments 3 and 4, which speak to the requirement for the Minister and the reviews he proposes to take into account a financial assessment, and within that particularly to take account of the externalities comprising part of that financial assessment. With your leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to talk through each of those.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am not too sure how much more the Minister will say on Third Reading now, but we will wait to see.

[John McDonnell [V]]

He has confused me as well, Mr Deputy Speaker.

There has been an acknowledgement of the issues raised in the new clauses and amendments. It is clear that we all agree on the objectives, even if we do not agree on the path to achieve them. I am a great believer in the powers or conversion, so we will campaign on, but this evening I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—(Robert Courts.)

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to express my sadness at the loss of Captain Tom Moore and send my condolences to his family.

It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who has campaigned so steadily on these issues to protect our environment.

Let me be clear. I welcome the aim of the Bill, which, as it states in the briefing, is:

“to deliver quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys.”

Whether the Bill’s further aim of delivering more capacity is compatible with “quieter and cleaner journeys” has yet to be seen and yet to be proved. Assessing the past performance and the current practice of the aviation industry leads us to be extremely sceptical that the continued expansion of capacity will enable the aviation sector to be cleaner and quieter. As we hopefully bring the covid pandemic under control in the coming period, there is obviously an urgent need now to address the next imminent crisis, which is the existential threat of climate change. If the aviation industry is to play its part in tackling climate change, the Government must be equipped with the powers to drive through the necessary changes to aviation practices.

The Bill does take a first step in seeking those powers and I welcome it in that respect. The problem is that it is yet another piecemeal measure without the context of an overarching strategy for aviation to secure an economically and environmentally viable future for the industry. The Government promised they would publish, in 2020, an aviation White Paper, “Aviation 2050”, to spell out their views and plans for the future of aviation. I appreciate and understand why the impact of the covid crisis has delayed the White Paper—I am happy to cut the Government some slack on that one. However, we have also been repeatedly promised, since last March, that the Government would at least come forward with an interim sector strategy that would see the industry through the pandemic and lay the foundations for the future. It is disappointing that that has not been forthcoming. Instead, there has just been a steady drip of unco-ordinated announcements of short-term support schemes.

Apart from this tardy and piecemeal sticking plaster approach, one of the worst elements of the situation is that the Government’s financial support to the aviation companies has been without any conditions about the behaviour of those companies. That has allowed unprincipled companies like Heathrow Airport Ltd in effect to use taxpayers’ money to treat its staff—many of my constituents—like serfs. They have seized on the crisis to impose fire and rehire tactics, cut wages, undermine working conditions and seek to break the unions.

Instead of this Bill, the Government should bring forward a comprehensive strategy that provides the support and direction to the industry to see it through the tough period it faces over the next 12 months, but also a strategy for the long term: setting out the clear objective of creating an environmentally sustainable aviation sector; setting out the parameters in which the industry will have to operate to achieve that; establishing the decision-making, implementation and regulatory structures that will successfully drive the strategy through; and, of course, identifying the policies and the financial support that will be available to secure what we are arguing for, which is a just transition.

The Bill is a fish out of water. It is impossible to discern how it fits into any clear strategy for a viable future for aviation. It leads to even more confusion over who does what, who leads on what and who decides on what. It fails to inspire confidence that it has taken any account of the most recent research and understanding of the social, health and environmental impacts of expanding aviation, especially the impacts of noise and air pollution. Worryingly, as a constituency MP with an airport in my constituency, it appears to sideline even further the role of local authorities and local communities in decision making.

The Bill will go through its Second Reading tonight, but it just provides yet more evidence that the Government’s whole approach to the aviation industry is increasingly turning into a dog’s breakfast. The people who suffer from this self-evident fiasco, which is ongoing, are, regrettably, my constituents and others. Although the Bill will go through, I hope the Government now recognise their responsibility and their promises to bring forward an aviation strategy paper, so we can properly discuss the long-term future of the sector.

Aviation Industry

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for securing today’s debate; I fully agree with much that he said.

With Heathrow in my constituency, I have a natural interest in protecting the livelihoods of my constituents who work at the airport and in the supply chain. Before I stood down as shadow Chancellor, one of the last conversations I had with the Chancellor was about securing an aviation strategy and bringing various partners in the sector together to do that. I regret that no effective co-ordinated strategy has been forthcoming, and in the absence of that strategy, we have seen the law of the jungle rule that sector. As a result, many of my constituents are experiencing real uncertainty, stress, distress and hardship, as they lose their jobs and have their wages cut.

Companies such as British Airways and Heathrow Airport Ltd have seen the pandemic as a crisis not to be wasted—an opportunity to secure long-held ambitions to reduce wage levels and withdraw hard-won benefits in the terms of employment secured in negotiations over the years. Many employees feel as though they have been treated like chattels rather than loyal employees for decades.

Although the pandemic might be with us for the next year in some form, with the potential of effective vaccines in sight, covid is likely to have a relatively temporary effect. That is why the aviation trade unions were willing —indeed, proposed—temporary measures, including temporary reductions in wages and job numbers to tide us through the pandemic. Instead, Heathrow Airport Ltd and British Airways are demanding permanent pay cuts and the permanent erosion of conditions of employment. That has provoked palpable anger among workers at Heathrow. As my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) said, we now face a strike before Christmas, which would not be necessary if management recognised their responsibilities.

Whether it is Heathrow’s brutal treatment of my constituents or Rolls-Royce’s appalling treatment of the Barnoldswick community, we must all call upon these companies to withdraw their threats to their employees and get back round the table to negotiate a sensible way forward. We also now need the Government to live up to their responsibilities to bring together all the partners in the sector, employers and trade unions, and then bring forward a programme for the immediate and long-term future of aviation. It should include the support that airport and aviation communities need immediately. I think there is a consensus building on many of the measures that hon. Members have set out today, but there also needs to be support as part of the just transition to an environmental aviation policy. That will mean, in some instances, ongoing financial wage support and retraining and educational opportunities to assist people into alternative employment, and, in my constituency, investment in the west London area to rebalance our economy for the long term. What we need, in short, is an aviation community strategy.

I feel a sense of desperation among my community about what is happening to them at the moment. I believe that desperation will feed through, unfortunately, into internal levels of distress. We are already seeing a rise in mental health problems within our community now, and we need action from the Government. Eight months on, after first mooting an aviation strategy, now is the time for further—and decisive—action from the Government.

National Policy Statement: Airports

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I shall seek to go under eight minutes if I can, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Speaker for allowing me to speak from the Back Benches, given the direct impact of the proposal on my constituency and my constituents, who find the whole debate heartbreaking.

Occasionally in the House there are defining moments, and I think that this is a defining moment on a number of issues. It is a defining vote tonight. As we have heard in the debate, it is a defining vote, first, on climate change. The evidence from the Select Committee on Transport and others basically outlines the fact that if we are to tackle climate change, as the Committee on Climate Change said, we have to restrict the growth of aviation to 55%. However, as has been evidenced in the debate, it looks as if it might hit 90% or 100% by 2050. As a result of Heathrow expansion, that means that regional airports will have to be constrained or, as the Committee on Climate Change said, other sectors of industry will be constrained within our economy. To be frank, on past evidence we will not meet those targets, so we will jeopardise our potential to tackle climate change.

The second issue that has been raised in our discussions is whether we are going to tackle the grotesque inequalities of investment geographically across the country. Tonight, we have learned from some of the views that have been expressed that we will not do so. The economic benefits were announced by the Airports Commission: we were meant to gain £147 billion. The Government reduced that figure to £74 billion, then to £72 billion. Now we know that that was the gross benefit, and that the present net value ranges from £3 billion over 60 years to minus £2 billion. If there is a 1% delay in the project, that is completely wiped out. Costs will not be borne by Heathrow Airport Ltd, because it has a leverage rate—a debt to asset value—of 85%. If it expands that will be over 90%. When the Government—not with my wishes—privatised the National Air Traffic Services, we prevented companies from bidding if they went anywhere near 65%. Heathrow will not find the money—the cost will be borne by taxpayers. The biggest taxpayer burden will be the surface infrastructure, assessed by Transport for London as £15 billion.

That money will come from investments, but they will not be in London and the south-east, and we will see delays and the ending of investments in transport and infrastructure around the country. We have heard about the growth of regional airports being held back, but the proposal will hold back growth in road and rail, along with all the benefits of infrastructure.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the much needed infrastructure promised as part of this statement—the southern and western rail links, along with Crossrail—have been on the cards for many years, and are needed for the existing number of passengers at Heathrow?

[John McDonnell]

It is an obvious point that we have made time and again in the House. We have been pressing for investment in infrastructure for the existing airport, but it has not been forthcoming.

We do not even know what the infrastructure plan is for the area. Last time, the infrastructure plan included a road through my local cemetery. We were meant to disinter the dead to enable access to Heathrow. We have still not seen the infrastructure plans. No wonder my constituents are angry about this. That is the third defining point. Does the House stand up for people and communities, especially working-class communities, or does it stand up to protect the interests of a corporate cartel that has ripped us off for decades? Ask how much—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

I would respect the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, if he accepted a runway in his constituency south of Heathrow, but he refused.

Look at how much corporation tax has been paid by this company over the past 10 years: £24 million. It has been borrowing to pay dividends more than its profit ratios. That is the nature of the company we are dealing with. It is a company and an operation at Heathrow that has lied to my constituents. When it got the fifth terminal, a letter was sent to my constituents. I had meetings with the directors of Heathrow and they were beside me saying, “We will not seek a third runway.” Within 12 months, they were lobbying for one. We were told by a former Conservative Prime Minister, “No ifs, no buts, no third runway”. They never told us that promise was for one Parliament. The existing Prime Minister backed that guarantee to my constituents.

These are the consequences for my constituents that hon. Members need to know: 4,000 homes will go; 8,000 to 10,000 people will be forcibly removed from their community, the biggest forced removal of human beings since the Scottish highland clearances; and a church, a temple, community centres, open spaces and even our hospices are now threatened. That is what it means to my community. Two schools—where will they go? It is no good offering them 125% compensation. You cannot compensate for the loss of your whole community. We have a housing crisis in our area on a scale not seen since the second world war. We cannot house our existing population. Where will they go? Two schools, at least, closed, with another one, most probably, after that. We have not got enough places for our existing pupils. Where will they go? We cannot find sites to build the new schools we currently need.

Those who get forced out might be the lucky ones, because the ones left behind are already breathing in air that is already poisoned above 2010 EU limits. No effective mitigation measures have been demonstrated to us tonight. We know the health consequences—respiratory conditions and cancer—yet the Government have refused to undertake a comprehensive health assessment.

[Andy McDonald]

Is my right hon. Friend as surprised as I am that there is nothing specific in the revised national policy statement that adequately sets out a framework for dealing with our air pollution crisis?

[John McDonnell]

We have 9,000 people a year in London dying from air pollution, yet there is nothing in the Government proposals that goes anywhere near even thinking about tackling these issues. Those are the consequences for my community, despite all the promises they have been given that their homes would be secure. These are villages that have been there for 1,000 years, to be wiped off the face of the earth—and for what? To ensure that a company maximises its profits. This is a company owned by Ferrovial, which was founded by Franco contracts, by the Chinese state and by Qatar. It is shipping profits abroad, rather than reinvesting in this country. That is what this vote is about tonight.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

I will finish on this point, because other Members want to speak.

This decision tonight will likely go through, but there will inevitably be legal challenges from a cross-party group and the London boroughs, as well as the Mayor of London. I believe, like last time, that those legal challenges will win. We will be left, yet again, with not tackling the real problem of developing a real aviation strategy that builds on the five airports around London, develops the regional airports we need, and connects them up with the rail and road infrastructure we desperately need. We will be back here yet again, having failed. I tell Members this as well: if the courts do not decide this, there will be a campaign. This will be the iconic, totemic battleground of climate change, which will attract protesters and campaigners from across Europe. This issue will not go away.

Before Members vote, I want to leave them with one thing in their mind: remember the name Armelle Thomas, resident of Harmsworth. Her husband, my friend, died a short while back. Tommy Thomas came to this country during the second world war to fight for this country against fascism. He flew airplanes for the RAF on some of the most dangerous secret missions into France. Armelle is his widow. His home that he built up with Armelle is in the centre of what will be the runway itself. There are human costs to this decision that Members need to recognise and contemplate before they vote tonight to worry and blight my community once again on a project that will never—pardon the pun—take off.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons & Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

That is another very good point. I am afraid that it is another one on which TfL does not have a terribly good record. In Brixton market or Shepherd’s Bush market, which I am very familiar with, there are many historical amenities, including retail areas—they have been there for decades, if not, in some cases, for centuries—of which TfL has been the custodian, that are now under threat. Again, that is simply because the bottom line always has to take precedence.

Such an approach is often self-defeating, because we end up building a white elephant. The best example I can give is the Hammersmith Broadway. TfL pressed ahead with that development some 30 years ago. Nobody wanted it, and it ruined the town centre, as we thought, for the foreseeable future. However, we have now found out that there are plans to pull the whole thing down and start again. Even within its own rather limited and pedestrian view, which is to make the maximum capital out of it, such an approach often does not work. We must have schemes that actually work—work with existing communities, and work in terms of long-term commercial prospects—rather than something that looks as though it will provide a quick subsidy for the sort of works at Harrow on the Hill that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West.

Let me press on. I am almost the last man standing in this debate—not quite, because I have had the assistance of my hon. Friend and of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, who have a particular interest in this matter—but it has had a glorious number of supporters so far. I see that the shadow Chancellor has joined us on the Front Bench. I will spare his blushes, but I was just about to pay tribute to what he and the Leader of the Opposition have done. They have really cracked the whip on the Bill. If he has looked at the amendment paper, he will have spotted that I have filched quite a large number of his amendments to propose myself. I would not have done that if they were not excellent in their own right. I will not speak to them at great length.

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

Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the drafting quality of the amendments?

[Andy Slaughter]

They are much better than I could have done. They could not be improved upon by the Clerks, so they get 10 out of 10, not just for their eloquence and presentation but for their content.

If I may, I will deal with the consolidated amendments in three parts, and will come to the promoter’s amendments last of all. In a moment, I will look at two amendments in particular, amendment 7 and amendment 8, which is consequential on amendment 7. I will be looking for a response from the promoter on those. They contain a serious and, to some extent, new point. To show my hand at this stage, amendment 7 is the one amendment I am thinking of pressing to a vote. I am only thinking of doing so, however—it will depend on what the Front-Bench spokesperson and the promoter say. I will explain my logic in a moment.

I will go through the rest of the amendments at some speed. A few might be probing, but they are mainly what we might call improving amendments. They try to make sure that the Bill’s deficiencies—it is rather hasty and secretive, and tries to provoke unwise decisions that have not had proper consideration—can be mitigated in some way. I ask the promoter and the Government to look at them in the spirit in which they have been tabled. I am not very hopeful, because when that same point was made in the first part of Report, in March 2015—my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was proposing the amendments at that stage—the promoter said he was not going to accept any of them, which I thought was a little churlish. They are genuinely intended to be improving. Let me explain what I mean by that.

I will start with new clause 1. That measure is slightly different. It flushes out one of the problems that we thought we had got rid of with TfL, but I am now not sure that we have. In its enthusiasm to sell off its assets to the highest bidder and to maximise commercial return, TfL sometimes ends up selling off land that it needs now or might need in future. That is slightly counterproductive, because with London property, when it is gone, it is gone. Any public authority that tries to buy back land that has been used from a commercial developer—even if, as in this case, that might be a joint partner—will find the price very high. The developer knows that the railway will absolutely need that piece of land so it will be treated as a ransom strip.

New clause 1 says:

“TfL, or any subsidiary of TfL, shall not lease land to third parties which…has been used in the preceding 10 years…has been considered by TfL in the preceding 10 years as suitable, or…is adjacent to land in use or in use in the preceding 10 years, for the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers.”

Let me give one example, a very big one and probably the one that the promoter thinks I am going to give: Lillie Bridge depot.

Lillie Bridge depot is one third of the Earls Court and West Kensington opportunity development. As is the case for many others, much of my interest in the Bill has been engendered by that very development, which, until Old Oak and Park Royal comes onstream, is the biggest in London. It is a multibillion pound scheme. It consists of three parts, two of which are, or were, owned in their entirety by TfL. I will not talk about this now; I will talk about it on Third Reading. The way that part one of the scheme has been handled—admittedly under the existing rules, because the Bill has not been passed into law—has been so disastrous and cataclysmic for my constituents and the wider London economy that it bodes very badly for what may come forward.

It could be even worse from TfL’s point of view, because Lillie Bridge depot, the second part of the site—the two or three parts are roughly the same size, between 20 and 25 acres each—is a working depot for TfL. It employs about 550 people. It has stabling for District line trains, and major manufacturing and workshop areas. To all intents and purposes, it is an essential part of the operation of TfL. Unfortunately, the view put forward by TfL’s property division is that it can all go. I have a letter here from Graeme Craig, whom I referred to earlier, from 26 March 2014. It says:

“TfL is committed to bringing forward the development of LBD”—

Lillie Bridge depot—

“in accordance with the approved masterplan or such updated planning permissions as may be approved by the Council. TfL is not able to commit at this stage to how and with whom the development of LBD is to be delivered if it is proved feasible to do so. However, given the establishment of JVCo to develop Earls Court Village and ECP’s control of other interests, it would make commercial sense in due course for both parties to fully explore the potential benefits which could arise should we combine our respective remaining land interests.”

That was a scandalous letter to write and I am pleased to say that Mr Craig gave me an assurance that no deal has been, or would be, entered into with Capco for the development of the Lillie Bridge depot before the mayoral election. What has happened in that area is on the basis of no ownership of that portion of land and on the basis of a masterplan devised by Capco itself. TfL, in a very craven way, just decided to give up the land and develop it with Capco without looking at any other possibilities.

Obviously, there is now a delay. Even TfL has to admit that a fully operational depot of that kind, with all the facilities in situ that I have talked about, cannot be closed down overnight. It is talking about not developing it for about another five years, but it is certainly looking to sign agreements to do so in advance. That is exactly the type of mischief that new clause 1 is designed to prevent.

It is not only because of the points made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West that we need to worry about what type of development is going to go on TfL land; we need to worry about what is going to happen with current usage, either in the case of Lillie Bridge where there is current transport usage, or if there is a potential transport usage. This is absolutely recognised in the HS2 Bill, where HS2 is able to compulsorily purchase, acquire and protect land ancillary to the line, stations or other essential infrastructure that is being developed—for good reason.

Whatever we think of HS2, we cannot allow major infrastructure projects and essential lifelines of the transport system to be put at risk by private development in this way. I therefore ask, without a great deal of hope or expectation, for support for new clause 1. Even if there is not to be support in that way, I still ask for a clear statement of policy from the sponsor on behalf of TfL as to how it intends to protect the operational benefits of TfL. This is not a pious or notional idea. TfL is going into the property development game big time. It is looking at thousands of acres of land across London with transport or ancillary transport uses—by definition, most of its non-operational land is adjacent to its operational land—in a way that I do not believe it is prepared for and that would be a quantum leap in how it operates. All we are saying is that there needs to be safeguards. We need to ensure that it does not shoot itself, or the travelling public, in the foot by giving away, tying up or otherwise compromising land in that way, which, I am afraid, is exactly what has happened in the past.

Airports Capacity

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

As a member of the Transport Select Committee, I have to observe that the Government have got themselves into a rather big hole on this issue. At least, however, they have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, a former miner, to dig them out of it. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that this decision will be taken in the early summer and that it will look favourably at the Davies commission, which made a clear recommendation to build a third runway at Heathrow?

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

Stop digging!

[Mr McLoughlin]

The shadow Chancellor says stop digging. He should learn lessons from his own shouting from a sedentary position.

[John McDonnell]

That was a compliment!

[Mr McLoughlin]

Oh, that was a good one; I will put that in my book.

As for the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), the important part of the Davies commission recommendations was having the extra capacity in place by 2030. I believe, given what I have said today, that we are on schedule to be able to deliver that extra capacity by 2030.

Davies Commission Report

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

In all my time in the House of Commons, I have always found it much easier to agree with my right hon. and learned Friend on such issues. He makes a number of points that we must bear in mind, and it is in a way a pity that progress has not been made on some of these subjects sooner.

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

The Secretary of State started his statement by outlining the history, beginning with the Davies commission. There was a stage before that, however, when the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron)—now the Prime Minister—said to my constituents, “No ifs, no buts, there will be no third runway.” Now, 10,000 of them are at risk of losing their homes, their local community centres, their schools and their places of worship. Today the air pollution levels were double the EU legal limits. If the runway goes ahead, the noise will extend to 1.5 million people. Does the Secretary of State think the onus is now on the Prime Minister to come to my constituency and meet my constituents whose homes and whole community are now at risk?

[Mr McLoughlin]

What the Prime Minister was talking about initially was a proposal put forward by his own party, which was basically not a proper proposal and would not have answered the capacity question. The Prime Minister certainly ruled out that option, and set up the commission so that we could make a reasoned and proper judgment, which is exactly what we will do.

Network Rail

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I can give that reassurance. Let me add that the railways Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), has been particularly good at keeping all local Members in touch, especially those who have experienced problems. I must, however, say to my hon. Friend in all fairness that there will be occasions, during what will be a major refurbishment, when passengers will be caused discomfort and inconvenienced. I am afraid that that is part of our legacy of having to catch up with all the under-investment that was happening for so many years. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) mentions London Bridge. I am the first to admit that some of the conditions faced by people there have been unacceptable, but some of the conditions faced by me at St Pancras were unacceptable, and it is now a fantastic station that is almost a destination in its own right.

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

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am the chair of the RMT parliamentary group.

I assume from his statement that the Secretary of State has resisted some of the calls from the wider elements of his party for the breaking up and privatisation of Network Rail. The fourth point that he made in his statement was,

“it is important that we understand what can be done better in future investment programmes.”

May I suggest to him that one of the key elements of that would be to start listening to some of the workers on the front line? May I also suggest that Dame Colette Bowe’s review should include a mechanism for ongoing consultation with the trade unions about how those programmes can be improved?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am certainly willing to consider the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions. Some of those workers on the front line do an incredibly difficult job, sometimes in the most horrendous conditions and often in the middle of the night. That is one of the lessons on which we should draw when considering what happened at King’s Cross over Christmas.