Railway Ticket Offices

Debate between Chris Stephens and Andy McDonald

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) on securing this debate. The fact that so many Members are present, representing a lot of political parties across the House, shows how much interest there is in the debate.

I am afraid that I do not share the trade union-bashing rhetoric of the hon. Member’s speech. I am a proud trade unionist. The trade union movement plays a vital role as a social partner in helping so many workers to improve their pay and working conditions. It is fascinating that while the hon. Member was speaking, I was reading the RMT briefing, and all the points made were similar—in fact, there was unique agreement between the RMT and the hon. Member. In seriousness, he is correct, and the points he makes are widely accepted not just by the trade union movement and by hon. Members, but by the wider public. They are important points that I want to address.

As the hon. Member and others have said, there is real concern about whether or not this is an actual consultation. Will it make changes, or is it a fait accompli? It is concerning to hear and read that as soon as the consultation happened, a section 188 redundancy notice was issued to the trade unions, putting 2,300 station staff jobs at risk. I commend the hon. Member for saying that he is supporting his former colleagues in the workplace, because these are people’s jobs and livelihoods. It is also concerning to read that at least one train company, Avanti West Coast, is already proceeding to make arrangements for letting agents to put out their ticket office spaces for rent. I hope that the Minister can tell us whether the consultation is a real consultation or a fait accompli.

The hon. Member and others mentioned the role of ticket office workers. We should listen to what ticket office workers are saying, which is that 97% of them believe that closing ticket offices will make it harder for passengers to get the best-value fare for their journey. The hon. Member made an excellent contribution on that point: he mentioned the Trainline app and others, and the fact that when there is a ticket office, people get the cheapest fare. That was a very important part of his speech, which I hope the Minister will answer.

Some 98% of ticket office workers say that closing ticket offices would worsen accessibility for disabled, deaf and older people, a point that was made very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows); 98% say that closing ticket offices would worsen the quality of service provided to passengers; 94% say that closing ticket offices would worsen passenger safety and security. That is a very real issue that a lot of Members have mentioned—people feel safe when tickets offices are staffed.

[Andy McDonald]

A few moments ago the hon. Member talked about ticket pricing, and staff do assist passengers through that minefield. Does he agree that when there are 55 million different products on the market in the rail industry, it is imperative to have people in ticket offices able to navigate the complexities of the system?

[Chris Stephens]

That is absolutely correct. The staff have the experience and knowledge to do that. It goes back to the points made about human interaction, but it is also about knowledge. Ticket office staff have that knowledge to be able to say, “If you buy a ticket to this place and then this place, that works out much better value for money.”

We have to take into consideration that ticket offices help people who are unbanked—there is still an issue in society around cash. We are having a debate in my constituency about bank closures, for example, and there was a bank closure debate in the Chamber last week. The points raised in that debate could easily be raised here. Ticket offices allow people to make part cash/part card payments because not everybody has online access to make those purchases.

There are real perceptions around how passengers feel safe at stations. Some train stations, sadly, have antisocial behaviour, often requiring police attendance. If there are no staff at the stations, that makes people feel unsafe and they believe it is inevitable that the situation would worsen.

Why, Mr Davies, is the Scottish National party intervening on ticket office closures in England? I know you are asking yourself that question, as many others are. It is because there are threatened ticket office closures in Scotland. Avanti West Coast wants to close the office in Glasgow, and London North Eastern Railway is proposing to close the ticket office in Edinburgh. It is ridiculous, as I heard someone say. The move to close almost all rail ticket offices in England would be disastrous and should be rolled back immediately. The Scottish Government’s advisers on accessible transport have described the move as “entirely unacceptable”. It appears that some Tory Ministers knew how bad the move would be for their constituents because it is reported that the Chancellor tried to protect his own constituency from closures before they were even announced.

Transport for All, a disabled people’s rights group, has called on people to reject the plans in the consultation as they will harm the rights and access of disabled people to transport. I do not believe in the private sector model in rail provision. I think the privatisation of rail has been a backward step for many people. I hope the Government will consider following Scotland’s lead and bring rail back into public ownership, because it is time we had a rail service for all that was for people, not for profit.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Chris Stephens and Andy McDonald

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

I will take that argument on, because I am coming on to amendment 39. Listening to our Conservative friends on the Government side of the Chamber, anyone would think that this Bill was about setting a minimum service level across the public sector. If only that was the case. That is not what it does. It sets a minimum service level only in the event of industrial action—on strike days, not non-strike days. The Minister has not yet told us what amendments he will accept—maybe that is the theatre he will provide at the end—but amendment 39 makes clear the concerns that many of us in this House have that minimum service levels should not be higher on a strike day than on a normal working day.

The reason for that, as anyone who has a trade union background can tell us, is that when employers come to trade unions to discuss the “life and limb” cover and ensure that all those arrangements are made, some employers then ask for more people on a strike day than they do on a non-strike day. That is just a fact—that is what employers try to do. Amendment 39 would address the point that a minimum level of service on a strike day should not be higher than it is on any other normal day.

Of course, that raises the question of the Government trying to get away with marking their own homework on the ILO conventions. They have determined the Bill complies with the ILO conventions—never mind what anybody else says—because they say so. The Government have marked their own homework, and they say we should be very grateful that they have done so; they are ILO-compliant, so we should just be quiet and accept it. Well, I am sorry, but I like to speak truth to power and to check things—always checking what is in the paperwork and in writing was part of my trade union training. Amendment 39 would ensure that there is a very real sense of the Government’s homework being marked, and that the Bill is compliant with ILO conventions and with the EHCR, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) mentioned.

I will conclude my remarks on the issue of devolution, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not just about Wales and Scotland, or indeed the Greater London Assembly. Every local authority in England that has a service of the sort mentioned in the Bill could have a minimum service level imposed on it by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it worries me to see the Secretary of State tweeting and referring to the weekend as unofficial strike days, as he did a few months ago. They were rest days, not unofficial strike days. I am concerned that we have a Secretary of State who does not seem to know what happens in a trade union working environment but is trying to set minimum levels of service on a strike day, not just in England, but in Wales and Scotland, affecting their devolved competencies.

If there was a strike in Glasgow by McGill’s Buses, it would be the Secretary of State who determined what the minimum bus level was for that weekend. That is really quite incredible—[Interruption.] The Minister can chunter all he likes, but that is what the Bill says. Agreeing to new clause 4 would sort out that issue, so perhaps the Minister could tell us which amendments he will accept.

[Andy McDonald]

I hear the Minister chuntering from a sedentary position about the Bill not covering buses, but that is not what it says. It covers “transport services” and its jurisdiction is UK-wide.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. That is the problem, is it not? The Bill says “transport services”, and that could be anything. It could be buses, taxis or the horse and cart for all we know, because the Bill is so open-ended.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that the Government will look at the amendments that my hon. Friends and I have tabled, which are an attempt to improve the Bill. Our main reason for opposing the Bill is that the Government will be impinging on devolution and on human rights, and they do not know what happens in a trade union-organised environment. That is why the Bill should not get a Third Reading.

Fairness at Work and Power in Communities

Debate between Chris Stephens and Andy McDonald

Thursday 12th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark). I will concentrate much of my speech on employment, which is ironic, given the collective industrial action that appears to be taking place on the Conservative Benches. I just hope that the ballot was conducted in a legal way.

I may be alone in this, but I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) is no longer in his place. The anti-immigration rhetoric that he was using is in stark contrast to the reality of the situation. I do not believe that any human being is illegal. When we use words like “illegal” about fellow human beings, we are on very dangerous ground indeed.

In stark contrast, though, I have been in tears of joy over the past few days, but I can assure Members that it is not over the Queen’s Speech. I am delighted to say that it is over the great news of the council elections. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the good people of Glasgow South West are among the most sophisticated electorate in these islands. In the Greater Pollok ward, they hit it out of the park. They have elected the great Roza Salih, who becomes the first refugee elected as a councillor in Scotland. What a wonderful achievement that is for this “brilliant young woman”, as the First Minister of Scotland said. This is someone who has served with distinction in the Glasgow South West constituency office. She was so good that she has been promoted twice: she is currently the office manager, and has helped to serve constituents diligently. She will make a fantastic councillor. Is that not something, when we hear the rhetoric from some on the Government Benches about “immigrants”? They use this anti-immigrant language, when we have a brilliant young woman who is now engaging in public service. That is why I want asylum seekers to be given the right to work.

The Blair Government made a mistake when they stopped asylum seekers having the right to work. It is absolutely scandalous that we allow asylum seekers to live on the equivalent of what I was earning as a youth trainee with Strathclyde Regional Council 30 years ago. It is not right. After a period of time—say, six months—asylum seekers should have the right to work and make their contribution to this economy.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on this issue. The Government’s Homes for Ukraine scheme has a lot to recommend it, if only it worked properly for everybody. It is absolutely right that people should have recourse to public funds and to work, but surely that should apply to every refugee; it should not simply be restricted to one group. I am delighted that this group has that, but should it not go across the board universally?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with the hon. Member. People who seek sanctuary in this country want to make a positive contribution across these islands. There should be a right to work.

The Shrewsbury 24

Debate between Chris Stephens and Andy McDonald

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to be here and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) for securing the debate. His speech was informative, persuasive and, above all, powerful.

As the SNP spokesperson on trade union and workers’ rights, let me say it is a pleasure to speak in the debate. Before coming to this place, I was a Unison activist. Two years ago, in the hon. Gentleman’s city of Liverpool, Ricky Tomlinson addressed the UK Unison conference to raise awareness of the Shrewsbury 24 Campaign. It was my pleasure, as the then treasurer of Glasgow City Unison, to sign a cheque to the campaign, and I would encourage all members of the public watching the debate to consider making a contribution to it.

I want to assure the campaign that all right hon. and hon. Members of the SNP support it. It is important that justice be done. I should add that the campaign resonates with me because the arrests and charges came one month before I was born. Throughout my whole lifetime, therefore, the Shrewsbury 24 Campaign has been waiting for justice.

We know from the campaign that the National Federation of Building Trades Employers compiled a dossier. At the time, the Financial Times dismissed the dossier, saying:

“This document is itself flawed since it suggests the existence of a sinister plot without being able to substantiate the allegations. Many of the incidents that have been listed seem to be little more than the ordinary spontaneous angry behaviour that might be expected on a building site at any time (and especially during an industrial dispute)…the publication reads more like a politically motivated pamphlet than a serious study.”

That is a good way of putting it.

I want to praise the speeches we have heard so far. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) referred to the previous debate, on the Floor of the House, in January 2014, and to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). When I read the report of the debate, I noticed that that hon. Gentleman bragged about his membership of the Freedom Association—what we would consider to be the Consulting Association’s wee cousin.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) made a number of excellent points. I was surprised to hear that promises made in correspondence to him since 2010 have not been kept. I think he is due an explanation.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, beyond this huge injustice, something else is at stake—the reputation of this Parliament? Deceit upon deceit has been practised here, and the reputation of the word of Minister after Minister is now in the gutter. There is a deep-seated smell of corruption, which goes right to the heart of the Government, and it needs to be expunged.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He makes the valid point that members of the public outside watching this debate will be very confused that promises about the release of information keep getting made but are not kept. That is why many of them do not trust parliamentarians and Parliament. The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made.

In making his powerful address, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton got to the nub of the issue for those involved in the campaign. The eldest of these men is 90, and the youngest is 68. They should not have to wait five years for the release of these documents.

The SNP supports the decision taken in the House in January 2014. I want to emphasise the result of the vote: there were 120 votes in favour of releasing the documents, and three against. Many of us are concerned that national security is being used as a reason not to release the documents. Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite, has said:

“It is time to end this 40-year conspiracy of silence and release all the government documents relating to the Shrewsbury 24. There is something deeply wrong in this country when a 21st century government uses national security to withhold documents about ordinary working people who tried to improve their working conditions four decades ago. We believe the Tories are desperately trying to hide the stench of a great miscarriage of justice and we urge fair minded MPs to back our campaign to release all the government papers on the Shrewsbury 24.”

Alex Deane, a Conservative public affairs consultant, wrote on the ConservativeHome website in January 2014,

“whilst deeply unsympathetic to their cause, I find it simply impossible to conjure up what the national security concerned might be in hiding the decisions taken by officials and elected persons relating to the prosecution of builders in Shropshire 40 years ago. What technique of surveillance or undercover work might possibly justify non-disclosure after this passage of time? Any technique will be outdated or universally known about. Any individual involved in undercover work can have his or her name redacted from the papers which might otherwise be released. Consideration of the wider disclosures rightly made in recent times of papers relating to Northern Ireland, where on any view those concerned were more dangerous, makes a mockery of any such claim to national security concerns.”

We believe a great injustice has been done, and hope that the Minister will confirm today that he will release the papers relating to the Shrewsbury 24.

HMRC Office Closures

Debate between Chris Stephens and Andy McDonald

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

I extend the solidarity of my constituents to those of the hon. Gentleman. This is an insult to his constituency, given the pressures it is already under. Is it not extraordinary to hear Government Members say that this is about modernisation and people filling out tax returns online, given we were told only a fortnight ago that a trade union member could not use online balloting?

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is interesting how that rationale is adopted for certain arguments, but not universally spread.

It was a disgrace how the announcement was made. It was not made at the Dispatch Box by a Minister answerable to Members, but was snuck out on the internet during the recess. It was disrespectful to the people losing their jobs and to the House. The Government should be ashamed of themselves. I rang the chief executive and said, “What on earth are you playing at?”, and I asked whether a socioeconomic assessment had been done. The Minister is not interested in the impact on people’s lives, but Opposition Members are. I am sick to death of hearing Government Members say, “I feel your pain,” and “We’re doing everything to help.” I was told that about Teesside staff. Well, it is a funny way to look after staff—to say, “By the way, your job’s going.” It is ridiculous.

Ministers say that more than half of staff will retire in situ, so that is okay: they will not suffer because they can stay until they retire. Those jobs will disappear. There will be no continuity or benefit for future generations. Every time we have this consolidation in the north-east of England, it is always Teesside that loses out, and the jobs go north. On this occasion, we are talking, in the first instance, about consolidation at Waterview Park in Sunderland. It is only 30 miles away, but it is two hours 25 minutes by bus. It will add five hours to people’s working day. How on earth will people go to their school open evenings, attend to their elderly parents, or run the girl guides, or whatever it might be? What sort of quality of life is that? There is never any regard for these things.

These jobs will not come back, and there is no way people can maintain a decent pattern of life. This will simply mean more pain for Teesside. The Government must stop these closures, on which there has been no proper consultation, and use the comprehensive spending review tomorrow to provide targeted assistance to help Teesside attract the high-quality, well-paid work that is so urgently needed.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Chris Stephens and Andy McDonald

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

May I move on and make some progress? I apologise, and I will take further interventions later.

New clause 2 would modernise the law promoting democracy and inclusion—the word “modernisation” keeps getting used by the Conservatives in support of the Bill. Currently, all ballots and elections must be conducted on a fully postal basis. Unlike major companies and other membership organisations—including political parties—trade union members are not allowed to vote online. The Government have consistently described the Bill as an attempt to “modernise” trade unions, but to date they have not allowed trade unions to modernise into the 21st century by using electronic and workplace balloting.

The Government argue that the introduction of thresholds for strike action balloting would boost democracy, but that only stifles the possibility of workers’ voices being heard. If the Government were committed to boosting workplace democracy, they would allow secure workplace balloting and balloting by electronic means, as our amendment suggests.

Online balloting is more accessible and inclusive. Today, most people use electronic devices every day to make transactions and to communicate. We in the SNP use online ballots, and as we have heard, so did the Conservatives in the election of their mayoral candidate. Ballot papers are usually sent to members’ home addresses, which can lead to lower turnouts, especially when junk mail is flying through people’s doors on a regular basis and things can easily get dumped in the bin. Modern methods of voting are more efficient and help negotiations to move faster. Using only postal ballots could prolong the length of a dispute because they simply take longer.

According to the latest Ofcom figures, 83% of people now have access to broadband and 66% of households own a smartphone. Those figures are likely to be higher among those of working age, and they are set to rise rapidly. The 2014 Electoral Commission survey involved 1,205 adults aged over 18, and found that 42% of respondents felt that online voting would increase their confidence by “a lot” or “a little” in the way that elections are run.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the run-up to Christmas, people will be engaging electronically by purchasing goods and materials across the piece? I do not hear Conservative Members saying that there is something fundamentally wrong with that process, or saying, “We’re not going to have you doing that.” Is this not ridiculous? It is just a ruse to say, “We don’t want people to engage with trade unions.” That is what it is about.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps it is because Conservative Members fear the inevitable visit of three ghosts on Christmas eve.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Chris Stephens and Andy McDonald

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman’s amendments would devolve the pneumoconiosis legislation to Scotland. What is the Scottish Government’s intention for that scheme, which pays out to workers who suffer that condition?

[Chris Stephens]

I will come back to that point.

Our approach is evidence-based. The 30 detailed recommendations of the “Working Together” report are a strong foundation to build on if we have more powers, and I commend that report to the Committee. We also support the devolution of trade union laws to maintain the largely stable and productive industrial relations in Scotland, underpinned by the long-standing strategic partnership between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Trades Union Congress.