EU Exit Preparations: Ferry Contracts

Debate between Andy McDonald and Lilian Greenwood

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Shortly after the Secretary of State awarded contracts to ferry operators as part of his no-deal contingency planning, the Transport Committee, which I chair, received two submissions to our inquiry into freight and Brexit alleging that the Secretary of State had acted illegally in doing so. Although it has already been published, I would like to make the House aware of the written evidence submitted by Dr Albert Sanchez-Graells. He is a reader in economic law at the University of Bristol Law School, a former member of the European Commission stakeholder expert group on public procurement, a member of the European Procurement Law Group and a member of the Procurement Lawyers Association Brexit working group, so one would think that he probably knows what he is talking about.

Dr Sanchez-Graells was clear in his evidence to our Committee that

“The award of three contracts for ‘additional shipping freight capacity’ in the context of the Government’s ‘No-Deal’ preparations raises important illegality concerns.”

He said that, under regulation 32(2) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015,

“‘extreme urgency’ only exists where an unforeseeable event renders impossible the observance of the time-limits laid down for calls for tenders.”

He said that the award of the three contracts for additional capacity seems “likely” to be in breach of that regulation,

“as there was time to comply with the 60 calendar days’ time limit required by alternative, transparent competitive procedures with negotiation.”

He went on to say:

“Even if it was accepted that there was no time for alternative competitive procedures… the award to Seaborne Freight (UK) Ltd still raises issues of potential illegality. The Secretary of State for Transport has justified the award as an act of support for a new British start-up business. This fact, coupled with…the lack of readiness of the port infrastructure…undercuts the rationale of the extreme urgency of the procurement and heightens the likely illegality of the award.”

We now know that the Department faced a legal challenge from Eurotunnel and that settling the case has cost UK taxpayers at least £33 million.

I am afraid that the Secretary of State has shown a repeated failure to operate in an open and transparent manner. He avoided questions in the House yesterday, but as I said, that does not mean that these questions go away. I understand why he is not in his place. However, I expect to receive written answers to these questions, as I assume that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who is sitting on the Front Bench, does not intend to respond to them this afternoon.

These are the questions that I want to raise. It is reported in The Times today that the Secretary of State wanted to fight Eurotunnel’s legal action over the award of contracts to ferry firms but was overruled. Is that true? What legal advice did the Government receive on the likely success of Eurotunnel’s action? How was the sum of £33 million arrived at? Is the fact that the Secretary of State was overruled an indication that he does not enjoy the confidence of the Prime Minister or his Cabinet colleagues? I believe he mentioned that it was decided by a Cabinet working group.

When the Secretary of State was not here yesterday, we had the rather ludicrous spectacle of the Secretary of State for Health trying to cover for him and explain. He said that

“the purpose of the decision is to ensure that unhindered flow of medicines.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2019; Vol. 655, c. 700.]

However, he failed to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) about how much of the £33 million being paid to Eurotunnel is being contributed by the Department of Health and Social Care. We still need an answer to that question, and I expect to receive one.

I will not be surprised if my Committee has additional questions. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who unfortunately is not able to be here for this debate, has described the level of this settlement as “absolutely outrageous”, so I am sure he will share my wish to understand how it was arrived at. How much of Eurotunnel’s £33 million settlement will be spent on border measures in Calais, rather than in the UK? Is it right that the UK taxpayer will be paying for these measures, rather than Eurotunnel or the French Government?

[Andy McDonald]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the settlement may amount to an entirely fresh procurement process, and if that has not been done correctly, there is a real risk of yet further litigation and cost to the taxpayer?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We would like to receive further information about the basis on which this settlement was reached and the legal risks that it entails.

Finally, I return to the question I asked yesterday, to which I received nothing but bluster. If there is a Brexit deal, or if indeed there were no Brexit, how much of the taxpayers’ £33 million do the Government expect to recover from Eurotunnel? I take it from the Secretary of State’s earlier response that the answer is none. I would be grateful if we received answers from him to those questions.

It is essential that the Department for Transport is subject to proper scrutiny and held properly accountable for its waste of public money. It is very disappointing that the Secretary of State once again had to be dragged to the Chamber. At least on this occasion he was here, but we still do not have proper answers on these important matters, which the public deserve.

Transport Secretary: East Coast Franchise

Debate between Andy McDonald and Lilian Greenwood

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes his point very well. With your guidance in mind, Mr Speaker, I put the House on notice that I do not intend to take any further interventions—I shall crack on.

The franchising model is based on ever-growing passenger numbers. Indeed, other franchise agreements have been agreed with similarly optimistic assumptions about growing passenger numbers and fares revenue. Even in times of growing usage, franchises have proven to be unsustainable, yet we are now seeing a period of falling passenger numbers. In the last two quarters, rail passenger usage fell by 0.4% and 0.9%, driven by respective 8.1% and 9.4% falls in season-ticket journeys. That is a result of above-inflation fare rises; people who have seen fares rise at three times the rate of wages since 2010 are opting for cheaper modes of transport. Passengers are being priced off the railway. This declining usage threatens the integrity and financial sustainability of the railway and the franchising system itself, as other operators find themselves in similar trouble to Virgin-Stagecoach on the east coast.

What, then, is the Secretary of State’s solution? Will he abandon above-inflation fare rises, as Labour has pledged to do, so that passengers can afford to travel by rail and patronage can be boosted? If not, how does he plan to handle problems with franchises down the line? Will he do as he has done with the east coast and allow companies to walk away from their contracts, thereby forfeiting billions of pounds in premium payments owed to the Treasury, before handing services over to other companies that will agree to pay less back to the taxpayer?

The new west coast partnership franchise has a £20 million parent company guarantee. This contrasts with the £200 million guaranteed by Stagecoach on the east coast. Less risk for the private sector means more risk for the public purse. Both options would allow private operators to renege on their contracts, at a cost of billions of pounds, and makes a mockery of rail franchising by telling private operators that the state will intervene if they are in trouble, removing risk and incentivising reckless bids. It would be a case of profits being privatised and losses socialised.

The Public Accounts Committee and the Transport Committee have published reports that are scathing of both the Secretary of State’s handling of franchises and the franchising system more generally, which is clearly failing on its own terms. The Secretary of State is attempting to prop up the franchising model for ideological reasons. Since 2010, there have been more direct awards—companies being gifted services without having to bid—than successful franchising competitions, meaning that the system resembles state-sponsored monopolies rather than a market where franchisees make bids they are expected to honour.

I have yet to hear the Secretary of State articulate a solution to these fundamental flaws in rail franchising. So far, he has only proposed to tinker around the edges. The strategic vision for rail announced last November will be a future case study for media students on Government presentational double-speak. Amid reversing the Beeching cuts and announcing the invitation to tender for the next south-eastern franchise, there were two sentences on how the east coast franchise had failed. The strategic vision embodies his approach to his ministerial brief and to announcements in this House: smoke, mirrors, ambiguities, jargon, technicalities, empty aspirations and discourtesy.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Can my hon. Friend offer any insight into the Secretary of State’s long-term vision for rail franchising? Did he hear the evidence to the Transport Committee on Monday on the proposed east coast partnership, when Iryna Terlecky, a rail professional with decades of experience, told us that she had

“no idea how it might work”?

She added:

“If I was doing this kind of partnership, I would not do it on the east coast”

because it was

“completely counter-intuitive”.

Can he understand why the Secretary of State is going down this path?