Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

The letter came from the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and with that information the hon. Gentleman may be able to find it. I am happy to send him another copy.

The industry will need to show how it has complied with the charter on an annual basis, and any failure to follow through will ultimately result in a loss of membership and the benefits attached. In addition, operators will contribute a voluntary one-off payment of £20,000 for the right to use deep-level land. Each year, operators will need to publish evidence detailing how these commitments are being met. The Department of Energy and Climate Change will regularly monitor this evidence. Let me reassure the House that the proposals in the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to set up a statutory payment mechanism, if not satisfied.

On new clause 19(j) and amendments 62, 63 and 64, notice and publicity requirements relating to the planning and environmental permitting processes are already in place. We believe the system works well, but we recognise the concerns that have been raised by the new clause.

New clause 19(k) and amendment 60 are on the approval of substances to be left in the land. As part of the application for environmental permits, the EA will require full disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and has the power to restrict or prohibit the use of any substances where they would pose an environmental risk. Our regulations ensure that information on chemical substances and their maximum concentrations is included within the environmental permit, along with information on the total daily discharge of hydraulic fracturing fluid into the ground and the fluid taken off-site for disposal. The permit is placed on the public register.

I have already announced that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will direct the Environment Agency to publish information about chemicals it requires operators to disclose.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister indicate why she is not taking the opportunity to regulate and impose environmental requirements on other non-conventional gas extraction processes, such as underground coal gasification?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I hope he will find that it will be dealt with later on, but if it is not I will certainly write to him on that point.

New clause 19(m) relates to water companies. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that water companies are engaged fully in shale gas development. The existing regulatory framework ensures issues relating to water are addressed robustly. The water industry and shale operators have already agreed a memorandum of understanding to engage early, and share plans for water demand and waste water management. The Government have considered this issue carefully and want to provide further reassurance to the public. Therefore, we are consulting on whether to make water companies statutory consultees in respect of these applications. Subject to the response to the consultation, which closes at the end of this month, we would seek to bring forward any necessary secondary legislation.

New clause 19 has raised some very interesting and critical points in relation to reassuring the public. It is the Government’s view that we will accept new clause 19, but we plan to amend it in the other place to replace provision (g) on depth, with a review to put back the depth at the appropriate level for proper development.

On amendment 61, regarding compulsory purchase of properties in the event of blight, I would like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) that the regulatory regimes for planning, environmental permitting and health and safety already provide a very robust framework that ensures residential amenity is properly protected from any unacceptable effects of development. The protection of amenity is recognised in the core planning principles of the national planning policy framework. In the unlikely event that operations caused any damage, there are various options available. The landowner may be able to bring claims in tort, such as negligence and nuisance, against any operator. I trust my explanation of this issue reassures hon. Members, and that they will withdraw the related amendment.

On new clause 8, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ “Rural Economy Impacts” document was a draft internal document, which was not analytically robust; it was a literature review of existing studies and was not exhaustive. Where policy work is current, draft documents are usually kept within government, because they do not provide a complete and accurate picture of the overall material. This is a highly sensitive and fast-moving policy area. Releasing information that is at the formative stage of being shared between Government Departments risks substantially undermining our ability to deliver effective policy.

DEFRA retains an interest in the implications of shale gas development for rural communities, but the Department of Energy and Climate Change leads on the economic aspects of shale gas policy. It is therefore my view that DEFRA should not have produced a document of this kind. The redactions were made for those broader reasons, not on the basis of sensitivity of materials. In fact, in the interests of providing free access to the information on which the draft paper was based, the Government have provided the full list of references. Following Committee, I consulted with a range of colleagues. Releasing the unredacted draft paper would not help to inform the debate on developing the UK’s shale industry. I ask, therefore, that my hon. Friend withdraws her amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Roberta Blackman-Woods. Not here. I call Grahame M. Morris.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

May I draw the Minister’s attention to the Airport Operators Association report “Airports in the community” which shows the excellent work that regional airports—also known as local international airports—are doing in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that the development of our regional airports is just as important as HS2 or HS3 in delivering economic growth, jobs and broader community benefits?

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I am pleased he was paying attention earlier on. It is vital that local international airports play their part, and I know that Newcastle airport is doing that. Of course, the Government are improving connectivity to Newcastle airport, with upgrades on the Metro, work taking place at Newcastle International station and, as he will know, the £61 million upgrade of the A1 western bypass between Coal House and the Metro Centre. That will address not only congestion, but the anxiety that many people feel as they are travelling to the airport worried that they may miss their flights.

Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, and to have this opportunity to raise some important issues in relation to the Deregulation Bill. I am delighted that the Minister is here to respond.

I am speaking up for my constituents in Easington who are likely to be affected by the amendments that the Government made to the Deregulation Bill in Committee. I am also speaking up for Unite the union—of which I and many taxi drivers are members—and the GMB. I am also speaking on behalf of a number of stakeholders who feel disfranchised by the Government’s truncated consultation.

It might be useful if I mention the background and where we stand with consultation. Back in July 2011, the Government asked the Law Commission to consider wide-ranging reforms to taxi and vehicle licensing legislation. The Department for Transport asked the Law Commission to undertake a comprehensive review with the aim of modernising and simplifying that legislation. There is no doubt that taxi and vehicle licensing is a complex area, and many right hon. and hon. Members have concerns about the effect that the amendments are likely to have in their constituencies.

In May 2012, the Law Commission launched a wide-ranging consultation on the Government’s proposals. Indeed, the industry has many stakeholders who have been involved in that ongoing process over the past two years. In parallel with the Law Commission’s ongoing review, however, the Government launched another review with a truncated 10-day informal consultation on three specific new clauses that were added to the Deregulation Bill in Committee.

The long consultation process under the auspices of the Law Commission is still ongoing, but I understand that stakeholders and industry and union representatives were told on Friday 14 March 2014 that the new clauses would be added to the Deregulation Bill. That is unacceptable. Will the Minister give an explanation? I have sought advice from a number of stakeholders not just within my trade union but within the trade, and the only conclusion I can draw is that the Government have decided that there is insufficient time to allow due consideration of the Law Commission’s draft Bill before the general election in 2015.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Is he saying that the Government have pushed through three amendments to the Deregulation Bill while there is an ongoing consultation?

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the Minister is able to clarify the Government’s thinking, because the shortened consultation was launched with barely a week’s notice before the amendments were considered by the Public Bill Committee. That must concern parliamentarians who are keen to ensure that there is full and proper consultation on controversial and contentious issues.

The Cabinet Office guidance on consultations states:

“Timeframes for consultation should be proportionate and realistic to allow stakeholders sufficient time to provide a considered response… For a new and contentious policy, 12 weeks or more”—

that is 12 weeks, not 12 days—

“may…be appropriate. When deciding on the timescale for a given consultation the capacity of the groups being consulted to respond should be taken into consideration.”

As has been demonstrated by the objections raised by all concerned parties outside Whitehall, the policy is clearly contentious and there are a number of different viewpoints. Indeed, I have had a couple of debates over the past few days, including one this morning on local radio, and there is a huge degree of contention on the pros and cons of the three new clauses. Nowhere in the guidance do I see a reflection of the current situation, in which such a disparate industry with such disparate views, and with many different stakeholders and interested parties, was given only 10 days’ notice of the proposals.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

This rushed and ill-thought-through process has caused real concern among my disabled constituents. Would my hon. Friend welcome an assurance from the Minister that the Government do not propose to make any changes to section 37A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which makes it illegal for minicab drivers to refuse to carry guide dog owners simply because they are accompanied by a guide dog?

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Although I welcome the Government’s assurances on that specific issue, I am concerned about the Government’s amendment on contracting out. A customer might telephone a private hire company for a particular reason. They may have a disability or a preference, or they may get a better price. Unfortunately, some taxi operators discriminate against disabled people by charging them a higher premium. There are considerable and worrying implications for disabled people, even if we accept some of the Minister’s assurances.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He will surely accept that the Deregulation Bill is going through the Commons and the House has yet to complete its consideration of the new clauses. Surely, he cannot possibly object to one of the new clauses, so this is my simple question: why should we not allow a private hire vehicle to be driven, when off duty, as a normal vehicle, thereby freeing a family from the need to run a second car, particularly given the cost of living crisis that he so frequently asserts?

[Grahame M. Morris]

There is a reason, which I will address in more detail. On the immediate question, there is ample evidence, particularly in the City of London, of a problem with unlicensed taxis and rogue minicab operators. If people drove around in private hire vehicles, it would be much easier for them to pick people up and engage in illegal activity. I have seen figures showing that in London last year there were 260 assaults and 54 rapes, so we should be cognisant of that.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

If we look at the Bill in a broader sense, the Government are trying to deregulate health and safety, and the new clauses affect health and safety in a number of ways. Women are being attacked in unlicensed taxis, for example. Eighteen months ago, if I went outside not far from here, an unlicensed person would be touting to take my fare at an extortionate price. Finally, in answer to the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), the taxi is primarily a working vehicle. That is a fundamental difference. To police that, a family vehicle and a working vehicle have to be distinguished.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. The fundamental point that I was trying to make before that series of interventions is that the Public Bill Committee did not have the opportunity to consider properly representations from the trade in the time scale allowed. My understanding is that these new clauses had not been tabled when the evidence sessions were held. It is important that those representations are properly considered.

A number of important stakeholders—including the Local Government Association, which has contacted me—have said that the informal consultation on the measures has been completely inadequate. What is the point of the Law Commission going to the expense of compiling a detailed report if we are not going to wait for its outcome? Undoubtedly, a considerable amount of time, money and effort have been spent on it, and Members should have an answer.

[Guy Opperman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Grahame M. Morris]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will make a little bit more progress. I am sure that he can make a fuller contribution in a moment. [Interruption.] Well, I did give way to him once already.

I will quote from some of the representations that I have received, given that the Public Bill Committee was not able to take evidence on the issue. My union, Unite, which represents thousands of taxi drivers up and down the country, said:

“These amendments are a last minute attempt by the Department for Transport to get something on the statute books without proper or full consultation with stakeholders having taken place and without waiting for the Law Commission’s Draft Bill.”

I think that that is a fairly accurate statement of fact.

To go into the specifics, the first of the Government’s three proposed new clauses would allow drivers, as the hon. Member for Hexham said, who do not hold a private hire vehicle licence to drive such a vehicle when it is not being used as a private hire vehicle. I read the text of the Minister’s response in Committee in Hansard, and in mitigation he indicated that London was a precedent for the proposed changes. We have to recognise that London has one of the largest taxi markets in the world and is a truly global city. We have heard arguments about exemptions for investment in transport. A figure that I often quote is that the investment in transport infrastructure in my region is £5 a head, and in London it is £2,900 a head. If we are using precedent as an example, we should have a 500-fold increase in investment in transport infrastructure in the north-east. It is not always appropriate to use precedent. Compared with the rest of the country, the situation in London is rather different in terms of regulation, enforcement and Transport for London.

Under the new clause, family members will be free to use a private hire vehicle on a personal basis, so long as they do not use it for private hire. The Minister said that it would be totally straightforward to identify abuses, but it would be hugely problematic. I was trying to imagine how someone could be stopped on suspicion of committing that abuse, and that should have full and proper consideration. It was one of the reasons for setting up the Law Commission consultation.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. On the overall review, he must have seen the judgment by the Court of Appeal on Stockton-on-Tees borough council and the taxi trade. The court said that it could only do a certain number of things, and the rest was left to Parliament to review. Does he agree that, if we are going to review this, we should review the whole thing and ensure that there are proper criteria and a structure with one piece, rather than numerous pieces, of legislation dealing with it? That would only be fair to all taxi drivers, including those in my constituency.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The hon. Gentleman makes an eminently sensible point, which is the one that I am trying to make. We should not approach the matter in a haphazard, piecemeal fashion, particularly when we have set in train a major review and are consulting with all stakeholders, not all of whom would agree with me. That seems sensible, and I cannot for the life of me see the logic in ploughing ahead with these changes in such a piecemeal fashion.

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman talks about stakeholders, but does he accept—on BBC radio this morning, he debated with one of the stakeholders, who made this case robustly—that the change will bring a considerable number of new jobs to the north-east? Lord knows we need them, and the hon. Gentleman often makes the case for them.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I did have a debate this morning with a representative of Blueline Taxis from Newcastle. One of my hon. Friends wants to talk about some of the problems that have arisen, so I will leave them to respond on that.

There is a consequence to what we are doing. I hold taxi drivers in the highest regard. I socialise with a number of taxi drivers. I count them among my best friends, and I want to keep them. I do not want their status and prestige to be undermined by unlicensed taxis and the potential consequences of rushing this ill-thought-through legislation through Parliament.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a consensus across the trade that this piecemeal approach is not what is needed? We need to wait for the Law Commission to bring forward holistic legislation, as the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) said. Contrary to the views of the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), that holistic approach will lead to safer taxis and more jobs for people than the Government’s piecemeal approach.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. There are dangers, not only to the trade, but to the safety of the travelling public. I mentioned some of the campaigns that have been run, which I support, on alerting people to the dangers of unlicensed and unauthorised taxis. Police figures show that 214 women were sexually assaulted in London last year after getting into illegal minicabs and unlicensed taxis, and 54 were raped. My concern is that new clause 8 would increase the number of unlicensed drivers pretending to be legitimate and make the enforcement process against the illegal use of licensed vehicles almost impossible. In particular, when we factor in the subcontracting amendment, the taxi might well be from another area, if we are looking outside London.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He is talking about passenger safety, but I wondered whether, in addition to the other issues with the Deregulation Bill, increased deregulation also creates issues for driver safety. In Oldham, there is big concern about that. There has been a spate of attacks on taxi drivers, and there are concerns that deregulation will make them more vulnerable.

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is a legitimate point, which I hope the Minister will consider on Report, along with whether we should wait for the Law Commission’s report.

There are also concerns about new clause 9, which would set a standard duration of three years for taxi and private hire vehicle driver licences and five years for private vehicle operator licences. Industry and trade unions expressed concerns during the limited time available. The National Private Hire Association and the Institute of Licensing said that the clause would remove the flexibility from councils, and there are already concerns about how effectively drivers are scrutinised.

I raise that because local authorities have a degree of flexibility. Indeed, it was pointed out to me that the three-year licensing period already applies in London. However, an authority might wish to have annual licensing of drivers and operators, which is currently permitted under legislation, as that is a proven way to keep track of behaviour and to take remedial or preventative action. Although local authorities impose licence conditions on private hire vehicle drivers and vehicle operators that require them to report criminal convictions and changes to their medical status within a specified period, those are often ignored.

Even in relation to drivers’ licences, where the police are supposed to inform the local authority of any recordable convictions and have discretion to inform the local authority of minor matters, information is often haphazard. Some local authorities get information directly from their local police forces, but there are very few instances of local authorities receiving information from police forces that do not cover their area. That is important because one of the Government’s amendments will allow subcontracting, so a taxi or private hire firm might come from another area and be covered by a difference police force.

[Rehman Chishti]

On private hires operating in an area where they are not licensed, if they are going there simply for private hire, that may be lawful. However, if they then carry on and park in a stand-by, that would be illegal and that would put more pressure on the local enforcement authorities’ resources. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that must be addressed?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I do. The hon. Gentleman has made a couple of really good points. The other aspect that I thought of when considering the arguments is that, to the best of my knowledge, the licensing budget is ring-fenced on the basis of fees and charges. Therefore, if a local authority is ring-fencing a budget based on a licensing and inspection regime on an annual or two-yearly basis and that is then changed to three and five years, there will be a commensurate drop in income. If that is how the enforcement officers are paid, that must impact on their ability to take enforcement action. That is a good point. There are a number of implications to extending the licensing period and it is not all good news, as some of the operators would have us believe. Consequently, it is good that local authorities have some discretion.

One of my principal concerns relates to the Government’s amendment to the Deregulation Bill that allows private hire vehicle operators to subcontract and book an operator licensed in a different licensing area. When I was reading Hansard, I saw that the Minister said that that will give customers more choice and that it may be advantageous in that passengers could ring up their local provider if they did not know who to call. However, passengers may well not want to use the subcontractor sent to their door.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the good things about our taxis in this country is the local knowledge that people need to have? That sets us aside from many other countries in which we are suspicious of taxi drivers and where they are taking us on their meters. I am grateful to the Brighton Sudanese Taxi Forum for alerting me to this issue. Does he agree that deregulation that leads to subcontracting to a taxi company outside a city is fraught with danger in terms of local knowledge?

[Grahame M. Morris]

Again, I completely agree. It is very unusual for me to agree with Government Members—[Interruption.]. Apart from Guy. That is an excellent point and I hope that the Minister will take that into account.

Quality is an issue, and in some cases the name of a company is important. People may book on that basis and choose not to book others on the same basis. The customer may have experienced many problems with one operator. If a member of the public calls a specific operator because they feel that it is reliable and safe to travel with—I am thinking here in particular about women who are out late at night who may have a preferred operator because they know that they will be transported safely—surely they should have the comfort and knowledge that that company will take them home. There is a risk in passing jobs from one company to another; it is not the wonderful panacea that some of the advocates of deregulation would have us believe. We should think about some of the consequences.

The Transport Committee recommended that the Government engage with the trade unions, local authorities, licensing authorities and users about future legislation and commit to reform in this Parliament. Ministers should be working collaboratively with the industry, drivers and passengers, rather than just rushing contentious clauses through Parliament. The new clauses are evidently contentious and 10 days’ notice before the Public Bill Committee was completely inadequate to allow for any meaningful consultation.

The consequences of the new clauses have not been considered sufficiently. It seems to me that there is a mad, ideological rush to deregulate on occasions. We would not do that if we were talking about firearms regulations, would we? I hope that we would not, anyway. The idea appears to be that we must cut red tape without considering all of the consequences, even though we have set in train the Law Commission, which is engaging in the process. Many stakeholders feel—rightly, in my opinion—that they have been ignored and passenger safety and the enforcement of private hire vehicle registration could be undermined. I respectfully urge the Minister to remove the clauses added to the Deregulation Bill in Committee—he can do that on Report—for the safety and confidence of the travelling public and, indeed, for the reputation and livelihoods of the taxi and private vehicle hire trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Chope, to serve under your chairmanship again. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing this important debate and other hon. Members—I counted 12—on their excellent contributions. They covered different aspects of the issue, but were united in asking why it has come forward at this time and in this way.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, we must recognise that taxis and private hire vehicles are a critical but often overlooked public service. They are vital to enable people to get from A to B early in the morning and absolutely vital late at night. They are often the only form of transport available in remote areas for people who cannot afford to run their own car. That is why it is so important that regulations covering the sector are based on the needs of passengers and why the bodies responsible for enforcing the regulations must do that with passenger safety and effectiveness in mind.

It is widely accepted, including by the Transport Committee’s comprehensive report into the sector in 2011, that the current legislation is outdated and needs reform. As this debate has shown, regulations governing taxis and private hire vehicles are complex and often contentious, so one hopes that the Department for Transport will approach reform in an inclusive, comprehensive and balanced way. As hon. Members have said—I highlight the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti)—this reform is not being carried out in that balanced and comprehensive way.

Speeches and interventions today have revealed the grave problems resulting from the attempt to sort the situation out with last-minute amendments to the Deregulation Bill. That has undermined confidence in the previous reform process—the Law Commission’s investigation. There is serious anger and concern from various stakeholders who have felt ignored or marginalised in the process. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington explained, the Government’s guidance on consultations stresses the importance of adequate time, engagement and transparency with key stakeholders in policy making. However, in this case and despite the fact that, as the Minister said, the Law Commission was already consulting before introducing these proposals, Ministers decided that informal consultation based on piecemeal reforms would be enough and that it would take 10 days—eight working days.

I hope the Minister is aware of the views of a host of organisations that have expressed concern: the National Private Hire Association, Unite, which is my union and that of other hon. Members here, the GMB, the RMT, the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers, the Licensed Private Hire Car Association, the National Taxi Association and the Local Government Association. They are not just one set of interest groups; they represent a crescendo of concern.

The Local Government Association said:

“Changes to regulations should be considered in the context of the legislation as a whole, rather than in piecemeal fashion...The failure to discuss these proposals with councils…significantly reduces the opportunity for councils to provide constructive input on the feasibility of the proposals and their potential impact.”

I will echo what my hon. Friends have asked. Given that Government guidelines say that up to 12 weeks is necessary for adequate consultation, why does the Minister believe that 10 days is adequate in this case? Why was it not made clear to stakeholders involved in the informal consultation that these measures were intended for inclusion in the Deregulation Bill? It would be helpful if the Minister clarified why the measures were not initially proposed on Second Reading of the Bill. Was there a specific reason, or was it to minimise parliamentary scrutiny and opposition?

My hon. Friends have made points about the impact of the proposals. First, changing who is eligible to drive a private hire vehicle risks increasing the number of unlicensed drivers pretending to be legitimate. We have heard from hon. Members today about the real safety risks that could accompany that. At the moment, we at least have the safeguard that only licensed drivers can drive PHVs, but the Government propose to remove that without giving councils additional enforcement powers. Currently, licensing officers have no power to stop moving vehicles, to prevent drivers from driving off or even to request a driver to reveal their identity.

The Minister will probably say, “Don’t worry. It works in London, in the capital.” As has been made clear, the situation in London is different. Since responsibility moved to Transport for London, I understand that on-street enforcement is conducted with a police presence, or the police are called on to act when necessary. We simply cannot assume that that would be the case elsewhere. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said, the health and safety consequences are very real indeed. It is simply not good enough for the Government continually to dismiss these widespread concerns. When will the Minister recognise that additional enforcement powers are necessary if he is going down this road? If he recognises that, what should they be?

Secondly, changing licensing terms will make it even harder to monitor and take action against non-compliant drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles. The vast majority of drivers are excellent, and—pardon the pun—will go the extra mile for their passengers, but we know that things sometimes go wrong. If we need more reminders of that, we can do no better than to remember the story from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West about the 16-year-old in her constituency. If the Government introduce the proposed requirements, how will they ensure that they are effectively policed and monitored?

The Government propose to implement an extremely contentious policy to enable some subcontracting by PHV operators across different licensing districts. We have been told today by my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) about some of the problems that may arise, particularly in respect of people with disabilities. When will the Minister accept that the drafting of the clause is completely inadequate if we are to make cross-border hire work effective?

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point that I did not cover properly. Does he share my concern that, far from increasing employment opportunities, as has been suggested, the contracting-out clause, which is the most damaging, is likely to dilute and drive down earnings if drivers are subcontracted in from neighbouring areas at a lower rate? That would be bad for the taxi drivers as well.

[Richard Burden]

I am sure it would be bad for taxi and PHV drivers. The key point that the Minister must address is how the system will be policed. If we know that local authorities already have inadequate control and powers for effective policing, how can an extension of cross-border work be policed effectively?

In the light of strong and widely held concern about enforcement, the Law Commission’s July 2013 interim statement recommended that, if reforms are to be implemented, they must be underpinned by tougher powers for licensing officers, such as the ability to stop licensed vehicles, to impound PHVs and to issue fixed penalties. Those powers, if they are to work, would need to apply in respect of out-of-area vehicles to ensure that cross-border hire can be implemented safely, too. Why, therefore, have the Government not listened to the Law Commission? As the Government have said, it has had an extensive consultation process on a complex issue, including more than 3,000 written responses from across the trade, a four-month series of 84 meetings and an industry survey.

As Frances Patterson QC, the law commissioner responsible for the review, said:

“The legal framework governing the taxi and private hire trades is complex and inconsistent. The purpose of our review is to improve and simplify it, and ensure it is fit for purpose.”

Amen to that, but if Ministers are determined to plough ahead with reforms before the Law Commission has reported, was the review that they commissioned just a complete waste of time and taxpayers’ money? After continuous delays, the Law Commission’s final report and draft Bill were finally expected—we were told—in April. We now know that they will come in May, after the local and European elections, it seems—presumably because the issue is so sensitive. Is that not clear proof that the Government’s proposals are far too controversial and complex for the paltry 10-day consultation that they had in this case?

The Government are making the point—and will no doubt argue again today—that the reforms are about cutting red tape. However, as my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have made clear, far from cutting red tape, they could increase it. They will increase uncertainty and the potential danger to passengers. The Government state that the reforms will reap benefits for the trade. In light of the concerns I have raised, I want to ask the Minister this: if he really feels that, does he have a shred of evidence to back it up?

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for giving us the opportunity to debate these issues today; sadly, the Government have not provided the House with such an opportunity so far. They have tried to rush the proposals through without adequate parliamentary or public scrutiny, as today’s debate has made abundantly clear.

Taxis and private hire vehicles are important parts of our transport system, but as we have heard, the legislation regulating them is complex and contentious. It requires close collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders if it is going to be reformed effectively. The Government’s attempts at deregulation have not only been woefully inadequate in doing that, but, as I said, they have undermined the process that they established with the Law Commission investigation. The result is a set of piecemeal proposals so poorly thought through that they threaten public safety and are set to increase bureaucracy and litigation for the trade.

I urge the Minister to reconsider these rushed reforms. If he will not do that today—and I hope he will—I assure hon. Members that when the Deregulation Bill reaches Report, Labour will move to delete new clauses 8, 9 and 10. To do otherwise would represent a complete disregard not only of the taxi and private hire vehicle sector, but—perhaps even more importantly—of the interests of the public, who rely on the sector as an important means of public transport.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. Like everybody else, I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate on the proposed reforms to taxi and private hire vehicle regulation that we have been discussing. A number of contributions have stressed continuing themes: first, the lack of consultation; secondly, concerns over safety; and thirdly, concerns about the proposals being piecemeal.

I hope to address all those points in my speech, but let me start by saying that important issues were also raised about accessibility and, from the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who is no longer here, about guide dogs. Let me put on record right at the beginning that nothing in the measures impacts on accessibility in any way. If anything, there are real opportunities to improve accessibility. Let me make it absolutely clear that there are no plans to change any relevant legislation with regard to guide dogs. The Government are considering commencement options for section 165 of the Equality Act 2010 that will set out in greater detail the requirements of drivers when assisting wheelchair users. I also point out that a lot has been made of subcontracting and of potential restrictions. Of course, subcontracting would allow private hire vehicle operators who do not have wheelchair access vehicles to subcontract to private hire vehicle operators who do.

[Grahame M. Morris]

On that specific point—the assurances the Minister gave that nothing would be changed in relation to disabled access—one criticism I have received representations about is that the amendments, hastily drafted as they are, have not addressed case law where some of those things could have been looked at. It would obviously be more opportune to look at the issue in the round with the Law Commission report, but is it not a bad thing not to address previous case law, particularly in relation to discrimination against disabled people and access?

[Stephen Hammond]

As I have set out, we are looking at commencement orders that will set out some details and obligations more carefully.

There has been a huge amount of talk this afternoon about the trade, which many of us rely on heavily on for our everyday lives. The sector is also made up of thousands of small businesses; indeed, the single owner-driver is a typical feature of the industry. As the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, these businesspeople are experts who often go the extra mile. That was something I certainly agreed with him on, although I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I did not agree thereafter.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) made the point that it has been clear for some time that the law covering this transport mode is both archaic and complex. In many ways, it has not kept up with a number of other pieces of transport law and more importantly, it has placed a number of unnecessary burdens on small businesses. That is why the Government asked the Law Commission to carry out a comprehensive review of the law. As has rightly been pointed out, it will present its report—it will not be presenting a Bill; it will be presenting a report in the next few weeks—and at that stage, as with all reviews and reports, the Government will review the whole of those detailed findings and recommendations.

We gave the Law Commission a simple instruction, which was that it should carry out a review with a clear objective to deregulate as far as possible, and after careful consideration, should the Government decide to take forward legislation arising from the review, we will do so in a way that removes burdens and ensures that safety is still paramount. The publication of the Law Commission’s report has been delayed by several months, so there was no chance to have a dedicated Bill in the final Session in order potentially to introduce some of the wider reforms that the Law Commission will shortly recommend.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

1. What assessment he has made of the recent performance of East Coast Mainline Company Ltd

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

My officials meet with East Coast and Directly Operated Railways on a regular basis to discuss the performance of the franchise. DOR’s financial accounts are published on its website on an annual basis.

[Grahame M. Morris]

As this is the last Question Time before Christmas, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and the Secretary of State and his team, a merry Christmas.

I declare an interest: I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group—unremunerated. The Secretary of State will be aware that the East Coast service has delivered record levels of passenger satisfaction, returned £800 million to the taxpayer and seen almost half of fares frozen, due in no small part to the staff, who have worked so hard. The best Christmas present for them would be to cancel the privatisation. Will the Secretary of State meet me and a small delegation to listen to their concerns about the application of TUPE regulations if the sell-off goes ahead?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Either I or the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), will be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues, but I just point out to him, as I have done frequently, that the last Labour Secretary of State for Transport said:

“I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for us to have a nationalised train operating company indefinitely…because of our recent experience of rail franchising”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2009; Vol. 712, c. 232.]

Those recent improvements in rail franchising have resulted in passenger journey numbers in this country going up from 750 million to 1.5 billion and people using our railways a lot more, with a huge amount of investment guaranteed by this Government.

East Coast Main Line

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Absolutely. As my hon. Friend has said, she and other colleagues have spent quite a bit of time with me outside the railway stations in Edinburgh and at other locations, and not one person has come up to us and said, “Yes, we want East Coast trains to be re-privatised.” They have all recognised the value of this service being in the public sector.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing this very timely and important debate and on making some excellent points. On the point about the value of having the east coast main line within the public sector, are there not lessons to be learned from what is happening with gas and electricity companies? When the private sector has no benchmark of public sector provision, does the consumer not get ripped off? Is there not an overwhelming argument for retaining at least one main line in public ownership, by which we could benchmark the other lines?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

That is a very good point. Let us be clear—we are not calling today for a renationalisation of the entire railway operating network.

[Grahame M. Morris]

We are! [Laughter.]

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend might be, but that is not the issue today. What we are talking about today is giving an alternative to the private sector. He just referred to other industries, and one of the issues about those industries is this: to what extent is there real competition?

One of the problems is that within the railway sector in the UK, a very limited number of UK companies are able and willing to put in a bid for a line. On the east coast and west coast lines, we all know that the major UK bidders will always be drawn from Virgin, First Group, National Express and possibly Stagecoach.

Of course, Virgin also runs planes to Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and First Group and the other companies operate other rail services. Some of them also operate bus and express coach services. So the issue is ensuring that there is at least some competition in the system, which the existence of Directly Operated Railways on the east coast main line would certainly provide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I call Graeme Morrice.

[Grahame M. Morris]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

I will make a short speech, because a number of Opposition Members want to get in before the shadow Minister and the Minister reply. I did not say this in my intervention earlier, but I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for securing the debate.

There has been some striking ideological dogma from the Opposition, and it smacks of having a brass neck to accuse the Government of dogma.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Karl MᶜCartney]

No, not at this point. I would like to make some progress, if I may, and then I will certainly give way.

I liked the fact that the hon. Lady started her speech completely against re-privatisation, but seemed by the end to be quite content to support it, albeit only in a way that she wanted and that benefited her constituents. Of course, that is what we would all want as Members of Parliament: we all want the best for our constituents.

The hon. Lady claimed not to be a PR cheerleader for East Coast. Indeed, like her, not one Opposition Member—I waited until quite a few had spoken—declared an interest. Since 2009, however, they have seen a real increase in services for their constituents. That is to be welcomed, and I am sure Opposition Members are pleased. However, some of us represent seats that have not seen services increase to the level we were promised they would be once East Coast was taken back into the public sector. Lincoln was promised seven trains down to and up from the capital a day, but we have ended up with one. Members can now see why I am perhaps not as big a cheerleader for East Coast as some Opposition Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Morrice]

rose—

[Grahame M. Morris]

rose—

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I am being surrounded. I will take all three Members on if they like, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris).

[Grahame M. Morris]

The hon. Gentleman argues there is an evidence base that suggests that the east coast main line is better off privatised. However, whatever measure is used—whether customer satisfaction, profitability or prices—the evidence is that the line is better off as part of a directly operated public service, and I heard nothing to contradict that. The profits that are being made can be reinvested to improve the service or they can be used elsewhere by the Treasury.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that erudite and timely intervention, which is typical of the interventions he might make, but I would refer him to my first intervention. If he and the Labour party feel that way, why did they not re-nationalise the rail service across the whole country in their 13 years in office? They did not do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, as always. I want to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing the debate, one of several about the east coast main line that we have had in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber.

The Government have yet another opportunity to listen to what the overwhelming majority of the British public—not just in Easington or the north-east—are saying. Polling evidence shows that they believe that the east coast main line should remain a publicly operated service.

The last time we had a debate on this matter, the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), referred to me—and, if I recall correctly, my hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns)—as dinosaurs for believing that public services should be run for the benefit and in the best interests of the public.

I do support the renationalisation of the railways, and I certainly oppose the re-privatisation of the east coast main line—especially when there is evidence that Directly Operated Railways is providing a better service and returning more money to the taxpayer than the private sector. Furthermore, on two occasions when the private sector was operating the franchise, it failed. If my view makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

In numerous surveys, 70% of the public have regularly supported calls for the railways to be completely publicly run. That applies throughout the country and even in the south and south-east. Trains there are very congested, and there are similar concerns about the fact that private sector franchise holders are not delivering.

We have been given an example, in the success of the east coast main line under Directly Operated Railways, of how a public rail operator can work and deliver for the taxpayer. As my hon. Friends have said, more than £800 million in premiums will be returned to the Exchequer by Directly Operated Railways. The east coast main line receives the lowest net subsidy of any operator—only 1% compared with an industry average of 32% or more than £4 billion. The numbers tell the story. Let us not forget what happened previously, when National Express ran the service. It returned only £370 million in premium payments and turned its back on the franchise, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the pieces. Directly Operated Trains had to step in.

We have had private sector failures on the line and the operators have not delivered on their commitments, but the Government will not prevent National Express or other failed operators from bidding for the rail franchise. Labour Members have raised queries about that. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford confirmed in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn):

“National Express and its subsidiaries are permitted to submit for the pre-qualification process”—

that is, the bidding process—

“to run passenger rail services in all franchise competitions including the East Coast Main Line.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 970W.]

We should ask questions about that, given that the private operator has a track record—if hon. Members will excuse the pun—of failure.

[Ian Mearns]

Given the statistics that my hon. Friend has reeled off about the public subsidy going into private sector franchises, there is a good argument that the new rolling stock in the private sector franchises has been put in not by private sector investment, but by public sector subsidy. The public pay for private profit.

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are privatising the profit and nationalising the cost and risk of the investment. That is a bizarre approach to the public finances. In my view, companies in either sector that fail to deliver on commitments or promises to the taxpayer should not be allowed to take over franchises—they have shown that they are not competent to run them.

It is very expensive to travel by rail in the United Kingdom, compared with other countries. British train tickets are now the most expensive in Europe. A typical season ticket costs 14p per kilometre in the UK, compared with just 8p per kilometre in Germany. Holland and France are the next most expensive countries. A day return in the UK costs 26p per kilometre compared with 17p per kilometre in Germany. As to season tickets into the capital, a 24-mile commute into Paris would cost £924 a year; a similar commute would cost £705 to Berlin and £654 to Madrid—but for someone travelling to London it would cost £3,268 a year. Those are huge sums, and after a decade of price increases. Those are never welcome, but at a time of austerity when wages are effectively frozen and, in many cases, falling, an intolerable strain is being put on family budgets.

While fares have been shooting up, dividends to shareholders in the big five transport companies contracted to run UK rail services reached nearly £2.5 billion. When people ask, “Where is the money going?” the answer is that a big chunk of it is going there—in dividends to private train operators. There are examples of excessive boardroom pay. Some of the highest paid directors receive more than £1 million.

East Coast offers a genuine alternative, with all profits reinvested back into services—money that otherwise would go as dividends for shareholders. I hope that the Minister will listen to the concerns expressed by hon. Members and the British public and end the failed franchise bidding policy.

East Coast Main Line Franchise

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jackson]

No, I want to make some progress, but I will give way later to the hon. Gentleman, whom I know has a special interest in the subject.

The Labour Government accepted that public service provision by this train operating company was always going to be a short-term expedient because of a special set of circumstances on the east coast main line. As the Minister has said, in order to leverage key, private sector capital, it is important that we have a new, long-term private partner to innovate and drive up standards on the east coast main line.

It is all very well for Lord Adonis to have a road-to-Damascus conversion. Obviously, being in opposition concentrates one’s mind, but when he was a Minister he spoke out strongly for private sector provision on this particular line. I challenge the Labour party: is its policy now wholesale renationalisation of the railways, or is that just for the east coast main line? I know that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) would definitely give me a clear answer, but I am not sure that he and the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) would have a meeting of minds on the issue.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. Although he is ridiculing us on the Labour Benches for supporting the concept of public ownership, most of the travelling public—70% of them—and even those of them who vote Conservative, support the idea of renationalising the railway industry.

[Mr Jackson]

If it is such a popular idea, why has the hon. Gentleman’s party not put it in its manifesto? Why in 13 years did it not repeal the Railways Act 1993 and go back to the good old days of British Rail, which did not get us to our destination very often or on time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

A couple of weeks ago at Transport Question Time I asked about the timetable for the re-letting of the franchise, and I received a clear, extremely positive answer. I was told it would not be long before the franchise was let again.

I want to talk about two areas: public—or not public—ownership, and the franchise itself. Perhaps unusually among my colleagues, I was against the privatisation of our railways, not because I had a fond memory of British Rail. I used to catch the train to school in Bradford every day, and it was not a pleasant experience. Parts of British Rail were good, but parts of it were not, and overall the customer experience was poor. I remember an advertising campaign at the time saying, “We’re getting there.” It was launched to general ridicule from the public, who obviously knew better. It was not because I thought there was an important principle between public and private ownership. Across the world, we can see examples of successful railways in both public and private ownership. I simply thought it would be hard to bring in effective competition.

When it came to managing our railways, there was a sense that we were managing decline, and in many ways of course we were: customers were choosing other modes of travel. I have checked the data on this. I am sure the Minister will be aware, but I might take the opportunity to remind him that when our railways were nationalised—I am talking not about one year’s or one month’s comparison, but about decades of data—more than 1,200 million annual journeys were made each year, and by the time of privatisation, that figure had declined steadily, year on year, to 700 million. There were a series of huge declines and the data were bad, however we look at them.

I changed my mind about rail privatisation for two reasons, the first being passenger growth. Again, it is slightly geeky, but I will remind the Minister of the data. Since privatisation, passenger numbers have gone from 700 million to 1,300 million-plus, which is a fantastic change. Level of usage on the rail network is now comparable with that in the 1920s. Privatisation saw a change of decades of usage, which was a good thing. I want to encourage more use of public transport, with more freight off the roads. The second reason I changed my mind was personal experience. While travelling around the country, I could see a steady change of attitude in the businesses towards being more focused on their customers—improving customer experience and developing new services and timetables. The customer became more central to the industry.

I agree with many of the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the quality and friendliness of the East Coast staff, which is absolutely first class. I use it, as I am sure do all the speakers in this debate.

[Grahame M. Morris]

You don’t use first class, though, do you?

[Andrew Jones]

No, I do not use first class—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Extreme caution is required for any Member using first class, and I do not risk it.

The question is not whether the line should be in private or public ownership; it is about getting the franchise right. I want to see the franchise taken forward promptly, with customers right at the heart of the railway. That means listening to what they want and responding to it. For my own area, in the past three years we have seen the first direct London to Harrogate service for 30 years. I remind the House that this service was removed under nationalisation, alongside the downgrading of services for Hull, Bradford, Cleethorpes and Teesside. The new service is fantastic. Our area has an important visitor economy and is hosting part of the Tour de France next year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate those who managed to secure a debate that is very timely, given some of the announcements that have been made lately. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us time to discuss this important issue.

The Government now have yet another opportunity to listen to the overwhelming majority of the British public, including people on both sides of the political spectrum. I think that the logic of the arguments for allowing the east coast main line to remain in public hands is powerful. The Minister likes to call me a dinosaur for believing that public services should be run for the benefit and in the interests of the public. [Interruption.] Members will see, if they check the record, that the Minister called me a dinosaur during a debate in Westminster Hall.

I support the renationalisation of the railways, especially when we see Directly Operated Railways delivering a better service and returning more money to the taxpayer than the private sector—which, let us not forget, has failed to deliver twice on the east coast main line. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it. However, I think that we should look at the recent polling evidence. The average finding is that 70% of the public regularly support calls for the railways to be run publicly, although some polls produce larger percentages. I think that those people would be offended by the contempt and, indeed, total disregard that the Minister and his party have shown for their views and the concern that they have expressed about the failure of the privatised rail system. [Interruption.] It is certainly a failure when compared with the success that the publicly run public service operator has been able to deliver on the east coast main line. If the Minister will bear with me, I shall explain shortly why I think that the system has been a failure, not least on grounds of price.

As other Members have already pointed out today, Directly Operated Railways has returned £640 million to the Treasury in premium payments—I believe that £40 million of that has been invested in improving the service—and it is estimated that it will have paid back £800 million in premiums by April 2014. That is a tremendous success story, which should be noted by Government Members who malign the performance of public industries. Directly Operated Railways also receives the lowest net subsidy: 1%, compared with an industry average of 32%. We should not forget that a shining example of privatisation cost the public purse £4 billion a year in subsidy.

Let us consider the performance of National Express, the failing private operator. It returned only £370 million in premium payments before turning its back on the franchise, leaving the taxpayer to face not only the shortfall referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), but the disruption that it had caused. Incredibly, despite National Express having failed to deliver on its commitments, the Government will not stop it or other failed operators bidding for the rail franchise, should they decide to go ahead. In a written answer to my good and hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the Minister confirmed:

“National Express and its subsidiaries are permitted to submit for the pre-qualification process (PQQ) to run passenger rail services in all franchise competitions including the East Coast Main Line.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 970W.]

That is incredible.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

If the company is permitted to bid, surely its past record will be taken into account? Is that not the way it will work?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I suspect the Minister may be able to clarify the criteria, but judging by the answer he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North, I suspect that will not be the case. Past performance does not seem to be an impediment, although perhaps it should be—and perhaps the Minister will take more notice of such a suggestion from his own side.

Whether in the public or private sector, companies that fail to deliver on their commitments or promises to the taxpayer should not be allowed to take over franchises that they have shown they are not competent to run. It is not that National Express failed on one franchise and is bidding for another; it has already failed to deliver on the east coast line.

The public understandably have concerns about the Government position in relation to this matter, and they must not reward failure. If the Minister goes ahead with the privatisation, how will he guarantee that any future operator awarded the east coast main line franchise will be able to fulfil its contract, and what assurances can he provide that the taxpayer will see a similar rate of return in respect of premium payments as they received from Directly Operated Railways? It has been said that DOR is a not-for-profit service, but that is not quite true, as it is hugely profitable, but all the profits go to the taxpayer. That is the position, and I am sure various private train operating companies would relish getting their hands on that level of turnover.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell]

I wonder who.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Yes, we can speculate about who might take on the franchise, but it is incredibly profitable and I am sure there will be no shortage of takers. That money should be going into the Treasury at this time of austerity, however.

[Mr Reid]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but I am still not sure whether he is arguing for the east coast main line to be operated by a publicly owned company permanently or just for a temporary period that happens to be longer than the Government propose?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I can give a direct answer to that: yes, I am arguing for permanent public ownership. I am in favour of directly delivered public services, and although I do not want to take up too much time, I have some pretty powerful arguments on why that should be the case.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) talked about competition. Even if someone could not support the entire network being in public ownership, I think a reasonable person might be able to say that, for reasons of having a comparator, we should keep the very successful public provision through DOR, to act as a test and yardstick for us to assess how the private sector is doing. Instead we have the preposterous position of a failed private operator of the franchise not being barred from bidding, but instead being allowed to rebid to operate it. The Government seem quite happy to allow that.

Another perversity is that the Government seem to have this ideological, dogmatic hatred of nationalisation and publicly provided services. They are against the idea of a directly operated public service on the east coast. They are quite happy for public sector companies based in Germany, France and Holland to operate such franchises, but not UK public sector companies. That seems completely inconsistent.

The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) gave some interesting statistics about the cost of season tickets. It is interesting to look at the costs in some European countries. Research shows that a 24-mile commute into Paris costs about £924 a year, a similar commute into Berlin costs some £700, and a similar commute into Madrid costs £654. A similar commute into London costs £3,268 a year. How can anybody suggest that the privately operated service is a huge success and stands international comparison? This follows a decade of inflation-busting fare increases which, although never welcome, are putting an unbearable strain on family budgets at a time of austerity, with wages frozen and in many cases falling.

I understand that the rail Minister is a regular user of the network—after being persuaded to swap his chauffeur-driven ministerial limousine for the train. Has he had a chance to explain to other commuters exactly what privatised rail has delivered for the taxpayer—other than the highest fares in Europe? It certainly has not delivered investment. Sir David Higgins, the head of Network Rail, has warned that it would take

“30 years of continuous investment to ensure our railways get to the level of some of the European railways that we admire”.

Dividends to shareholders of the big five transport companies that are contracted to run the UK rail service have reached nearly £2.5 billion since 2000, and there are plenty of examples of excessive boardroom pay; some of the highest paid directors have received in excess of £1 million.

However, East Coast and Directly Operated Railways offer a genuine alternative, with all profits being reinvested in services or in the Treasury—money which otherwise would have been used as dividends for shareholders or bonuses for fat cats. According to the “Rebuilding Rail” report, the cost of running the railway has more than doubled in real terms since privatisation. It is estimated that privatisation costs the equivalent of £1.2 billion a year—more than the cost of public ownership.

In the face of multiple market failures, higher costs to the public in fares and subsidies, and lower premium payments, there is nothing more ideological than the Minister and the Tory party remaining wedded to this disastrous railway privatisation policy. I hope he will listen to the concerns expressed today by Members, and by the British public, and end this failed franchise policy.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

East Coast Main Line

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) on securing this useful debate. We can sing the praises of East Coast—I am happy to do so as someone who uses its services every week; it does not provide a bad service at all—but the idea that this is some way towards being a golden age compared with GNER, which first took over the line and provided an excellent service, is a myth.

As I have said, I am happy to congratulate East Coast, which gets us here every week, usually on time. Passengers want a clean, reliable, safe and reasonably priced service. When they sit back in their seat, they do not care whether the track is operated by Railtrack, Network Rail or a private operator, or whether their seat is in a private coach or a publicly owned one.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

To set the record straight, is it not the case that both GNER and National Express had to hand back the franchise, but this nationalised, directly operated rail service has handed £602 million back to the Treasury?

[Martin Vickers]

The fact that there is one failure—whether in the private sector, the public sector or wherever—does not automatically indicate a flaw in the system. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) said that the change would be privatisation for privatisation’s sake, but the opposite is equally true: do we want nationalisation for nationalisation’s sake? That is certainly what Opposition Members seem to want.

In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough referred to Northern Rail, but to compare it with East Coast is to compare apples with oranges—a regional operator with an inter-city one. Northern Rail provides a perfectly adequate service in my constituency, between Cleethorpes and Barton-on-Humber, but it does not serve such great metropolises as York, Darlington and Doncaster. The station at Thornton Abbey—in a beautiful, idyllic setting—actually serves two farms and an ancient ruin, and I think it had 13 passengers during 2009. East Coast is fine; it provides a perfectly adequate service, but it does not dash up and down between Newcastle and King’s Cross, so there is no comparison whatever.

I am happy to criticise East Coast when it makes mistakes, which it did when it redesigned its timetable last year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen McPartland]

I was disappointed to hear my hon. Friend say that he passes through Stevenage without stopping—I would prefer him to stop an awful lot more. However, I, too, congratulate the Government. This Government and the previous Government have done a lot of good work on the rail industry, and we could look at the way in which King’s Cross is being changed.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the privatised rail operators are costing the public purse—the taxpayer—£4 billion a year in subsidy? Since the east coast service has been nationalised, it has cost only £1 billion a year.

[Stephen McPartland]

I would not be able to acknowledge that, because I do not know the figures, but I can take the hon. Gentleman’s word for it.

Many people have said that the private sector ethos is not something we want to introduce to East Coast. In May 2011, I was fortunate enough to persuade East Coast to increase the number of services stopping in Stevenage by 18 per day. The number of services rose from 40 to 58 a day, which means an extra 9,000 seats a year. That all sounds great. It was the biggest rise in services to any location on the east coast main line. I did an awful lot of work on that. The individual I spoke to, who was the chairman of East Coast at the time, was previously the chief executive of First Capital Connect, and she took the private sector ethos that she received and learned at First Capital Connect and introduced it to the east coast main line. The reason First Capital Connect is important is that it shares the Stevenage station, effectively, with East Coast, and one of the main problems on a franchise that is 960-odd miles long is that it deals with so many other local operators. The point has been made that an interaction with local services would be hugely important and beneficial to many of our constituents. Fortunately for us, it works well in Stevenage.

Stevenage is only 30 miles from London, and the debate seems focused very much on services between London and the constituencies of some Opposition Members, and London and my constituency. A couple of years ago there were almost 40,000 journeys a year from Stevenage to Newcastle; a year ago there were nearly 50,000 journeys from Stevenage to Leeds; there are 11 services a day from Leeds to Stevenage and back. Stevenage is the capital of the UK space industry. We employ more than 10,000 scientists and engineers and build 25% of the world’s telecommunications satellites. A couple of days ago a satellite built in Stevenage went up, which will be responsible for broadcasting everything back to the UK. Interacting with a high-technology area such as Stevenage is important. People who engage in debate about this issue always seem to focus on the idea of a long-distance operator running the service, with Peterborough as the closest place people could get to—where they would have to change. As my hon. Friends have explained, that gives rise to the question whether it is cheaper to do that, or just to go on a plane or drive. Many of my constituents will drive to Heathrow airport and fly to Scotland, because that is cheaper than going by East Coast train. That is ridiculous. Sadly, it is faster. That is another problem. The debate and our efforts should focus on passenger satisfaction. Whether the service remains private or becomes public, or a mutual, that should be the whole idea.

In my final 30 seconds I have something to put to the Minister. Wherever the future of east coast ownership lies, it should include a mechanism for the removal—or, in today’s language, the recall—of the rail franchises, if any rail passengers are dissatisfied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) on the timely and comprehensive speech that he gave on this very important subject.

Government Members have accused Labour Members of making this an issue of ideology. Well, in Westminster Hall today we have a Minister who oversaw the architecture to privatise the NHS and who is now overseeing the privatisation of a successful publicly owned rail franchise in the north-east. Indeed, this process is an experiment. Under the previous Conservative Government, the rail network was broken up and a new model devised in a way that any objective commentator must acknowledge was a failure.

We have seen a decline in the quality of service, a lack of investment, higher public subsidies and inflation-busting fare increases since privatisation. In fact, a report by Just Economics showed that UK rail services were less affordable, less comfortable, slower and more inefficient than publicly owned rail services in Germany, France, Italy and Spain. British train tickets are now the most expensive in Europe. A typical season ticket in the UK now costs 14p per kilometre, compared with just 8p per kilometre in Germany, Holland and France, which are the next most expensive countries in Europe. So, if we are making comparisons on price or value for money, the privatised franchise model that we have here just does not stack up.

I do not wish to go off the rails in terms of time, Dr McCrea, but I am under a bit of pressure and we have had some first-class contributions from Members. I do not want to repeat what has been said. However, I am perplexed about why, after four years of stability, rising passenger satisfaction and significant returns to the Treasury, the Government are rushing through the privatisation of the east coast main line, if not for reasons of ideology and dogma, ignoring the evidence. Conservative Members ask, “Would you nationalise the industry?” Well, in public polling, not just of Labour voters, but generally, those in favour of nationalisation poll in excess of 70%, by MSN and NOP and 93% in The Guardian. There is nothing more ideological than privatisation for privatisation’s sake. This is a privatisation too far, and it is not fit for purpose.

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burns]

I will return the compliment the hon. Gentleman gave me earlier by saying that he is on the reasonable wing of the parliamentary Labour party. I have to tell him, though, that Members from the more exotic wing of the Labour party were not saying that in their speeches; they want the east coast main line to be permanently in the public sector, not the private sector.

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is what the public want.

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Gentleman is a dinosaur in health, and he has now moved to transport. I hope he is not following me around.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the congestion on this junction, and I would be delighted to meet him and a delegation of his constituents to discuss it.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

T2. I was interested to hear the Minister’s reply to Government Members about projects in the south, but I hope that he is aware of the huge disparity in public transport infrastructure investment: £5 per head in the north-east compared with £2,700 in London. Will he confirm, therefore, how many carriages will be built under the intercity express programme contract and how many carriages my constituents on the east coast main line can expect to see operating?

[Norman Baker]

It is not fair to talk about the disparity as the hon. Gentleman describes it. He might be relying on the Institute for Public Policy Research North report, but that report is incomplete—for example, it did not take into account the December 2011 local majors announcement. Of the local major schemes announced in the 2011 autumn statement, 62% by value were in the north and midlands and 35% were in the north alone, while 40% of projects in the 2010 spending review were in the north alone. It is a misrepresentation, therefore, to describe the investment as he has done. On the railway matters, I will ensure that he receives a written reply.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I want to ensure that motoring is affordable for everybody. I think my hon. Friend’s question perhaps relates more to Treasury questions than to Transport questions and I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has introduced and put in place plans to pilot such a rural fuel duty discount. I am sure that she will make her case to him on whether it could, in time, be extended to her community, too.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

8. What assessment she has made of the effect on jobseekers of rail fare increases.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

No specific assessment has been made of the effect on jobseekers by my Department. The Department for Work and Pensions has a scheme in place to assist jobseekers. Jobcentre Plus issues a discount card to eligible jobseekers to help them travel more cheaply on train services to job interviews and for vocational training. The card offers a 50% discount on a wide variety of fares including London travelcards.

[Grahame M. Morris]

A previous Conservative Secretary of State advised people to get on their bike to find work; it seems that the Department for Transport has taken that advice to heart given the rapid increases in rail fares, particularly over the next two years. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will now allow train companies to increase fares by as much as 8% above inflation over the next two years, and will she at least consider limiting the cost for those people in constituencies such as mine for whom this is very difficult?

East Coast Main Line Call Centre

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns]

The accent is regarded as reliable and trustworthy when it comes to providing call centre services, and that is why the north-east has become a centre for call centre operations. Conversely, it is sad to reflect that unfortunately British customers are averse to call centres based offshore.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I, too, compliment my hon. Friend on securing a debate on this issue, which is important to the north-east and has some national significance. In view of today’s statement on the McNulty report and the arguments being made by Ministers about needing to reduce the public subsidy to the rail industry, is this not another example of false economy if the method of reducing the subsidy is to transfer overseas UK jobs that support the economy, particularly in areas such as the north-east?

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. At a time when the Government claim that supporting growth in the UK economy is their priority, surely exporting good quality jobs from the north-east to India cannot be defended. There is also the issue of the public’s perception of the level of service they will get as a result.

The Secretary of State denies responsibility for this while passing on millions in public subsidy. The company received £40 million in direct funding from the taxpayer in the nine months to 31 March 2010 by way of a working capital loan facility agreed with the Secretary of State. Given the investment from the UK taxpayer, surely there must be a moral obligation for a state-owned company to retain jobs in the UK. There should at least be some consideration given to those jobs being taken in-house by the operator. That work is not going to go away. It is a much-needed, public-facing aspect of the train service operation and there is no evidence that the transfer will improve the service afforded to the public.

The Government’s stance could be regarded as hypocritical. They declare their commitment to growth and rebalancing the economy, and day after day they preach to private business about the need to help the economy to recover by creating new jobs, but in the case of East Coast—a company that we fully own—they sit back and permit the export of jobs from a company that belongs to the taxpayer. Let me be clear: my primary concern is for the people whose lives are affected by this, but equally important is the impact on industry of exporting real jobs, particularly customer contact jobs, to another country, which represents a retrograde step away from an integrated transport policy. Despite the McNulty report’s failure seriously to consider the benefits of reintegrating the railways under public ownership, many in the House are convinced that the evidence demonstrates that the reason why railways in Europe are cheaper for the taxpayer and the fare payer is that on the whole they are in public ownership and are less fragmented.

There is a wealth of evidence to show that overseas call centres are not the answer for companies that are looking to cut costs. In May 2004, a Department of Trade and Industry study found that work force costs that had not been fully factored into business evaluations of offshoring included the additional costs of employing local law specialists, consultants and accountants, as well as the cost of redundancies, redeployment and reskilling displaced UK workers. It revealed that staff turnover at Indian call centres in particular was about 25% compared with about 15% in the UK, with an average job tenure of about 12 months compared with three years in the UK. Higher attrition rates surely cannot be beneficial to good-quality customer service.

In July 2009, there was a huge outcry when the Association of Train Operating Companies moved 200 National Rail inquiries jobs from the UK to India. Subsequently, it was widely believed that the quality of service to the British travelling public had decreased. At the same time, BT decided to move 2,000 call-centre jobs back from India to the UK as part of a long-term strategy to cut costs by £1 billion and to reduce dependency on third parties. In 2005, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry reported that customer satisfaction surveys found that UK consumers did not like businesses they believed had offshored their services, preferring to deal with call centres in the UK.

In subcontracting jobs abroad, the company has made a narrow, short-term financial decision. No account has been taken of the impact that the loss of skills and jobs will have on the north-east region, its community and the local economy. Nor has any account been taken of the obvious cost to the UK in benefits of whose who will be made redundant as a result or of the reduction in tax revenue for the Exchequer. The McNulty report states that value for money is not just about pounds and pence, but about how the railway realises its wider benefits to society. Through fragmentation and privatisation, those benefits will be lost.

The industry’s most valuable asset is its work force. These redundancies mark a wasteful loss of knowledge and skills that have been honed through years of experience. They damage the shared commitment to the overall service that a proper public service ethos can bring. They impose a hidden cost of increased interfaces in the industry, blur transparency and accountability and de-clarify lines of responsibility, which would be the hallmark of a more efficient railway.

The blow to the economy of the north-east cannot be overestimated. The loss of these jobs to the region is yet another blow to the local economy and to our local communities. Tyneside already suffers a level of unemployment above the national average. The growth in call centre work has been an important factor in providing new employment in the north-east after the decline of manufacturing and, in particular, heavy industry, which arguably was caused mainly by a previous Government of the same nature.

As we all know, the Government are determined to reduce workers’ rights in the UK. They call it removing red tape and are strongly tempted to try to remove the rights of workers through Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. However, TUPE has been rendered irrelevant in this situation. A worker having the right to follow their work to the new company is simply not a realistic or viable option for those at Baron house, who now face the complete closure of their workplace, with a move for a few possibly to Plymouth or the bulk to India of course being impractical.

The awarding of this customer contact centre contract to a company with operations in Mumbai should not be seen in isolation. It is the next stage in trying to make the company more attractive to potential bidders in preparation for the eventual re-privatisation of the franchise in 2013. Already this week we have witnessed the end of a buffet car service on the east coast main line and the direct service from London to Glasgow has already been greatly reduced. Clearly the aim of the game is not customer service, or even value for money.

Despite the overwhelming social, environmental and economic benefits of retaining services from London King’s Cross to Glasgow, the direct services have been dramatically scaled back from 13 trains a day to just two, one in each direction—the 6.50 am service from Glasgow to King’s Cross and the 3 pm service heading in the opposite direction.

In the context of the McNulty report, clearly the east coast main line has a troubled history. I will not go into that now, but it is important that we think about the Government’s responsibility to manage that franchise. They do have a responsibility and they can change this decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

Absolutely, in the north-east and right across the country.

Before responding to the hon. Member’s questions, I must first clarify and reiterate the relationship between the Government and the east coast main line operator. East Coast Main Line Ltd is wholly owned by Directly Operated Railways Ltd, which is, as he pointed out, owned by the Government. East Coast and DOR are companies registered under the Companies Act and operate in accordance with their own articles of association and governance. This provides a framework for the operation of the franchise as a free-standing entity in readiness for the return of the franchise to the private sector, a return that was envisaged by the previous Government as well as the current one.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am slightly perplexed by that explanation and tempted to think of the situation with the banks. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have told us that influence is being exerted on the state-owned banks to ensure that they lend to small and medium-sized enterprises. Is the Minister suggesting that such influence cannot be applied on this company with regard to jobs?

[Mrs Villiers]

I will explain the relationship between East Coast and the Secretary of State. The aim is for that relationship to replicate the arrangements for franchises elsewhere on the network in order to ensure that the principles of private sector operation are embraced and maintained. The reason for that approach is so that the Secretary of State is able to protect the value of the franchise and the taxpayer gets value for money when the franchise returns to the private sector.

If the Department or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to start intervening in the way the operator runs East Coast, for example by overturning decisions based on commercial considerations, they might well have to answer for their decisions in front of the Public Accounts Committee. I am afraid that we do not believe it a viable option to intervene on the basis of political or non-commercial considerations, even if the Secretary of State were minded to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

As I have made clear, the coalition Government’s adopted approach, which the previous Labour Government espoused, is that the franchise should be operated on a commercial basis by East Coast Ltd. It should not be the subject of political direction from the Secretary of State.

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is a crucial point if we are arguing about commercial decisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) said in an excellent speech, is there not a weight of evidence from banks, insurance companies and various private sector companies that overseas call centres are becoming less and less popular, including with customers, and that therefore any move would damage the potential to sell the franchise to the private sector? Is there not an argument that it would be beneficial to the future sale of the company to keep the call centre at least in the UK, but certainly in the north-east, where it is?

[Mrs Villiers]

The people best placed to make the decision about what is best for the East Coast operation are the specialist practitioners who run East Coast Ltd, not Ministers, not Members. Those practitioners are the best people to make the best decision about what is in the interests of fare payers and taxpayers. East Coast is confident that the new arrangements will deliver better services for passengers and far better value for money.