East Coast Main Line Franchise

Debate between Alan Reid and Graeme Morrice

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Reid]

But the crux of the matter is this: is it Labour party policy that this service should remain in public ownership for ever or simply for a temporary period that happens to be longer than the one the Government have set out?

[Graeme Morrice]

As I have just mentioned, we will hear from our Front Bencher on this shortly. My own view is that this should be for an indefinite period, but the clear blue water between us and the Government on this issue is that we support a successful public service, whereas the Liberal Democrats are as one with the Conservatives in supporting the privatisation of this service. We have to question the reason why. Has this been proposed for the right financial and service reasons, or is there another, perhaps more partisan, explanation?

I wish to raise a relatively straightforward issue of fact. In an answer to a recent parliamentary question, the Minister of State said that investment in the east coast main line’s infrastructure is not dependent on reprivatising passenger operations. He said:

“Funding for the 2014-19 upgrade of the east coast main line will be delivered through the Office of Rail Regulation approving a £240 million increase in the value of Network Rail’s regulatory access base. Network Rail may then borrow up to this amount to fund the upgrade works.”—[Official Report, 15 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 2W.]

However, he has since asserted otherwise on a number of occasions. For example, at the Transport Committee meeting on 24 April he said:

“What I think is important, looking to the future, is how you make the needed and important investment in the East Coast Main Line to bring it up to scratch. You will be as aware as I am that part of the electrification is very antiquated and needs to be replaced and upgraded because it is causing significant problems to the quality of service. I do not believe that keeping the East Coast Main Line in public ownership is the most effective and swiftest way of getting that investment. I believe that returning the East Coast Main Line to a franchise operation offers the best opportunity to move forward. In addition, the Government and the rail industry, through Network Rail, are continuing to invest in the East Coast Main Line, but we need to accelerate that and increase it.”

Then, at Transport questions on 25 April, the Minister stated that

“yes, there will be taxpayers’ money involved in investing in the east coast main line, but, more importantly, the involvement of the private sector means that we can increase, over and above the taxpayers’ money, the money that can be invested in enhancing and improving the service for passengers.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 995.]

Despite a number of hon. Members raising this with the Minister in the debate a fortnight ago, he failed to address this point in his reply. Therefore I would be grateful if he could now state once and for all whether any elements of replacing and upgrading the electrification on the east coast main line are dependent on the transfer of the operation of passenger services to the private sector. Similarly, it would be helpful if he could explain how this investment will be delivered more swiftly if reprivatisation takes place. Finally, can he provide more detail of the increased investment, over and above the taxpayers’ money being put into the line, that would be delivered as a result of privatisation?

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Alan Reid and Graeme Morrice

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Morrice]

Yes, I totally agree. The process that applied in Scotland was very consensus-based.

There are clear precedents for putting questions of major constitutional change to the people in this way, including devolution in Wales and, as we have just heard, in Scotland, as well as—lest we forget—last year's ill-fated attempt to change the system of election to this House. People will rightly ask why this significant reform of the second Chamber does not warrant the direct endorsement of the public, particularly when it was deemed right to hold a referendum on the afore-mentioned changes. The public debate that would be generated by a referendum and the legitimacy that a strong public vote in favour of reform would give the new Chamber would certainly also help to cement the changes and strengthen our democracy. Whatever the view of the public may be, I am quite sure that most people would feel it is right that they be consulted on such a major constitutional reform. I do not believe that the case against holding a referendum has been articulated in any convincing way so far, and given the enthusiasm of many Government Members for referendums on other matters, I hope that the Government will think again and give voters the final say on House of Lords reform.

The second major question I wish to comment on is the percentage of the new Chamber that is to be elected. Again, our manifesto was clear on this, calling for a wholly elected second Chamber—a position I have always supported. Indeed, it was also the policy on which every Liberal Democrat Member fought the 2010 election, although we know that their manifesto promises do not count for much.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

Yes, that was in our manifesto, but this is a coalition Government and coalition involves compromise. The compromise that was agreed between the two coalition parties was that 80% be elected—and 80% is an awful lot better than zero, so I hope that, at the end of the debate, the hon. Gentleman will support the Bill.

[Graeme Morrice]

The Liberal Democrats have compromised their principles on this and many other issues.

We have an opportunity to wipe the slate clean on patronage in the other place and agree a wholly elected, fully democratic Chamber. A partly appointed Chamber will remain open to accusations of cronyism, even if the appointments are made in a much more transparent fashion.

Another point relating to whether to have the wholly elected Chamber that many of my constituents have expressed strong feelings about is the place of bishops in the Lords. My constituents have been unanimous in their view that this reform is an opportunity to end the automatic right of bishops to sit in the Lords. I very much hope that whatever form the new second Chamber takes, it will contain a diversity of representatives, but they should be there because the people have put their trust in them at the ballot box, rather than because they hold a particular religious office.

My final point on elections to the second Chamber relates to the electoral system that will be used. If it has to be a proportional representation system—I understand the rationale for using a different system from that used to elect Members to this House—why not use a fully open list system, which puts much more control back into the hands of voters, while remaining relatively easy to understand?

The final question that I want to focus on is the length of the term of membership of the reformed second Chamber. The Bill proposes single, non-renewable, 15-year terms. That long term, coupled with the proposal that Members of the reformed Chamber should not be allowed to re-stand, is a real concern. It would certainly do nothing to improve accountability, and would actually risk undermining the intended aim of making the second Chamber demonstrably more democratic. There is every chance that voters would feel that a vote for a representative who, once elected, would have absolutely no obligation or incentive ever again to listen to the views of their constituents would not be very worth while at all. There is a real possibility that it could have the effect of depressing turnout in elections to the reformed Chamber.

Shorter terms, with the possibility of re-election, would confer greater legitimacy, and give people confidence that we are serious about having a democratic second Chamber, rather than just some sort of Lords-lite. I support the historic opportunity to reform the House of Lords, but we must get it right. As other hon. Members have highlighted, such an opportunity is not likely to come along again in a hurry, so it is imperative that we take our time to consider the detail carefully, and make decisions that will last and best serve the people of the United Kingdom.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Alan Reid and Graeme Morrice

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Morrice]

My understanding of the system is that there are two candidates, and therefore two votes. Of course that is based on first past the post. It is not dissimilar to the system that applies to local government elections in England when there are several candidates for several seats within a multi-member ward and electors have several Xs to put on a ballot paper.

[Mr Reid]

That is correct. However, two Members are elected: the first two. That is not first past the post.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire criticised the system for election to the Scottish Parliament in which the person who finished second in the constituency might still be elected on the list, but the same would apply under the strange system that he has come up with in the new clause.

[Graeme Morrice]

The hon. Gentleman has got this wrong. There would be two candidates—there could be two Labour candidates standing, or two Lib Dem, Tory or Scottish National party candidates—and the electors would have two votes. I would vote twice, and put down two crosses for two Labour candidates. There is not a second candidate, therefore; there are two firsts, and the electors have two votes—the two crosses.

[Mr Reid]

Yes, but some people might not vote for party tickets. This system is used in English local government elections, and it is very uncommon for the first two candidates to get exactly the same number of votes. One will finish first, and another will finish second, and sometimes where there is a close result candidates from different parties get elected.