Railways

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

When we have such debates, it is important that we consult the people who run the railway system. I therefore refer hon. Members to the evidence provided to the Select Committee on Transport by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. When privatisation came about, RMT submitted evidence to the House and made it clear publicly that privatisation would result in a risk to safety. Eventually, Southall, Paddington and Potters Bar happened. I attended the funeral of the driver who died at Southall—he was an ASLEF member and my constituent. I remember the warnings that were given. As a result of privatisation, people such as that driver sacrificed their lives.

This time, RMT is saying clearly that the proposals, if they go ahead, will compromise safety. RMT is saying that the system is fragmented and complicated with numerous interfaces, and that the measure will simply introduce another tier of bureaucracy for it to deal with. Its view is that safety should be dealt with at national level and local level, where there is local knowledge. Yes, interfaces in Europe should be dealt with internationally by agreements within Europe, but safety should rest as a national competence. In that way, we can achieve safety on the basis of the knowledge of those who operate the system.

The second point made by RMT is on infrastructure. It clearly says that there is a move—the measure is a further step—towards a single European infrastructure manager. The House has debated High Speed 2. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that key decisions on infrastructure should be retained at national level. Of course, we need integrated decision making when we go across national boundaries, but basic infrastructure decisions should be based on local knowledge and the representation of local interests, and particularly local constituency interests. The measure will take us beyond that.

RMT’s third point is that rail is effectively a money laundering exercise. This is not petty nationalism, but we see an incremental nationalisation of our railway system by Deutsche Bahn and others. The taxpayer subsidy poured into the system is laundered into investment in those companies’ own countries. Why do I say that? Let me quote the German Transport Ministry. It said:

“We’re skimming profit from the entire Deutsche Bahn and ensuring that it is anchored in our budget—that way we can make sure it is invested in the rail network here”.

The laundering of the British pound into German euros is a deep irony, and it is happening as a result of the UK Government’s proposals to support elements in the package.

[Frank Dobson]

Perhaps we should have a referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend says that we should have a referendum, but we will come back to that in due course.

The objection is about democracy. The measure will fetter the hands of a future Labour Government, who will be unable to renationalise the railway network or keep some element of it in public ownership. That is what the measure is about, and why Government Members support it. They want to ensure that no Labour Government can at any time in future bring rail back into public ownership.

A number of us prefer public ownership and have made the arguments time and again. Public ownership is more efficient, more effective and more cost-effective. If hon. Members disagree with that, I suggest they read a succession of Transport Committee reports from the past few years. I appeal to Members on both sides of the House. Whatever they think about rail nationalisation, they should not allow Europe to fetter the hands of a British Government on such a major issue. This is about democracy, and about ensuring that, when we go into the next election, we have the right to implement what is in our party manifestos. If the measure progresses, it will fetter the hands of future Governments, and therefore undermine British democracy when it comes to deciding the future of our transport system.

High Speed Rail

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

There is always a dilemma for us as to who we talk to and consult. It would have been wrong of me to start telling people where the route was going before I had laid the documents before Parliament this morning. We will start that consultation. If my hon. Friend has had a chance to look at the sustainability summary that goes with the document I published today, he will have seen on page 70 that the area he is talking about is marked for tunnelling under East Midlands airport, and the east midlands gateway rail freight interchange development site is clearly marked. We will obviously work with developers to minimise the impact wherever we can.

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

The decision to delay the recommendations on the Heathrow spur until the Howard Davies commission has reported means that my constituents face at least another two years of uncertainty. Is not one solution to bring forward the Davies report, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) suggested? Even if the Davies commission’s interim report this year dealt with the matter, we would have more certainty about the connection with Heathrow.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I have made clear the Government’s position as to why we have done what we have done. We think it is a sensible way to go but I am sure he will make those representations in the consultation process.

Civil Aviation Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I rise to speak briefly in this short debate. Amendment 3, which relates to clause 2, refers to

“the need to secure that each holder of a licence… is able to take reasonable measures to reduce, control or mitigate the adverse environmental effects of the airport to which the licence relates”.

I would like to quiz the Minister on the meaning of “environmental effects”, because I am a strong supporter of an estuary airport solution and very much opposed to the idea of a third, or conceivably a fourth, runway at Heathrow.

It seems fairly clear that aviation pollution from Heathrow, if the airport was extended, would compound an already poor state of affairs. There are about 50 early deaths a year as a result of pollution, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has calculated that the number could climb to 150 if a third runway is built. We also know that the prevailing winds at Heathrow are south-westerly and that pollution from the airport already spreads over a huge swathe of north London.

Finally, we also know that noise from Heathrow accounts for 95% of all the noise impacting people from London airports and that around 725,000 people live under the flight path and experience noise in excess of 55 dB. If Heathrow is extended, we can expect all those environmental impacts to be exacerbated. Will the Minister indicate whether the rather welcome amendment, which would require adverse environmental effects to be mitigated, will include the list I have just given?

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

There is not much more to say after that contribution, except that the key issues of noise and emissions pollution are absolutely critical to my constituents and, as the hon. Gentleman said, to a much wider area of the south-east. That is why I welcome the amendments, wherever they were drafted—I think forensics could prove where they come from.

The key issue for my constituents is how the targets will be set, monitored and reported. It would be useful if the Minister clarified what role this House will have in monitoring the implementation of this legislation. In the past we have received the CAA’s annual reports and individual determinations but, given that the legislation represents a significant break, I think that a regular report from the Secretary of State would be extremely useful, even if it was only an annual report. We could then have a full debate on the Floor of the House to monitor issues such as the environmental impact.

[Mr Simon Burns]

It might be helpful at this point if I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, as I said in my introductory remarks, there is and will continue to be an annual report from the CAA, and it will be up to this House to debate it, in a variety of shapes and forms, at any time it wishes.

[John McDonnell]

That is incredibly helpful. I encourage Members to join me in ensuring that we have that annual debate, which we have not had up to now. The legislation places duties not only on the CAA, but on the Secretary of State. Therefore, I think that it is important that we have an annual report from the Secretary of State on the fulfilment of his or her duties that we can debate, because this is a critical piece of legislation for so many of our constituents.

[Mr Burns]

I intend to speak very briefly and not to detain the House for long, because I understand that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the important debate that will follow. I will deal briefly with some of the issues raised by hon. Members because, as those aficionados who attended Second Reading and Committee will know, there has been a thorough debate and considerable engagement between those with differing views and opinions, not least in another place. [Interruption.] I will not get involved in the little squabble between the official Opposition and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid).

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) mentioned the important matter of emissions. I do not want to get into an in-depth debate or to regurgitate what has already been said. On the question of the duty to work with others to meet the UK’s emissions targets, we believe that the Opposition amendments are unnecessary, as was pointed out in Committee and on Report. That is because, as he will accept, this Government and the CAA already take environmental matters very seriously, and the Government’s approach is to ensure that the aviation sector makes a significant and cost-effective contribution towards reducing global emissions. Moreover, the Opposition amendments were technically flawed, although I accept that that could have been remedied during the subsequent procedures in this House. We feel that our general approach, with the way in which we have listened to the arguments and the amendments that have been made, is the right way forward and that it gives the protections whereby the environmental issues will be taken very seriously.

Select Committee Inquiry (Aviation Strategy)

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the launch of the Transport Committee’s inquiry into the UK’s aviation strategy.

I should like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for this opportunity to launch the Transport Select Committee’s new inquiry into the Government’s aviation policy and for enabling us to bring our work to the attention of Members and the public.

Aviation is vital to the UK economy. The air transport sector has a turnover of approximately £26 billion and provides around 186,000 direct jobs in the UK. More than 500,000 jobs depend on the sector and an additional 170,000 come as a consequence of visitors arriving by air. Aviation feeds into our manufacturing, tourism and freight sectors. It also connects businesses to international markets and allows people to travel across the UK and abroad. The industry, however, also has an impact on the local environment around airports, and its carbon emissions have a global environmental effect.

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

I welcome the inquiry. There is an abundance of inquiries at the moment, so we are all going to be busy. In past inquiries, the focus on emissions has centred on carbon dioxide, and not on the nitrogen oxides that are poisoning large numbers of my constituents and, if the third runway goes ahead, will poison 35,000 more. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the inquiry takes that matter into account?

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The Committee will certainly be interested to hear representations on the specific issue that he has raised.

The Department for Transport has taken some time in producing its aviation strategy. The coalition rejected plans for a third runway at Heathrow in 2010, but in July this year the Government published their draft aviation policy framework for consultation. The Government say that their draft policy should make the best use of existing aviation capacity in the short term, while other long-term solutions to increase capacity are being developed.

The issue of hub status is particularly contentious. Two years after opposing plans to expand Heathrow, the Government’s draft aviation policy does not include a strategy for maintaining an aviation hub in the UK. Ensuring that the UK has an effective hub airport is important to encourage growth, maintain international connectivity and provide transport services on more marginal routes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, and, again, look forward to our receiving evidence along those lines.

We want the public to ensure that their voices are heard on this important issue. We aim to influence the Government during their policy development process with sensible but challenging recommendations, and to ensure that aviation policy is high on the agenda.

[John McDonnell]

To ensure that the public are engaged, will the Committee consider holding local meetings to discuss Heathrow?

[Mrs Ellman]

The Committee has not yet decided exactly how it will conduct itself, but that may be a possibility.

Aviation policy may be controversial, but it is a vital issue which must be addressed. I hope that the Committee’s inquiry will assist in the development of an appropriate policy.

Question put and agreed to.

Rail Fares

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

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

The new Secretary of State is not in his place, but I welcome him to his new position. He said that it is somewhat daunting for him to have on his first day a debate about rail fares. All I can say is: wait until we get on to aviation. I look forward to introducing him to some of my friends: Bob Crow at the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, Mick Whelan at ASLEF and Manuel Cortes at the Transport Salaried Staffs Association. On a serious point, I am sure that the trade unions will show a willingness to meet the new Secretary of State on a regular basis and to work together to improve the system. If hon. Members look at many of the submissions received by the Transport Committee in recent years, particularly from the RMT, ASLEF and TSSA, they will see that many of the issues raised and many of the ideas proposed, particularly on ticketing, have been reflected in contributions by Members from all parties to debates, particularly those centring on fares.

The agenda needs to be worked on jointly with the Government. The focus is on fares as the major problem that passengers bear the brunt of. I believe that the role of the House is to protect our constituents—the travelling public—against many of the companies that are profiteering at their expense. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) gave an example of price increases in his constituency, where people are paying anything up to £6,000 or £7,000 a year to commute, and of how that is becoming an impediment to them maintaining work. That is happening right across the country, so I welcome the Government’s ticketing review and refer them to the evidence that the RMT has already provided to successive Transport Committee reviews of ticketing, in which we have emphasised the problems of the complexities of pricing.

On the performance of the companies with regard to their franchises and fares, it is unacceptable that, when a company reneges on its franchise commitments and then seeks to walk away from it, it is then allowed to bid for other franchises around the country. Any company that reneges on its existing franchise should be banned from being able to bid for another and profiteer at the expense of passengers.

[Katy Clark]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is yet another example in the transport sector of the private sector getting into difficulties and the public taxpayer picking up the purse?

[John McDonnell]

Time and again, when rail franchises have collapsed, they have been brought under public ownership and control. We saw that with the First Capital Connect franchise in the south-east. When that service was in public ownership, it was one of the most efficient and cost-effective services. Unfortunately, the previous Government—this Government pursued this as well—put it out to the private sector again.

The Secretary of State referred in his opening remarks to the investment in electrification and high-speed rail. I wholeheartedly welcome that investment, but I have concerns about the High Speed 2 route. I am particularly concerned about how it has been consulted on. The two-stage approach and the development of the line—the two stages being those that link London to the midlands and to the north—were consulted on separately from the publication of the route to Heathrow, which will affect my constituency. Nevertheless, I welcome the concept of investment in high-speed rail for the future.

Great play has been made in this debate of the issue of reform and its impact on costs and fares. I think that all the rail unions will be willing to meet to discuss the reform of the current system of franchising and of the operation of the railways. I met Roy McNulty on a regular basis. He is a nice old buffer and I do not in any way disparage his commitment or the genuineness of his approach to the review of the railway network, but I have to say that, even under the previous Government, the terms of reference of the McNulty review were specifically limited and that his horizons were, therefore, limited. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) has made the point that the comparisons with Europe were hardly straightforward. The comparison was between a franchising system and systems that were largely in the public sector, publicly owned and publicly managed. He was not allowed to look at what public ownership and public control could mean in this country compared with elsewhere. As I have said, the only time that such ownership has occurred here in recent years is when private sector franchises have collapsed and the public sector has taken them over and managed them efficiently and effectively.

The problem with the McNulty review—this has been touched on—is that he envisages, at the most recent estimate, a cut of 20,000 jobs. That will have consequences for services, and many of our constituents have expressed concerns about that.

[Mr Leech]

The unions mentioned the figure of 20,000 job losses to our Transport Committee, but that figure was rejected by others in the industry, who said that the actual numbers were far lower.

[John McDonnell]

The range cited is anything between 5,000 and 20,000. Even if the figure is 5,000, a significant number of jobs will go. In those areas where the general proposals have been translated into concrete ones at the local level, passengers and communities have expressed consternation. For example, the west midlands is trying to translate some of the reductions in staffing into the service itself and faces 80 ticket office closures. That will result in a reduction of staff in the station, so there are concerns about losing the service and about security on platforms and at stations. As a result, a new campaign was launched in August and 40 main stations across the country were picketed by community groups and unions. The campaign was joined by the TUC, the Campaign for Better Transport, Climate Rush and a number of other groups. I issue a warning—perhaps I will send the Secretary of State a note about this—that the campaign was also joined by the women’s institute. Any Minister who takes on the 210,000 members of the women’s institute does so at his or her peril.

This point has been touched on by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), but there needs to be a discussion about why the fares have increased and why the travelling public have been burdened by those increases over the years. We need to have a debate—I hope that this will happen under the new Secretary of State—about how we should organise our railways. We cannot ignore the understanding and appreciation that now exists of the impact of privatisation. I would welcome a more open debate in which people took a more agnostic approach to privatisation, rather than an ideologically committed one, as has been the case in the past.

I refer Members to the “Rebuilding Rail” report, which came out a couple of months ago. It looked at the value-for-money arguments of the existing franchising mechanism and compared the public subsidy that was put into British Rail with the current subsidy. That independent report found that public subsidy had doubled under the franchising system from £2.4 billion to more than £5.4 billion. From 2005-06 to 2009-10, the average subsidy going into the privatised system was £1.2 billion a year. The total subsidy under privatisation is now nearly £12 billion.

When we have had this argument in the past, a number of Members from all parts of the House have argued that the private companies that operate the franchises are paying a premium and putting money back into the system. I pay tribute to the detailed work of John Stittle, the senior lecturer in accounting at the university of Essex, in the “Rebuilding Rail” report. He looked at how the money has, in effect, been laundered through Network Rail. We have increased the public subsidies to Network Rail, resulting in a reduction in the track operational costs for private companies, which has enabled them to pay the premiums. Under privatisation, there has been a straightforward subsidy from the taxpayer to the private companies to run the system, the passengers have been hit by high fares, and the premiums that the companies pay back to the state, which they extol the virtues of, have actually been paid for by subsidies laundered through Network Rail. That is why we need a re-examination of the whole structure. I hope that we will now have that open debate.

The “Rebuilding Rail” report shows—this is partly reflected by McNulty—that the high costs that are resulting in high fares are a result of the complex structure of the franchising system. It highlights other issues such as the higher interest payments that were paid to keep Network Rail’s debts off the Government balance sheet; the debt write-offs that have occurred under privatisation; and the costs arising from the fragmentation of the system between numerous organisations and subcontractors, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) pointed out. The profit margins of the complex tiers of contractors and subcontractors are forcing rail fares up, because of their high costs. The level of the dividend payments to private investors is unacceptable to the travelling public when fares are increasing. As I said, there is an average subsidy of £1.2 billion a year and more than £11 billion of public funds have been paid out so far.

I hope that we will have some new thinking. I hope that we will again look at public ownership as an option. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion demonstrated, although it was dismissed by the Liberal spokesperson, that independent examination of the matter has shown that public ownership could be reintroduced in the railway system at virtually zero cost. As the franchises end, they can be brought back into public ownership, as has happened with two franchises, at no additional cost. Even if the Government are not willing to go as far as the full renationalisation of the railway system, as I would wish, it is open to them to keep at least one franchise in the public sector to be the benchmark against which other franchises are judged. That would enable the system to be evaluated properly and for pressure to be placed on the private sector element of the system.

I hope that with a new Secretary of State and a new Transport team, we can have a constructive dialogue. However, I cannot see a constructive dialogue coming from passengers if they are hit in successive years by fare increases. Although I will vote for the Opposition motion, my view is not just that fares should be frozen or capped, but that the travelling public deserve a cut in fares. Many passengers feel that they are being fleeced, both through increased fares and because they have to pay through their taxes for increased public subsidies while a number of the private companies make unacceptable levels of profit.

Two weeks ago, when the franchising issue broke, Branson, the head of Virgin, expressed his concerns about losing the franchise. One article repeated the quotation from his finance director when the privatisation of the railways first happened: that it was their opportunity literally to print money. That is what many of the private companies have done as a result of the franchising system. I believe that that is obscene, as will many passengers when they face further price increases in their fares. As the hon. Member for Northampton South said, that puts people’s ability to maintain their employment in jeopardy.

I welcome the new Secretary of State. I support the motion and hope that we can go further at a later date. I hope that with the new rail team, we can have a wider debate that is unfettered by the ideological commitment to privatisation that there has been in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spencer]

I do not know what sort of car the hon. Lady drives, but I certainly have not seen a 7% drop in the cost of my motoring. I do not think we have got the balance right at the moment, but we have heard a series of speeches by Opposition Members about how nationalisation could improve the railways. I wonder whether people’s memories are so short that they forget how poor British Rail was. The Government who privatised the railways did not do it because British Rail was so fantastic.

[John McDonnell]

It is important in these debates that Members of all parties cut through the myths. May I refer the hon. Gentleman to a report by a think-tank called Catalyst, which analysed the subsidy given to British Rail in comparison with those in the rest of Europe and found it to have been the most efficient rail service in Europe? It also analysed the differences between the subsidies under nationalisation and those provided now, and again found British Rail to have been more effective and efficient. I will send him a copy.

[Mr Spencer]

I would be very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I accept that this is a complicated issue, but when British Rail ran the railways it was not a panacea or a fantastic system. There were enormous delays for commuters, and the railway carriages were cramped. The service provided to commuters was shocking.

We could argue that there has not been enough progress, which I accept to a certain extent. Like the Secretary of State, I travel on the midland main line. It seems simple to say that capacity on that line could be improved just by making the trains a little longer, but the situation is much more complicated than that. The trains are already too long for people who want to get out of certain carriages at Loughborough station, so they have to move down the train to get off. Enormous investment is required in the midland main line, which is one of the most under-invested railway lines in the country, and I am delighted that the Government are putting in the cash to improve it by moving electrification further up towards the midlands and Yorkshire. It has been a long time coming.

I return to my constituents in Sherwood, who are not blessed with wonderful railway connections. If a resident of the town of Ollerton is employed in the city of Nottingham, their only option is to use buses or get in the car and drive. Public transport provision in my constituency is shockingly poor, and with the exception of the town of Hucknall, railway provision is pretty much non-existent. A taxpayer in Ollerton has to get in their car, for which they have paid road tax, and fund their journey by paying for petrol and the tax on it. They drive to the city of Nottingham and pay the workplace parking levy introduced by the Labour-controlled city council to earn their wage to pay taxes to support a banker in Surrey by cheapening his journey into the City of London. To someone working in Sherwood and earning twenty thousand quid, that does not seem acceptable. We sometimes need a bit of a reality check. I have heard a lot of complaints from colleagues in the south-east. I understand that they feel under pressure because of the increases in the cost of their rail tickets, but there is not a great deal of sympathy from hard-pressed, hard-working people in the coalfields of Nottinghamshire who are on low wages.

How will we solve the problem? Frankly, I am not sure that I have all the answers, but I would be delighted to work with the Secretary of State and the transport team to try to solve it. I believe that the answer is for the price of railway tickets to creep up, so that people can adapt and adjust, and for us to find ways of being more efficient. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) talked about efficiency savings, which will be the key to solving the problem. We must not only make use of taxpayers’ money for investment but find ways of spending it in the most efficient way possible. It is not tolerable or acceptable to my hard-working, tax-paying constituents that they have to keep dipping their hand in their pocket only for that money to be wasted rather than spent in the most efficient possible manner. If efficiencies are made, they will be able to benefit when they make use of the trains if they have the opportunity to come to London or to commute across Nottinghamshire. They cannot keep paying indefinitely without efficiency savings.

Probably the most shocking statistic that I have heard today is the comparison between the cost of flying and using rail. It is now cheaper to fly from Edinburgh to London than it is to go on the train. It seems bonkers that we find ourselves in that position, but it demonstrates how efficient the private sector can be in providing air journeys.

High Speed 2 (Heathrow)

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is present. I am sure that she has lots of better things to do on an afternoon such as this, and it is a great pleasure to have her and other colleagues, all of whom are friends, in the debate.

There have been a number of Government announcements about rail investment over the past few days, so today’s debate is most timely. Let me state from the outset that I stand fully behind the Government’s proposed investments in our rail and high-speed rail networks. In order to allow our economy to compete with its European and global counterparts, it is vital that we have a truly world-class infrastructure.

I shall begin my remarks by discussing briefly the issue of western access to Heathrow—a matter of interest to my constituents in the Cotswolds—and I will then discuss the connectivity, or lack of, between High Speed 2 and Heathrow. It is, of course, possible for my constituents, and others in the west and south-west, to reach Heathrow by rail, but the requirement to change trains acts as a huge disincentive so people travel by road instead. For example, of the 650,000 passenger journeys from Oxford to Heathrow each year, an overwhelming number—98.9%—take place by road, rather than by rail. It is therefore important that all necessary steps are taken to encourage more people from the west of the country to access Heathrow by rail.

The creation of a spur from Reading to Heathrow will benefit those in the immediate vicinities of Reading and Slough, but for those further afield, at least one change of trains will be required. In addition to the Reading link, the creation of a new Heathrow station and a new hub with fast transport links to the main airport would provide a direct rail link to Heathrow for people in the west, south-west and Wales. Such a hub would act as a gateway to the airport, with connections by road as well as rail. A significant amount of the check-in and logistical facilities could be hosted at the new hub, allowing a complete transformation of the terminal structure at Heathrow airport. That would allow a far more efficient airport structure, with significant benefits for passengers and freight services—that is vital given that Heathrow is responsible for handling over half of the UK’s total air freight.

Given that we are in the process of electrifying the Great Western main line, we have a huge opportunity to create a fantastic rail and aviation link between the east and west of the country, with potentially huge benefits for people and businesses in the west, south-west and Wales. In my view, that goes hand in hand with the construction of HS2, which is the most costly single project ever envisaged by the Government.

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

I apologise for intervening so early, but I may have to go to the other Chamber for a debate. Will the hon. Gentleman explain where he thinks such a hub would be located? What are his views on the best options for the hub’s location?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I will explain, but it was not my purpose to favour any one particular commercial option in this speech. A site is available within the vicinity of the interchange of the M25 and the M4, and there may well be others. It is a significant site of about 500 acres of largely disused land, so a possibility is available.

[John McDonnell]

Is that the Iver site?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I believe it is.

As I was saying, HS2 is the most costly single project ever envisaged by the Government, and will probably require more than the £34 billion often quoted. That figure is based largely on the assumption that 70% of HS2 users will be leisure passengers, and that seems a somewhat optimistic projection of income given that those people are price sensitive rather than time sensitive. To provide the House with a comparison, £34 billion compares with the £25 billion cost of the Trident replacement, and with the £17 billion for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and aircraft. HS2 is, therefore, a massive capital infrastructure project.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I apologise to the Minister; I cannot be here for her response because I will be in the debate in the main Chamber. I congratulate the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing the debate. It is an invaluable debate to secure at this time.

In several debates on the issue, I have expressed concerns that the High Speed 2 consultation did not include the Heathrow link as part of a comprehensive consultation on the overall route. The consultation on the Heathrow link was done separately, which was incongruous to say the least. So far, we have witnessed 11 separate options for the link between high-speed rail and Heathrow, in addition to the hub proposal that has been brought forward. I would welcome more information from the Minister in due course on the exact route of the western link into Heathrow announced yesterday.

High-speed rail has consequences for my borough. Despite the Government’s welcome assurances on the tunnelling that will go ahead, areas of Hillingdon will still be directly impacted by high-speed rail. It will have a deleterious effect on people’s homes and local communities. I would welcome further information on the Government’s consideration of the representations that have been made by the London borough of Hillingdon and others.

[Mr Donohoe]

Can my hon. Friend, as one of the local Members, indicate the time it takes to travel between the terminals—terminals 1 to 5—and the distances? I have looked at it, and it does not make a lot of sense to have a hub outwith the airport.

[John McDonnell]

That is an extremely valid point. To give BAA its due, it is looking at the efficiency of the transportation of passengers within the airport complex. I do not necessarily think my hon. Friend’s point negates the full argument about a hub, but it certainly undermines some of the arguments for it.

The hub option was raised previously, as well as in local consultations that I undertook, and it would have environmental consequences for that part of west London, particularly West Drayton, which is located fairly close to the proposed Iver site. Some green belt areas would also be lost. In addition, there are concerns about the links from the hub into Heathrow airport. Whether there is a high-speed bus link or a separate direct railway line to the airport from the hub, there will be consequences, depending on the route, for the Heathrow villages, which have only just recovered from the threat of the third runway. If there is not to be a hub, and one of the 11 direct-link options is taken up, the link will travel through my constituency and, I say to the Minister, we would expect the same commitment to tunnelling as has been given to other areas, to avoid the environmental impacts on people’s homes and communities.

The Government tell us that the consultation on the next stage will be in the autumn. When we raised that matter with the Secretary of State, there was an indication that interested Members may well receive some form of briefing on some of the narrowed options being considered in advance of the formal consultation. I would welcome the opportunity to bring together interested Members, as the hon. Member for The Cotswolds said, to discuss with Ministers the range of narrowed options and the consequences for our individual constituencies, to ensure that we can provide local input into the Government’s final consideration, but also highlight the impacts on our individual communities.

As I have said in previous debates, to be frank, having separate consultations on the main line and on the link into Heathrow is no way to plan a railway network. Let us now make up the ground and ensure that there is full involvement of MPs in the final stage of consideration and, after that, of whole communities in the consultations on the implications of the different options that the Government are exploring. None of the options is free from environmental consequences, certainly within my area. Many of my constituents would welcome a more efficient Heathrow, as other Members have said, because many of them work there, but they want to protect their local communities and homes from any further direct environmental impacts that might result.

I welcome the debate. I do not believe the hub is necessarily the solution. It has consequences. We need early consideration of the range of options as soon as possible, to give some certainty to local communities and to avoid the continuation of what is becoming a blight—certainly on my area.

Aviation

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Villiers]

Certainly the debate that will be triggered by our call for evidence will look at a range of options, including how a hub can interact with highly successful point-to-point airports, and will consider connections between our airports to see if they can provide a way to improve and enhance our connectivity. Those are the sorts of ideas we have already been looking at, because they were proposed in response to our scoping document, and they will provide an important basis for future debate over the next few months on how we maintain London’s and the UK’s top-class connectivity.

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

Will the Minister give way?

Civil Aviation Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Shuker]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving me that assurance, but I would like her to give it to the House in a full debate about aviation security. By 7 o’clock tonight, the House will have finished Report stage. My party’s Front Benchers made their arguments so forcefully that I am sure they will carry the day if the amendments are pressed, but if not, we will have to go on assurances from the Government, not on assessments such as those we call for in the amendments or on positive resolutions of both Houses such as could be made if new clause 3 were accepted.

I accept the Minister’s point about leadership and am pleased that she is being responsive on the matter, but we must not ignore the fact that a big change is being made to aviation security. The public will want us to be able to account for what we have done. The change should not be made lightly; it should be made with the full, cross-party support of the House.

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

I apologise for coming into the debate somewhat late. I was at a ministerial meeting about issues to do with Heathrow, particularly deportation and the detention centres at Harmondsworth and Colnbrook.

I wish to make two simple points. The first is about new clause 3 and relates to an issue that has come up time and again in debates about airport security. Members may recall that I chaired the meetings at Heathrow after 9/11, at which we brought together all the companies, BAA, Ministers and others. Two things came out of those discussions. One was the need for training, which has been mentioned today. There was a lack of training at the time, particularly on lower-level perimeter security. The second was the difficulty of recruiting and attracting sufficiently qualified staff, largely as a result of the low pay levels. We sought to resolve that in discussions with the Government. We wanted not only to bring all the agencies together to improve training, but to have it recognised that pay levels for security workers at Heathrow, some of whom at best lived on just above the minimum wage at that time, needed to be addressed if we were to recruit and retain appropriate staff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I entirely agree that seeking to place an environmental duty in the Bill is in no way inappropriate. We think it is entirely in keeping with the new powers to confer on the CAA a duty to take cognisance of the environmental impact of aviation.

Concerns were raised in Committee about the inclusion of the regulatory asset base, and the Gatwick Express was mentioned, along with other aspects. The Opposition believed that stronger powers were needed—and that they were needed on the face of the Bill.

We ask the question once again: why is there no environmental duty for the CAA as a regulator? The Government say that they want to be “the greenest Government ever”—fine words. The Minister proudly says that she will “yield to no one” on environmental protection. I congratulate her on that, as these are more fine words. The Lib Dems say that we were not tough or focused enough and that our words were not appropriate—more fine words, if they mean anything. The time to take action, however, is now, because we have the opportunity to do so now.

With new clause 6 and amendment 7, we think that seeking to inform passengers about the environmental impact is wholly appropriate. The Minister agreed with the principle when she said that she shared with Opposition members of the Committee

“the goal of harnessing consumer power in our efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of aviation.”—[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 13 March 2012; c. 314.]

We all know that the tools exist commercially. Travel companies produce information on the environmental impact of different modes of transport, and this is advocated by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and by the Department of Energy and Climate Change—so why not by the Department for Transport?

We heard powerful evidence in Committee to suggest that passenger choice is based not on green issues—if that were the case, it would be welcome—but on the location of the airport, whether it serves their destination and on the convenience of getting there, as well, of course, as the cost. It is not based on the environment, but the environment does matter, and it will matter increasingly in the years ahead. Now is the time, and here is the opportunity, to encourage that type of decision making on the environment by including information about environmental impacts on ticketing and the CAA could do that. We will therefore seek to test support for new clause 6.

Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the shadow Secretary of State, said:

“The Government has refused to recommit to the targets on reducing emissions from aviation set by the previous Labour government and has yet to respond positively to the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendation that this should be extended to include the UK’s share of international emissions, which is explicitly covered by the amendment.”

I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that. I cannot repeat what my hon. Friend said about the Liberal Democrats, unless the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) wants me to. [Hon. Members: “Go on.”] Well, she was not very kind to the Liberal Democrats. She said that they were “meekly” following the Government in rejecting our amendments. Clearly she anticipated their exact response, which is entirely inconsistent with their pre-election stance on dealing with the environmental impact of aviation.

We think that the Government should be bolder, cleaner and greener, and should accept the principle of environmental duty. If we do not receive the reassurance that we seek from the Minister—and I do not expect that we shall—we will seek to divide the House on amendment 3 and new clause 6.

Let me end by quoting recommendation 38 of the Transport Committee’s report. I see that the highly regarded independent Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman)—for whom the whole House has regard—is present. Her Committee said:

“Without giving the CAA a supplementary duty on the environment in relation to its economic regulation role, there is some risk that airports may be reluctant to invest in improving environmental performance. Whilst, as the Minister says, there may be ‘absolutely no doubt’ about measures taken to comply with statutory environmental obligations, there remains a doubt about whether the costs of discretionary measures, such as improved public transport access, can be recovered by airports in charges to airlines.”

That is one recommendation that we solidly support, which is why we wish to press the new clause and amendment to a vote at the appropriate time.

[John McDonnell]

I support all the new clauses and amendments, and I am sure that when the Minister has explained what her amendment is, I will support it as well.

I thought that Members throughout the House had learned as a result of the debate on the third runway and overall aviation strategy that—as the Select Committee has said—it was necessary for proper account to be taken of the environmental impact of the development of aviation, and of airports in particular. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) pointed out, this evening we have been presented with an opportunity to ensure that that happens.

Let me explain why this is important to my community. Tonight I am to attend the annual general meeting of the Harmondsworth and Sipson residents association, which will also be attended by representatives of each of the Heathrow villages, including Longford, Harlington and, I hope, Cranford Cross. The issues that will concern them are the issues in the amendments. They will be concerned about the noise from the airport itself and about the environmental impact of air pollution, but also about the future of their villages. In other words, they will be concerned about the overall impact of the airport on their local communities.

New clause 6—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse has spoken so eloquently, both today and in Committee—highlights the fact that the measures taken so far to address the problem of noise pollution from the airport have simply not worked. There has been some improvement, but nothing like the improvement that we want as a local community, and certainly nothing that is acceptable. There is a voluntary agreement at Heathrow purely and simply to provide insulation for a limited number of properties—private houses, and some public buildings—but although that is welcome, it is a voluntary agreement and has had no impact in bearing down on the noise from the airport. I believe that posing the threat of a compensation scheme will focus the minds of the airport authorities and the aviation industry, and will constitute a promise to local residents of at least some compensation.

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) asked how such a scheme could be devised. We arrived at the idea of the insulation scheme and devised it during our debates, and although there was no actual consensus, at least we secured agreement in some form. I am sure that we can use that as a model for our scheme, which is being consulted on at present. It is not beyond the wit of man or woman to devise an appropriate scheme and build upon it for the future.

A group of my constituents live in the most air-polluted area of the whole country, along with the City of London. That is reflected in the incidence of respiratory conditions and cancer in the area. We have been designated an air quality management zone, but that has had no effect whatever on the level of air pollution in the area, because of the increase in aviation. Therefore, I support the amendments that place a responsibility on the CAA and the Secretary of State to look at environmental impacts, including air pollution and emissions. They contribute to climate change as well.

The Bill provides us with an opportunity to make this a cross-party priority. That will send the aviation industry the message that we must address these issues. Air quality management zones and all the other policies of the past 20 years have had very little impact.

I welcome the amendments that would place a duty on the Secretary of State and the CAA to take into account the overall impact of aviation activities on local communities. That is important for my community. BAA and the aviation industry have taken no account of the impact of their activities on the village of Sipson. They have blighted the Heathrow villages for almost 20 years as a result of threats of expansion. They have brought in a bond scheme whereby they have bought up the village of Sipson, even though the Government have now said there will be no third runway, for which I thank them. The Labour Opposition have said exactly the same; we are opposed to a third runway now. There is cross-House consensus on this, therefore. I am not completely sure that that is written in blood, but it will be if there is any going back on the commitment.

However, BAA is still not giving up those properties. In fact, this month it has bought more, and it has housed people in them on a temporary basis—for 12 months or two years. That has destabilised Sipson.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that aviation is vital not only to this country, but to the community he represents, and certainly to the community I represent. I therefore want to understand the drift of his comments. Is he saying that BAA should cease to operate and that Heathrow should shut down? What exactly is he proposing?

[John McDonnell]

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

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

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

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

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

[Julie Hilling]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rail Reform

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

Yes, it will. That is one of the reasons why it is such an exciting time to be involved in the industry, because this unprecedented investment is being made. It is a huge opportunity for people working in the industry and for passengers. We will hopefully get the benefits of all those investments and people will really see the difference it can make to their commute and their travel when they get on the train.

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

I worry about the right hon. Lady using the Ronseal method, because painting over the cracks in the industry might come back to haunt her. One of the implications of the statement is that 12,000 jobs are at risk, mainly those of station staff. In addition, it reintroduces the profit motive to the provision of the infrastructure, which caused the Potters Bar, Hatfield, Paddington and Southall rail crashes. Has there been an independent safety assessment of today’s proposals?

[Justine Greening]

Safety will always be of paramount importance as we consider any of these changes. We are currently spending £3.5 billion, money that is coming out of the pockets of fare payers or taxpayers, and that is pure inefficiency. I think that not being prepared to tackle that is irresponsible. I understand that the hon. Gentleman might have some concerns about my proposal, but is he is saying that passengers should pick up the tab for £3.5 billion? If he does not like the proposal, it is incumbent on him to come up with an alternative.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on his succinct account of the Bill. He and I go back a long way with these Bills. When I was a Greater London council member, I was responsible for the promotion of GLC Bills and London local authorities Bills. He may recall that one year we introduced a policy of what we described as positive victimisation, whereby not a penny would be spent in the constituency of any London Member who did not vote for the money Bill. Unfortunately, that somewhat contravened parliamentary privilege, and I was called to the Bar of the House to account for my behaviour. Then, in a civil servant role as chief executive of the Association of London Government, I was responsible for promoting successive Bills on behalf of London local authorities.

[Stephen Pound]

That is quite a confession.

[John McDonnell]

It is. I have delayed the House on these Bills on even more occasions than the hon. Member for Harrow East. I congratulate him on valiantly supporting this attempt by the London boroughs to promote legislation.

I want to deal with clause 17 and pedicabs—or rickshaws, as they are more commonly known. The hon. Member for Harrow East informed us that the promoters of the Bill are seeking amendments in Committee to remove the clause. I have received correspondence from Mr Alastair Lewis of Sharpe Pritchard on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, saying:

“I am the parliamentary agent for the promoters of the above Bill, which is down for a second reading debate next Tuesday 6 March 2012.

I am writing to let you know that the promoters propose to seek amendments at committee stage which would have the effect of removing clause 17 (Pedicabs) from the Bill. This decision follows further discussions between the promoters and representatives of the pedicab industry in which it has been agreed that the pedicab industry will take steps towards self-regulation. The promoters have been working with the pedicab industry to achieve self-regulation and consequently propose to withdraw the provisions contained in the Bill.”

Having read that into the record, I hope that there will now be no attempt not to move the amendments.

I convene the RMT parliamentary group. The RMT, which represents taxi drivers in London, has expressed genuine concerns about the role of pedicabs, as have taxi drivers themselves and people more widely within the community. London taxi drivers consider that there is unfair competition from pedicabs. London taxi drivers go through extensive training, they do the London knowledge, and they are vetted.

[Mr Scott]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a deeper issue than whether pedicabs represent competition, because they are also a danger to members of the public? They are dangerous vehicles whose drivers are unlicensed and seem able to do what they want, when they want, and to charge what they want. It is not about competition, but safety.

[John McDonnell]

There is unfair competition because pedicabs do not have to comply with the legislation that applies to taxis. Fitness for taxi drivers is not about physical fitness, although I am sure they are a strong body of men and women who could compare with any pedicab driver. It is about not having criminal convictions, for example, so that people who step in a London taxi can feel safe and secure. There is no vetting of pedicab, or rickshaw, drivers in that sense. There is a strict safety regime for black cabs in London, but no such regime for pedicabs. The hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) is right. The more pedicabs are allowed to continue to ply their trade on the streets of London, the more Londoners are at risk. That is why the RMT objected to the proposals in the Bill, which do not provide details of any licensing scheme that would address those issues.

The last time this matter was raised in legislation, the Opposed Bill Committee cited the Department for Transport’s concerns about pedicabs, such as the lack of any safety regime, the impossibility of identifying the owners of the pedicabs, issues over insurance and the fitness of the characters who are operating the pedicabs. The provision was thrown out by the Opposed Bill Committee on the basis that it failed to comply with any of the Department for Transport’s recommendations about the form of the licensing regime that should be introduced.

We are now left with a situation in which clause 17 has been withdrawn and there is to be a discussion with the pedicab industry. I have no idea who that will involve. We have heard about Bugbugs, but we have no idea how representative that company is of the trade. Quite honestly, it could be a group of gangmasters who hire people on cheap work rates, requiring no form of qualifications and no vetting. After the discussion with the industry, a voluntary scheme will be introduced that will be regulated on a voluntary basis.

[Stephen Pound]

My hon. Friend has mentioned the view of the RMT, which I respect profoundly. The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association also has a firm view about this matter. One of its objections is that these death-trap rickshaws tout for business. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has considered that. They slow down outside theatres and other places of entertainment, touting for business and negotiating prices. That is not illegal according to the Metropolitan police. We cannot simply leave the situation in limbo, because in an hour, throughout the west end, this will happen tonight. Does he agree that action needs to be taken urgently?

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly the point. Clause 17 is being removed from the Bill because it is not satisfactory. It does not address the issues that were pointed out to the promoters by the Department for Transport and the Opposed Bill Committee of this House. We are now faced with a free-for-all out there on the streets of London, where there are vehicles that comply with none of the legislation that licenses and authorises every other vehicle on our roads. I find that unsatisfactory. It leaves Londoners at risk.

No commitments have been given on how the voluntary arrangements will be devised or who will be consulted. Will all the petitioners against the licensing clause in the Bill be consulted? Will they be engaged in drafting the voluntary registration and regulation scheme? Will there be a wider consultation with the general public? How will the consultation take place and over what period? How long will self-regulation be allowed to operate before the Government decide whether to move to a full licensing regime? None of that has been made clear by the promoters of the Bill.

Like other hon. Members, I find this situation unacceptable. We have been discussing this matter since 2003. Nine years on, we still have no licensing regime and no concept of how the self-regulation regime will be developed and consulted on, how it will be tested, what criteria it will be tested against and when the House will address the issue again.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. Roughly how many pedicabs are there on the streets of London, how many people use them, and what contribution do they make to the economy of London?

[John McDonnell]

Apart from there being too many, as I heard one hon. Member say from a sedentary position, nobody knows how many pedicabs there are, how many people are involved in the industry, how many companies or operations there are, or how many passengers there are. Also, nobody knows how many complaints have been made against the operation of these rickshaws. All we know is that when proposals have been made to discuss pedicabs and their regulation, a considerable amount of concern has been expressed about their operation and about how they should be regulated, if they are to be allowed to continue at all.

There is now strong concern and we are in the worst of all worlds. There is a free for all with no regulation, no licensing and no understanding of how voluntary regulation will work. These pedicabs are out there operating and it is making people vulnerable. There is growing concern and anger not just among taxi drivers but among other road users in the centre of London about the unrestrained way in which pedicab operators work—not only how they pedal through the streets but how they park and clutter up the streets. In some ways, they also affect west end businesses. As much as they say they benefit businesses in the west end and passengers travelling around the area, the more they clutter the streets the more they impede business.

I am pleased that the clause on pedicabs is being withdrawn, but the Government need to take action either to close down pedicab operations, because of the real concern about their safety, or to bring forward a proper licensing and regulation regime. If such a regime is introduced, it should be no less stringent than the one on the black cab trade in London; otherwise, it will undermine fair competition.

I have read into the record the intended withdrawal of clause 17, and if the promoters of the Bill are now going to enter into discussions about self-regulation, I urge them to contact all Members who have expressed concerns about the operation of pedicabs and engage us in a full consultation. In that way, we might find a way forward. After all these years, I would have hoped that the promoters had learned some lessons about how to legislate properly rather than continuing in the same way.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

The RMT is an expanding union, and Bob Crow is not averse to recruiting new members. However, there is fundamental concern that pedicabs are increasingly proving an unsafe mode of transport in our city centre. It is a matter of principle for the RMT.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am sure it is, and I can understand that if I were a taxi driver I would be concerned about the matter. However, I am looking at it from the public’s point of view. Do hon. Members who represent London constituencies find themselves inundated by complaints at their surgeries from people who have suffered overcharging or unsatisfactory service by pedicab drivers? If there had been anything more serious than that, it would no doubt have been dealt with by the police.

It occurs to me that if this problem—if it is a problem—were to be dealt with just in the area covered by the 33 London authorities, there is a danger that pedicab drivers would relocate to Birmingham, Sheffield or Manchester, and we would have the same problem there. If there is a need for regulation, it should surely be proceeded with on a national basis.