Deregulation Bill
Debate between Gordon Marsden and Kelvin Hopkins(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Marsden
The right hon. Gentleman raises an instance of which he has the full details but I do not. I will not comment on the particular point but will comment on the general point, which is as I have just said: these matters are best dealt with by discussions with the enforcement officer before the ticket is issued. To that extent, I think we are at one.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The reality is that if we relax legislation of this kind, especially when the exemptions are not on the face of the Bill, certain people will take advantage of the situation—drive in bus lanes because they think they might not get caught, for example. There were cases some years ago in which CCTV of cars in bus lanes picked up many vehicles that were driven by criminals on the run for other causes. Once a criminal, always a criminal, and such people will take advantage.
Mr Marsden
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point that underlines why the Government should have given much more careful consideration to the thoughtful proposals and sometimes quite detailed comments submitted by the various groups before bringing forward these measures as part of this rag-bag Bill.
We do not object to the Government’s amendments reining in the use of CCTV in place of everyday traffic enforcement but, as is obvious from the comments we have already heard today, the whole House would welcome answers from the Minister, so we can ensure that vital spots such as bus routes and school runs continue to be protected by CCTV and we know the details of how that will be assured in legislation.
Amendment 61 would remove clauses 10 to 12. The Deputy Leader of the House will not want to hear this, but we strongly oppose the Government proposals on changing taxi and minicab law simply and crucially because it will put passengers at risk. I listened carefully to his opening comments: he said the Government are determined to see the reforms implemented, which reminded me of the old speaker’s note, “Argument weak here, shout like mad”—although, to be fair, being a Liberal Democrat, he did not shout. He really ought to take note of what Members have said today, particularly the interventions from my hon. Friends the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) about the particular concerns that women have —my hon. Friend the Member for Slough referred to an awful case—and about the vital issue of enforcement. On the basis of the reassurances he has given today, the Minister cannot guarantee that the Government will be able to enforce the current safeguards. The issue is one of enforcement.
The Minister talked about the “targeted consultation”—a wonderful phrase. We were told by Harold Wilson some while ago that a week is a long time in politics. Perhaps the Minister, being a Liberal Democrat, thinks that 10 days is an eternity, but 10 days is in fact the amount of time that was allowed for this “targeted” consultation. I doubt whether many people listening today will be particularly impressed with that process.
Mr Marsden
Not on my part, I do not think; I think the only thing to be declared is the hon. Gentleman’s attempt to pursue something on a blog that, as various people know, may or may not have some foundation. In this case, it obviously does not have much foundation.
Kelvin Hopkins
A primary union concerned with this issue is the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which is not affiliated to the Labour party, sadly.
Mr Marsden
My hon. Friend makes the point for me.
The truth of the matter is that once again an ideological imperative to be seen to be cutting red tape is resulting in vital principles of good governance being relegated. Although we have rightly had a long drawn-out process from the Law Commission’s proposals to consider all the interests involved—I shall come on to some of those in due course and perhaps put the hon. Gentleman’s somewhat paranoid mind at rest—it has been marred by the Government’s rushed and risky proposals. These plans have been poorly drafted and badly consulted on and they could put the travelling public in danger.
Taxis and private hire vehicles play a vital part in connecting people’s lives. They provide a wide range of services—everything from trips to the airport to early morning trips back from nightclubs. They are an essential means of transport for a wide range of people without access to a car, particularly in cut off or rural locations. For young people—sometimes for recreation, but also for work, training or family commitments—and for older people, they are a lifeline, providing mobility and social cohesion.
Previous work, including that of the Transport Committee in 2011, showed that the regulation governing the trade is often complex and contentious. We, therefore, like so many organisations outside this House, hoped that the DFT would approach reform in an inclusive, comprehensive and balanced way, especially looking to use the expertise of users, taxi operators and local councils in piloting a new course. Sadly, that has not been the case. Opposition to these measures is widespread: the police, industry bodies and members of the trade themselves are warning that they have severe safety implications. Yet Ministers have introduced the specifics of the plans late in the passage of the Bill, leaving little opportunity for real engagement with industry stakeholders.
Despite the excellent speech made on 29 April in Westminster Hall by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield—he has been steadfast and vocal on the threat that this part of the Bill poses to vulnerable taxi drivers, and even today has been meeting delegations from a range of organisations concerned about the proposals—it is still not clear why these measures were not included in the Bill on Second Reading, so they could have been debated more fully. Is this a reflection of their on-the-hoof nature, or a conscious attempt to avoid the criticism that would inevitably follow?
The context of today’s discussion is important. We should consider the questions that the rise of new services such as Uber pose about the impact of new technologies on the trade. The Government must be clear about what priorities they set for private transport companies, and surely those should be safety and security. That is quite the opposite of the piecemeal reforms being introduced in the Bill. What is needed is a far more comprehensive look at the regulation and enforcement of the taxi and private hire trade. That is exactly what the Law Commission announcement about the need for a new national framework underlined, so why on earth are this Government cutting the ground from beneath the Law Commission’s feet with these ill-thought-through proposals?
In the detail of the clauses we are opposing, the Government plan to allow people without a licence for a minicab to drive one when it is off duty. That could or will greatly increase the potential for rogue minicab drivers, who appear no different from legal drivers on the streets and could threaten vulnerable passengers, including women, who enter their vehicles. It will be nearly impossible to enforce these rules; it will be difficult to monitor whether a minicab is in service or off duty, and whether the driver is a minicab licence holder or not. The Minister may respond, as he has before, by talking about London—several times in his speech I thought he was grasping at London like a drowning man grasping at straws—but other areas of the country do not have the same resources for enforcement, and the sad truth is that rapes and sexual assaults committed by people purporting to be private hire drivers are not uncommon. The changes to the law are rightly an issue of public concern.
Mr Marsden
I do agree, but as importantly, so do most of the people involved in the MV Derbyshire campaign and, indeed, the Minister, John Prescott, who opened the inquiry.
Kelvin Hopkins
I strongly support what my hon. Friend says. In more recent times, we have had new technology, which might not have been available when an accident happened. We now might be able to investigate and find the causes of ships sinking or whatever, because of new technology.
Mr Marsden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is an iterative process, which simply exposes the weakness of the Minister’s argument.
Mr Marsden
The hon. Lady makes an absolutely valid point. Context is all, particularly in this case, which was crucial to the duty being put into law. MV Derbyshire sank in 1980 and was found only in 1994. That example prompted reinvestigation many years after the original incident.
The duty that the Government want to scrap was used in 1998 to reopen the formal investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire in September 1980. The Derbyshire disappeared south of Japan during Typhoon Orchid. All on board—42 crew and two passengers, who were wives of crew members—lost their lives. She remains the largest UK ship ever to have been lost at sea.
A major union-funded search for the vessel in the 1990s, supported by the International Transport Workers Federation—a global organisation, with affiliates in Britain, including the RMT, Unite, the National Union of Seamen, Nautilus International and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and broader support from the Public and the Commercial Services Union, the Communication Workers Union, the GMB and others—was required to make that breakthrough in discovering the wreck of the Derbyshire. That effort identified the wreck in 1994 and led to the introduction of the duty in the 1995 Act to establish the necessary evidence and place the legal obligation on the Government to reopen the investigation.
After nearly 20 years of campaigning, the investigation into the cause of the loss was reopened in 1998, and great credit for that decision goes not just to the organisations I mentioned but to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who galvanised the local campaign and ran an all-party group on the subject, and of course to John, now Lord Prescott, who, as Secretary of State for Transport, invoked the powers for the reinvestigation because he drew on his awareness of the struggle that unions and families had undertaken to find the missing ship. He has recently described the Government’s attempt to remove the duty as a massive insult to those who campaigned for the truth about the Derbyshire.
The steadfast way in which the friends and family group that set up the campaign, based in and around Liverpool, and the poignant memories brought back by the 20th anniversary this year of the finding of the ship testify to the huge importance of the power to reinvestigate, not just to find out new facts but, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said, to support and recognise the loss of those who were affected. All this has been reflected in the wording of amendment 1.
The reinvestigation absolved the crew of any blame for the loss of the vessel and led to significant improvements in the safe operation of bulk carrier class ships and the understanding of typhoon conditions. For those reasons, the claim made in Committee by the Solicitor-General, who is not in his place, that if a wreck is discovered many years after an accident, safety insights would be irrelevant or out of date, really does not hold water. That argument was disproved by the case of the Derbyshire. Maritime accidents may be relatively rare, but they are tragic events and it is crucial to understand them as fully as we can.
Although it relates to a different mode of transport, the recent search for the Malaysian flight MH370 demonstrates that even in today’s technologically advanced world there are circumstances in which even our greatest efforts struggle to match the vastness of the oceans our ships and planes traverse. Who knows when future evidence on that incident will emerge as to the plane’s final fate? It might take months, years or even decades.
Kelvin Hopkins
It may indeed be technology that has not yet been developed that will solve those problems.
Mr Marsden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the context of this debate, the MH370 incident shows that in other circumstances, where such incidents might affect British ships and citizens, Ministers must have flexibility and the power to reopen inquiries. [Interruption.] The Minister says that that is absolutely right, but I will go on to demonstrate that the inadequacies of his clause as drafted would not allow that to happen. If any such tragedy were to occur in British maritime in the future, we must have the law in place to guarantee that men and women working on our ships, and the families who rely on them, get the answers, however long the recovery of evidence takes.
The Government’s preferred approach in this Deregulatory Bill is to retain a discretionary power—a weaker section of the 1995 Act—to rehear such a case if the Secretary of State suspects that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. That is simply an unacceptable weakening of the Secretary of State’s ability to protect seafarers and their families. It downgrades rights from a duty to a mere choice.
Sadly, that was reflected by some of the Solicitor-General’s comments when defending the change in Committee. In response to a challenge from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), the Solicitor-General said:
“We are talking about something similar to a judicial inquiry, with all the formality and costs associated with it. It is not just about money, but about taking up the time of a huge number of people. If it is a worthwhile exercise, because it will help safety or clear someone’s name, it is obviously worth doing, but it is pointless and expensive if it happens many years later.”––[Official Report, Deregulation Public Bill Committee, 11 March 2014; c. 311.]
Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman did not intend it, but he seemed to suggest that there should almost be a statute of limitations on the timescale that influences a Government’s response. I am sorry to say that grief, support and the ability to find the truth are not always amenable to an automatic, time-limited cut-off point.
There is also a circular problem inherent in the Government’s proposal. It is not clear how the Secretary of State can be expected adequately to assess the existing evidence in order to suspect a miscarriage of justice without the sort of rigorous, independent work carried out by the marine accident investigation branch. The work will now be undertaken by the branch only if the Secretary of State requests it because he already suspects a miscarriage of justice.
It has been claimed that the removal of the duty can be described simply as tidying up in order to synchronise the 1995 Act with other recent guidance. However, recent MAIB guidance has made it very clear that its remit lies only in dealing with the reporting of the circumstances of an accident and not an investigation of its root cause. The MAIB is not—I repeat, not—responsible for enforcement or prosecution of any responsible bodies. Those functions are still underpinned by the 1995 Act.
There is one other factor to take into account: reinvestigation inevitably might mean that difficult truths are unearthed about the adequacy and focus of previous assessments by officials and the Department when making an initial judgment. Any Minister should be able to pursue the process subsequently without fear or favour. Under the element of discretion that the Government propose, that ability might be, or could appear to be, hampered, but retaining the existing duty protects those in government—of whatever party—from any suggestion of partiality with regard to taking forward the reinvestigation process.
The Government’s impact assessment cites a human rights argument in defence of the clause, claiming that the possibility of the future automatic investigation of an accident could have an impact on the career prospects of survivors. However, the Derbyshire reinvestigation showed the value of being able to step back from an initial rush to judgment on the culpability of crew for the accident, because new evidence eventually established unrelated causes.
I have been hugely impressed by the work of campaigners such as Paul Lambert, who represents the families who lost loved ones in the MV Derbyshire accident. They still feel that this is a key issue, as does Mark Dickinson, the general secretary of Nautilus International, who takes a keen interest in the case, not least because, as a member of the International Transport Workers Federation, he helped to co-ordinate the search for the Derbyshire in 1994. I am pleased that amendment 1 has been signed by many hon. Members, several of whom hope to speak in the debate. Some have been contacted by constituents who have been affected by tragedies, while others represent coastal communities. Some are simply loth to see an important safeguard sacrificed so unthinkingly.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) emphasised the importance of maintaining the thrust of the existing duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is to be applauded for frequently, tirelessly and with determination raising this and related maritime matters inside and outside the House. As hon. Members might suspect, there is a real worry that several aspects of the Bill show that the Government, in their bid to be seen as shedding regulation, risk blinding themselves to the value of apparently minor existing legislative provisions and specifications. However, the example of maritime investigations shows that the need for such detail has been vindicated by the blood, sweat and tears of those caught up in such tragedies, and the bitter years of struggle to uncover their causes.
Regrettably, our attempt in Committee to delete clause 35 in its entirety was defeated. However, in an attempt to build consensus, we have tried to recognise the Government’s argument that the Secretary of State should have the flexibility to avoid the costs of reinvestigation when it is absolutely clear that new evidence will be of little or no value to determine the causes of the accident, and if no interested parties are calling for a reinvestigation. However, amendment 1 would ensure that if there was a reasonable possibility that new evidence would provide significant new information about the causes of an accident, answers for the surviving families or safety lessons for today, the duty to reopen the investigation would be retained.
It is imperative that we retain a stronger power than that in the Bill so that the Secretary of State’s default setting is to reopen investigations. We owe it to those who have died or been injured not to remain silent on that point. We must send a clear message to Ministers and civil service administrations of now and the future, and to the men and women who do such valuable and vital work in our maritime economy today, that justice and safety will always come first, which is why I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to reject clause 35 as it stands by voting for amendment 1.