European Union (Withdrawal)
Gordon Marsden Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
So, it has come to this tonight: the new Prime Minister and his Ministers have had not just their competence, but their good faith so destroyed across the House that this radical but necessary step to preserve parliamentary democracy and our futures has been taken. Anyone who heard either the Leader of the House or, indeed, the way in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster rattled away at a merry pace will recall the old words:
“The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons.”
The truth of the matter is that no deal would drive the NHS into the arms of Donald Trump. No deal would be no good for the people in my constituency who are now experiencing unemployment at twice the national average. No deal would be no good for the people with the desperate medical issues that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) talked about earlier.
The list of warnings about a no-deal Brexit grows longer. Warnings about the supply and prices of fresh food, essential medicines, and chaos on the roads and at ports after Halloween come not from Marxists, Trotskyists, or left-wingers, but from such radical organisations as the British Retail Consortium and the Road Haulage Association.
This is no longer just about Brexit or even whether people voted leave or remain; it is about the United Kingdom’s future as a progressive democracy. We really must take that into account, but we also have to take into account the situation of individual constituents. A man wrote to me and said:
“My father is rather ill these days and relies on a variety of medication. I am concerned what the impact of a no-deal Brexit would have on the supply of this medication.”
We have heard from those who have no axe to grind that that is absolutely the case.
I have had a letter, as many of us will have had, from an ordinary constituent:
“Please can you help with a no deal Brexit as having our NHS is as important to us as food on our plates. It’s hard to survive as it is…I cut back on food and power, have no holidays. Please sort this out”.
That is an ordinary constituent who is engaged not with the finer constitutional points that the Leader of the House manages to trim on a sixpence, but with the everyday bread and butter of daily living in a town like many others in the north of England where people feel left behind and vulnerable, and where to satisfy the interests of a small group of cronies around the Prime Minister this Government are trying to stamp down on everything that is said.
There is no evidence, not even a sniff, of the Government having presented any proposals to the EU. The Prime Minister fancies himself a classicist. Well, what he has been doing and the way in which he has treated his own Back Benchers is in the tradition of the proscriptions of ancient Rome.
The Prime Minister also fancies himself an admirer of Churchill. He should remember that Churchill told us that the first duty of a Member is to do what he thinks, in his faithful and disinterested judgment to the honour and safety of this Britain. That is what patriotism, real patriotism, is about, and the way in which this Prime Minister has disgracefully used the Prorogation process blunts the interests of this House and of the British people.
Those are not the attributes of a British Prime Minister. I would say they are the attributes of a tinpot despot or autocrat, except this Prime Minister might think it flattered him. No, he is a petulant man-child who is unable to get his way with this House, which is why he is trying to shut down debate through Prorogation. That is why we should support this motion tonight.
Business of the House
Gordon Marsden Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We have had a lot of discussions about public sector pay and about people who are just about managing. It has been a difficult number of years in which this Government have been trying to deal with the deficit and the debt that we were left in 2010, and it has been a case of trying to balance giving decent pay rises to our public sector workers, who do such a good job for us, with trying to make sure that we live within our means.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about BBC pay, the pay of actors and so on, and about the Government urging transparency in pay. We were successful with boardroom pay and now with BBC salaries, and all Members will want to see more clarity around what is fair, both between women and men and between different public sector workers.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation this morning delivered a major speech to a think-tank, Reform, setting out major developments in the Higher Education and Research Bill. He did that not having made an oral statement in this House, not having laid a written ministerial statement in this House and not having spent any time in his 32-minute speech yesterday on this area alluding to those developments.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you might think, I might think and many of us might think that that is a contempt and abuse of this House. It is the second year running that this Government have tried to make major statements about higher education on the last day of term, with the intention of evading scrutiny. Will the Leader of the House prevail upon the Universities Minister or another Minister to come to the House today and explain why, for example, the Government will make major changes to the teaching excellence framework, for which they are laying material today, and the Office for Students? [Interruption.] The chuntering Whip says from a sedentary position, “It is far too long”. We have had far too little from—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We do not need “chuntering” Whips. I know that the question is too long; I am sure the hon. Gentleman will now conclude.
Gordon Marsden
May we therefore make sure that the Universities Minister or some Minister actually turns up today to say something about that speech and those developments this morning?
Andrea Leadsom
In the hon. Gentleman’s “speech” on the subject, he made a number of very important points. On his substantive point about a speech that the The Government’s record on universities has been exemplary, with more students going to university, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds—up by more than 40% since 2010.
The hon. Gentleman criticises the number of written statements brought forward at the end of term, so I just point out that in 2007 there were 30 written statements; in 2008, there were also 30; in 2009, there were 33; and today I believe there are 22. Of course, as he will appreciate, it is vital for many Departments that they bring forward important—[Interruption.]
Procedure of the House
Gordon Marsden Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
We talk a lot these days, in this House and elsewhere, about transparency. There is a more old-fashioned meaning of the word transparency, which was often used when I was growing up. It was that one could see the ulterior motives of the people who put things forward. In this occasion we can see some of the old-fashioned meaning of transparency on the Floor of the House today: a device so thin to have found an hour or so from amendments to the Modern Slavery Bill that did not come; a little bit of loose change behind the sofa. I agree with everything that has been said. My admiration for the Leader of the House is not dimmed in any way, but the way he has behaved, or allowed himself to be presented as he has today, is shameful. Fortunately, he is not writing another book on Churchill—that has been left to somebody else—but as a historian he should remember what was said in the 1940 Chamberlain debate when Winston Churchill stood up to defend his colleagues’ failures. The right hon. Gentleman should not allow himself to become an air-raid shelter for them. I am tempted here to quote Mark Antony:
“For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men”.
Let us ask ourselves just of what is the present Speaker supposed to be guilty? Is it that he has firmly enforced the reforms in the House giving all Members a fair deal? Is it that he has been strong with MPs on both sides, in Prime Minister’s Question Time and elsewhere, who yah-boo their way through events in a way many of our voters feel sick about? Is it that he has let daylight into the House by encouraging many people from outside—charity and educational groups and others—to have access to and use of the facilities in an unprecedented fashion? If there are those in the House who are not happy with the Speaker, they can stand in the next Parliament and say their piece. They can stand up themselves. They can put up or shut up.
What we have today is a grubby piece of schoolboy intriguing that Michael Dobbs would have been ashamed to have dreamt up for one of his novels. These are matters for the House to deliberate on properly and initiate, not the Executive. These are matters of due process and due thought. After the expenses scandal in 2008, we spent two traumatic years trying painstakingly to recover the House’s powers and reputation, including through the Backbench Business Committee and the Select Committee elections, and the present Speaker has faithfully defended that process. It will not do the Government any good having their voters turned off by the pocket Machiavellis behind today’s spectacle.
While we speak, Richard III is being interred in Leicester cathedral. He was the monarch who brought a new meaning to decisiveness by arresting one of his councillors, Hastings, at a Privy Council meeting, accusing him of treason without due process and having his head chopped off on Tower hill to secure his usurpation—all within the hour. I wonder that some of those behind the motion are not mourners at the service, since they seem initiators of the methods. This is the mother of Parliaments. Commonwealth countries and Parliaments all over the world come to see it and take example from it, and if we cede our right to decide thoughtfully and after due process to any Government, in this hole-in-the-wall vote, before Parliament prorogues, we will surrender the House’s self-respect and the respect of the voters. We will turn this House into a receptacle for Executive despotism and cronyism.
Those who are tempted to look over their shoulders for advancement at those pulling the strings on this grubby occasion should remember that there will come a day when each of them needs an independent Speaker to protect their rights and interests. Even if it were just on the basis of self-interest, do Members supporting the motion want to face their voters in six weeks’ time as accomplices to this chicanery—to a process that demeans this House and gives credence to what is peddled by cynics and stand-up comics about this House? Are we to dispense, after an hour, with a process that has stood the test of time in the House for six centuries? Previous Speakers have occasionally been beheaded, murdered or killed in battle, but as far as I am aware, none has ever been stabbed in the back on the Floor of the House. Do Members want to align themselves with proceedings more fit for a Soviet-era puppet Parliament rubber-stamping edicts from dictators?
Speaker Lenthall, when he faced up to Charles I, after he burst in to arrest the five Members, said:
“I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this house is pleased to direct me”.
If Members cravenly cave in to this trumped-up device to attack an incumbent Speaker whose high crime has been to protect Members’ interests and to throw some daylight into a Parliament to redeem its reputation among a disillusioned public, they will not only dishonour the great struggle for independence from the Executive, over which a civil war was fought, but jeopardise the relevance of this great place to the people of this country, who will rightly say, six weeks from a general election, “All the problems and serious issues we face, and what on earth are these people playing at?”
Business of the House
Gordon Marsden Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
There is. I can encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Transport to respond to the point that my hon. Friend has made so persuasively on behalf of her constituents.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Like many Members, I have had the melancholy experience of writing to officials at the Department for Work and Pensions, in this case about a personal independence payment centre in Blackpool, waiting two months for a reply and then finding that the answer has been outsourced to Atos. May we have a debate on the responsibility of Departments to ensure that when Members write to their officials, the answers are not outsourced to organisations that have been judged to be failing?
Mr Lansley
If the hon. Gentleman is able to give me the details, I will look into the precise circumstances of his correspondence. My practice as a Member of Parliament, when I believe that there is a ministerial responsibility, is to write to Ministers about issues. I do not always get a reply, but I hope to get one. That tends to ensure that the responsibility for the reply is not diverted elsewhere.
Deregulation Bill
Gordon Marsden Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I rise to speak briefly on Government new clause 25 and more specifically to our amendments 61 and 1, which relate to taxis and maritime issues respectively.
First, I shall comment on what the Minister said about the CCTV measure. The short notice of the introduction of the amendment—it appeared only at the end of last week—suggests that it was a political hot potato, passed between the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government. There have long been rumours that the DCLG intended to scrap the use of CCTV even in sensitive areas, in contrast to the wishes of DFT Ministers. Over the weekend, press coverage of the issue was almost entirely dominated by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on whether DFT Ministers decided to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) has called a “pickled policy”, or whether this is simply an example of what the Government’s frequent use of the Alice in Wonderland principle of sentence first and trial afterwards.
It concerns us greatly that the measure was introduced so late in the day. It is at odds with the consultative approach adopted by the Department for Transport. A range of organisations, including Living Streets, the Local Government Association, the British Parking Association, the Freight Transport Association, Disabled Motorists UK, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and Guide Dogs for the Blind, have made their concerns known, yet the Government published the new measure before seeing those responses.
There are of course legitimate concerns that councils have been using cameras as a routine means of parking enforcement; that is wrong. There have also been problems where stickers, such as resident permits and blue badges, have not been visible and drivers have wrongly been issued with tickets; that is an occurrence that we should make as infrequent as possible. It is understandable that drivers become frustrated when the first they hear of an infringement is a letter through the post, without the opportunity to discuss the circumstances with an enforcement officer. So we agree with the Select Committee on Transport that there should be greater oversight of the way in which local authorities use cameras to institute penalty charges, but that could be done through statutory and operational guidance, which is exactly what the groups I just mentioned would have liked.
CCTV remains vital for parking and for traffic and safety enforcement in certain areas where the use of parking officers is not practical: schools, bus stops, bus lanes, junctions and pedestrian crossings all come into that category. We hear from the Government response to their consultation that those areas are to be exempted and that CCTV could still be used in these circumstances, but that is not on the face of the Bill and we would welcome confirmation that this is the case and that plans will be put into practice.
Mr Redwood
Does the hon. Gentleman understand that there are times when a camera-based system can get the wrong end of the stick? A constituent of mine was prosecuted for moving into a bus lane; they did so to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle, but the council still went ahead with the prosecution.
Mr Marsden
The right hon. Gentleman raises an instance of which he has the full details but I do not. I will not comment on the particular point but will comment on the general point, which is as I have just said: these matters are best dealt with by discussions with the enforcement officer before the ticket is issued. To that extent, I think we are at one.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The reality is that if we relax legislation of this kind, especially when the exemptions are not on the face of the Bill, certain people will take advantage of the situation—drive in bus lanes because they think they might not get caught, for example. There were cases some years ago in which CCTV of cars in bus lanes picked up many vehicles that were driven by criminals on the run for other causes. Once a criminal, always a criminal, and such people will take advantage.
Mr Marsden
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point that underlines why the Government should have given much more careful consideration to the thoughtful proposals and sometimes quite detailed comments submitted by the various groups before bringing forward these measures as part of this rag-bag Bill.
We do not object to the Government’s amendments reining in the use of CCTV in place of everyday traffic enforcement but, as is obvious from the comments we have already heard today, the whole House would welcome answers from the Minister, so we can ensure that vital spots such as bus routes and school runs continue to be protected by CCTV and we know the details of how that will be assured in legislation.
Amendment 61 would remove clauses 10 to 12. The Deputy Leader of the House will not want to hear this, but we strongly oppose the Government proposals on changing taxi and minicab law simply and crucially because it will put passengers at risk. I listened carefully to his opening comments: he said the Government are determined to see the reforms implemented, which reminded me of the old speaker’s note, “Argument weak here, shout like mad”—although, to be fair, being a Liberal Democrat, he did not shout. He really ought to take note of what Members have said today, particularly the interventions from my hon. Friends the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) about the particular concerns that women have —my hon. Friend the Member for Slough referred to an awful case—and about the vital issue of enforcement. On the basis of the reassurances he has given today, the Minister cannot guarantee that the Government will be able to enforce the current safeguards. The issue is one of enforcement.
The Minister talked about the “targeted consultation”—a wonderful phrase. We were told by Harold Wilson some while ago that a week is a long time in politics. Perhaps the Minister, being a Liberal Democrat, thinks that 10 days is an eternity, but 10 days is in fact the amount of time that was allowed for this “targeted” consultation. I doubt whether many people listening today will be particularly impressed with that process.
James Duddridge
I always tell my constituents not to believe everything that is in the papers, but Guido Fawkes carried a number of stories in an online blog about the unions lobbying on these issues and financial interconnections between members of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition and the unions on this matter. Was there any evidence behind those rumours and is there anything to be declared?
Mr Marsden
Not on my part, I do not think; I think the only thing to be declared is the hon. Gentleman’s attempt to pursue something on a blog that, as various people know, may or may not have some foundation. In this case, it obviously does not have much foundation.
Kelvin Hopkins
A primary union concerned with this issue is the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which is not affiliated to the Labour party, sadly.
Mr Marsden
My hon. Friend makes the point for me.
The truth of the matter is that once again an ideological imperative to be seen to be cutting red tape is resulting in vital principles of good governance being relegated. Although we have rightly had a long drawn-out process from the Law Commission’s proposals to consider all the interests involved—I shall come on to some of those in due course and perhaps put the hon. Gentleman’s somewhat paranoid mind at rest—it has been marred by the Government’s rushed and risky proposals. These plans have been poorly drafted and badly consulted on and they could put the travelling public in danger.
Taxis and private hire vehicles play a vital part in connecting people’s lives. They provide a wide range of services—everything from trips to the airport to early morning trips back from nightclubs. They are an essential means of transport for a wide range of people without access to a car, particularly in cut off or rural locations. For young people—sometimes for recreation, but also for work, training or family commitments—and for older people, they are a lifeline, providing mobility and social cohesion.
Previous work, including that of the Transport Committee in 2011, showed that the regulation governing the trade is often complex and contentious. We, therefore, like so many organisations outside this House, hoped that the DFT would approach reform in an inclusive, comprehensive and balanced way, especially looking to use the expertise of users, taxi operators and local councils in piloting a new course. Sadly, that has not been the case. Opposition to these measures is widespread: the police, industry bodies and members of the trade themselves are warning that they have severe safety implications. Yet Ministers have introduced the specifics of the plans late in the passage of the Bill, leaving little opportunity for real engagement with industry stakeholders.
Despite the excellent speech made on 29 April in Westminster Hall by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield—he has been steadfast and vocal on the threat that this part of the Bill poses to vulnerable taxi drivers, and even today has been meeting delegations from a range of organisations concerned about the proposals—it is still not clear why these measures were not included in the Bill on Second Reading, so they could have been debated more fully. Is this a reflection of their on-the-hoof nature, or a conscious attempt to avoid the criticism that would inevitably follow?
The context of today’s discussion is important. We should consider the questions that the rise of new services such as Uber pose about the impact of new technologies on the trade. The Government must be clear about what priorities they set for private transport companies, and surely those should be safety and security. That is quite the opposite of the piecemeal reforms being introduced in the Bill. What is needed is a far more comprehensive look at the regulation and enforcement of the taxi and private hire trade. That is exactly what the Law Commission announcement about the need for a new national framework underlined, so why on earth are this Government cutting the ground from beneath the Law Commission’s feet with these ill-thought-through proposals?
In the detail of the clauses we are opposing, the Government plan to allow people without a licence for a minicab to drive one when it is off duty. That could or will greatly increase the potential for rogue minicab drivers, who appear no different from legal drivers on the streets and could threaten vulnerable passengers, including women, who enter their vehicles. It will be nearly impossible to enforce these rules; it will be difficult to monitor whether a minicab is in service or off duty, and whether the driver is a minicab licence holder or not. The Minister may respond, as he has before, by talking about London—several times in his speech I thought he was grasping at London like a drowning man grasping at straws—but other areas of the country do not have the same resources for enforcement, and the sad truth is that rapes and sexual assaults committed by people purporting to be private hire drivers are not uncommon. The changes to the law are rightly an issue of public concern.
Mr Redwood
If the licence is the guarantee of safety and the person driving the minicab would need the permission of a licence holder, is that not the continued guarantee? [Interruption.]
Mr Marsden
As my hon. Friends ask from a sedentary position, “How do you know?” I could also talk about the transfer of these licences but, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, this is about resources and enforcement. The truth is that we would not know.
The proposed measures might damage the entire legitimate taxi industry, too. Greater Manchester’s police and crime commissioner has said that there is a clear danger that they will lead to an increase in unlicensed private hire drivers taking business illegitimately and that the measures are a backward step for law enforcement. I say again that this move is unnecessary. Why have the Government not listened to the Law Commission, which led an extensive consultation on a complex issue, receiving 3,000 written responses from across the trade? The process involved a series of 84 meetings over four months, an industry survey and meetings—one of which I attended at Blackpool cricket club—where scores of taxi drivers all put useful points. Why have the Government ploughed ahead with these reforms? Was the review simply a waste of money?
My next point deals with the one made by the right hon. Gentleman. Ministers would also let minicab operators subcontract a job to firms in another area, which means the customer booking the taxi could not be sure of the individual or the firm picking them up. Customers would lose their right to select a firm based on a strong reputation for safety. Many vulnerable people may start to lose confidence in their travelling habits if they do not believe they have a safe cab company whose services they can rely on. These proposals also have implications further down the line, for the supply chain in taxis and cabs. We are talking about things being made in the UK, with jobs and livelihoods provided in the UK, and a valuable force for social cohesion. That force will be under threat if the general public lose confidence in the methods of regulation and licensing.
James Duddridge
In Southend, I have a regular contract with AC Taxis, as it is convenient; the firm is a good supplier and well trusted in the area. If it had to outsource some of its work, I would expect it, as a reputable firm, to outsource to another reputable firm. It may well outsource to Rochford Taxis, also an excellent supplier, but I would not expect it to go to a random firm to contract out the work. The company would be protecting its reputation, and it would be in its interest to behave in a decent and good way.
Mr Marsden
The hon. Gentleman is right about that, and he is right to defend the reputation of the company he has had dealings with and knows to be reputable. However, the basis on which we have to proceed in legislation is not what the best would do, but what the worst might do. That is the point I am trying to make. The Law Commission has made it clear that any such arrangements would need to be subject to enforcement officers having the ability to impound vehicles and issue penalties in other areas, so that jobs could be passed between firms more accountably.
The taxi and minicab hire industry in this country is locally and closely regulated by councils, which is where regulation should stay. At the moment, minicabs and taxis can, quite rightly, be driven only by someone who has undergone criminal, medical and background checks by the local authority. By trying to micro-manage the changes from Whitehall, the Government risk jeopardising people’s safety. Members here are quite right to emphasise issues such as women using taxis late at night. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust commented on the proposals, saying that it knows, from the sexual assaults on women each year, that posing as a legitimate minicab driver is what some particularly dangerous sexual predators do. The trust stated that
“moves to allow any individual to drive licensed minicab when it is ‘off duty’ will provide greater opportunity for those intent on preying on women in this way. We are also concerned about the proposal to require licensing authorities to renew licenses on a three-year basis rather than annually, should they wish to: we think that checks on drivers should be as rigorous and frequent as necessary”.
That is what we think as well. It is also what the Local Government Association and the police and crime commissioner for Northumberland, Vera Baird, have said. Sixteen police and crime commissioners from all political parties and none have gone on record to voice their opposition to the process and the proposals that have resulted. Incidentally, they include three former Members of this House: Tony Lloyd, Vera Baird and Jane Kennedy.
There is real anger from people who feel that their voices have been ignored in the process. Government guidance on consultation stresses the importance of adequate time and engagement and transparency with key stakeholders, yet Ministers settled for a short period of consultation to give them a cloak for enacting these controversial and piecemeal reforms. As I have said, the Government would dilute the safety checks by ending mandatory minicab licence renewal. As we have seen all too often, the Government pay lip service to localism, but when they want to beef up their so-called red-tape challenge, any mention of localism goes out of the window. What we then get, as we have with this proposal, is clodhopping centralism, dreamed up in short order to fit their soundbites, ignoring the concerns of all those who have looked at the matter in depth, and posing real safety concerns for people, not least women, who use taxis and private hire vehicles especially at night. I urge all Members who take seriously the safety of our roads and the vulnerable passengers in our community to back this amendment and to delete these clauses.
Finally, I come to amendment 1, which would amend clause 35. Today, the House has an opportunity to change these ill-conceived and potentially dangerous plans to row back the rights of seafarers and their families as they seek to find answers to the causes of marine accidents, and to learn lessons that could save lives. I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say, and felt that he was, from time to time, straining to convince himself rather than the rest of us. He said that hard cases make bad law, which is perfectly correct. Although I shall refer to the MV Derbyshire, it is not the simple thrust of why we have made this proposal. He said that he would be convinced—he used the words “would be”—that the Government’s proposals are adequate. The truth is that it is not good enough for any individual to be convinced that the Government’s proposals are good enough; it is important to have a framework that ensures they are good enough. The Minister said that hard cases make bad law, but I say, having heard him draw on examples from 100 years ago and beyond to the time of the Titanic, that ludicrous examples make bad argument. No one has, at any stage, proposed such a distance in time.
Clause 35 seeks to abolish the duty that obliges the Secretary of State automatically to order that a marine accident investigation case be reheard. This duty was enshrined in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which followed years of campaigning by unions and the families of those affected by accidents at sea. A number of serious maritime incidents demonstrate how important this duty is. The causes of major incidents involving great loss of life have sometimes been found on the second investigation and after some time. That, of course, includes shipwrecks, which are often discovered following painstaking research and the physical trawling of the seabed.
Grahame M. Morris
My hon. Friend is making an excellent argument. Does he agree that the 22 recommendations from the MV Derbyshire report support his argument that we should not downgrade the Secretary of State’s powers?
Mr Marsden
I do agree, but as importantly, so do most of the people involved in the MV Derbyshire campaign and, indeed, the Minister, John Prescott, who opened the inquiry.
Kelvin Hopkins
I strongly support what my hon. Friend says. In more recent times, we have had new technology, which might not have been available when an accident happened. We now might be able to investigate and find the causes of ships sinking or whatever, because of new technology.
Mr Marsden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is an iterative process, which simply exposes the weakness of the Minister’s argument.
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case. I commend him for bringing amendment 1 to the Floor of the House, because in a context where it is increasingly difficult for families to get the legal aid that they need to take such things forward, it should not be left to them to launch their own investigations. It is an extremely costly, difficult and distressing process.
Mr Marsden
The hon. Lady makes an absolutely valid point. Context is all, particularly in this case, which was crucial to the duty being put into law. MV Derbyshire sank in 1980 and was found only in 1994. That example prompted reinvestigation many years after the original incident.
The duty that the Government want to scrap was used in 1998 to reopen the formal investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire in September 1980. The Derbyshire disappeared south of Japan during Typhoon Orchid. All on board—42 crew and two passengers, who were wives of crew members—lost their lives. She remains the largest UK ship ever to have been lost at sea.
A major union-funded search for the vessel in the 1990s, supported by the International Transport Workers Federation—a global organisation, with affiliates in Britain, including the RMT, Unite, the National Union of Seamen, Nautilus International and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and broader support from the Public and the Commercial Services Union, the Communication Workers Union, the GMB and others—was required to make that breakthrough in discovering the wreck of the Derbyshire. That effort identified the wreck in 1994 and led to the introduction of the duty in the 1995 Act to establish the necessary evidence and place the legal obligation on the Government to reopen the investigation.
After nearly 20 years of campaigning, the investigation into the cause of the loss was reopened in 1998, and great credit for that decision goes not just to the organisations I mentioned but to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who galvanised the local campaign and ran an all-party group on the subject, and of course to John, now Lord Prescott, who, as Secretary of State for Transport, invoked the powers for the reinvestigation because he drew on his awareness of the struggle that unions and families had undertaken to find the missing ship. He has recently described the Government’s attempt to remove the duty as a massive insult to those who campaigned for the truth about the Derbyshire.
The steadfast way in which the friends and family group that set up the campaign, based in and around Liverpool, and the poignant memories brought back by the 20th anniversary this year of the finding of the ship testify to the huge importance of the power to reinvestigate, not just to find out new facts but, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said, to support and recognise the loss of those who were affected. All this has been reflected in the wording of amendment 1.
The reinvestigation absolved the crew of any blame for the loss of the vessel and led to significant improvements in the safe operation of bulk carrier class ships and the understanding of typhoon conditions. For those reasons, the claim made in Committee by the Solicitor-General, who is not in his place, that if a wreck is discovered many years after an accident, safety insights would be irrelevant or out of date, really does not hold water. That argument was disproved by the case of the Derbyshire. Maritime accidents may be relatively rare, but they are tragic events and it is crucial to understand them as fully as we can.
Although it relates to a different mode of transport, the recent search for the Malaysian flight MH370 demonstrates that even in today’s technologically advanced world there are circumstances in which even our greatest efforts struggle to match the vastness of the oceans our ships and planes traverse. Who knows when future evidence on that incident will emerge as to the plane’s final fate? It might take months, years or even decades.
Kelvin Hopkins
It may indeed be technology that has not yet been developed that will solve those problems.
Mr Marsden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the context of this debate, the MH370 incident shows that in other circumstances, where such incidents might affect British ships and citizens, Ministers must have flexibility and the power to reopen inquiries. [Interruption.] The Minister says that that is absolutely right, but I will go on to demonstrate that the inadequacies of his clause as drafted would not allow that to happen. If any such tragedy were to occur in British maritime in the future, we must have the law in place to guarantee that men and women working on our ships, and the families who rely on them, get the answers, however long the recovery of evidence takes.
The Government’s preferred approach in this Deregulatory Bill is to retain a discretionary power—a weaker section of the 1995 Act—to rehear such a case if the Secretary of State suspects that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. That is simply an unacceptable weakening of the Secretary of State’s ability to protect seafarers and their families. It downgrades rights from a duty to a mere choice.
Sadly, that was reflected by some of the Solicitor-General’s comments when defending the change in Committee. In response to a challenge from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), the Solicitor-General said:
“We are talking about something similar to a judicial inquiry, with all the formality and costs associated with it. It is not just about money, but about taking up the time of a huge number of people. If it is a worthwhile exercise, because it will help safety or clear someone’s name, it is obviously worth doing, but it is pointless and expensive if it happens many years later.”––[Official Report, Deregulation Public Bill Committee, 11 March 2014; c. 311.]
Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman did not intend it, but he seemed to suggest that there should almost be a statute of limitations on the timescale that influences a Government’s response. I am sorry to say that grief, support and the ability to find the truth are not always amenable to an automatic, time-limited cut-off point.
There is also a circular problem inherent in the Government’s proposal. It is not clear how the Secretary of State can be expected adequately to assess the existing evidence in order to suspect a miscarriage of justice without the sort of rigorous, independent work carried out by the marine accident investigation branch. The work will now be undertaken by the branch only if the Secretary of State requests it because he already suspects a miscarriage of justice.
It has been claimed that the removal of the duty can be described simply as tidying up in order to synchronise the 1995 Act with other recent guidance. However, recent MAIB guidance has made it very clear that its remit lies only in dealing with the reporting of the circumstances of an accident and not an investigation of its root cause. The MAIB is not—I repeat, not—responsible for enforcement or prosecution of any responsible bodies. Those functions are still underpinned by the 1995 Act.
There is one other factor to take into account: reinvestigation inevitably might mean that difficult truths are unearthed about the adequacy and focus of previous assessments by officials and the Department when making an initial judgment. Any Minister should be able to pursue the process subsequently without fear or favour. Under the element of discretion that the Government propose, that ability might be, or could appear to be, hampered, but retaining the existing duty protects those in government—of whatever party—from any suggestion of partiality with regard to taking forward the reinvestigation process.
The Government’s impact assessment cites a human rights argument in defence of the clause, claiming that the possibility of the future automatic investigation of an accident could have an impact on the career prospects of survivors. However, the Derbyshire reinvestigation showed the value of being able to step back from an initial rush to judgment on the culpability of crew for the accident, because new evidence eventually established unrelated causes.
I have been hugely impressed by the work of campaigners such as Paul Lambert, who represents the families who lost loved ones in the MV Derbyshire accident. They still feel that this is a key issue, as does Mark Dickinson, the general secretary of Nautilus International, who takes a keen interest in the case, not least because, as a member of the International Transport Workers Federation, he helped to co-ordinate the search for the Derbyshire in 1994. I am pleased that amendment 1 has been signed by many hon. Members, several of whom hope to speak in the debate. Some have been contacted by constituents who have been affected by tragedies, while others represent coastal communities. Some are simply loth to see an important safeguard sacrificed so unthinkingly.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) emphasised the importance of maintaining the thrust of the existing duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is to be applauded for frequently, tirelessly and with determination raising this and related maritime matters inside and outside the House. As hon. Members might suspect, there is a real worry that several aspects of the Bill show that the Government, in their bid to be seen as shedding regulation, risk blinding themselves to the value of apparently minor existing legislative provisions and specifications. However, the example of maritime investigations shows that the need for such detail has been vindicated by the blood, sweat and tears of those caught up in such tragedies, and the bitter years of struggle to uncover their causes.
Regrettably, our attempt in Committee to delete clause 35 in its entirety was defeated. However, in an attempt to build consensus, we have tried to recognise the Government’s argument that the Secretary of State should have the flexibility to avoid the costs of reinvestigation when it is absolutely clear that new evidence will be of little or no value to determine the causes of the accident, and if no interested parties are calling for a reinvestigation. However, amendment 1 would ensure that if there was a reasonable possibility that new evidence would provide significant new information about the causes of an accident, answers for the surviving families or safety lessons for today, the duty to reopen the investigation would be retained.
It is imperative that we retain a stronger power than that in the Bill so that the Secretary of State’s default setting is to reopen investigations. We owe it to those who have died or been injured not to remain silent on that point. We must send a clear message to Ministers and civil service administrations of now and the future, and to the men and women who do such valuable and vital work in our maritime economy today, that justice and safety will always come first, which is why I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to reject clause 35 as it stands by voting for amendment 1.
Tom Brake
I am going to make a bit more progress. The hon. Member for Blackpool South called on the Government to have a more comprehensive look at this issue, but the Bill provides an opportunity to introduce the three measures which, as he will have heard me say, the Law Commission supports. We are introducing those three measures. He will know, as will other Opposition Members, that Bills, unlike buses, do not come along in threes; Bills come forward relatively infrequently and if there is an opportunity to take small steps in relation to taxis, we should take them.
Mr Marsden
I am listening with care to what the Minister is saying, but so much of the thrust of the criticism that has been made has been about how the Government have put the cart before the House. When were these measures put into this Bill?
Tom Brake
I will address that shortly. The hon. Gentleman attempted a joke at the Government’s expense about whether the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport had spoken about these matters. The consultation was issued jointly in December by both Departments, and the announcements that Members will have seen in the press at the weekend were supported by both Secretaries of State and both Departments. Clearly, Departments are working hand in hand on this issue, as they should be.
The hon. Gentleman has stated that we did not listen to the Law Commission, but it supports the three measures. He, like a number of Members, asked about enforcement, which will be dealt with in the usual way. For example, where journey bookings are subcontracted across licensing boundaries the operator that takes the initial booking will retain liability and licensing authorities can investigate any issues in the usual way, so local authorities retain their licensing duties.
Mr Marsden
I hesitate to say that the Minister is misrepresenting the words of our amendment. I invite Members to look at its words. As I said, there will not be an automatic reopening of an inquiry, whether it is in 10, 20 or 100 years’ time.
Tom Brake
I am afraid that my advice says that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment widens the remit rather than closing it down. Perhaps he should go back and look at precisely what he is proposing. It is clear that the Secretary of State will still be required to reopen a formal investigation where there are grounds for suspecting a miscarriage of justice. It is also worth pointing out that what we are talking about has no impact on the work of the marine accident investigation branch; that is completely separate to this issue.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked whether there would be regulations for marine investigations. The answer is no, there would not be regulations. That is something that would be implemented. We have set out the circumstances in which we would expect the Secretary of State formally to reopen an inquiry. We would of course consider any specific requests that were received from relatives or trade unions that were affected by that decision-making process. The measure would come into force two months after Royal Assent.
Business of the House
Gordon Marsden Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
Yes. I believe that we in South Cambridgeshire shared my hon. Friend’s experience, and I am sure that was the case throughout the country. Of course we want to support local businesses, but so do many consumers who require locally produced, well-differentiated goods. Small businesses are the economic powerhouse of the future. We have 400,000 more of them now, and small business formation is at a record level. That presents a tremendous prospect, as long as we continue to give those businesses the support they require.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Leader of the House said earlier that he would like the House to have more debates on the economic situation following the autumn statement, and he has just been talking about small businesses. I, too, participated in Small business Saturday, in Blackpool. However, it is a long time since we had a proper debate on the Floor of the House about how the economic climate is affecting seaside and coastal towns such as Blackpool, which have been hit particularly badly by a range of funding cuts—and that includes small businesses. Will the Leader of the House consult his colleagues and arrange for a debate about seaside and coastal towns to take place on the Floor of the House in the near future?
Mr Lansley
I should love to arrange a debate about seaside and coastal towns, which would be very useful. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that one of the differences between this and previous Parliaments is that a significant part of the time that used to be available to Ministers and the Leader of the House for debates that do not relate specifically to the passage of legislation has been transferred to the Backbench Business Committee. In my experience, the Committee has been extremely receptive, on a cross-party basis, to Members who approach it seeking debates.